TheCSO and I had an interesting argument yesterday and never did quite settle it.
It came about because of something that happened at my high school when I was there. My senior year, the year after we had a 40th anniversary party for the school, the neighborhood around the school started to make a big fuss because *gasp* teenagers were *gasp* parking in front of their houses.
I wrote the editorial for the school paper on the issue, pointing out that almost everyone in the neighborhood hadn't been there 42 years and had moved in knowing a high school was there. In addition, the residents around the high school got access to free tennis courts and a lighted track when the school wasn't in session. It's not like the students were parking on the residents' property.
I still tend to think this way. If you buy a house next to a chicken plant or a railroad track, you're already paying less for it because of the smell and the noise. To start complaining about these undesirable qualities and try to get the government to more strictly regulate chicken plants and trains doesn't strike me as fair.
A few exceptions:
1. Anything that is unsafe by current government standards. (e.g. If you move in down the street from a factory that turns out to be polluting)
2. You can feel free to fight against anything new in the neighborhood.
TheCSO's position, basically, is that I'm wrong. (I may get him to elaborate on that.)
Addendum: The houses near my high school were standard suburban yuppie houses. They had driveways.
Do the students have their own parking lot? I lived in a neighborhood that had this problem and their solution was to ticket anyone parking in a certain area between 8-5 pm. That area happened to be in front of my house (because you could cut through the yard and go to the school). I was ticketed on a number of occasions--by a rule intended to punish kids for taking my spot!
I wrote to the city, asking them to spend the money to make us stickers or something, but never heard back.
For that reason, I'm biased against kids parking anywhere other than their school lot. Plus, if you only have street parking, it clogs up pretty quickly if non-residents park there.
The lot wasn't big enough.
To build a parking deck would have been really expensive and come at taxpayer cost.
Given that the taxpayers had already paid for a street wide enough to let the residents park on it when they had driveways anyway, I didn't see the need.
I agree with you. Here in Las Vegas, there's a pig farm that used to be way out north of town on the edge of the desert. Of course, now, the city of North Las Vegas has developed out to meet said pig farm, and there are many new residents in the area complaining to the city government about the fact that it smells. In my opinion, the government should always respond to such silliness with "Maybe you shouldn't have bought a house near a pig farm".
It sounds like they (city) drastically underestimated how many cars would need to occupy the school parking lot. Nowadays most teens in the suburbs drive and many have their own cars.
The school should look at ways to implement carpooling. But that would mean adults setting an example.
CC -- Since you asked, I basically agree with you on this one.
Post a Comment