> Even if the city had followed the proper timing protocols for neighbor objections, the lawsuit notes that the ordinance's wording still inherently runs afoul

> Even if the city had followed the proper timing protocols for neighbor objections, the lawsuit notes that the ordinance's wording still inherently runs afoul of due process rights. That's because the ordinance provides no clear standard, no ability for Sarkisian to appeal or contest her neighbor's complaint, and no right to a hearing. According to PLF's complaint, this effectively gives her neighbor "a standardless and unreviewable veto over Kathy's use of her own property." That’s a great way to frame the argument against Karens and NIMBYs general attitude. What right do they have to an unreviewable veto? They should at least have to prove something a public nuisance or or source of harm.