I do appreciate your replies and can see where you are coming from as it pertains to the article. Zoning is what zoning is - and that’s to be covered by the au

I do appreciate your replies and can see where you are coming from as it pertains to the article. Zoning is what zoning is - and that’s to be covered by the auto shop or pet store or etc etc. What “triggers” me is this idea that the default state is “consider investment” and not “does it harm one’s ability to enjoy their home.” Sure you cab define “enjoy” as “watch value go up” but that’s clearly not what I mean. The whole “and it harm none, do as you please”, imho, does not consider the wallet. Which, when thinking about investments, is thinking about class divide and puts $ over people. My neighborhood is largely renters. I’m a 1 family across from another 1 family. On my sides are multi families. Renters. Owned by corporations but not kept up. Some in pretty crappy disrepair. If I wanted to claim they affected my prop value, I could. But those corps have MUCH more money to defend and hit back (my house needs paint, etc) … just the same. (That’s not my style though as said earlier) Anyway. I’m tired and rambling. I do appreciate the replies and I do hope I’ve helped some bit to look at anything that comes out of the gate thinking $ before people - is widening the gap and harming people.