Quote:
Originally Posted by jaydorn
Obvious Troll is Obvious.
Fact, this group didn't like looking at an empty ugly lot, so they put a lot of effort into improving the looks. Like it or not this is no different than cutting down trees that don't belong to you because you want a better view.
Millionaires wanted a better view of the city, cut down trees.
Non-millionaires wanted a better view of their community, planted potatoes in decorative tire planters.
The "feeding the community" angle is just a red herring to distract from their ultimate intention of having a nicer view from their home.
Now, we can agree or disagree that the by product of these actions (lost public trees VS community food) are not equal, but don't act like the motivators were any different.
But hey, keep on raging against the machine if you must. |
I think that's a bit of a stretch. The motivations may be similar from a certain angle, but the tactics and circumstances are quite different.
Covert in the middle of the night vs. open and notorious in the light of day.
Public property vs. private property.
The "better view" aspect has some different circumstances too it seems. I think there's a difference between an obstructed view of something in the distance and a view of the subject property itself. Further, I don't think it's necessarily the "view" in the same sense in both cases. The built/urban form has effects that go beyond the directly visual. It has a psychological impact in that it forms your sense of place. In my opinion, the issues surrounding the vacant private lot in question have more to do with this than the Britannia case, which purportedly is more to do with the simplistic visual view aspect.
Not saying either are justified at the end of the day. I just think the cases bring up different issues and came about under different circumstances. Saying "both are about having/not having a view of something" is overly simplistic.