Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin
I think the right to develop whatever an owner wants should not be questioned by others who never contribute a single penny to the land. If such projects are questionable, like having negative environmental impacts, then professionals have the right to wade in to object. Other than that, without any good reasons, nobody else should object, especially those protesting for the sake of protesting.
Like the person who said she's ok with 15 stories rather than 50 stories...what's the rationale? A tall tower has a higher chance of falling on her little shack a mile away and flatten her while she sleeps?
|
Don't we live in a free speech country? Developers can always try to do whatever they want, and then must adapt to the limits and regulations of our society . . . effectively our 'free speech' filtered through government. The problem I have is with our formalized public consultations. For most people, public consultation is what elections do. The public consultation we include in the permitting process should not occur because the municipal governments have no proper method of consulting the public. Input through a few meetings just alows the same demographic and interest groups to sound off on the usual points. Its irrational, and the sample size is so small as to be useless.
But, the public, in groups, organizations, or as individuals, can sound off anytime they want on anything they want - within our legally acceptable scope (ie., no hate speech).
Vin, you almost have it backwards. People can say what they want about a project. It's just words. But professionals have no rights to 'wade' in whenever they want. Nor do they have reason. They have no policing role. Professionals . . . I wonder what professionals you are referring to . . . cannot speak freely most of the time. Professions are governed by statute, and most of them, like the Architect's Act, prevent one professional's comment upon the work of another. There are lots of legal repercussions in this that make this censure both practical and correct.
Finally, this notion of who contributes to the land is interesting in that, in construction contracts (including professional services contracts) value that accrues to a property through the work of others (other than the owner) is the key legal means towards which values are quantified. But, unlike your claim, developers cannot do whatever they want. Why? It is because their property is part of the public whole. Indeed, the public surround gives private property a considerable amount of its value. So, by extension, "others who never contribute a single penny" don't exist, because everyone is part of the public and so has added actual value to any property in question. And, to repeat, I think they deserve a voice, but I would stand up for our democratic system and limit that voice to the selection of government representatives at election time. Otherwise, let them picket and holler . . . its just noise.
Threaded Mode