Regulation

Neighborhood Busybody vs. the Handicapped

|

A Toronto couple, Geoff and Melissa Teehan, wanted to build a new home on their lot to accomodate the wife's quadriplegia. Except a neighbor likes looking at their old house just the way it is and has called in the force of the town's "heritage" laws that could prevent them from replacing the house.

A long report from the Toronto Star, including this beautiful quote from the neighbor, Elizabeth Brown, who alerted a community councilperson about possibly making the house fall under the heritage laws, which it did not officially fall under before it was purchased by the Teehans:

"When you go up against something like that, it's very awkward," Brown says. "Of course it is. But I haven't launched a campaign to fight this man and his wife. My heart goes out to them and their situation; I'm empathetic to the family. I just don't think the two issues are the same issues. I'm not fighting to prevent her from something, even though they've been clear they'd like to build this house to help her with access because of her paralysis. I'm trying to preserve a home that adds character and beauty to my neighbourhood for future generations to enjoy. So: I don't wish them any harm. I just want to protect that house."

Brown repeatedly expresses an appreciation for the Teehans' challenges. Yet she also says she believes Geoff Teehan has exploited Melissa's disability to win support.

Asked for her age as a reporter leaves her own century-old house, she says she is 44. Then she adds, smiling: "I don't have a disability. Sorry. If I did, maybe I could use that, too."

And councilperson Sandra Bussin, to whom Brown went with her terrible problem of a neighbor doing something with his property she didn't like, says that the Teehans should have just known they shouldn't expect to be able to change their house without pre-approval. All that is not permitted is forbidden! This from Openfile.ca:

She says he should have contacted her or the city's Heritage Preservation Services department before purchasing the home, instead of just contacting her after the fact.

"Anybody in the ward would have had an inkling that there may be an issue about the value," she said in an interview on May 31. "He did make an inquiry somewhere, but not to the city and not me."

She has set in motion a heritage review of the property, which could scuttle the Teehans' plans. Bussin says the situation the family is facing takes place in their ward from time to time, and that there's nothing unusual about the process.

"It would have been helpful if [Geoff Teehan] called me in advance, because I would have advised him to be very careful."

Hat tip to reader Steven H. Noble.

Advertisement

NEXT: Debating the 17th Amendment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. All that is not forbidden is mandatory.

  2. So what happens if they burn it down or demolish it?

    So much for owning property these days.

    1. If they themselves burn it down they’d be in a world of trouble.

      However, if a marauding arsonist happened to walk by one day when they weren’t home…

      1. many real fires are started by rodents that chew wires…it could happen to anyone.

        1. What is wrong with those rodents? Does 60Hz AC sound like sugar-pouring to them or something? Rabbits too.

          1. They have to chew on stuff to keep their teeth from growing too big, as their enamel is constantly being replenished.

            Speaking of which, when are Ron Bailey’s buddies going to isolate that gene so that we don’t have to brush our teeth anymore?

            1. No brushing of teeth, but we have to chew on cables to prevent ourselves from reliving the Lisa Needs Braces episode of the simpsons…..Hmmmm

              Yeah, I’d make the trade. Least I’m smart enough to chew on uninstalled wiring.

              1. I have a squirrel feeder (technically a bird feeder) outside a dining room window. Every decade or so, we get a squirrel with crooked teeth. It’s usually due to an off-center lower jaw.

                So the two upper front teeth keep growing, but since they don’t line up right, they grow unabated. The teeth eventually start curling up like a ram’s horn until they begin to irritate the outside of the squirrel’s cheek.

                I would think it sucks being a squirrel.

            2. Least I’m smart enough to chew on uninstalled wiring.

              Disclosure: Just Barely.

            3. Our enamel is constantly replenished, but not enough to compensate for the constant coating of acid-shitting bacteria that most people have on their teeth, due to their sugar- and starch-heavy modern diets. Cavities are pretty unknown in pre-agricultural societies, and they sure as shit don’t brush their teeth.

              Also, you’re a cunt.

              1. Living beyond 30 was pretty unknown in pre-agricultural societies, too.

                1. No it wasn’t, and what’s that have to do with anything, Tulpa? You’re a cunt, by the way.

                  1. Was too.

                    And it has to do with the fact that dental trouble usually gets worse as you get older. Just like all the idiots talking about how we must have a terribly unhealthy lifestyle because Bushmen don’t get cancer.

                    1. Dental trouble only gets worse if you’ve put holes in them by eating sugar. If you’re a bushman, you don’t need to worry about that.

                      As for the cancer thing, Good Calories Bad Calories has a chapter on that. You should take a loot at it, and then cluck your tongue disapprovingly.

                    2. Ah, here it is.

                      About 20% of hunter-gatherers reach age 60 or beyond[6,7], but even in this age bracket,individuals from foraging and other technologically primitive cultures appear almost completely free from manifestations of most chronic degenerative diseases[8,9](osteo-arthritis is an exception).

                    3. So if you’re lucky enough not to die of starvation, get your leg broken by a wildebeast and die from the resulting infection, or pick up a nasty parasite one day when you go to the local stagnant water pool, you’re less likely to have colon cancer when you’re 60. All the while not having not much to eat most of the time.

                      No thank you. I’ll take my rodent enamel gene over that any day.

                    4. Yes. Now make sure not to learn the lesson that you might be able to lessen your risk of cancer by changing your behavior.

                    5. I dunno about cancer, but I am fully willing to take the tradeoff of brushing and flossing in return for getting to eat lots of yummy things.

                    6. Survival of the fittest. Weak cancer-getting bastards! *not ducking, i deserve anything that gets thrown at me for that one*

            4. Also, i’d heard of their teeth continually growing. I just still dont understand why our wiring is the most desirable thing inside the wall to chew on.

              And hey, someone steal this idea and bring it to market: Cover house wiring with a grounded metallic braid. Hopefully shocking any nibblers, and blowing the breaker for any serious faults. Also, might help with 60hz-hum in our equipment?

              1. I had a kitten that chewed electrical wires.

                One day, he just stopped doing it.

                1. I had a kitten that chewed electrical wires.

                  One day, he just stopped doing it.

                  Whew, well that’s good….oh wait….damn.

              2. How ’bout coating it with rat poison? It’s unlikely your pets are going to be licking it.

                1. 1. Rat poison smells tasty, so they eat it. Lets not attract the rats to the wires if possible.

                  2. Any poison is going to lose effectiveness over time.

                  1. Really? Then explain Obama.

                    1. Its only been a year? I bet the rat poison would remain effective for at least 5 to 9 years. Longer than a Presidential term, but still short compared to the lifespan of a house.

                    2. One benefit of the maximum-3-levels-deep nested comments: trying to figure out which comment Enough About Palin’s post is in response to.

                      My favorite possibility is in response to my Bushmen don’t get cancer comment above, but then again I am said to be a closet racist.

    2. It’s been a while since Toyota has been dragged into the spotlight… Perhaps GM could donate a Prius to Mr. Teehan, who could then ram it into the house after it accelerates “all by itself with the brakes on.” Good for GM, good for the Teehans.

  3. Yeah, I’d demolish it while hearings are still going on. THEN see if they still want to block the new construction, or preserve the rubble pile.

    After all, if it’s not a “heritage” site quite yet, they wouldn’t really be breaking any laws, right?

    1. I would have advised him to be very careful.

      He would have been advised, so yeah, I’m sure that breaks some law somewhere.

  4. bulldoze and beg forgiveness. it’s the only way to be sure.

    1. Nuke it from orbit.

      1. Naturally, I’m referring to Brown’s house.

        See, Smart People know that she’s afraid of any construction noises riling up the den of Xenomorphs she’s raising in her basement.

  5. Busybody = People with no lives

  6. Brown repeatedly expresses an appreciation for the Teehans’ challenges. Yet she also says she believes Geoff Teehan has exploited Melissa’s disability to win support.

    Elizabeth Brown, fuck you very much.

    1. I’m just floored by how someone who’s that much of an asshole is willing to explain in excruciating detail how much of an asshole she is. Usually assholes don’t think these things through to that extent, or are too ashamed to go public with it.

      1. The word “cunt” comes to mind.

        1. Fucking cunt. Fucking, bitch ass cunt. Fucking bitch ass cunt who revels in the sufering of a quadraplegic.

      2. It’s impressive, indeed. I just can’t comprehend how someone can be so self-absorbed that they are willing to make a person with a severe handicap miserable – because they’re afraid they might be slightly aesthetically inconvenienced.

        It boggles my mind.

        1. As I said below: she is getting into sociopath territory here. Her absolute inability to empathize with the paralyzed woman, and her inability to see their house as anything other than something pretty for herself, screams sociopath.

      3. This is just the logical extension of the idea that you can do whatever you want to people’s property and you aren’t harming the actual person.

        This isn’t much different from anything we do to property here.

        “I’m not hurting them – I just want to help the neighborhood by preserving this house!” Because denying people the use of their property doesn’t hurt them, you see. No one should expect to actually be able to use their property, so they aren’t actually losing anything.

  7. Guns and bullets. Only way to be sure.

  8. But wait, I thought local governments were bastions of freedom that we needed to give as much power as possible to.

    1. Strawman thy name is that post

      1. Nope, Tulpa is on point here. The “local = good” folks need a smacking every so often.

        1. Only as much as the “corporations = good” or “market = good” folks do. Which is to say, none at all if they actually understand their argument, but quite a lot if they don’t.

    2. Yeah, they would be much better off with faceless bureaucrats hundreds or thousands of miles away deciding if the house should be protected.

      1. Doesn’t sound like they’d be any worse off. Like the priest in Monte Cristo said, “Neglect is our ally.”

        A nameless faceless bureaucrat thousands of miles away probably (a) doesn’t give two shits about the complainer or her standing in the cruddy small town they’re talking about, and (b) isn’t going to take the personal offense that Ms. Bussin took about not being consulted about the sad little hill of which she is the queen.

        1. It’s not a “cruddy small town.” It’s a neighborhood of Toronto.

          Which illustrates the pointlessness of this objection. A provincial or federal system would have a series of bureaucrats, at each level subdividing the fiefdom into small portions, until there would be a nameless faceless bureaucrat nearby who certainly would take personal offense that no one consulted Her Majesty’s representative about the sad little hill that she controlled.

    3. I don’t think you understand the concept of libertanism. We generally emphatically oppose giving “as much power as possible” to any level of government.

      Historic preservationists, people who won’t buy the property they want preserved but would have the government mandate what they want done with property they don’t fucking own, can kiss my ass.

      In a just universe, busybody government worshippers like Elizabeth Brown would find their property eminent domained for a whorehouse that would pay higher property taxes.

      1. You’re right, I don’t understand libertanism, or libertans for that matter. I always just get a liberburn when I try to lay out.

        1. Fixate on the typo. It make you look smart petty.

          Ignore the point, it makes you appear above the fray like a fucking coward.

          1. I sort of addressed the point in the reply to the other protesting poster. But on many occasions, posters have argued that certain powers currently exercised by the feds should be devolved to state and local governments in the name of federalism. Which is fine and dandy, but you’re not reducing the possibilities for tyranny at all — you’re just trading the far enemy for the near enemy.

            I suppose one could just say, “if you don’t like the local govt, you should move,” but as a Pittsburgh resident speaking to a Detroit resident, I think both of us know it’s rarely that simple.

            1. Which is fine and dandy, but you’re not reducing the possibilities for tyranny at all — you’re just trading the far enemy for the near enemy.

              I suppose one could just say, “if you don’t like the local govt, you should move,” but as a Pittsburgh resident speaking to a Detroit resident, I think both of us know it’s rarely that simple.

              It’s rarely that simple, but that doesn’t mean that the argument of exit is without merit.

              Your argument is akin to those who say that free enterprise isn’t any better since corporations can invest stupidly or can institute all sorts of annoying policies. The free market isn’t always as quick as one likes to punish stupidity, and if enough other people believe differently from you, that will impact the choices available to you. That doesn’t mean that the free market isn’t still better than the alternative, just because it isn’t perfect.

              Even in the absence of government, there would be homeowners’ associations doing these kinds of things. But the smaller the level at which it is performed, the greater chance there is for diversity and for finding a place that you like. (And besides, if a bunch of people all voluntarily want to get together and have boring houses or whatever, they can do so if they don’t impose on me.)

              In the 1950s, could one not say, “I suppose one could just say, ‘if you don’t like the cars, you should buy a different brand,’ but as a Ford buyer speaking to a GM man, I think both of us know it’s rarely that simple?” But eventually change occurs, though it is not necessarily easy or swift.

              1. Even in the absence of government, there would be homeowners’ associations doing these kinds of things. But the smaller the level at which it is performed, the greater chance there is for diversity and for finding a place that you like. (And besides, if a bunch of people all voluntarily want to get together and have boring houses or whatever, they can do so if they don’t impose on me.)

                That the theory of homeowners associations.

                But like the romantic notions communism, the reality is far different.

                Homeowners associations aren’t associations of homeowners any more than the German Democratic Republic was a democratic republic.

                HOAs are corporations created by and for the developers, as the result of government incentives and/or mandates. The homeowners, who come into the picture after-the-fact, have no input into the initial governing documents that they are bound by contract law to obey. The developers and governments have left consumers with very little choice.

                Professor Evan McKenzie, a former HOA lawyer, refers to this as

                “repressive libertarianism,” where certain people who call themselves libertarians invariably side with property owners who want to limit other people’s liberties through the use of contract law. Property rights (usually held by somebody with a whole lot of economic clout) trump every other liberty. The libertarian defense of HOAs is the perfect example. The developer writes covenants and leaves. Everybody who lives there has to obey them forever, even if they lose due process of law and expressive liberties.

                As private corporations take over more functions of government, this position could lead to gradual elimination of constitutional liberties.

                By confusing “free-markets” with “capitalism” and “corporations” with “corporatism,” libertarians have unwittingly supported one of the biggest threats to individual private property rights and home ownership in America today.

            2. Tulpa, the point is that the more localized the power is, the less chances for it to grow to the monstrosity that is our current federal government. Detroit has horrible local leaders, but at least they are confined (for the most part) to Detroit.

              1. To give an example of John Thacker’s excellent point, consider two worlds, one where local law predominates and another where all laws are federal. Under local rule, a single neighborhood busybody (cunt) can ruin your use of your property through local regulation. Compare that to a federal law concerning historic buildings whereby every home that is older than 80 years must receive federal approval in order to knock it down, or anyone inetersted in old home can start a society that requests blocks on homes they want to preserve. The first situation, while regrettable, at least requires there to be a bat shit crazy sociopath living across the street for it to matter – the second would make owning a home in America a bad joke.

                1. The second would be quickly repealed if it was actually enforced; there’s no legal means of repealing the existence of a sociopath neighbor.

                  Neglect is our ally, and it also happens to be what federal bureaucrats are good at. It bears repeating.

                  1. The second would be quickly repealed if it was actually enforced against the wealthy and politically-connected

                    Next you’ll tell me that a school system as bad as DC’s would be quickly reformed. Or that a system of eminent domain that allows homes to be condemned would be “quickly repealed if it were actually” used.

                  2. Or, I suppose to use an example of a federal program, the HUD would never have been able to destroy urban housing and replace it with shitty housing projects.

                    Tulpa, you seem to be postulating that nearly everywhere has a majority of these types of assholes. But if that is true, why wouldn’t there be a national majority of assholes, or at the very least enough of them to create a swing pressure group to get federal laws passed and enforced? And federal bureaucracies have plenty of local offices; just look at HUD.

                    1. “you seem to be postulating that nearly everywhere has a majority of these types of assholes.”

                      They are called blue states.

                    2. “you seem to be postulating that nearly everywhere has a majority of these types of assholes.”

                      They are called blue states.

                      Actually, they’re called homeowners associations (HOAs) — a form of privatized local hyper-government that libertarians seem to idealize and idolize, for some strange reason.

                      Although libertarians like to believe that HOAs are some wonderful manifestation of the free-market where homeowners freely sign away their rights in exchange for ______, HOAs fail the “rational choice” test necessary for the function of a free market.

                      See Evan McKenzie’s “Common-Interest Housing in the Communities of Tomorrow” (PDF):

                      The touchstone of rational-choice theory is the Tiebout model (1956), and any discussion of CIDs and the urban future should begin by comparing the real world of CIDs with that model.

                      Real-world CIDs versus the Tiebout model

                      Tiebout’s (1956) model assumes certain conditions and then argues that if those conditions are met, the problems of public goods can be overcome, and we can have an optimal distribution of public goods and services. These conditions are as follows:

                      1. Fully mobile “consumer-voters” who, after considering the level of taxation, will move to the community that best suits their preferences

                      2. Consumers who have full knowledge of the difference in taxing and spending among suppliers of municipal goods and services and who react to those differences

                      3. A large number of communities offering different levels of various services and taxation levels to choose from

                      4. No restrictions on moving because of employment opportunities

                      5. No external economies or diseconomies among communities (For example, if community A reduces its crime, that does not increase crime in community B.)

                      6. An optimum community size for every pattern of service provision (In other words, for any given bundle of services, there is a specific number of residents for whom the services can be provided at the lowest cost.)

                      7. Efforts by communities to reach the optimum size dictated by their pattern of service provision (meaning that they would try to attract new residents, keep a constant population, or reduce the number of residents in order to reach their optimum size)

                      There is also the issue of “informed consent.” How many homeowners realize that an HOA corporation has the right to foreclose on their homes for trivial amounts and reasons, even if especially if the mortgage is paid off?

                      HOA corporations have no market incentive to treat their “members” like customers. If somebody moves out (or is forced out), there will always be an owner to pay the association’s dues, even if it’s the mortgage company.

                      Whereas, a landlord does not make any money if his rental unit is empty. And renters are much more mobile, and therefore “free to choose,” than homeowners are.

                  3. Yes, there retaliation in kind.
                    I am sure there must be some handicapped rights association passing some flyers, right?

                2. The first situation, while regrettable, at least requires there to be a bat shit crazy sociopath living across the street for it to matter – the second would make owning a home in America a bad joke.

                  In theory.

                  In reality, the most local form of privatized hyper-government has made owning a home in America a bad joke. The “bat shit crazy sociopath” doesn’t have to be a neighbor. It could be (and likely is) the HOA’s professional property manager and the HOA’s attorney, who often have more de facto control than the “elected” HOA Board of Directors.

                  Homeowners associations (HOAs) have the power of small governments, but are shielded as corporations.

                  And as corporations, HOAs are a defective product.

                  A corporation is a legal entity that is supposed to protect your personal assets from the debts and liabilities created by the corporation.

                  For example, if you own stock in XYZ Inc., and XYZ Inc. goes bankrupt, loses a lawsuit, or is fined by the government, your loss is limited to your investment in XYZ Inc. The creditors of XYZ Inc. can’t come after your home, your car, your bank account, etc.

                  In an HOA corporation, your share is your most valuable personal asset.

                  In addition to the “common property,” the assets of an HOA corporation are the power to collect assessments (HOA dues), fees, fines, place liens on your home, and foreclose on your home (which they do for trivial amounts and reasons).

                  Libertarians like to say that “every act by the government is backed with the threat of violence.” In an HOA, every act by the privatized government is backed with the very real threat of foreclosure.

                  In a so-called “common interest community,” your home is forever collateral to whatever debts and liabilities the HOA corporation creates. Even if your mortgage is paid off, you can never truly own your home.

                  In fact, if the mortgage is paid off, the profit-motive makes it a more attractive target for the HOA corporation to abuse its rights of foreclosure. Ask U.S. Army Captain Mike Clauer, and the other countless victims like him.

                  HOA foreclosure has become a cottage industry. If this is what the free-market has brought us to, then something is wrong with the free-market.

            3. Tulpa,

              Do you at all see a difference between government doing this, and a homeowners’ association? (Or anything where a corporation makes a choice, and you would be pretty annoyed to have to change your buying habits or whatever.)

              If you do, and you see a difference based on choice, the ability to avoid bad consequences, the flourishing of liberty in a free market, and the eventual discipline of bad ideas, then surely you can see that smaller, more diverse levels of government offer a similar variety (though admittedly not as good) of diversity and hope for change.

              Having to move to another neighborhood is painful, but better than having to move to another suburb, which is better than having to move to another city, which is better than having to move to another state, which is better than having to move to another country.

              If you don’t think that the situation with the homeowners’ association is any better, and think that the federal government or somebody should prevent them from having restrictive laws, then you’re more of a modern social democrat/liberal.

              1. Thacker, you may not like this…but I agree with you here. Local power is easier to lobby against than federal power.

                If i want to stalk a local city council guy I can…I could even make him disappear(but HYPOTHETICALLY)…that would be nearly impossible for most of the top 1000 members of our federal oligarchy.

              2. If you don’t think that the situation with the homeowners’ association is any better, and think that the federal government or somebody should prevent them from having restrictive laws, then you’re more of a modern social democrat/liberal.

                At least with government, we have (in theory) rights and due process.

                In the homeowners association model of corporate government, those rights have been waived by a “contract.” There is nothing like a “Bill of Rights” to protect homeowners. Unlike the Constitution, an HOAs governing documents place restrictions on the governed while giving unlimited authority and power to the corporation’s governing body.

                Nor is there any market incentive for an HOA corporation to treat homeowners like customers (see my post 6.1.10 @ 10:47PM ).

                From what I’ve seen, it’s far easier and more likely for an HOA corporation to foreclose on a home for unpaid dues, fines, and fees than is is for a government to do so for unpaid taxes.

                Believing that government should regulate HOA corporations does not necessarily make one a social democrat/liberal.

                Like the scientists who had to give up “pure” Newtonian mechanics for relativity and quantum mechanics to explain the very large and the very small, libertarians really need to re-think their support for HOAs. The HOA model of corporate government, as it exists in America today, does not match the wishful theories of corporate communism.

    4. To be fair, the local politicians are generally a little more accountable to their communities they represent. This article in the local paper, for instance, might shame councilperson Sandra Bussin into changing her mind whereas my letters to the editor in the Pennysaver probably won’t influence the Secretary of the Interior.

      1. And if the community is filled with assholes like Ms. Brown, then that accountability is not a good thing.

        1. That is certainly true. But the lower the level of power, the more diversity there will be among communities, and the greater hope that one will be able to find a place where the assholes on this issue have a minority without having to move far.

          Having to move to another neighborhood is painful, but better than having to move to another suburb, which is better than having to move to another city, which is better than having to move to another state, which is better than having to move to another country.

    5. But what is more local than the individual? So we need to give the most power to the individual, then city, state, and national.

      1. I take it you’re against abortion then.

  9. Clense it with Fire.

  10. Observe the narcissistic cognitive dissonance of the nannying busybody in full flower:

    But I haven’t launched a campaign to fight this man and his wife.

    Umm, yes, you have.

    My heart goes out to them and their situation; I’m empathetic to the family.

    I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

    I just don’t think the two issues are the same issues.

    You do realize that ability to compartmentalize does not change anything outside of your own head, right?

    I’m not fighting to prevent her from something,

    Yes, you are.

    So: I don’t wish them any harm.

    Your perceptions of your own motivations do not change the outcomes of your actions.

    I just want to protect that house.

    So buy it from them.

    1. Actually, RC, I could almost see her ranging into sociopath territory, though the narcissistic personality disorder is on the money too.

      1. You may well be right. When someone’s priorities are this fucked up, you have to wonder about their sense of reality.

        1. If nothing else, she has a bright future as a congressman or a parsin’ president.

    2. Actually I would describe that as rationalization. That is why people manage to be so evil. They don’t know they are doing evil. In fact, the nature of doing evil is to do it while thinking you are doing something great.

      1. yep she thinks she is good for preserving history. She is doing it for future generations the handicapped faker is just being selfish. In her moral code selfishness is the utlimate evil thus the people who own the house are the bad ones.

      2. A prime example of ‘the nature of doing evil is to do it while thinking you are doing something great”: like Paulsen, Geithner, Bush et al’s Too Big To Fail’ scheme instituted to force the taxpayer to pay for a handful of financial institutions’ business trades they lost money on due to their own bad decisions. Geithner’s rationalization in the Congressional hearings, even went further when he alluded to being proud of his decision to stick the taxpayers with their mistakes. He viewed it not as the taxpayer’s loss, but as their loss not being as great.

    3. My heart goes out to them and their situation; I’m empathetic to the family.

      I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

      She means it in the same sense Obama does.

      1. Empathy = a craving for the salty, salty tears of the handicapped?

        1. Only if there is an electrolyte imbalance. I submit there is way more to the story regarding that vacuole where one would expect to find a brain.

          I suggest a neural net similar to jellyfish or a neural node like planaria

  11. It’s a good thing the Toronto Star published the complainant’s address: 205 Beech Ave.

    Just in case anyone needs to go crap on her lawn or something.

    1. that would be wrong. it would also be wrong to release termites in her yard.

      1. That’s just cruel to termites. I bet her house tastes nasty, like mothballs.

    2. It’s a shame she isn’t in the Canadian Yellow Pages.

    3. Judging from the Street View pics, her house is a fucking dump. Someone needs to condemn it and tear it down before it falls down around her ears.

      1. At least you can understand why she needs to be able to look at someone else’s house to see something nice.

  12. IF this women was that concerned about an historic house, perhaps she should have petitioned to get it on the list years ago. I am kind of a sucker for historic preservation. But if you don’t give enough of a shit about the building to get it listed before someone wants to tear it down, then it probably isn’t that important.

    1. But if you don’t give enough of a shit about the building to get it listed buy it before someone wants to tear it down, then it probably isn’t that important.

      FIFY.

    2. perhaps she should have petitioned to get it on the list years ago

      It wasn’t historic back then? *rimshot*

      1. Nah. They just didn’t think someone would come along and tear it down.

  13. This works the same way everywhere…you have to grease the well connected local builder who deals with the zoning issues as a normal part of their daily work. They have a couple guys they own…if you don’t play ball you get fucked.

    This is the USSA.

    1. Umm. Not a geography major, are you.

      1. Not an irony major, are you?

        1. The carpenter’s nail felt very irony.

          1. Yeah, I guess that nails it.

        2. Tulpa, the couple lives in Canada, you dumbass.

          1. True, but Canada is basically USA-lite. All of the bureaucratic nannying but without that irritating entrepreneurial innovation.

    2. Sure didn’t hurt our remodel that our contractor was a hunting buddy of the head city building inspector.

  14. I knew a guy who got himself elected to the local Historic Preservation District so he could exempt his property from said District.

    1. That’s great!

  15. Would it be wrong of me if I wished for Elizabeth Brown to die in the most painful way possible?

    No? Good.

    1. I live for her anus!

      1. Your handle is not a rough pictogram of a pineapple. Therefore, get in line.

  16. Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

    Brown: Ho-ho-hold on, hold on one second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it.

    Ripley: They can *bill* me.

    1. Yeah, got to this post 45mins after i posted the same sentiment. I blame JohnThacker, Tman, and Tulpa for their lively argument.

      I still would’ve been beaten to the punch, but at least I’d have felt stupid(er) sooner.

  17. In all seriousness, anyone who bases their identity on the aggregate worth/beauty of the surrounding neighbornood should be subjected to psychological testing.

    They should also be forced to drive through bad neighborhoods when going home.

    1. I wouldn’t go that far. In my neighborhood they routinely tear down beautiful old 1930s colonial and throw up tacky pieces of shit McMansions for morons to buy. Now I am not going to sue to stop it. The houses are nice but they are not Penn Station. But, just because I won’t sue over it doesn’t mean I am not sad to see the houses go. A neighborhood of giant doll houses is a lot less nice than what is there now.

      1. The houses are nice but they are not Penn Station

        I like sandwiches too, but damn…

        1. Mmmm…Penn Station…

      2. The saddest part IMO is that those houses that stood for 70+ years are being replaced with shitboxes that will be lucky to stand for another 20years before their stairs start to sag and the windows wont shut-tight anymore.

      3. Neighborhoods change. Trying to stop that from happening is like trying to hold back the tide.

  18. In the NIMBY’s defense, have you seen how tacky that woman’s respirator is? Would it kill her to throw a tasteful doilie on it?

    I guess it would, becuase it would plug the air vent, but you get the idea.

  19. This is one of those cases where it’s easy for you armchair quarterbacks to judge because it’s not your neighborhood.

    1. Are you even trying anymore?

      1. Feeble contrarianism. The starvation is working. Soon he’ll eat his fellow trolls.

        Just make sure to cook Tony thoroughly.

        1. Just make sure to cook Tony thoroughly.

          What, you don’t like your food swimming with parasites?

          1. “I’ll have one of your young on a roll.”

            “We’re outta rolls.”

            1. I’ll have the cream of Sum Yung Gai, please.

        2. Troll is a dish best eaten cold.

          1. What is the umami of troll?

            1. LoneWacko’s putrid semen. So says Head Utilitarian MNG.

              By the way, you lefty scumbags, defend this, if you have the balls. The comedy in such a tragic day for TEAM BLUE would be funny if it wasn’t so damn depressing….and all too real.

      2. I think AnonBot stole his handle, with the assumption that he could do a better job of being DanT than DanT could ever hope to be. It will take Bot a few days to get in the swing of it though.

    2. You got me Dan. Why, just last year I sicced the local zoning board on a guy across the street who tried to remodel a nice Victorian house to accommodate his Bubble Boy.

      1. Tulpa wins the thread for the invocation of Bubble Boy. 🙂 Well played, sir.

  20. Maybe we can encourage the Algonquin Indians to find that Ms. Brown’s home is built on an ancient sacred site and demand the Canadian authorities tear it down post haste? This idea that everything old is historic is crazy (and I say that as a member of several historical societies).

    1. Beautiful idea. That would be some poetic justice…

  21. Sandra Bussin, the local Councillor, is a total douche-nozzle. Her involvement alone makes me side with the Teehans.

  22. A rich and only slightly eccentric man in my neighborhood had a similar dilemma. He hated the house across the street so much, that when it went on the market, he bought it and tore it down. Even dead, his kids hold on to the property and have never put a house back on the lot.

    1. NutraSweet, you’re confusing old Hammer films with reality again. Did you take your anti-psychotics today?

      1. He made his money in peanut butter.

  23. Meh. We don’t have the whole story here, that’s for sure. It seems that there is a “heritage” law of some sort – not saying it’s right or wrong or anything; just that if there is a law out there that might apply to a house you’re thinking of buying, it seems to me you should research it and check it out to find out what the potential risks are of buying that house in that neighborhood.

    This sounds more like a function of the socialist attitude of the Canadian gubmint and certain Canadians themselves.

    It is indeed easy to portray the quadraplegic as the innocent, well-meaning victim, but I dunno – this one strikes me as having more to the picture than a short newspaper article lets on.

    Again, not saying I believe the neighbor lady is right or that the homeowners are wrong or anything; just that it seems to me like there’s more to this story.

    1. I kind of agree. The problem here seems to be that the house doesn’t seem very historic. Suppose some rich guy bought a Frank Loyd Wright and wanted to tear it down so his pet tiger and bubble boy child could have a better house?

      It really seems more of a problem of information. If these people want to have a historic district, fine. Declare one so that every buyer knows what they are buying and can price it accordingly. Here it seems this woman sat on her ass and never bothered to do that until someone had bought the house and wanted to tear it down.

      1. I would be all for that. Frank Lloyd Wright architecture is pure crap.

        1. He’s pretty good with gas stations:

          http://images.publicradio.org/…..or1_33.jpg

          1. Huh? Is it the big boner in the background on the left that makes this work for you?

            < href=”http://lifeat55mph.blogspot.com/2009/09/herman-fasbender-medical-clinic-by.html”>This building of Wright’s was pretty close to my grandma’s house. I was in college before I learned that I was supposed to be in awe of it.

            1. I remember hitting my head on the ceiling in Fallingwater a lot when I visited. It seems that Mr. Wright was a short dickhead who didn’t think ceilings should be taller than 6′ or so. And he couldn’t engineer for shit, either – the famous cantilevered porch at Fallingwater doesn’t have nearly enough steel in it to prevent sagging, so the Pennsylvania Conservancy had to spend a ton of money to shore it up. So the Conservancy sold off a lot of its land holdings, including much of the nature preserve behind my parents’ house, to pay for it. Because a stupid-looking house that some pompous asshole built for a department store family is more worthy of conservation than little birdies.

              In conclusion, fuck Frank Lloyd Wright, yo. And the house in your link looks stupid, Pope Jimbo.

            2. It was SARCASM!

      2. A few years ago some assholes bought a classic Neutra home in Palm Springs so they could tear it down and build a huge McMansion.

        They should be raped to death by Warty.

      3. I agree that there is probably more to the story, but this lady’s words have done enough to indict her in the court of public opinion.

        “I don’t have a disability. Sorry. If I did, maybe I could use that, too.”

        Really? Seriously? I don’t care how much she may be in the right. Fuck that bitch sideways. I wonder how much she will give a fuck about historic zoning laws if she got hit by a bus and became quadriplegic. Oh, NOW you want to build wheelchair access ramp which might not be “allowed” under the retarded historic zoning laws?

        I really don’t need much more of the story to tell what an undeserving whore this lady is.

        1. Remember Libby Edwards talking about how it was too bad her husband wasn’t black like Obama or a woman like Hillary? That’s what it reminded me of.

          I hope Liddy Brown’s husband is cheating on her with some batshit insane hippie chick too.

      4. One question I always had was, why couldn’t the Bubble Boy’s family just get two remotes? They kept making a big deal about how frustrating it was that he had the remote inside the bubble.

        Yes, I know 75% of the plots of Seinfeld episodes make no sense if you assume they have 2000s technology (especially cell phones), but I don’t remember extra remotes being THAT expensive back then.

        1. I can’t remember where I read it, but a suspense writer told an interviewer that cell phones and the collapse of the Soviet Union were the worst two things to ever happen to his profession.

          1. Sounds about right. The internet probably doesn’t help either.

        2. make no sense if you assume they have 2000s technology 2 brain cells to rub together

          I have an easier time suspending my disbelief with cartoons and scifi…

    2. We don’t have the whole story here, that’s for sure. It seems that there is a “heritage” law of some sort – not saying it’s right or wrong or anything; just that if there is a law out there that might apply to a house you’re thinking of buying, it seems to me you should research it and check it out to find out what the potential risks are of buying that house in that neighborhood.

      No, that was pretty well covered in the article, if not in the excerpts in the post. Do you have anything else to add? If not, you seem to be pretty wrong in saying that “it seems to me like there’s more to this story.”

      Do you mean instead that instead of there being more to the story, you rather agree with the other side and think that it is the buyer’s fault for not checking out the laws?

      That would be a more honest statement than your mealy mouthed “it seems to me like there’s more to this story” while bringing up a point already well addressed.

      1. John Thacker –

        You honestly think that short article thoroughly and accurately stated ALL of the facts at play here? It did not at all state or explain what the applicable law is or what the law requires or allows; nor did it mention anything about what those people knew or didn’t know when they bought the house.

        But that is entirely typical with the average news article – short on details, some of which can be significant.

        I suppose I can see how where I wrote I was “not saying I believe the neighbor lady is right or that the homeowners are wrong” might translate in your universe into you thinking that I “rather agree with the other side.” Well, no, actually, I don’t see that, but apparently, you were able to cleverly read through my plain and clear statement and discovered my ulterior motive.

        Do I think that it is “the buyer’s fault for not checking out the laws?” Well, I don’t know, because, as I said before, we clearly don’t know the whole story and all of the relevant facts. But sure, it’s possible there could be some degree of that. Is there a local law identifying that all houses in that area built before a certain year are subject to being declared “historically significant” or some such crap and requiring the owner to get permission from some town board or commission before making major changes to the structure? I don’t know, but it appears to be something like that, based on the limited info in the article. There are many neighborhoods here in the U.S. with such laws – although, again, I’m not speaking in defense of such laws; just saying that they do exist, and if you’re buying a house in such a neighborhood, it seems to me you’ve got some kind of obligation to figure that out before you buy it with the intent to tear it down. Are you arguing that you have zero obligation to at least develop some kind of clue as to what the applicable laws might be where you choose to live?

        If the law does, in fact, provide that the town can come in, after you’ve bought the house, and then declare the house as somehow historically or architecturally significant and prevent you from doing certain things with it, then yeah, I’d say that is a fucked-up law – and I wouldn’t buy a house in that town that had such a law, particularly where it’s an old house that might fall subject to that law.

        But again, I don’t see where the article explained any of these details.

        But if you want to go get yourself a good outrage going based on one brief newspaper article, knock yerself out. Please. Just don’t go trying to tell me what my viewpoint is.

        1. The house was not a historic house, you moron.

    3. When he bought the house, he had written into his purchase contract that he had 4 days to do due diligence before finalizing. He checked the registry of heritage sites, and this house was not on it.

      It was only when there was a newspaper story about it, due to the blog he started about his plans (a mistake, he admits), that the neighbor across the street found out and contacted her counselperson. Also, some woman who has lived in GERMANY for 7 years, but lived in that house as a kid, started a blog trying to SAVE the house.

      At the counsel meeting where it was decided to pursue getting the house listed as a heritage site, a screenshot of this German woman’s blog was entered into the record. The Teehan’s however, were not even informed that a) their house had been already been assessed (at the counselwoman’s direction) to determine if it had “heritage significance” or that b) this was on the agenda (it had been added that morning) so they could speak in their own defense, with their own experts as to its heritage significance.

  24. he bought it

    keywords

  25. That bitch is in need of a good fisting. What a cunt.

    1. Why are you trying to help Ms. Brown? You think she’d DISLIKE a Good Fisting? C’mon man? After trying to buttfuck her neighbors brains’ out?

      (Firefox doesn’t think Fisting is a properly spelled word. Well, Clearly we don’t have to worry about Firefox reading any of the pages we look at.)

      1. BITCH CUNT FUCK SHIT PISS COCKSUCKER TITS

        Look at me! I’m funny!

        1. Come now, Tulpa. Don’t be cunty.

        2. You left off motherfucker

          1. Actually, “bitch” is not one of the Seven Profane Wonders of the Broadcast World. I thought MFer was reduntant with the F-world already there.

  26. Honest question: what’s the libertarian position regarding the follow scenario: My neighbor decides to add ten stories to his house.

    1. He should be allowed to do it. Easy.

      1. Running his hand through his graying black hair, Smith exhaled forcefully and contemplated the proper course of action. He decided to ask his crew to meet with him on the bridge; there he would advise them that while he would continue to explore all options to get them out of this mess, the situation was looking grim. If boarded, he would tell them, he planned to flip the so-called “suicide switch” which would within seconds fill the cabin with Xulyrt gas. This would kill the crew instantly and with any luck take a couple of the Mildren bastards with them.

    2. Does it interfere with your use and enjoyment of your property? E.g., his house is close enough to yours that it would block the sunlight from coming in your windows?

      Or is it just something you would have to look at across the way?

      1. There are traditional “negative easements” of light, lateral support and air that you might be able to claim, based on state and local law.

      2. Certain elements of zoning laws are valid.

      Anyhow, to me, it really depends on whether his exercise of his property rights in using and enjoying his propery infringes upon yours. It’s the old “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose” routine.

    3. Explain to me how you can build a ten story house that will not in any way interfere directly with my property and then ask the question again.

      A ten foot structure would require construction equipment that would most certainly infringe on my property directly.

      1. A ten foot structure would require construction equipment that would most certainly infringe on my property directly.

        Ok, so if your neighbor needs to have his septic tank redug or his driveway repaved, i suppose those are right-out as well? Because he’ll have to temporarily use some of that obnoxious equipment. Or is there some reason a ten story structure requires non-stop construction around it for the rest of its existence?

        And if you mean “his construction crew would be driving/parking/intruding on my lawn” then his property is not large enough to build a 10story structure WITHOUT causing you negative easements, which no one is saying are an invalid enforcement of property rights.

        But how exactly does a wheelchair ramp block your light, air, etc? Or the color or facade of a house?

        In summary, refer to WTF’s post at 3:41.

        1. Wheelchair ramp, septic tank replacement or color/facade change to your dwelling are reasonable maintenance that despite possible temporary infringement on my property are not a big deal.

          Building a 10 story addition would require construction equipment and foundation changes that would permanently alter my property. Not the view from my property, or how it looks next to yours, but my actual property.

          Perhaps this is why people don’t do this unless the government comes along and uses eminent domain to achieve the desired results.

          1. How would such a change to your neighbor’s house permanently alter YOUR property? Unless the houses are directly next to each other.

      2. Explain to me how you can build a ten story house that will not in any way interfere directly with my property and then ask the question again.

        Um – duh.

        Posit that you own 50 acres, and your neighbor owns 100 acres. His house is on the far side of his lot, on the other side of a large hill.

        How does his building a 10-story house affect you at all, if you can’t even see it?

        I suppose you are presuming that these theoretical houses are on small, urban or suburban lots, right next to each other. That was not stated in the original hypothetical.

        1. “Unless the houses are directly next to each other. That was not stated in the original hypothetical.”

          That seems somewhat relevant, no?

    4. It depends. A lot libertarians have very primitive views of property rights. If the zoning laws are there when you bought the house and say you can only go to X height, then you effectively don’t own the right to build that big and should have priced your purchase price accordingly. There is nothing anti-market about zoning laws. If there are no zoning laws, then you still might not be able to build if one of your neighbors owns an easement. But there again, if your neighbor owns an easement, he basically owns a piece of your property that you didn’t get with your purchase price.

      If there is neither zoning nor easement restrictions, you can build anything you want.

      1. He’s asking what happens in libertopia. In libertopia, I guess he compensates you for the extent to which the new building interferes with your enjoyment of your property, or else you sue him.

        That’s assuming we live in a no-zoning libertopia, I suppose. In that libertopia, I have a pony, and my kitties ride my pony and they purr. It’s a very nice libertopia.

      2. There is nothing anti-market about zoning laws.

        True enough, if you mean the zoning laws in place when you bought your property, which you bought subject to the burdens (and benefits) of those laws.

        Its when the applicable law changes that you run into problems.

        Like your narcissistic/psychopathic neighbor petitioning to change the historic status of your house because she likes her view.

        1. True. But I think a lot of libertarians don’t understand the benefits of zoning. Yeah, it sucks I can’t build a pagoda or run a pig farm in my back yard. But, it is also really nice not to worry about my neighbor doing things that will effect my property values.

          You can experience what it is like not to have any city code enforcement or zoning laws in many small towns. And the results are not pretty. It quickly becomes rule by bully. The local asshole who lives next door to older people who have no ability or inclination to confront him physically parks his truck in front of their yard, junks his yard up and generally ruins the quality of life.

          1. parks his truck in front of their yard

            I’m sorry, i missed the part where that’s ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW. Unless they don’t own the curb along their property….. I mean ON THEIR YARD, that’s unquestionably a problem. But a curb that’s Public Property? Fuck, Man, my Mom can’t even get a spot right in front of her house. But hey, its a Public Curb.

            Move? I mean, that will work until your new town’s council ED’s your new curb away from you.

            Also, no desire to denigrate your points about Rule-By-Force. All very valid.

          2. Yeah, it sucks I can’t build a pagoda or run a pig farm in my back yard. But, it is also really nice not to worry about my neighbor doing things that will effect my property values.

            Yeah….wow, John, it’s almost like people can associate together and create rules which allow them to live peaceably with one another…amazing, like a civilization or something almost…

          3. The minute you bring up property value, you lose the argument. “Property value” is a fiction, propped up by local government’s continual need to expand property tax revenue.

            1. Property value is not a fiction. I don’t know what world you live in. But in my world when you have hillbilly neighbors your house is worth less and harder to sell.

              1. Sure, that happens, but it’s not really a good basis for an argument. In our world as well your property values might increase if you take your neighbor’s home by eminent domain and give it to someone who will build a nicer place. Or your property might be worth less if people decide that your neighborhood is no longer cool. Or if the government refuses to bail out the local industry.

                Simply saying that it affects property values is NOT sufficient justification.

              2. That may be, John. In which case, the value of your property is what someone will give you for it, isn’t it? The property value arguments presuppose that there is an existing independent value for the property that is affected by the actions of your neighbors. But since you don’t have hard offers in your hand from before your neighbor painted his house yellow with pink polka-dots and after, you don’t really know, do you? It’s harebrained speculation dressed up as “appraisal” and everybody agrees to it because it’s useful. But it’s not real, and acting like there is a real, independent value is a shitty basis for public policy.

                1. In which case, the value of your property is what someone will give you for it, isn’t it?

                  Did that dictionary you tripped on hurt your toes much?

              3. If you move in next to hillbillies and you don’t want to be next to hillbillies then there is nothing the government can do to save you. If can afford a home in a expensive area then you generally don’t have to worry about hillbillies moving in next to you…if you can’t then maybe YOU ARE the hillbilly.

              4. The market has done more to devalue property than what any hillbilly could do. Not that I’m against markets, just sayin.

      3. A lot of libertarians would say that zoming laws are inherently anti-competative. That such laws, even when in place at the time of purchase, can only restrict the fair use of your property. Ie. if there are zoming laws that restrict use, then you don’t really totally own the property.

        1. zoning – duh… did twice, jeez

        2. Sure, but when you buy property, you always buy it “as is”, subject to whatever burdens it has on that day.

          I dunno about a foolish consistency, but ideological purity is certainly the hobgoblin of little minds.

          I don’t know that there has ever been some kind of “pure” property right, where you can do absolutely anything at all on your property, without any regard for its affect on your neighbors or anyone else. Nor do I think there should be. For example, you have never been free to change your land so that runoff drains onto your neighbor’s land, or to dam up running water so that it no longer runs through your neighbor’s land.

          Zoning is just a codification and extension, in some ways, of the old principles of nuisance and negative easements.

          1. I would agree, RC Dean, and just because a law resticts liberty in some way, doesn’t mean its a bad law. the right to punch may end where your nose begins, but if I walked around all day fake-punching you in the nose repeatedly while you were going to work, eating dinner, grocery shopping – any sane person would say you should be able to get a restraining order. We still have to be able to live with each other. It’s still a leviathan we are after, we just want a much much smaller one than most people.

    5. Honest question: what’s the libertarian position regarding the follow scenario: My neighbor decides to add ten stories to his house.

      Why does it have to come down to ridiculous comparisons like this? Couldn’t we easily ask, nay, demand that your neighbors vet the paint color that you’re using in the baby room? See how this works?

      1. When I said “honest question,” I meant it. I wasn’t trying to nail a libertarian. (We all know progressives are better in the sack.)

        I guess my real question is how do you balance property rights with the externalities often produced on private property?

        And thanks, everyone, for the responses. They were helpful.

        1. externalities

          Drink?

          You don’t balance property rights with anything else. You balance them with OTHER property rights. MINE VERSUS YOURS (if we were neighbors.) We both have a right to them (each of ours respectively, not mine-to-yours etc.), and that’s where it gets sticky.

          But that’s the balancing act. We don’t just abandon property rights in favor of committee management because “its tough to work this stuff out, waaaaahhhhh.”

  27. Explain to me how you can build a ten story house that will not in any way interfere directly with my property and then ask the question again.

    Well, if you were a real man and owned a quarter-section, you’d know the answer to this question.

    1. 10 stories underground, with a nondescript “Wild Life Preserve” on top? Really just a forest lot with some signs that say “Waring: Year Round Hunting. No Wabbits Allowed.” That’s my solution at least.

  28. Fucking neighbors…

    1. I would like to add that even as a libertarian, I admit that Government is just the tool… the neighbor is the arm that swings it.

      1. Which is why Limited Gov’t and Liberty are better than giving you neighbor the biggest stick you can find.

  29. To Elizabeth Brown’s mother:

    Mrs. Brown, you’ve got a fucked-up daughter.

  30. Great question by Mike, it was hilarious to see the resident goofballs here tripping over themselves to try to answer it.

    1. Especially that first answer. Christ, what an asshole.

      1. Exactly. This is a Utopian scenario for our leftist trolls. I expect to see Dan T., Tony and the others to start working to get Ms. Elizabeth Brown elected to high office. After all, she has empathy. You know she does because she says so.

  31. Re. heritage houses: they sound like a colossal pain in the ass. My great aunt has a heritage house in Toronto, and there are all kind of rules on how she can use it or alter it. She also gives tours, but I’m pretty sure this is voluntary. Weird Ontarians.

  32. Honest question: what’s the libertarian position regarding the follow scenario: My neighbor decides to add ten stories to his house.

    Are there any outstanding burdens or easements on your neighbor’s property? Will the construction damage your land? Will the resulting structure be an unreasonable nuisance in your neighborhood? There are a lot of questions that have to be answered first.

    1. All questions more valid than “will it mess up my view?”

    2. No to the first two. How are we defining “unreasonable?”

      1. Define nuisance.

  33. Sounds like it needs to accidentally burn to the ground. Then they’d have an insurance settlement with which to build the new house.

    For those keeping score: No, I’m not actually advocating arson here.

  34. I live on the edge of their neighbourhood (not technically the same ward, but with a good gust of wind I could pee into it from my roof, and I just might), and have been the property manager of a heritage building in Toronto. As a neighbour, I couldn’t possibly imagine a world in which I cared less about what the Teehans do with their house. From the perspective of my experience with heritage buildings, Ms. Brown has earned “worst neighbour ever” status for her attempt to subject someone to the hellish bureaucracy that is trying to maintain a heritage building in compliance with the code.

    1. You are a great person. I agree so so much with what u wrote. Hope u r not offended

  35. Hmmm…

    Based on this comment, “I don’t have a disability. Sorry. If I did, maybe I could use that, too.”, it sounds like Elizabeth Brown (and possibly Sandra Bussin) needs to have a little chat with a Human Rights Commission.

  36. Don’t you just wish, sometimes, that gov’ts like those of, and in, Canada, were of men, and not laws? So that every case would be decided by a jury or a wise man, or a plebiscite, bound by no set rules? If there were no rules about or instituting historic preservation, no way they’d let this lady affect that one’s property, even if the jury or plebiscite or wise man were allowed to do anything to anybody at any time for any reason.

    So I wonder whether liberalism is a net gain over Godwinian style anarchism. It gets you more predictability, but at the price of making nearly everybody feel awful much of the time.

  37. She should sell the house to a relative, and then rent it from them, and then they’d be REQUIRED BY LAW to destroy it to build a handicapped accessible one.

  38. Not trying to threadjack but
    http://www.fox16.com/news/loca…..px?rss=315

  39. They should take up smoking. A smoldering cigar left on the couch cushion might solve this whole problem.

  40. Your original post was incorrect.

    1) The couple had a desire to build a new “modern” home in the area, a desire that predated the wife’s illness. So now they’re building one that just happens to accomodate her needs.

    2) The husband said in an interview that they didn’t want to demolish their old home, not because it couldn’t accommodate a wheelchair accessible home on the lot size (it could have), but because they had put a lot into renovating it and felt that demolishing it would have been a waste. In other words, their old lot would have suited a wheelchair accessible home just fine.

    This situation has nothing to do with the wife’s illness.

    It has everything to do with people who want to preserve the current home that is there (and therefore preserve the look of the street) instead of having a box “modern” home built on the site. There are other home designs that can also accommodate the wife’s illness that would better fit the neighbourhood.

    Yet you’ve fallen for the “nasty neighbour vs. handicapped wife” angle.

    How does it feel to be a sheep?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.