Quote Originally Posted by Goofball
I think he just wants to rant about people who are acting perfectly within their rights of property ownership, but are still offensive in how they are exercising their property rights.

However, I'm curious CR. If my house was directly across the street from your kid's elementary school, and I decided that by way of exercising my rights to do whatever I wanted with my property I would erect (pun intended) a 30' tall statue of Mohammed doing Jesus doggie-style in my front yard, would you still be entirely supportive of my rights as a property owner? Or would you sign the petition that would surely circulate among my neighbors demanding that I get rid of my modern art masterpiece?
I'd oppose it on basis of obscenity and public display of indecent material to children. I wouldn't oppose a sign saying 'praise Allah', but pornographic material I will oppose.

Since Curry only expressed his displeasure with the situation, and didn't mention anything about forcing the people to his will, approaching the government, or whatever, I think CR's assertion that he wants to control what other people do with their land is the best candidate for a straw man in this thread.

Ajax
I asked only a simple question, which, given the vitriol Curry expressed for the developers, is only fair, methinks.

In the US, this attitude is widespread, especially among people who move to an area and then want all further development to cease, and the country people to change their lifestyles (I'm not saying Curry's guilty of this).

My family lives on a nice bit of country land, but the city is creeping closer. It'll spoil a bit (but not most) of the view - my main concern is bliss-a-ninny city idiots calling the cops should I happen to do some target practice with a shotgun ("OMG!!11! There's a man, and he's shooting a GUN!! GAH!!!1111!one ARREST HIM!!!!").

Crazed Rabbit