3 ms·

> it's obvious that ... painting your shutters the wrong color is on the other side of it It might be obvious to you (it's obvious to me too), but it was manif

by lisper 5y ago

> it's obvious that ... painting your shutters the wrong color is on the other side of it It might be obvious to you (it's obvious to me too), but it was manifestly not obvious to the board members who voted to enforce the shutter-color policy, nor to the people who voted for them.

MereInterest 5y ago
> it was manifestly not obvious to the board members who voted to enforce the shutter-color policy I'm not even sure that's the case. I can conceive of a board that previously had a house like this[0] (first result of google image search for "garish house colors"), had a big back and forth on what to do about it, and wants to avoid getting into the same fight again. The resolution from last time was to establish some boundary and to enforce it rigorously, even if that excludes some colors that are acceptable. The current board knows that the shutter-color enforcement is ridiculous, but can't make an exception for the general house colors without giving ammunition to the person who painted their house neon green with pink polka dots. Not saying that that is the reasoning of any one particular board, but rather saying that I can conceive of cases where a person or group takes actions they know to be unreasonable in themselves, but may be reasonable in a wider context. [0] https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/9b/35/a39b35132a3c1cc219a7600b78f625a1.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/9b/35/a39b35132a3c1cc219a7...
- lisper 5y ago
  But that's just making the observation that things that may seem obvious at first glance may not be obvious once you think more deeply about them. It doesn't really matter why they are not obvious. What matters is that they are not obvious.
  - MereInterest 5y ago
    Good point, and thank you for the clarification. I had been interpreting "manifestly not obvious" as a rhetorical device to state that the board were clearly decided and set that shutter-colors were within the scope of what an HOA board might reasonably decide, and therefore it is "manifestly not obvious" that it is outside the scope. (Sort of how somebody saying the words "There are some here who may disagree with you." is implicitly stating that they disagree and is inviting others to join in disagreement.) I agree that it is not obvious where the line is, and was attempting to a hypothetical where even a single person might be unsure.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  That's a cute house.
betwixthewires 5y ago
Hence why you are seeing the argument made on this thread that those boards should just not exist. There are always going to be people that find some excuse to believe it is their duty to bug the hell out of everyone. "Nobody has a right to bug Tue hell out of anyone" is a time tested solution to this problem.

by lisper 5y ago

MereInterest 5y ago

> it was manifestly not obvious to the board members who voted to enforce the shutter-color policy I'm not even sure that's the case. I can conceive of a board that previously had a house like this[0] (first result of google image search for "garish house colors"), had a big back and forth on what to do about it, and wants to avoid getting into the same fight again. The resolution from last time was to establish some boundary and to enforce it rigorously, even if that excludes some colors that are acceptable. The current board knows that the shutter-color enforcement is ridiculous, but can't make an exception for the general house colors without giving ammunition to the person who painted their house neon green with pink polka dots. Not saying that that is the reasoning of any one particular board, but rather saying that I can conceive of cases where a person or group takes actions they know to be unreasonable in themselves, but may be reasonable in a wider context. [0] https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/9b/35/a39b35132a3c1cc219a7600b78f625a1.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/9b/35/a39b35132a3c1cc219a7...

lisper 5y ago
But that's just making the observation that things that may seem obvious at first glance may not be obvious once you think more deeply about them. It doesn't really matter why they are not obvious. What matters is that they are not obvious.
- MereInterest 5y ago
  Good point, and thank you for the clarification. I had been interpreting "manifestly not obvious" as a rhetorical device to state that the board were clearly decided and set that shutter-colors were within the scope of what an HOA board might reasonably decide, and therefore it is "manifestly not obvious" that it is outside the scope. (Sort of how somebody saying the words "There are some here who may disagree with you." is implicitly stating that they disagree and is inviting others to join in disagreement.) I agree that it is not obvious where the line is, and was attempting to a hypothetical where even a single person might be unsure.
betwixthewires 5y ago
That's a cute house.

betwixthewires 5y ago

Hence why you are seeing the argument made on this thread that those boards should just not exist. There are always going to be people that find some excuse to believe it is their duty to bug the hell out of everyone. "Nobody has a right to bug Tue hell out of anyone" is a time tested solution to this problem.