8 ms·

> dramatically affect your neighbours in ways that would substantially restrict how they can use their property. Well yes, if you practice the tuba at 3am, rai

by dheera 6y ago

> dramatically affect your neighbours in ways that would substantially restrict how they can use their property. Well yes, if you practice the tuba at 3am, raise alligators in your backyard, and beekeeping in your front yard, then yes. But painting your house? Building a shed? Parking a car in the driveway? Building a fence? Adding architectural ornaments? Install solar panels? None of this stuff affects neighbours.

JKCalhoun 6y ago
Yes, I think it is the degree of the regulations. Examples: no cars parked on your front yard. Check. No solar panels on your roof. That would be too far.
- dheera 6y ago
  > Examples: no cars parked on your front yard. This would be too far. If the front yard and car are both my property it is not for anyone else to tell me what to do with them.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    If driving the cars on and off your property does not in any way affect your neighbours, I'd be with you. But restrictions on numbers of cars are often used as a proxy for restricting traffic and noise. E.g. near me planning regulations generally prevent new construction from creating more than an average of 1.5 parking space per housing unit, to prevent further strain on the transport network. One might argue it's a poor proxy, as some people will have cars just sitting around, but it tends to work reasonably well. There certainly is over-reach, and one of my pet peeve is that restrictions like this (and ideally all regulations and laws) ought to have stated justifications as part of the text, and "test conditions" to validate if they achieve the goal, as it's often hard to unpackage why the rules are the way they are, but a lot of these restrictions do have a reasoning behind them as well. Whether or not one agree about that reasoning is a separate issue, but I think a lot of conflict over these kinds of regulations boils down to not knowing the reasoning behind them.

by dheera 6y ago

JKCalhoun 6y ago

Yes, I think it is the degree of the regulations. Examples: no cars parked on your front yard. Check. No solar panels on your roof. That would be too far.

dheera 6y ago
> Examples: no cars parked on your front yard. This would be too far. If the front yard and car are both my property it is not for anyone else to tell me what to do with them.
- vidarh 6y ago
  If driving the cars on and off your property does not in any way affect your neighbours, I'd be with you. But restrictions on numbers of cars are often used as a proxy for restricting traffic and noise. E.g. near me planning regulations generally prevent new construction from creating more than an average of 1.5 parking space per housing unit, to prevent further strain on the transport network. One might argue it's a poor proxy, as some people will have cars just sitting around, but it tends to work reasonably well. There certainly is over-reach, and one of my pet peeve is that restrictions like this (and ideally all regulations and laws) ought to have stated justifications as part of the text, and "test conditions" to validate if they achieve the goal, as it's often hard to unpackage why the rules are the way they are, but a lot of these restrictions do have a reasoning behind them as well. Whether or not one agree about that reasoning is a separate issue, but I think a lot of conflict over these kinds of regulations boils down to not knowing the reasoning behind them.