€ Dr. Artaud € wrote:

C wrote in :

http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/4512146/detail.html

1. Years ago, we had a CBer in the neighborhood that had plywood shutters
over all the first floor windows, with tiny tank style openings to see
from. It is believed that this individual was a habitual jammer on CB. He
was even astute enough to bring the coax out of the second floor wall,
thereby reducing the likelihood that anyone would "pin" or cut the wire.

I wonder if the shutters were covered with foil on the inside?

2. Eyesores, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Whether the people are
lunatics or not, what they do on their property is their concern. I don't
hold to the theory of regulating how another person's property looks.
Increasingly, zoning has gone from control of significant differences in
real-estate to anal control over the permissible length of a blade of
grass or whether or not an Amateur Radio Operator can install an antenna.

Yes, zoning has gotten out of control. 1950s zoning patterns have become
locked into place. If you have any question about the appropriateness of
suburban zoning, a visit to South LA should clear up any doubt. Cities
with mixed zoning and that lack vast parking lots, such as New York and
San Francisco, are widely recognized as being more livable and better
for human health (physical and mental) and the environment. Yet 1950s
suburban zoning persists, creating ever wider rings of suburban ghettoes
that have become "unfashionable" because of smaller homes and older
shopping centers, leaving them to the poor and desperate while whites
expand cities ever further out in order to get away from the encroaching
destitution. Places that figured prominently in the 1992 LA riots, such
as Inglewood, were fashionable whites only middle class suburbs 50-60
years ago.


We have a lunatic Nazi enforcer of borough laws next door. When we moved
into this house (my wife's house from childhood), the lady next door, the
Borough Council vice president, proceeded to tell me that I should cut
down this tree and that tree and all the trees on the property.
(therefore she would not need to rake leaves). I didn't listen.

Tell her that the trees are there to provide you with an oxygen supply,
and that if she doesn't like it she should stop breathing your spillover
oxygen.

Another
time she was obsessed with the small roll of cable that I left below my
Direct TV antenna. It was not bothering anyone but her. My son bought a
car to fix up, and it was not licensed. When my wife and I went away for
the weekend, my son called us to tell us that the police had driven up
onto our property and ticketed the car as abandoned. It was on our
property. The idiot next door believed that this would rid the
neighborhood of the car, but my wife out maneuvered her. We had the car
licensed with Classic car plates and obtained insurance for it. So there
it remained, in the same spot, still an eyesore to her, but a legal
eyesore.

If it isn't dangerous, (e.g. rat infested or poses a safety problem to
others), I say leave them alone. A rose is a rose by any other name. My
lunatic neighbor has fine looking property, but she is a nut case that
makes living here difficult at times. Others are not so pristine, yet
much easier to live with. The lunatic neighboors in the link above will
still be lunatics when the steel panels are removed. Is it fair to allow
someone else to move into the neighborhood under false pretenses?

Theoretically, since the front yards are unfenced in this neighborhood
and according to TV reports the sheet metal was just propped up (not
secured) it COULD fall onto a kid who wanders into the yard for a closer
look. I suppose if that happened the parents would sue the city. So
there could be a logical reason for being so anal.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

running dogg wrote in
:

Not only do the trees supply oxygen that the neighbor no doubt uses, but
they dampen the ludicrous 1000 mile an hour winds that we get here. I
have never seen anything like it, you can go to the front of the house
during a storm, all seems reasonable, yet go to the rear of the house,
sheesh, you're looking for the tornado. Without the trees I would imagine
that the wind's effects on my house and the house of my neighbor would be
much worse.

This woman is definitely no tree hugger. Some people obsess about leaves
on the ground, I obsess about leaves on the tree. I lived near Frederick
Maryland years ago, and they had a sterile park, nice grass, but no
trees. In Hagerstown Maryland, their park was older, we would go there to
enjoy the afternoon, trees galore.

I saw the picture of the sheet metal, and I could see how some people
might be concerned, especially if it may pose a safety hazard. This
aside, have you seen some of the modern sculptures in some cities, the
one in Downtown Pittsburgh looks more like a plane wreck than anything
else. If the city desires this, they shouldn't be obsessed with
peculiarities on people property, as long as it is safe.

Regards,

Dr. Artaud

Tell her that the trees are there to provide you with an oxygen
supply, and that if she doesn't like it she should stop breathing your
spillover oxygen.

If it isn't dangerous, (e.g. rat infested or poses a safety problem
to others), I say leave them alone.


Theoretically, since the front yards are unfenced in this neighborhood
and according to TV reports the sheet metal was just propped up (not
secured) it COULD fall onto a kid who wanders into the yard for a
closer look. I suppose if that happened the parents would sue the
city. So there could be a logical reason for being so anal.