Just because you built something in the "middle of nowhere" doesn't necessarily mean you should get to impose externalities that devalue the properties around you. It depends on what the externality is but zoning may not be enough, you may need to actually own the land you're creating restrictions over for it to be fair. Otherwise there's a first mover advantage in starting a negative spiral. If you don't do it on your land before your neighbor you get all the disadvantages without making money from the use.
The argument operates on a spectrum of specifics, and line drawing is always going to look absurd to someone.
A similar things happens when small communities are encroached by commuters - newcomers get upset about things the locals have "always done", and it almost invariably ends up becoming a class thing.
I have a relative who has lived in the same home for almost 50 years. She basically owns a hill with her house on top - it is about 2 acres. Until a few years ago, she'd been routinely burning leaves and lawn debris (or, later had the kid who did her lawn work do it).
It didn't matter until some neighbors sold to a developer who put up commuter-McMansions across from her. It threatened to become a huge issue with the new people making bullshit claims about fire risk and whatnot. She stopped, I helped put up a tall privacy fence at a strategic point (that they also hate, but can't do anything about) and she'll be fine.
Who was right? Well... I don't think there is a right answer, only a negotiated one.
> The argument operates on a spectrum of specifics, and line drawing is always going to look absurd to someone.
No doubt. My point is exactly that you have to find a balance somewhere, and it can't just be first come first serve. Because of fire risk we have a law that there can't be trees less than X meters from a house. That means someone can take a lot, build a house on the border and then force the neighbor to remove some trees. For the laws to work well together it should be required that someone building a house outright owns or at least buys the rights to the area that now needs to be cleared of trees. The Sriracha example is another tricky one. Just because when you started there was no one around you doesn't mean you get to pollute the air around you at will, but maybe industrial zoning of the area would have made that use ok. It's all a balancing act. Since local zoning tends to be both short-sighted and corrupt these issues crop up a lot.
