Quote:
Originally Posted by timun
The "let 'er buck" situation is a reductionist argument on my part; I'm not really advocating for it (I think it's a terrible idea), just musing aloud what might happen.
But speaking of strawmen, the ARP being used as justification for overturning the restrictive covenant is a strawman of a sort. The conflict with the ARP exists because the City passed an ARP that conflicts with the restrictive covenant. The City created the "conflict". This is part and parcel of why I think this situation is nucking futs.
|
There's no conflict here. The city used restrictive covenants as a sort of precursor to land use bylaws. As the city is the covenantee they have the right to amend or remove the covenant as they see fit.