Not sure I can understand this. You can destroy some one's house because his house blocks your view and sunlight??????What,entirely? All houses next to each other can block some view and some sunlight. This is the inevitable consequence of community living unless you want to live on the edge of your own private cliff overlooking the ocean. This issue of blockage is especially a problem when many people in a small, sea-shore town live close together. Comment: If you can't see the view from your house, you can always take a walk down to the pier and view it from there. Such itzy-ritzy, elitist, petty hogwash.

Seems to me there's another story here about shoddy record keeping in Marblehead.

I don't know the particulars of this case, but there are too many instances where building are approved by the town (or city) and then, after a few years, the owners are told that the building is in the wrong spot, etc. The issues is that there in NO accountability for the people who approve the buildings in the first place.

Imagine how many poor, hungry and homeless families could have benefited from the amount of money spent.

I call "B.S." on the sunlight claim. Go to Bing Maps, and find the house on Bubier Rd, Marblehead. The "birds-eye" view shows an overhead view in the morning, based on the sun's angle. Since the offending house is to the east of the "victim's" house, morning is when there would be any shading issue. You can easily see in the picture that even in the morning, the victim's house gets FULL SUNLIGHT! It would only get better as the day goes on. Did they not like the view, perhaps, but the claim that the house only now is filled with natural light now that the house was torn down is only shoddy reporting. Come on Globe, you can do better than that!

This really came down to the lot size. Did Mr. Johnson not give an accurate description of the property when he originally was granted the permit? Wouldn't the town already have a survey of metes and bounds? Does Marblehead just give a permit to anyone that walks on the door and then start asking questions later only when someone files an appeal? I hope the owner can recoup some of his losses from the town or at least the idiot who issued the permit in the first place. Sue him or her personally for gross and willful negligence.

On the one hand, if the town issues a permit, does the appropriate review and inspections, then it should have some liability - not the guy who built the house. On the other hand, if the homeowner is told BEFORE BUILDING that he might have to tear it down, then it needs to come down.

Ah, the 1% and their problems...

Amazing that the courts would uphold screwing the homeowner for the town's mistake. Amazing. Welcome to another great tradition of Mass: Puritanism. Marblehead should be very ashamed.

I hope this man uses his empty lot to create a view that his (selfish, nasty) former neighbors can appreciate when the sunshine hits it (a nice dayglo outhouse)...welcome to Salem, sir, the people are much nicer than in that well-healed, self-absorbed neighborhood you are leaving.

While not a surprise,the worst part of this story is that it took 18 years to be resolved. A significant contributor to this debacle is our system of so called "justice". Courts are in all respects controlled by attorneys and the longer it takes to resolve a dispute, the more money they make. The legal "system" has every incentive to drag things out and they are profiting from it. From the courts to the legislature, to attorneys on both sides. Only the wealthy can afford to pusue a dispute throught he courts. The rest of us have learned that there isn't any justice for us in civil matters. Those in a dispute with the most money always win. I call this an "unjust" system and it is one more example of the corruption in our society.

Better-Idea, you are correct about the money going to the process (mostly the lawyers) being a sign of corruption. But remember, the lawyers don't control the process, the judges do. I went through a divorce (from the same person) in Sugarland, Texas (just outside of Houston) and in Corcord, Mass. The costs here were higher by a factor of 10! (Even though my lawyer here and there charged the same per hour.) The environment here maximized the costs, while there minimized them. And you could feel it happening as it unfolded (ie, you did NOT get the sense that it was an accident).

Just want you to know that I voted against this at Town Meeting. I'm embarrassed for the town. If it were my house, I'd have given it to a large, extended family of illegal immigrants and let the neighbors deal with political correctness in court.

Zoning laws exist for a reason. The neighbors shouldn't be vilified because they insisted they be enforced. They are not the villains here.

The town gave the owner the necessary permits. The "born with the entitlement to a view" neighbors went to court, knowing they could at least enjoy the use of property they didn't own as long as they could drag it out. So he took a chance that the town would stand by its permits and the courts wouldn't buy the "entitled to a view" argument: granted, a sadly misplaced trust.

I would call this a case of reaction formation (in the psychiatric sense). The courts are so used to screwing people as a result of political input that they screw the honest party just to demonstrate that they obey the laws to the letter. It's like the gay person being a cruisader against gays. It's bizarre and dishonest, but not that unusual. Don't buy it -- it's a ruse, and a conscious one at that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the town made the mistake then the town should make it right, not the poor homeowner who did what the town had certified he could do. So, let the town provide the homeowner with another home in an approved locationg -- free to him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of the homeowner whose view was blocked -- how does one do that without buying up the land that his view depends upon? Sounds like someone with a bloated sense of entitlement -- like the courts, come to think of it (do you supposed they recognized and had sympathy for each other?) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sad for the many reasonable people from Marblehead (I've been there several times and survived).