If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston.com)   Blogger is incredulous that his neighbor has the right to cut down a tree, on the neighbor's own property, so he goes whining to the city. Not surprisingly, quite a few people have a problem with his point of view   (boston.com) divider line 243
    More: Asinine, public property, nearest neighbor search, private property  
•       •       •

17521 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2014 at 12:10 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



243 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-21 12:41:00 AM

Bane of Broone: Harry_Seldon: Three Crooked Squirrels: Keep in mind when bashing HOAs: This is why some people like HOAs.

This is why I live in an wonderfully landscaped HOA where our parks and green spaces preserved some of the old growth, and commonly MAINTAIN them.

Do the fees cover the cost of smug or do you pay for that out of your own pocket?


Calm down there, sparky. Not all HOAs are miniature banana republics.

Although I do sense a hint of sarcasm in his comment.
 
2014-01-21 12:41:15 AM

shda5582: Benevolent Misanthrope: And if you read to the very end, you learn that he's a renter.  He has no investment it the neighborhood.  He's just another entitled little shiat who thinks the world exists to suit him.

What an asshole.

Oh, so he's a libtard?


stirfrybry: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I guarandamntee you this guy is a lifelong liberal

Dyed in the wool


He actually had a good column on Salon for years:  "Ask the Pilot."  But he would occasionally stray into political discussions and they always ended up like this.  He's a good pilot and a good writer when he's talking about planes, but he has some moonbat theories when he strays out of his comfort area.
 
2014-01-21 12:43:31 AM
My husband and I had a large very large chestnut tree, probably stood at least 50 feet high with huge branches that spread over most of the yard and over the neighbors yard as well. Diameter across I honestly could say would be about 40-50 feet. This thing was just huge.

Well we decided to get some landscaping done of pulling weeds black berry bushes trash and other things that I just couldn't get to cause of health reasons at the time. Well while we were having that done we were talking to the landscaping person and asked him what it would take to just cut that tree down. He quoted a price for it and we said do it. Probably was around 2000 to take it down (good buddy discount). Our old crazy lady neighbor with the picture perfect yard came over to the fence and asked me if we were taking that beautiful tree down and I told her straight up yup its coming down.

While I did like that tree and it did provide a lot of shade some things I didn't like was the way the branches seemed to be sagging and one I know snapped off and didn't look right. Plus it was the kind of chestnut, black chestnut I think cause you couldn't eat the nuts they would make you sick but they had a spiky outer shell around the nut. Well a year or 2 before my husband actually stepped on one of those spikes and didn't realize it went through his shoe and into his heel. it imbedded itself and worked its way in till it started causing actual pain. He had to go to the doctor to have it cut out. He is diabetic as well and frankly that was the deciding factor for me for getting rid of the tree as soon as we could afford too.

In the end it turned out to be a good decision we kept most of the wood to burn and looking at the various sized logs of the branches turned out they were rotten. They would have eventually broken off and either hurt or killed someone or destroyed our house or the neighbors place.

To me it was a safety issue to get rid of the tree but I was not sad at all to see the spiky chestnuts go nor having to duck under the heavy branches as I tried to mow the lawn. Now in its place I have a nicer yard and a huge vegetable garden that I probably wouldn't have. My husbands feet are safe from that dangerous issue and I'm very glad that we don't live in an HOA or some other place where you need to get permission to do any little thing.

This neighbor guy that is complaining about the view being destroyed or having to look at an ugly house should be happy he is just a renter. Since he doesn't like what others are doing on their own property I would think it would make it a tad simpler to just put in his last months notice and find another place to rent rather then trying to sell a house and find another place to buy.

So that might be a positive viewpoint.
 
2014-01-21 12:43:57 AM

Bane of Broone: Harry_Seldon: Three Crooked Squirrels: Keep in mind when bashing HOAs: This is why some people like HOAs.

This is why I live in an wonderfully landscaped HOA where our parks and green spaces preserved some of the old growth, and commonly MAINTAIN them.

Do the fees cover the cost of smug or do you pay for that out of your own pocket?


Portland...we do smug

i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-21 12:44:55 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I guarandamntee you this guy is a lifelong liberal


He says as much when he laments that a progressive city isn't boot-to-face stomping all over private property rights.
 
2014-01-21 12:46:24 AM
This D*bag sounds like he is related to my neighbor; the guy got all pissed off when I moved in and tore down an old shed that was in my backyard. The thing was an eyesore but he moaned and groaned about not having privacy on his own deck and how I ruined his quite time. I let him know the shed didn't block the smell of pot which wafted from the direction of his deck. The shed being gone also prevented him from using my property as a cut through because without it he could be seen jumping the fence after stealing something from another neighbors yard.

The D*bag in the article is a renter, if having no trees to look at offends him soooooo much then he can move out at the end of his lease and go live in the woods. He has no permanent
 
2014-01-21 12:48:01 AM
He has no permanent residence there.
 
2014-01-21 12:49:36 AM
As left-leaning as I am... Jesus farking Christ, dude.  Find something more important to whinge about.
 
2014-01-21 12:49:37 AM
You think that's bad? My asshole neighbor (who moved in AFTER I was already here) tore down a historic shed in his backyard. When I complained that now he could see me in the altogether, he called me a stoner and suggested I was stealing from other neighbors! What a douche...
 
2014-01-21 12:51:06 AM
Call the HOA. :-)
 
2014-01-21 12:53:05 AM
Our neighborhood doesn't have a HOA per se, but we do have a set of restrictions on removing trees from our yards.  Namely that for every tree removed it has to be replaced with another one, or 3 flowering bushes.

Our lot had numerous cottonwood trees on it, and I lived with them for 2 years until I couldn't take the pollen anymore.  One weekend I broke out the chainsaw and committed a mass genocide (treeocide?) wiping out almost all of them.  Then I sat back and waited for someone to say something.

Been 7 years.  Still waiting.  I imagine that no one else liked the cottonwoods either.
 
2014-01-21 12:53:17 AM

Harry_Seldon: Bane of Broone: Harry_Seldon: Three Crooked Squirrels: Keep in mind when bashing HOAs: This is why some people like HOAs.

This is why I live in an wonderfully landscaped HOA where our parks and green spaces preserved some of the old growth, and commonly MAINTAIN them.

Do the fees cover the cost of smug or do you pay for that out of your own pocket?

Portland...we do smug

[i.imgur.com image 581x618]


PDX is a lot of hills, hence the permit requirements.  The old owner of my company lost his home because the guy above him cut down a tree, destabilized the slope, and then a big rain happened, causing a minor landslide.
 
2014-01-21 12:57:11 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: And if you read to the very end, you learn that he's a renter.  He has no investment it the neighborhood.  He's just another entitled little shiat who thinks the world exists to suit him.

What an asshole.



A renter has no investment in the neighbourhood? WTF does property ownership have to do with investment in the neighbourhood? If he invests his time in trying to make the neighbourhood better he invests in it. A renter who spends time volunteering or being politically active has far more investment in a neighbourhood than someone who owns property but doesn't give a fark. Whether he is right or wrong, he obviously cares for how the neighbourhood is looking, so he invests in it.

I don't get the property ownership fetish. Even if you own property, unless you are in the middle of nowhere, you still live in a community and the long terms needs of the community are more important than the individual short-term whims of a property owner.

But then again I am living in Europe where indeed there are laws against these kind of things; you can't just cut down trees on your land unless there is a valid reason for it, just as you can't built what you want if other people have to look at it too, and you can't alter historical buildings without permission. I think those perfectly sane rules aimed at preserving the community in the long term as that it is deemed far more important than the individual needs, whether you own the property or not.
 
2014-01-21 12:57:35 AM
Follow-up note from the author:
Comments to this story seem to be harping on the fact that I'm a renter and not an owner; that neither property involved in this story belongs to me. I fail to see how or why that matters in the greater context of my argument. It feels to me like a loophole-ish way of invalidating my points. - PS
 
2014-01-21 12:58:08 AM
I hear that Patrick Smith loves singing:

"I'm so happy, I'm so gay, I can boink 10 boys a day, I'mmm Yourrrrr Gay Guy!"
 
2014-01-21 12:58:36 AM

TuteTibiImperes: I'm thinking about putting up a decorative stone circle and some mulch around the base so that they realize I have a claim to it.


No. No. No. Just go pee on it every morning. Much more manly.
 
2014-01-21 01:02:14 AM

bikkurikun: But then again I am living in Europe where indeed there are laws against these kind of things; you can't just cut down trees on your land unless there is a valid reason for it, just as you can't built what you want if other people have to look at it too, and you can't alter historical buildings without permission. I think those perfectly sane rules aimed at preserving the community in the long term as that it is deemed far more important than the individual needs, whether you own the property or not.


And that is why you guys suck I don't care what the liberals keep trying to shove down our throats. The European Union is a joke and every damn country except Germany is a mess. You don't take away propertry rights without a good reason and have freedom. They aren't compatible.
 
2014-01-21 01:02:41 AM

Lsherm: He actually had a good column on Salon for years:  "Ask the Pilot."  But he would occasionally stray into political discussions and they always ended up like this.  He's a good pilot and a good writer when he's talking about planes, but he has some moonbat theories when he strays out of his comfort area.


Actually, there were times even in his comfort area where he's a farking jag.  One I recall specifically about the six hour wait limit passed by congress. He wrote this long column decrying how unfair it was to take that decision away from the airlines.  Worse, after 100 people in comments explained to him just how horrible sitting in an airplane for hour after hour is, he was all "no, you all don't get it".  And the comments were like "no, YOU don't get it!".  And he replied again and again in condescending ways.   It was one of those shameful displays where you wish an editor would have jumped in and stopped the madness.

So this column surprises me not.  Douchebags gonna douche.
 
2014-01-21 01:02:43 AM

bikkurikun: Benevolent Misanthrope: And if you read to the very end, you learn that he's a renter.  He has no investment it the neighborhood.  He's just another entitled little shiat who thinks the world exists to suit him.

What an asshole.


A renter has no investment in the neighbourhood? WTF does property ownership have to do with investment in the neighbourhood? If he invests his time in trying to make the neighbourhood better he invests in it. A renter who spends time volunteering or being politically active has far more investment in a neighbourhood than someone who owns property but doesn't give a fark. Whether he is right or wrong, he obviously cares for how the neighbourhood is looking, so he invests in it.

I don't get the property ownership fetish. Even if you own property, unless you are in the middle of nowhere, you still live in a community and the long terms needs of the community are more important than the individual short-term whims of a property owner.

But then again I am living in Europe where indeed there are laws against these kind of things; you can't just cut down trees on your land unless there is a valid reason for it, just as you can't built what you want if other people have to look at it too, and you can't alter historical buildings without permission. I think those perfectly sane rules aimed at preserving the community in the long term as that it is deemed far more important than the individual needs, whether you own the property or not.


That's why you don't know shiat about shiat, and think that everyone has to lay down before Lord Pope of DoucheTown. Thanks for explaining that from the start.
 
2014-01-21 01:06:02 AM
Hipster-douche factor is high.

It is alarming what some of this generation feel they are entitled to.
 
2014-01-21 01:09:05 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: It's typical toddler cat reasoning - If I can see it, it's mine.

 
2014-01-21 01:09:17 AM

KillerAttackParrot: TuteTibiImperes: I'm thinking about putting up a decorative stone circle and some mulch around the base so that they realize I have a claim to it.
No. No. No. Just go pee on it every morning. Much more manly.


if you do a couple of animal sacrifices under it, it will keep bad spirits away from the tree and the tree will send pleasant breezes your way. Plus your neighbors will never say a word to you again, so win-win.
 
2014-01-21 01:11:02 AM

Bacontastesgood: One I recall specifically about the six hour wait limit passed by congress.


Correction - 3 hour limit imposed by the DOT.
 
2014-01-21 01:11:48 AM
If I was this guy's neighbour, I'd be finding ways to deliberately piss him off and make him move. What an asshole.
 
2014-01-21 01:12:49 AM
He's free to move and buy himself a nice tree farm where he can go out and look at the big, beautiful trees whenever he damn well pleases and nobody can cut them down. Just a thought.
 
2014-01-21 01:14:26 AM

joshiz: One of the commenters had it exactly right. I don't like when trees are cut down either but to quote: "If you don't like what your neighbors are doing with their trees, move."

If you want to get into a philosophical discussion about the nature of property ownership, take things back to when the land was in its pristine state before anyone owned it and those trees were most likely not even there.

Flip the whole thing around and suppose you wanted nice shade for your driveway but the only place to plant a tree would be on a neighbor's property. They have no obligation to do so, no matter how nice it would be for the "community".


Depends on the trees, I have white oaks that straddle my property line that are older than the USA, my neighbor was going to take one down when he ran the burried utilities to his house. I told him hell no, that I'd get a lawyer involved if he attempted to do that as they were a major part of why I bought the property and they were half mine. Turns out he was going to take em down as a precautionary measure as he was worried about liability if he weakened em and they fell on my house. I told him if 250+ years of the worst that mother nature hadn't taken em out that I doubted him digging up a few roots was going to do it and that if they started to show major signs of stress I'd split the cost of removal after the recommendation of an arborist said they had to go.

/damn developers
 
2014-01-21 01:14:55 AM
While i can see the blogger point of view that the loss of the trees changed the look of the neighborhood , in the end they are on private property .
 
2014-01-21 01:17:22 AM
just sayin for the property rights folks

in essence you do not own the land or your house
you only lease it by way of taxes
(you know what happens if you dont pay your taxes)

so if the true owners of the property decide you are doing something wrong on "your property"
then you will be corrected
 
2014-01-21 01:17:57 AM
Just be very careful...

satiro.es
 
2014-01-21 01:18:14 AM
www.aarondunlap.com
"You can't OWN property, man!"
 
2014-01-21 01:18:15 AM

bikkurikun: Benevolent Misanthrope: And if you read to the very end, you learn that he's a renter.  He has no investment it the neighborhood.  He's just another entitled little shiat who thinks the world exists to suit him.

What an asshole.


A renter has no investment in the neighbourhood? WTF does property ownership have to do with investment in the neighbourhood? If he invests his time in trying to make the neighbourhood better he invests in it. A renter who spends time volunteering or being politically active has far more investment in a neighbourhood than someone who owns property but doesn't give a fark. Whether he is right or wrong, he obviously cares for how the neighbourhood is looking, so he invests in it.

I don't get the property ownership fetish. Even if you own property, unless you are in the middle of nowhere, you still live in a community and the long terms needs of the community are more important than the individual short-term whims of a property owner.

But then again I am living in Europe where indeed there are laws against these kind of things; you can't just cut down trees on your land unless there is a valid reason for it, just as you can't built what you want if other people have to look at it too, and you can't alter historical buildings without permission. I think those perfectly sane rules aimed at preserving the community in the long term as that it is deemed far more important than the individual needs, whether you own the property or not.


While we appreciate your input, here in America they tried your way and nearly everybody starved to death.  Since about 1611, we're a little more keen on private property than you old worlders.
 
2014-01-21 01:20:27 AM

Lsherm: shda5582: Benevolent Misanthrope: And if you read to the very end, you learn that he's a renter.  He has no investment it the neighborhood.  He's just another entitled little shiat who thinks the world exists to suit him.

What an asshole.

Oh, so he's a libtard?

stirfrybry: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I guarandamntee you this guy is a lifelong liberal

Dyed in the wool

He actually had a good column on Salon for years:  "Ask the Pilot."  But he would occasionally stray into political discussions and they always ended up like this.  He's a good pilot and a good writer when he's talking about planes, but he has some moonbat theories when he strays out of his comfort area.


Is this the same Patrick Smith?  Really?  If so.... dayum.  I used to love Ask the Pilot back when he talked about the inside world of how airlines worked.  This column was just... retarded butthurt.
 
2014-01-21 01:20:52 AM
Mr T would not approve of this foo bloggers jiba jabber
 
2014-01-21 01:21:09 AM
six-n-tombstone:

The D*bag in the article is a renter, if having no trees to look at offends him soooooo much then he can move out at the end of his lease and go live in the woods. He has no permanent residence there.

Define permanent. Especially in residential areas, houses get bought and sold all the time. My parents could never afford to buy a house, but lived in the same neighbourhood all their lives, and were active in the community.  I have owned property since I got out of college, yet I've sold, moved and bought new property 5 times since then and never cared much about become active and involved in the community I lived in.  Who is a more permanent resident and who is more invested in the community?

Unless you own an estate that has been in your family for generations, most property owners in residential areas don't live in the same house for more than 20 years.  So if there is a hundreds of years old tree on your property that makes the community as a whole a nicer place, you shouldn't have the right to cut it down just because you 'own' the property for a number of years.
 
2014-01-21 01:22:15 AM
Hey! I voted for that lady once.

Really don't have much else to say except.... as someone who lived in that neighborhood for 7 years, I'm not at all surprised by this guy or his complaint.

www.rebekahgewirtz.org
 
2014-01-21 01:23:07 AM

bikkurikun: six-n-tombstone:

The D*bag in the article is a renter, if having no trees to look at offends him soooooo much then he can move out at the end of his lease and go live in the woods. He has no permanent residence there.

Define permanent. Especially in residential areas, houses get bought and sold all the time. My parents could never afford to buy a house, but lived in the same neighbourhood all their lives, and were active in the community.  I have owned property since I got out of college, yet I've sold, moved and bought new property 5 times since then and never cared much about become active and involved in the community I lived in.  Who is a more permanent resident and who is more invested in the community?

Unless you own an estate that has been in your family for generations, most property owners in residential areas don't live in the same house for more than 20 years.  So if there is a hundreds of years old tree on your property that makes the community as a whole a nicer place, you shouldn't have the right to cut it down just because you 'own' the property for a number of years.


Since whatever Euros you have in your wallet right now will eventually be spent on something, just go ahead and give half to me now.  For community.
 
2014-01-21 01:23:59 AM

kab: Blogger hasn't wrapped his head around the notion that here in the ever-righteous US, you only get to infringe on your neighbors efforts when they want to build something, rather than when they want to remove it.

Want to chop down trees?   Well it's your property!

Want to build a deck?  Well.. just a minute...you need permission for that!  What, do you think that's your property?


You can't remove soil from your property if it will significantly impact the draineag pattern of adjoining properties without a variance in most communities. In fact trees could be similar, my parents hadn't had any flooding in their basement in over 20 years of owning their house (including when Hugo turned the street into a river that we paddled down) until the neighbor cut down a pine on the property line and suddenly there was 3x as much rain trapped between the houses. We didn't take it up with the city but we did ask that they go in halfs with us on a replacement mature tree.
 
2014-01-21 01:24:03 AM
You all are a feeling-less bunch.
I've had this happen to me.
You all have no idea what it is like, waking up in the morning, calmly, almost zen-fully and definitely ritualistically prepare your organic soy latte, carry the cup you crafted by hand yourself out to your back yard....only to find that this ancient creature you used to carry on wordless conversations with every morning murdered by your neighbor.
Who cares about arbitrary lines drawn in the municipality?!
It was a living creature!

You were not there the night I gathered my friends and we had a candlelight vigil in remembrance of that mighty oak. You did not hear the sobbing.

Even at the risk of getting arrested, many times I have considered jumping over the 'fence' and placing a small monument for my fallen friend.

So before you judge this person in haste, try to imagine what kind of relation he had with the tree. What kind of conversations they had every morning. How long he mourned.

Forgive me. I have to stop typing and make another soy latte to steady my nerves.
AND I'm trying to cut down on caffeine.

/I keed. I KEED.
 
2014-01-21 01:25:17 AM
Did anyone else read to "I'm known to vacation in tropical rain forests"?

That line ticked me off for a number of reasons.
 
2014-01-21 01:28:35 AM

walkingtall: bikkurikun: But then again I am living in Europe where indeed there are laws against these kind of things; you can't just cut down trees on your land unless there is a valid reason for it, just as you can't built what you want if other people have to look at it too, and you can't alter historical buildings without permission. I think those perfectly sane rules aimed at preserving the community in the long term as that it is deemed far more important than the individual needs, whether you own the property or not.

And that is why you guys suck I don't care what the liberals keep trying to shove down our throats. The European Union is a joke and every damn country except Germany is a mess. You don't take away propertry rights without a good reason and have freedom. They aren't compatible.


No, it is the other way around. Freedom is for everyone, not just people rich enough to own property.  Property ownership at most is for the duration of an individual's lifespan, and usually takes shorter as people sell and move. The community outlives the individual, and hence the needs of the community/society outweigh the needs of the individual regardless of what he owns.  And you don't take away property rights, you limit them. Again because no one lives, and therefore owns property, until eternity.
 
2014-01-21 01:28:59 AM

Marlys: I have a very large cedar (200ft+) on the border between my neigbour's place and mine. He wanted to cut it down, offered to pay for it. It craps needles 365 days a year all over all our cars and driveways. I called the city to see who's tree it was. I was told that it is my tree, and I cannot cut it down, it's protected. The only way I could cut it down is if it were diseased. I like trees, so not a huge deal. It does make a ridiculous mess, I was surprised to find out that I couldn't do what I wanted on my own property though.


Cedars dont have needles. They have scaly things
 
2014-01-21 01:29:21 AM
Lsherm: He actually had a good column on Salon for years:  "Ask the Pilot."  But he would occasionally stray into political discussions and they always ended up like this.  He's a good pilot and a good writer when he's talking about planes, but he has some moonbat theories when he strays out of his comfort area.

DrunkWithImpotence: Is this the same Patrick Smith?  Really?  If so.... dayum.  I used to love Ask the Pilot back when he talked about the inside world of how airlines worked.  This column was just... retarded butthurt.


I-it's the same column.

Or at least, so I would infer from the large banner that says "Ask the Pilot: Patrick Smith Reports on All Things Air Travel" at the top of the page.
 
2014-01-21 01:31:17 AM
I'm actually kind of surprised. I would have figured some people around here would be all for imposing their will on property that they don't own; in the most ridiculous manner possible.
 
2014-01-21 01:31:19 AM

CivicMindedFive: bikkurikun: six-n-tombstone:

The D*bag in the article is a renter, if having no trees to look at offends him soooooo much then he can move out at the end of his lease and go live in the woods. He has no permanent residence there.

Define permanent. Especially in residential areas, houses get bought and sold all the time. My parents could never afford to buy a house, but lived in the same neighbourhood all their lives, and were active in the community.  I have owned property since I got out of college, yet I've sold, moved and bought new property 5 times since then and never cared much about become active and involved in the community I lived in.  Who is a more permanent resident and who is more invested in the community?

Unless you own an estate that has been in your family for generations, most property owners in residential areas don't live in the same house for more than 20 years.  So if there is a hundreds of years old tree on your property that makes the community as a whole a nicer place, you shouldn't have the right to cut it down just because you 'own' the property for a number of years.

Since whatever Euros you have in your wallet right now will eventually be spent on something, just go ahead and give half to me now.  For community.


I think the point is that people don't have the right to remove things on a property if others really, really like it. Not that this is a big issue, healthy trees generally increase property value.
 
2014-01-21 01:33:04 AM

bikkurikun: No, it is the other way around. Freedom is for everyone, not just people rich enough to own property. Property ownership at most is for the duration of an individual's lifespan, and usually takes shorter as people sell and move. The community outlives the individual, and hence the needs of the community/society outweigh the needs of the individual regardless of what he owns. And you don't take away property rights, you limit them. Again because no one lives, and therefore owns property, until eternity.


Trees also are not immortal or permanent.
 
2014-01-21 01:34:51 AM
Yeah, everybody in the neighborhood cuts down their trees and the place looks like crap. It's their right to make the place worse.
 
2014-01-21 01:36:32 AM

pete1729: Yeah, everybody in the neighborhood cuts down their trees and the place looks like crap. It's their right to make the place worse.



I think you're exaggerating the issue just a tad.
 
2014-01-21 01:36:43 AM

bikkurikun: Benevolent Misanthrope: And if you read to the very end, you learn that he's a renter.  He has no investment it the neighborhood.  He's just another entitled little shiat who thinks the world exists to suit him.

What an asshole.


A renter has no investment in the neighbourhood? WTF does property ownership have to do with investment in the neighbourhood? If he invests his time in trying to make the neighbourhood better he invests in it. A renter who spends time volunteering or being politically active has far more investment in a neighbourhood than someone who owns property but doesn't give a fark. Whether he is right or wrong, he obviously cares for how the neighbourhood is looking, so he invests in it.

I don't get the property ownership fetish. Even if you own property, unless you are in the middle of nowhere, you still live in a community and the long terms needs of the community are more important than the individual short-term whims of a property owner.

But then again I am living in Europe where indeed there are laws against these kind of things; you can't just cut down trees on your land unless there is a valid reason for it, just as you can't built what you want if other people have to look at it too, and you can't alter historical buildings without permission. I think those perfectly sane rules aimed at preserving the community in the long term as that it is deemed far more important than the individual needs, whether you own the property or not.


Is there by chance a run on copper nails in Europe?  "I don't know *why* the tree died.  Must have been poisoned by something..."
 
2014-01-21 01:38:03 AM

mikaloyd: bikkurikun: No, it is the other way around. Freedom is for everyone, not just people rich enough to own property. Property ownership at most is for the duration of an individual's lifespan, and usually takes shorter as people sell and move. The community outlives the individual, and hence the needs of the community/society outweigh the needs of the individual regardless of what he owns. And you don't take away property rights, you limit them. Again because no one lives, and therefore owns property, until eternity.

Trees also are not immortal or permanent.


www.destination360.com
No, but they come closer than we have...


/blogger is a douche, so are people who think that 'owning' a house means they can do whatever they want on the property
//9/10ths of you, I'm sure a bank actually owns whatever you are claiming is 'yours'
///renter
 
2014-01-21 01:38:20 AM

mikaloyd: Trees also are not immortal or permanent.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
Displayed 50 of 243 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report