"The quality of air for instance is not an individual right, it is a
community concern simply because it is shared by everyone. Visual quality is
the same and since it is a community concern then the community has the
right to try to ensure that visual quality is protected."
Lets not blur our analogies and the use of the term "rights". Air quality
(quantitative) and "visual" quality (qualitative) are not comparable factors
and frankly, any attempt to do so is a bit scary. And community "rights??"
I agree it should be a "community" thing provided communities are
well-defined, small, and highly limited in number. I find it ironic that
someone from a country with a population density of Canada believes in
imposing their individual tastes on their neighbor. For those wishing such
a well-monitored environment, then a small suburb shared by people of
hopefully very similar tastes and backgrounds sounds ideal, but no thanks,
I'll just be visiting. There are actually "communities" in my neck of the
woods that dictate the "visual quality" of the paint color you select for
the kitchen of your own house (seriously), if you can have a truck (of any
kind) parked outside your garage, how high your fence is and what kind and
if you can even have a fence, what color you paint your house, what kind of
house you can build (does it match the style of the "community"), and a host
of other vague and intrusive value judgments. Unfortunately, the number of
these "communities" is ever growing, their boundaries ever expanding. These
communities AND their tenants rarely use their "right" to be silent. I'm
sorry Owen, but those missiles are visually objectionable as is my post.
stephan #2821
///
/// bricklin@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|