Given that the neighbor has already complained about the offensive smell, and the town ruled in favor of the smell-producers, I see no reason how this is a logical conclusion.

Taso,

It's a different legal issue.

It smells like rainbows IMO.

I think his point is a good one,

1: zoning laws are stupid

2: this is the type of problem that needs to be handled in a private court NOT by politicians pandering to public opinion

3: damage done to the non-pony property needs to be compensated

LOL! Post of the month!!

but the town already said that the pony is fine, despite the smell, because its (lol) 'therapy'

and that is why this needs to be done in a private court away from the pandering "compassionate" mayor

ACforum thread - TR: neighbor hasn't mowed his lawn in 10 days - laser shark en route.

NeBlis,

I don't see what public vs. private court has to do with anything. I also never asserted that zoning laws were stupid.

Taso,

You don't seem to be getting the legal point. The grant of the variance in the zoning laws does not say anything about whether the neighbor could win an action for nuisance. If you want to say the courts are gonna be prejudiced, I mean, I guess, but why can't we worry about that after the neighbor actually files the appropriate lawsuit?

What basis do you have for saying that this person is pandering or that he or she didn't sincerely feel some compassion for this child?

OMG let the kid have his fricking pony, who cares.

The kid can have his pony but something should be worked out to compensate the neighbor who has to smell it all-day everyday.

I don't give a ****. I don't live next to the pony amirite?

I guess I should read the article first, I didn't see that the neighbor actually complained first.

Knowing that I have no opinion on this anymore.

Why does everyone believe the neighbors have no interpersonal or legal recourse here?

It's obvious they are bending the rules. What is not so obvious is that:

1. Why being compassionate means you rule in favor of one of the two parties.

2. If they only ruled based on some personal bias, that their rules and laws mean nothing.

3. That she's trying to speak for the entire community in trying to justify their ruling. We know of at least one person who feels otherwise.

4. If it's really just that the kid's family wins the case, then on what basis? Are the rules and laws wrong? If so, how? Have they been changed now?

5. The town and the staff can be adequately described as 'the community'. So the only legal comment we read in this article, from the ruling power, is that: 'the community has been very compassionate, because the community is very compassionate'.



JayTeeMe's last post is consistent with libertarian principle.

because the law is not about feeling sorry for the poor kid or letting the parents assuage their guilt by giving him pony rides. It is about property and the right of a neighbor to protect his from poop stink. Right or wrong the law exists and the neighbor should have recourse under it. Zoning laws are not about warm fuzzies IMO

well said

I new Neilsio

seriously well written Nielsio

Libertarians defending the unilateral enforcement of laws of a state they object to anyway seems weird, imo. Also as I've said this like a jillionty times at this point, but the neighbor still has plenty of options, including some legal ones, for dealing with the smell problem.

e: Also, you guys are being huge noobers with these accusations of bias. There's exactly one legal question here: how does the zoning statute define "livestock." If it says "a pony is always livestock regardless of the purpose of its ownership," sure, I'd agree it's biased to find otherwise, but did any of you actually bother to look up the statute before slinging these accusations around?

a. not all libertarians are anti-state, in fact few are it only seems that way here.

b. I think most of them are objecting to the uneven distribution of justice in this case. Special pleading lead to a bad decision, sort of an argument from evil for the state if you will.

c. if this were a private court matter, as I believe all libertarians would want it to be, then the pulling of heart strings element would be removed.

No, that's what nuisance laws are about. Zoning is about preserving the specific character of specific areas (e.g. residential, agrarian, industrial). The law is not "you can't keep smelly things on your property;" it's "you can't keep livestock."

Except no one has shown this is actually a bad ruling.

How?

I agree here is the best version of the the zoning law I could find. http://www.town.caledon.on.ca/townha...aw_2006-50.asp

It does not define livestock but her is what I found out side of that.

definitions of livestock:



Seriously a horse or pony is livestock no matter how you slice it. I agree that the neighbor is probably just being a jerk but none the less if your going to have a law you need to keep it IMO.