Oh Come On

There is an old story called "Dog In The Manger" and I don't need to retell it. Amazingly, in this cosmopolitan world, we still have people who are those kinds of puppies. They want everything to stay as it is, unless they make the change, and if anyone tries to make a change, however small, adding or shaving off a bit, they become very reactionary. For example, I  park next to someone who doesn't want anyone stepping over the painted line into his parking space. Not a step, he tells me. Now, what harm is going to take place if someone steps over that line? He does not hold the deed to the space, he is merely assigned to it. His sense of ownership, however misplaced, is so strong that he secretly photographs the area so that he can learn who steps over his lines. They will hear from him, and vociferously. Unfortunately, I drew the parking spot next to him and my car is wide and  it isn't always possible not to toe a bit over his line. He has confronted me about it. Oh come on. Another example of the Manger Dog attitude is when someone builds something next to another lot or makes some perfectly legal changes that are regarded as offensive to its neighbour, a conflict often results. One of the neighbourhoods I know of, had an individual build a home next lot over, and painted the exterior of his modern house, a very dark brown, bordering on black. It looks stunning and appropriate for his structure, but it is different from some of the surrounding homes. Instead of welcoming the newcomer to the block, the neighbours, inspired by the man next door, made a huge fuss, hieing off to the local newspaper, decrying what they called the deterioration of the street with the "offensive" new dark coloured building. Oh come on. Now what is the harm? It is likely that the owner worries that his investment looks shabby compared to the new smart, dark one beside him. Or does he simply dislike the colour? Does one have the right to deny others of their rights to choose a style or paint colour? Unless there is a neighbourhood association or complex ruling, people are able to paint their houses as they choose, in relatively good taste, of course. Then, there are hillside concerns, particularly where water views are involved. In view locations, views are jealously protected and when another person interferes with a new edifice that impedes the other's view to any degree, there is trouble. Oh come on. It is understandable, but sometimes we have to compromise, hard as it is, even when views must be shared in part. Unless there is some kind of law that forbids the latter happening, it will and does happen. It's called buyer beware. Bylaws do not necessarily protect owners in all cases. They can be changed. I found another odd situation the other day in which residents in a certain  condominium building, found that another building was to be constructed next to theirs. At present there is a house there. The residents at the side of the condo building, complain that a multi-unit structure next to theirs will take away their privacy, They say the new units can look into their sundecks and windows. Windows have a habit of looking both ways, I think they forget. The property was bought by a developer who constructs very beautiful places just like the one the protesters live in. Why do they think they can stop anyone from constructing a building on the private property owned next door. There is no reason, since their views are not impeded any more than they are now, nor is the sunlight. At present, while not a building, very tall trees border each property and no one complains about their height impeding sunlight or views.  Oh come on.