Over at the Anti-Planner is a continuation of the display of communitarianism that I’ve written about concerning the Hathaway House in Laconia (here and here). His story is not about a building but a tree that his neighbors seem to believe that they should have more say about the disposition of that tree than the owner has (reformatted, emphasis mine)…and, oh yeah, the blogger he references merely rents and is not an owner in the neighborhood:
That’s right, trees. Specifically, I want to talk about the decision made by a Somerville neighbor of mine to fell an old, beautiful, and perfectly healthy tree because it was “in the way” of his backyard improvement project — in the process adversely affecting the quality of life for me and several of my neighbors. Is it crazy or un-American to suggest that, at a certain point, a tree is no longer one person’s private property per se, and belongs to the community? And at that point, should the property owner be restricted as to what he or she may do with said tree?
No, it is not crazy to suggest it – merely that you are trying to rationalize that, deep down, you have no problem in being a thief without admitting it.




