"Stinger" wrote in message
.. .
Different strokes for different folks, Frank.

In my view, I didn't give up anything when I built in a neighborhood with
restrictive covenants. Instead, I gained the peace-of-mind that the
neighborhood wouldn't decay. I gained "rights" as I agreed to covenants
that I would have followed anyway, because my neighbors will as well.


Many areas with restrictive covenants DO decay. The homes get old and out
of date. The shingles aren't replaced often enough and so on. The
covenants generally do not and cannot force a specific maintenance cyle on
people. I seen some very run down areas that had covenants. Yeah the grass
was mowed and there weren't any junk cars but the houses looked old and
tired.

Your "public sector versus private sector" infringement of rights
arguments
isn't simply valid in this case because it is voluntary. My rights are
just
fine, thank you.


While you have every right to sign away rights, the rest of it will continue
to consider it foolish.

However I do agree that there are plenty of cases where the public sector
(government) does infringe on the rights of private property owners. I am
vehemently against it. I believe it is unconstitutional for a city
government to use eminent domain laws to force an owner of private
property
to sell it (so the government can grant the land to a developer who will
build a shopping center) because the government will make more tax revenue
on a new shopping center. Yet this is happening time and again all over
the
United States. It' just plain wrong.


That is not the purpose of eminent domain laws. If the law has been abused
in such a manner, then the citizens affected should be filing a class action
suit.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE