Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
^ Who cares who paid for the lot? I can't erect a 20 foot fence in my back yard, nor can I allow my dogs to bark at 3 am, nor can I burn railway ties and nor can I put bear traps in my back yard to catch intruders. Should I be able to do these things, after all, it's my property and I pay the taxes. And if people didn't intrude they wouldn't get injured by the traps, right?.
There has to be a balance between individual rights and the community interest. There is zoning and there are standards, and the case of the latter they must be better defined and adhered to. Peace, Order and Good Government. If your plan for subdivision is does not degrade neighbourhood aesthetics then there likely will not be a lot of opposition.
|
The bolded is the very most important part, and it's Orwellian that you take such a stance.
It's also an egregious fallacy to invoke the 20ft fence and dogs argument, as we all know reasonable factors are considered. It's alarming that people still use this approach to discuss.
I'm with you, real estate should not degrade the neighbourhood, and judging by the kinds of lot widths others have here, that no extreme offense is occurring. Furthermore, perhaps there are reasonable ways to subdivide even other properties while adding emphasis to materials, design, etc. Compliance should be a combined score, not an automatic fail system.
However, you're most wrong on one area... residents will always oppose, no matter how accommodating, adhering, or even correct your proposal is. They will lie through their teeth and claim your brick (just one shade too red) is giving them epilepsy. They will say children are dying if one car is added to the neighbourhood traffic. So the best approach is somewhere in between the 20ft tall statues or dying children, and I'm guessing this particular proposal already is right there.