Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
Advocating that a balance is essential between property rights and responsibilities is conservative philosophy. Socialists either do not believe in the ownership of private property or that the community's interests are paramount to that of the property owner.
It's just bad development, simply put. There can be no justification.
|
Responsibility does not mean trumping personal liberties. What we have here is a difference of opinion, and it's not conservative at all if in such a case you don't defer to the property owner. You're not the arbiter of responsibility.
There are regulations in place, and they either have already approved this, or will massage it. So responsibility will happen.
The weight you're putting behind your opinion is essentially trying to govern the use of land (as has been demonstrated in other threads) for the owner. You're assuming community power over the landowner. You're also assuming your opinion is the communities. Kinda aggressively socialist.
To reiterate my own opinion, I don't think the design is bad. Doesn't mean I don't think your idea of design would be better. But a community is a collection of neighbours moreso than houses, so personally I'm happy to pump the brakes sooner and let people be.