In a message dated 2/26/2007 1:01:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Libertarian just wants to tweak the AFHD supporter for her ongoing role in supporting changes which impose added expense and bureaucracy upon the rest of us. Not in the least. Property rights is not a simple one-size-fits-all issue. And I realize that expecting someone to parse all the intricacies of list postings, that haven't been edited to their succinct essence, is asking a lot. But I anticipated this sort of misunderstanding when I thought I was being careful to say something about the fact that zoning pre-dated any of our coming to the neighborhood and therefore provided the basis of a reasonable expectation about uses of property that would affect us. The idea was that, if no zoning existed, we could have no such expectations so neighbors trying to impose their biases on us was a violation of our property rights. But, since there is existing zoning, then neighbors trying to change it -- and therefore short-circuiting our reasonable expectations -- is just as much a violation. As for added expense and bureaucracy, that was an issue with historic designation (a dead horse, notwithstanding Mike Hardy's gratuitous penultimate comments in his otherwise unobjectionable article about two porches on Osage Avenue in the UCReview) but doesn't seem to apply here. Always at your service and ready for a dialog ® brand resident and housing provider, Al Krigman <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
