I agree. If you want a pretty house - make it pretty.
If you want a pretty neighborhood - pick up the trash laying about or sweep the sidewalks, ask people not to urinate wherever they happen to be standing, plant flowers, etc. If you are too poor to fix your property up at all but can afford to own it - so be it - that should be your right. If you are too poor to fix your property up but can afford to make it safe and habitable - so be it - that should be your right. Should this make someone "sick" as one of the posters wrote about earlier? That is just silly and snobbish. If you want to paint your house chromakey green - so be it - that should be your right. Do your neighbors have to like it? No - that should their right. Should neighbors be able to implement laws that tell you you can't paint your house whatever color you want or put in whatever style of window you want? I don't think so - and I think it is just silly for people to waste time on such things when there are such larger issues for UC - need I even outline them? i.e. drug dealing, sexual assault, murder... I am so glad I am not in the confines of the proposed area - yet it gives me little comfort. I have to wonder when these people who can't seem to mind their own business turn their eyes on my block and start proposing these types of changes. I think it would be interesting to proposed the opposite of what this effort is trying to accomplish through the same channels - something explicitly stating that denizens of this area _can_ by law paint their houses whatever color they like, etc. What happens, I guess, is that these people move in and fix up their own properties - usually this means they have resources of time and money that are at the very least uncommon to most who live here. Once they have finished their own properties they can't seem contain their energies so they want all the surrounding houses to appear as their own. You get a few of these Martha Stewart archetypes together and this is the result. Either that or they are chiefly interested in seeing their investments flourish but couch it purported goodwill for the community. Not very different in result from above except that in the first case the motivation is a neurotic need to control their surroundings on an atypical scale. I don't know which is worse. I think these people even delude themselves into thinking their intentions are good regardless of the driving factor. I'm done. On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, R. Hotchkiss wrote: > > > "Karen E. Heenan" wrote: > > > > > urinating in and having sex in my alleyway. I've spoken to the police > > and the UCDistrict, and hopefully something will be done to remedy this > > situation. (Somehow this does not strike me as a suitable activity for > > a historic district. Do they do that in Society Hill?) > > > > Yes. I lived in queen village before moving to ucity. Public urinating was the > #1 problem (prior to south st riots). I did not buy in queen village because > the queen village neighbors assoc. was too intrusive an organization (get the > poor "element" out, don't paint you house that color, etc.). I do not want that > same type of intrusiveness in ucity. Ucity is and should remain, a diverse > neighborhood in all ways. > > There is nothing wrong with having a safe but ugly house. Remember, beauty is in > the eyes of the beholder. > > > -- > Richard Hotchkiss > http://www.hotstrings-inc.com > > > ---- > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the > list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. > Archive is at <http://www.mail-archive.com/>. > ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. Archive is at <http://www.mail-archive.com/>.
