Quote:
Originally Posted by frinkprof
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.
|
I guess I just don't agree, all your points are quite valid. But it's mostly splitting hairs over schematics (eg: dollar value, immediate impact, public/private property) in my opinion. Both cases ultimately come down to improving the immediate environment/visual appeal for certain property owners or residents.
Having said that, if you stick the tree cutters & the potato planters in front of a judge one after another I'd certainly hope the book would be thrown at the tree cutters and the potato planters would get off with a simple clean up order.
But like I said, the
motivation for both is very much the same. Both were acting on the premise of "how can I improve this view?"