3 ms·

> Whatever happened to "everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right?" An obviously tortured reading of what I was arguing for, s

> Whatever happened to "everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right?" An obviously tortured reading of what I was arguing for, so I edited it for clarity. Hope that helps. I suspect however that you'd find burning tires in an urban area to run afoul not of zoning rules but of the EPA.

tivert 3y ago
> An obviously tortured reading of what I was arguing for, so I edited it for clarity. Hope that helps. By "tortured reading" do you mean "literal and straightforward" reading?
- arcticbull 3y ago
  What is it that has you so married to restricting what other people can do on their property? Especially to the extent that you would engage in bad faith arguments? Are you trying to keep people out of your neighborhood, or are you trying to keep housing unaffordable? Have you decided that, entirely arbitrarily, the neighborhood is good now and should never change? Generally curious as to your animus. Because again the land uses you suggested aren't a function of zoning rules at all. They're a straw man.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > What is it that has you so married to restricting what other people can do on their property? Externalities, a thing that exists. Also, a recognition that communities are real things that can and should have rights of their own, independent of the individuals that make them up. > Especially to the extent that you would engage in bad faith arguments? You've literally said "everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right," and it's not bad faith to test your commitment to that. > Are you trying to keep people out of your neighborhood, or are you trying to keep housing unaffordable? Have you decided that, entirely arbitrarily, the neighborhood is good now and should never change? Generally curious as to your animus. Casting aspersions like that isn't good faith.

tivert 3y ago

> An obviously tortured reading of what I was arguing for, so I edited it for clarity. Hope that helps. By "tortured reading" do you mean "literal and straightforward" reading?

arcticbull 3y ago
What is it that has you so married to restricting what other people can do on their property? Especially to the extent that you would engage in bad faith arguments? Are you trying to keep people out of your neighborhood, or are you trying to keep housing unaffordable? Have you decided that, entirely arbitrarily, the neighborhood is good now and should never change? Generally curious as to your animus. Because again the land uses you suggested aren't a function of zoning rules at all. They're a straw man.
- tivert 3y ago
  > What is it that has you so married to restricting what other people can do on their property? Externalities, a thing that exists. Also, a recognition that communities are real things that can and should have rights of their own, independent of the individuals that make them up. > Especially to the extent that you would engage in bad faith arguments? You've literally said "everyone should be able to build whatever they want on their land by-right," and it's not bad faith to test your commitment to that. > Are you trying to keep people out of your neighborhood, or are you trying to keep housing unaffordable? Have you decided that, entirely arbitrarily, the neighborhood is good now and should never change? Generally curious as to your animus. Casting aspersions like that isn't good faith.