Johnny Au
Senior Member
Not me though. Why would I use city property as my personal canvas?So you're confessing to the antics you did as a kid? Say three Our Father's and one Al Chet.
Not me though. Why would I use city property as my personal canvas?So you're confessing to the antics you did as a kid? Say three Our Father's and one Al Chet.
Ellen Burgess is leading the campaign to stop the city's tree-planting efforts in the small nameless park in her neighbourhood.
"If you give people more places to hide, more naughty things will be done," she said.
She believes more trees will lead to more crime.
"We've had a significant increase in our little corner of the world and we are trying to put a stop to it," Burgess told the Calgary Eyeopener on Tuesday.
Not just Amazonia, but much of Indonesia as wellNot Toronto - but still funny:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/tree-puns-brentwood-residents-oppose-tree-planting-1.3749728
Guess the denuded/clear-cut Amazonia is the next port of call. Calgarians should watch out for the baby boom however - since "naughty" things are happening. That, or the theory of gravity.
AoD
I actually don't consider all those examples to be NIMBYs (although admittedly all have been mentioned in this thread). I'm quite sympathetic to the woman who has to live next to that tree fort, and think the media has gotten that story all wrong (as has been discussed at length on these forums). And whether it is on Bleecker Street or elsewhere, the widespread use of airbnb can have some pretty negative adverse planning impacts, and it's a legitimate issue as to whether people and companies can effectively use houses as commercial hotels in residential zones that otherwise would not permit such uses. Don't get me wrong, airbnb has its place, but as a city we need to do a better job figuring out when and where it is appropriate.
But, yeah, the hydro pole, the noisy toddlers, the people near the brewery, people who move next to transit and then are shocked to discover they live next to transit, etc. ... all appalling. Greatest hits, indeed.
[...] The media (and people at large) often don't take the time to grasp nuance.
Sure a tree fort is OK; however, not if its the size of guest house and situated 20-30ft in the air. [...]
I agree with that, AoD. If it was me, I would be annoyed, as much as this neighbour Kotra is.
But when I look at the neighbour's front yard on Google streetview, and where the porta potty is located vis-a-vis the neighbour's driveway and front door, James' comments above are well taken. This may have more to do with curb appeal than actual impacts. Also, on a general basis I wonder where contractors could typically put a porta potty on a residential lot without it potentially impacting the front or rear yards of at least one neighbour.
At a minimum, the rules under the Occupational Health and Safety Act should be enforced to ensure the thing doesn't smell from any distance.
I should note that this construction site is at the end of the New Haven Drive cul-de-sac. On the other side of this lot, there appear to be the rear walls of garages serving houses on Latimer Avenue. Without ever having visited this street, it strikes me that the porta potty could have gone on the other side of the lot without impacting a different neighbour. Maybe that's why Kotra is so annoyed in these circumstances.
...and make some income out of it as well by charging per use, given that water used to flush toilets isn't free most of the time, the water used to wash hands isn't free most of the time, and the toilet paper isn't free most of the time. The owner can provide the construction workers with magazines or newspapers to read (though they shouldn't flush those down the toilet; the construction workers would have to be fined by the owners for any damage caused by blockage). After all, even construction companies have to pay for the port-a-potty rental service.How do you transport and service a port a potty without a road? In case you haven't noticed, they're rather bulky.
I've lived and worked next to lots with these things on them before. This complaint is absurd.
Here's my suggestion to this family: get rid of the port a potty and let the construction workers use your bathroom if it's making you so upset. Problem solved.
...and make some income out of it as well by charging per use, given that water used to flush toilets isn't free most of the time, the water used to wash hands isn't free most of the time, and the toilet paper isn't free most of the time. The owner can provide the construction workers with magazines or newspapers to read (though they shouldn't flush those down the toilet; the construction workers would have to be fined by the owners for any damage caused by blockage). After all, even construction companies have to pay for the port-a-potty rental service.