3 ms·
I mean… there's a balance, right? People should be able to mostly do what they want with their own property. At the same time, they should be able to come toget
by jakelazaroff 4y ago
I mean… there's a balance, right? People should be able to mostly do what they want with their own property. At the same time, they should be able to come together to make collective decisions about their towns/cities/neighborhoods. Each of those has a bad outcome if taken to the extreme.
- bluGill 4y agoSure, but we should apply 'strict scrutiny' to that. Strict scrutiny is a legal term meaning in general that isn't a right the community should have, but we will make exceptions for really bad things only. (you have free speech, but you can't just yell fire in a crowded area. There are things you cannot do on your land, but they should be very limited.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago> At the same time, they should be able to come together to make collective decisions about their towns/cities/neighborhoods. That's exactly what's happening here. Californians have collectively decided that zoning laws need to change. If the current actions by the state are somehow unreasonable, how could the original zoning provisions ever have been considered reasonable in the first place?