Over the last several decades, there have been several lawsuits over scenic views, or lost scenic views. Often, these suits are filed in shore communities. One person owns a house with a great, uninterrupted ocean view, until some "moron" moves between the aggrieved and the water. Of course, the aggrieved usually forgets that at one time, he was the moron who moved between another person and that person's then-great view.

Everyone wants a great view. And when people finally get it, thy don't want anyone else to have it. City dwellers face similar challenges. A penthouse view can be worth a fortune, until a new, taller highrise is constructed. Sometimes people also fight to protect wooded views, or views of mountains or canyons.

When people have a great view, they often fight to protect it. This is what lead to the recently decided case of Hartz Mountain Industries v. the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection., which was decided this past March 1. At issue in this administrative law case was an attempt by Hartz Mountain to build right on the Hudson River, thereby eliminating a very famous public view of the New York skyline.

Hartz Mountain owns property along the Hudson River in Weehawkin, New Jersey. That property is currently vacant and because it is vacant, millions of New Jerseyeans are able to view the skyline from an exceptional vantage point as they approach the Lincoln Tunnel to cross from New Jersey into New York. Many residents and tenants in nearby office buildings also have the benefit of the view.

Hartz Mountain proposed to construct two office buildings on the property. If they were erected, the view would be largely eliminated. An environmental group called the American Littoral Society believed that this view was very important and therefore challenged Hartz Mountain's application for a development permit that was required from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

The State concurred that the permit should not be issued because construction would ruin the view. In a March 1 opinion, a New Jersey administrative law judge agreed that New Jersey properly withheld issuance of the permit.

The judge found that the proposed construction was not "visually compatible" with the existing scenic resources. He also ruled that the development would detract from the "signature view" of the Manhattan skyline by eliminating the contrast with relatively low rise development.

The judge held that New Jersey law is intended to protect these "marvelous viewing opportunities." In upholding the permit denial, the judge ruled that it is better to require Hartz Mountain to redesign the proposed building now rather than to "needlessly destroy an important regional asset."

So as things stand now, Hartz Mountain cannot build a new mountain, and New York bound commuters will still enjoy their first class view. That is how things stand today. Appeals are sure to follow and we may not have a final outcome for many years.

To many, this is a very good result. It certainly would be sad for that picturesque scene to replaced by brass and glass twin office towers.

But, there are two sides to every story. When people purchase valuable, waterfront property, don't they have a justifiable expectation that they will be able to develop their property and to maximize their view? After all, what good is waterfront property without use of and enjoyment of the water. Isn't the view why waterfront property owners will pay twice the fair market value in the first place?

Blocking development to protect a view is a great idea for everyone -- except the poor guy who owns the property and cannot fully realize the fruits of his/her investment. In this case, the poor guy happens to be corporate giant Hartz Mountain, but Hartz Mountain should enjoy its property just as much as any other purchaser.

Laws which promote preservation of public views are found throughout the country. As development pressures increase, expect more challenges aimed at view preservation.

What is the solution to these complex issues? Usually, the solution is found by balancing everyone's interests to the extent possible. Waterfront property owners should have a reasonable view and efforts should be made to ensure that this happens. On the other hand, the public should be left with a quality, meaningful view as well. Where a balance is not possible, the government should consider purchasing the property, or a portion of it , to ensure that public enjoyment may continue.