Sorry, but people who do this sort of thing to their neighbours, like Mr. Solar Panel has done to his, should be forced to screen their ugly structures and should be fined big bucks.

Next thing you know you will have to cut trees down on *your* property so that your neighbour can have sunlight for their solar panels.

Green = religion, there really is no difference at all.

How do you get graffiti off a solar panel?

Turns out Mr. Solar Panel is a retired philosophy professor. You would think a philosophy professor would be able to see that Green = religion.

It is truly amazing how many people have been fooled by the green scam. I'm not sure there has been anything like it in the history of the world.

Another step in the tyranny of green.

The provincial government is offering a good contract to buy energy from small producers such as homeowners to encourage solar panels manufacturing in Ontario.

Yeah, sure. 15-20 times the going rate per kWh is a "good" contract for the guy receiving his green welfare check, and an abysmal deal for the taxpayer funding this idiotic scheme.

"it's a win for the homeowner because he can sell the energy generated for an estimated $500 a month."

".....Mayer said once his panels start generating in a few weeks they will put out 5.6 kilowatts an hour""

This professor obviously isn't an engineer or in the sciences. Those numbers & units just won't work.

"How do you get graffiti off a solar panel?"

Speedy, I've lived in that great, gritty little steel town. I figure somebody's likely to put a rock through them.

What an arsehole... Makes me very thankful for my great neighbours.

And it never occurs to the greenies that these panels block sunlight from the land beneath and nothing can grow -- especially significant where there are giant solar farms. Uses up arable land, prevents green growth and hence inhibits photosynthesis the latter of which is necessary to process CO2 (carbon emissions) and turn it into oxygen WHICH EVERY LIVING CREATURE DEPENDS ON TO BREATHE!

Meanwhile the developing countries (the world's biggest polluters) are laughing at us while we are sucked into the green scam. For example China -- which steals the technology from us -- manufactures it with cheap practically slave labour then sells it back to us at a huge profit.

For example the City of Toronto under the last Mayor got sucked into wasting millions on solar panels purchased from China for a "low income" housing project downtown. Meanwhile the Chinese are laughing in their beer -- they just keep building coal-fire plants, could care less about the environment, and sell us back the technology they stole from us in the first place while our eco-fanatics try to shut down whatever viable industry we have left!

Let's see, 5.6 Kw/H, average of 4 hours of sunlight per day, say 30 days a month. $500.00 income. Works out to about $.744 per Kw/H.
Here in Alberta I am paying $.07 per Kw/H.
Looks like a great deal for Ontario Hydro.

"They are giving people a 20-year contract of buying back power at a higher rate,"

Buddy, you're 89 years old. You're not going to be around for 20 years. Show's you how rich the pensions are for these guys. He drops $42,000 on this project and doesn't even need to borrow the money.

It is well known that very small meteorites sometimes come down to earth in "swarms". They can do considerable damage to things like solar panels.

One other note....I trust this "gentleman" will be declaring the income and will get the appropriate business licenses, etc?

"He drops $42,000 on this project and doesn't even need to borrow the money. "

Sounds like he should have, "....However, he can't afford the expense of paying for tall trees installed by a nursery, as was suggested to him."

"Mayer originally considered solar panels for the roof of his home but the southern exposure was not adequate, he said."

So what exposure does he prefer then? Some 25 by 10 feet, would these not fit on a roof? Do you get the idea the guy was perhaps being a bit provocative with this "green" project? Not only is it an eyesore, it prevents any use of the land in the shadow of this monstrosity. He could be growing his own food and reducing his carbon footprint all at once.

I agree with TJ. Soon people will be required to cut down their own trees if they interfere with someone else's solar panels. Another reason why the roof would have been a better choice.

I'm not a fan of green ideas, but I'm even less a fan bossy neighbors who turn thier taste or tolerance problems into my problems.

The best part of this article is the slate grey sky in the background of the photo.

He's 78 (now) and looking at an eight year payback?!
For $42K he could be lying on a beach in St. Maartin, having coconut oil rubbed onto his fun bits, instead of shovelling grimy snow...

No no I wasn't suggesting someone do it. I was merely curious. Do solvents affect them because it seems scrubbing with a wire brush would be sub optimal.

Interesting. Five years ago I looked into the possibility of taking myself off the grid and relying solely on wind and solar power. After researching costs etc, I came to the conclusion that I could not do this in an economical manner. Essentially, by the time the equipment started paying for itself, I would have to replace the whole thing (solar panels and turbines) because the equipment would have come to the end of its operational life. My research led to the only viable "green" (and reliable) power generation solution was a small hydro-electric generator (which exists commercially)but also requires a river. Therefore, using the cost-benefit analysis and taking into account the cost of a kWhr at the time the whole idea was a money LOSER. I think Premier Dalton McGuinty here in Ontario is attempting to increase the price of electricity so high that it would make economical sense to make such a massive capital outlay for such equipment. This is stupid and every Ontarian who votes for this guy and his minions(I missed the last election because I was in Afghanistan) should be deported to Cuba.

"Mayer said once his panels start generating in a few weeks they will put out 5.6 kilowatts an hour."

Like ChrisinMB said, the units are wrong. Proof yet again of the technical illiteracy of the MSM.

I did some rough calculations, and as far as I can see, Mayer's numbers are out to lunch. Follow along, if you will.

First: his array is 8.3 by 3.3 meters, that's 27.4 m^2.

Second: average insolation for southern Ontario is 320 watts per square meter.

Third: theoretical maximum efficiency for a PV panel is 30%.

The product of those three values will be the peak power the panel is capable of producing, in this case about 2.6 kilowatts. Now Mayer is quoted in the story as saying the panel will deliver all that in 4 hours each day. I take that to mean that the 4 hours bracketing local noon is when the panel runs at at it's peak output; it will produce at a lower rate rate, the lower the Sun is in the sky, of course.

So take his 4 hour figure, and multiply it by 2.6 kW, and you get 10.4 kWh per day of actual energy produced and "sold to the grid". Note that I haven't even addressed the matter of an inverter, which will be less than 100% efficient. These are best-case numbers.

So if McSquinty is paying $0.70 per kWh for "green" energy, then Mayer can expect to earn $7.28 per day, or $218.40 per month. It would take him 15.5 years just to pay off his initial investment.

It bears repeating that these are best-case numbers. Real-world solar panel efficiency is more like 15%, and in the real world there are cloudy, rainy, and snowy days when the insolation doesn't amount to squat.

Now, methinks Mayer's neighbour is being a bit of a jackass about it all, surely the entertainment value of the whole thing is priceless, no? But if the community has restrictive covenants, they are what they are. It simply further beclowns Mayer if he chose to erect this folly in a community where it is regarded as an eyesore.

A fool and his money are soon parted. It is unfortunate that the purveyors of the scam are also attempting to force us to go along with this.

I'll be grinning like a skunk eating turds when those ugly racks start appearing in Rockliffe Park and Rosedale.

"then Mayer can expect to earn $7.28 per day, or $218.40 per month."

Isn't that assuming he doesn't use any power in his own home?

On the subject of scientific illiteracy, godinkneehill...

Your argument doesn't even mention the fact that "kilowatts per hour" is a meaningless term -- the kilowatt is an instantaneous measure of power output, not a "per hour" rate. A 5.6 kW generator is a 5.6 kW generator, regardless of the amount of time you're talking about.

So, I think it's safe to say that every single number in the article is meaningless.

The panels may be unattractive, but it could be worse; there could be a residential windmill spinning away in his backyard.

A homeowner in Spruce Grove AB got the required zoning permit to erect a vertical axis wind turbine in the back yard of his residential property (http://www.cleanfieldenergy.com/wind_overview.php). I looked into the subject after I spotted it spinning away a couple of blocks from my home.

It took about 20 minutes of Googling to determine that the project was fundamentally flawed. Not enough wind. Within a year it was gone.

I wouldn't say "every argument is meaningless."

The good professor or the reporter misreported the terminology as "kW an hour", although it is likely they may have meant "kWh an hour".

Doesn't change gordinkneehill's argument significantly, but it shows the scientific literacy of either the reporter or the erstwhile philosophy professor.

I wouldn't say every number is "meaningless".

The good professor or the reporter misreported the terminology as "kW an hour", although it is likely they may have meant "kWh an hour".

Doesn't change gordinkneehill's argument significantly, but it shows the scientific literacy of either the reporter or the erstwhile philosophy professor.

TJ, too late.

"After more than six years of legal wrangling, a judge recently ordered Richard Treanor and his wife, Carolyn Bissett, to cut down two of their eight redwoods..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23258714/ns/us_news-environment/

Interesting that a "university professor" who has researched this intallation "thoroughly" believes there is a payback here-it confirms a lot of my suspicions about university in the modern age.

Be that as it may:

1. If he is selling the product that structure is commercial and the property requires rezoning.The city can deny rezoning.

2. He will need an electrical permit to connect to the grid, the city has authority whether that permit is issued.

3.The city should be concerned how such a large structure acts in a wind storm, is it secured properly? What risk is the city taking on by approving this structure?

4. The neighbours need to introduce their kids to that backyard pastime-shooting BB guns-sure every once in a while an errant BB might fly over the fence but no harm done -right?

Cascadian,

Two things you should know about Ontario's Green Energy Act:
1) The Act exempts renewable energy projects from prescribed planning approvals (such as zoning regulations); and,
2) Electrical permits are issued by the Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) in Ontario, not by local municipalities.

The Green Energy Act makes a mockery of the previous laws on the books. The Act gets worse and worse the deeper you look at it.

I'm not a fan of green ideas, but I'm even less a fan bossy neighbors who turn thier taste or tolerance problems into my problems.
~Alex

The neighbours have a right to expect that the asthetic appeal of their housing development remains intact, the community has restrictive covenants which they all would have had to sign to buy the homes where they are and it isn't unreasonable to expect these covenants to be abided by.
The solar panel guy is operating an industrial facility in a residential zone.

You probably don't own your home or you would understand the issues at stake.

n.b. Pelham is considered one of the 'ritzy' areas of Niagara region. I know because I quizzed the realtor on this that took us to a coiple places there. I just wanted to know why those established properties lacked many of the features of newer ones (like completely finished basements) yet were still priced higher.

"So if McSquinty is paying $0.70 per kWh for "green" energy..."

McSquinty isn't paying! Oh no!
The Ontario taxpayers are paying for this, that's who!

Weird, all you guys missing the obvious - all our hero has to do is wait until the hydro inspector clears his installation; sell the solar panels to the next guy; snake a cable to the complaining neighbor's wall outlet to get the power to sell back to Hydro; give half the monthly cash to the neighbor; and laugh all the way to the bank.

Just because it eventually failed in Spain...

More insanity brought to you by the church of green mean.
Why must every Nation have to prove the same failure is a dude, as in all the other attempts?
Its like Politicians have a learning disability, or perhaps the kickbacks are just to big to ignore.
JMO

I'm sure that I heard of a scam where micro solar generators were being "boosted" with some high intensity lights. Apparently the cost of electricity is so inexpensive compared to the contract price, that it pays to plug in a light to your outlet and shine it on the solar panel. Says a lot about the economics of the scheme.

RW in Big C @2:22

ChrisinMB had addressed the matter of the spurious units at 12:06. I made reference to that in the second line of my post. I didn't deem it necessary to duplicate what he so ably said.

I agree "kW/hr" is almost meaningless. You could use it, legitimately, to describe a situation where the power capacity of a generator, or the demand of a load, was changing over time. But it's definitely not a measure of energy, pure and simple.

As far as the question of using some of the solar-generated power to run his own home; Mayer would be crazy to do it. If he's getting paid a premium price for the magic green power, courtesy the poor suffering Ontario taxpayer (thanks, Edward Teach) then every joule he squeezes out of those panels should be sold. He will be dollars ahead over selling them just the net excess of production over consumption.

*We don't need no stinkin' googoo.

...-

"The Evil Empire Strikes Back: Google ‘Flags’ Website Skeptical of Global Warming"

"Boy, them Googlers Act Fast.

Climate ’skeptic’ website ICECAP posted this item noting Google’s latest gambit in global warming activism, which includes bringing on board as an advisor an academic whose name and address pop up with some frequency in the ClimateGate emails."

"Apparently in response, Google has flagged ICECAP’s website with this warning, discouraging traffic:

“This site may be compromised.“

ICECAP host Joe D’Aleo, the first meteorologist at the Weather Channel before that operation sold out to the alarmist industry, brought this to my attention and assures me this warning was not the case until now. He also attests that the site is not compromised. We just have a co-incidence of challenge followed by inaccuracy, is all.

So not only are the Google crowd global warming rent-seekers looking to rob Peter (you, the taxpayer and ratepayer) to pay their Paul, they are activists who fit in very well with their chosen crowd.

One more good reason to go elsewhere for your searching."

http://biggovernment.com/chorner/2011/03/23/the-evil-empire-strikes-back-google-flags-website-skeptical-of-global-warming/

*Startpage: Add to Firefox.

http://us2.startpage.com/eng/

Even better, Gord, the best way to use solar panels in such a subsidized environment is put them all down in the basement, shine an arc light on them and sell all the output.

You just have to remember to turn the arc light off when the sun goes down. Somebody might someday get suspicious.

A good example of what lies in store for those who are subjected to government directives.

In their McGuinty version of progressive rule (read dictatorship) the people of Ontario have seen public sector unions given monstrous control over public policy... seen bureaucracies multiply and engorge with countless proto-Eichmans ... seen their individual and property rights trampled on by government edict... seen their economy decimated.... seen their energy and tax costs doubled .... been subjected to endless and ever increasing regulation .... and it is not going to end.

I'm completely in favour of homeowners doing what they damned well please on their own property .... but they should not be given immunity from legal action or from reasonable local regulations.
The OGEA was sold as a way to prevent wrongful local intervention where individuals undertake energy projects like windturbines or solar collectors or any other type of structure. What the act was supposed to protect people from was back door taxation. It was not ever stated that it could be used to shield such people from the rightful use of community standards or other citizen's right to use legal means to oppose these projects or to seek legal remedy.

This is abuse pure and simple and it is the fault of Mr. Sh!tforbrains and his bunch of turd polishers at Queens Park.

I am so sorry folks but I have to whole hog agree with Alex. OUCH!

My property is my property and I would be damned if I would let a bunch of nosy "that ain't purty like I like it" neighbours stop me from using my property as I see fit. I happen to believe in property rights. I see no way that these panels are infringing on anyone's enjoyment of their own property. I in no way owe you a view. Now if this guy was using the panels to get off grid I would applaud him, but as it is he is just bellying up to the taxpayer trough and I am totally opposed to all forms of trough gluttony.

So what grounds does this whiner have? The greeny can do what he wants with his property.

Gordinkneehill:

I wasn't criticizing your argument--in fact, I was trying to say that there's almost no point in trying to mathematically de-construct the highlighted solar installation because every number *in the article* is likely meaningless. Both the reporter and the professor probably suffer from some form of scientific illiteracy which, when compounded (Professor says something wrong, reporter makes it wrong-squared) makes every number mentioned doubly suspect, and (to me) meaningless. Like almost every article you'll ever read where math, science, or logic are involved.

I agree with your basic point, though -- there's no payback here in this man's lifetime.

Perhaps the local children can be encouraged in their batting practice?

The Grey Lady and Libertariandumbass, in suburban Ontario you can't park an RV in your driveway if the neighbors don't like it. Zoning regulations are exceptionally restrictive. Indeed, you may not have a "non-running vehicle" visible anywhere on your property. Technically you can't put the family fliver on jackstands overnight.

You don't actually -have- any rights as a property owner in suburban Ontario. Only liabilities. That's why I don't live in the burbs anymore. I had an insane neighbor. My sin had been not to trim, but to suggest that I -might- trim some trees on my property and put up a small fence. On my yard. Mine, y'unnerstand.

The cop who came by to answer the frantic 911 call said to me, "Man, you can do anything you want. Make it a six foot fence."

The city zoning inspector who came by the next day to answer the frenzied complaint opined that my 1947 project truck made a very attractive "rustic structure" in the back yard, and that new fences can be painted with all manner of graphics. Said graphics need not face the -owner's- house. If the neighbor chose to paint over said graphics, he could be charged with trespass, vandalism, mischief, all manner of things could be possible.

Tempting as the fence idea was, I decided to move. Figured there was less chance of me being jailed for assault that way.

In the country I can have as many busted cars, cranes and crazy machines in the drive as I want, and under the law nobody can say Jack. I take full advantage of this, you may be sure.

But as it is mentioned in the article, greenie stuff is -exempt- from zoning regs. So some dipstick can have a 30ft pole with a noisy windmill on it, a 15 foot solar panel that becomes a gigantic MIRROR blasting the summer afternoon sun into your back windows and bakes your lawn from 4pm to 9pm, all kinds of things.

The guy should plant a big frickin' walnut tree right on the lot line to shade the bloody thing all summer and drop nuts on it all fall. Walnuts make these gawd awful stains too...

Phantom,

YOu need to get yourself your Crown patent Grant. Join the Ontario Land Owners association. Zoning.Provincial and municipal is an illegal intrusion on your rights if you have the right sort of patent.

http://www.ontariolandowners.ca/index.php?news&nid=29

Pierre may have not given you any property rights but the King or Queen did. :O)

"You probably don't own your home or you would understand the issues at stake."
Posted by: Oz at March 23, 2011 3:43 PM

Hahaha. Good riposte, that.

Posted by: The Grey Lady at March 23, 2011 10:09 PM

Sorry, GL, you're on the wrong side of this one. Your freedom to enjoy your property ends when it infriges on me to enjoy mine; putting up such an eyesore that'd reduce a neighbour's property value, to say nothing of the eyesore itself, is NOT a "right", as you'd call it. Or would you be equally sanguine if your neighbour decided to save dough and raise chickens in his back yard, with a clutch of hens, coop and maybe a rooster to make the scene complete?

What? Why not? He has the "right" to enjoy his property to produce his own food, doesn't he? Or what if he decides to enjoy his "right" to listen to hard rock at 95 dB at midnight? Does his "right" to enjoy his CD collection trump your right to sleep?

See how it works?

This is simple tort law. If there is nothing specific in the zoning regs, and that would solve things pretty quickly, then the aggrieved neighbour should litigate for remediation or forced removal and legal costs.

Too bad that dumb@ss who installed the thing can't afford to properly shield it with trees as was suggested; it'll look good on him to have to tear the thing out as an alternative. The self-righteous clod likely believed that, as this moronic home project fell under the aegis of Green, then current sentiments would defer to his gaia-worshipping initiative. Or that a "green" project would trump his neighbour's rights to enjoy his property. Balls to that.

I hope he loses, spectacularly. This sort of nonsense needs to be stopped.

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

Actually I will be raising chickens in my backyard this year contrary to current zoning in my area. I have the room, I know how to take care of them and I will exercise my right to feed my family as I see fit. I will not have a rooster because that would be contrary to ZAP and also not a good neighbour policy. As long as I keep my yard clean my neighbours can just go Fukushima themselves if they don't like it.

mhb,

The old your activities or eyesore in your yard are infringing on my ability to appreciate my property is old and tired, That is exactly how clotheslines were banned in my area. Where is the line? (no pun intended) Do you believe in property rights or not? BTW I went around to my neighbours and informed them all that I would be erecting the dreaded hated clothesline and put it up two years ago contrary to local zoning. Several of my neighbours have followed suit. Trifling whims of the municipal and other levels of governments has to be stopped and now. I will not bow to those whims.

Green strategies ... Studying what works and does not work in forcing local governments to bow to green activist demands.

Note that in California it is illegal to have trees that block a solar panel or a wind turbine. No matter that the trees were there first or that the equipment is improperly installed and cannot work in any case ... home owners have been forced to cut or remove trees.

"The old your activities or eyesore in your yard are infringing on my ability to appreciate my property is old and tired"

Please. Enough with the "my rights are infringed" bromides. It's entirely self-righteous, self-centered and self-defeating.

I DO believe in property rights. In yours: to decorate your place within reasonable limits, and in mine and everyone else's living next door to you to enjoy our own without noisy or looming eyesores that lower our property values. Your promethean chanting about "I'M RIGHT, and my neighbours can go F themselves" is pure selfishness, and rather hilarious as you used these sentiments in the same paragraph where you mentioned the "good neighbour" policy. Did you blush when you typed that, or did you merely forget your /sarc tag?

Zoning laws are the legal extreme of "reasonable limits" as written at the time; they are not substitutes for the court's test of reasonableness at the present moment. Times change; things change. People and values change. And if you can't see the difference between re-installing your clothesline and erecting a 10'x25' solar panel that hangs over your neighbour's property, why then, no amount of reasonable debate will sway you.

If you were my "good neighbour", I guess you'd tell me "F-you", and we'd discuss the issue further. In court: for full remediation and court costs, "neighbour".

mhb

mhb,

So you only believe in folks having the rights that you believe are acceptable, you do not believe in the principle involved. You want to regulate what you want regulated, but want no regulation where you don't feel regulation is required on YOUR sliding scale. How charmingly original is that?.

So just what separates you from the "dumbasses" you deplore so much? It is just a matter of motivation behind the infringement, yours are pure while those "leftards" are just wrong minded in their controlling behaviours?

Get a Crown patent grant, zoning is Illegal. BTW you may just be interested in decorating your property to the perfect degree of eye pleasing aesthetic , I plan to live on mine, that includes changing the front yard from grass to food and the back yard will have chickens.

If I had that solar panel gentleman for a neighbour I would just put up a gazebo or a rod across my deck and hang lovely flowy light fabric that danced in the breeze and would obstruct the view or GASP look in another direction.

mhb wrote:

where you mentioned the "good neighbour" policy. Did you blush when you typed that, or did you merely forget your /sarc tag?

Actually I didn't blush for when I wrote that I was talking about a rooster which in fact could infringe on my neighbour's ability to enjoy their own property. I believe that a rooster crowing at all hours would be disruptive and a nuisance to those that do not love all things fowl. Just as I do not allow my children to go out and play until a reasonable hour, 9 am. Folks have a right not to be wakened by noise at all hours. What they do not have a right to is an arbitrarily pleasant view.

Posted by: The Grey Lady at March 24, 2011 11:29 PM

Well, that first paragraph was about as incoherent as I've seen in some time, and I'm not bothering to decipher it, apart from characterizing as a bizarro straw man that has nothing to do with what I said above. Please read for context.

The second sentence isn't much better. What separates me from the "dumb@ass" in the story is, to wit:

1. I'd not dream of erecting such an eyesore in plain view of my neighbour's yard, to say nothing of hanging OVER IT, without having some serious discussions with them first. Only a selfish a-hole would go full-steam ahead and have the bloody thing hanging overtop the shared fence without so much as a hi-de-ho to those who'd suffer property loss as a result of it. Ahh, well. "It's MY right to do whatever I please on my property... yadda yadda", after all, eh?.

2. If the neighbour complained, I'd add some form of shrubbery or tree covering to my capital cost, in order that they not have to stare at my backyard eyesore or watch their property value drop. That'd be MY approach; other sensitive, caring individuals might try other approaches, viz., "F-You, Pal" and let things ride. Heigh-ho!

3. I'd not be stupid enough to invest capital at a minimum 8-year simple payback (NOT including the likely-to-be enforced visual remediation costs) in providing electricity to the grid at 10x average market cost, believing that - eventually - the idiot ontario liberals will leave and some of the green scams would leave with them. Ciao, $42K capital investment! I'd especially not do this if I was 78 years old, already 6 years past the average maximum canuck male age. Good payback strategy... Duh. Maybe that $42K would buy a nice Harley, instead. A world cruise for me and my significant other green partner. Coke and hookers for a week. Whatever.

I didn't use the word "leftard" in my posts - another wrong-O inference - but I'd imagine the solar owner fits the bill nicely, as you brought up the word. As for "infringements" and "pure motivations", I'll perhaps have another go at trying to understand that later this evening, after a healthy tot of single malt. Might assist in the processing, is all I say.

That you'd add a gazebo to shield the mess at YOUR cost is rather sporting of you, but really, who ELSE would pony up thus to cover up some green zombie's self-righteous, damn-the-torpedoes lunacy? Or add trees, hedges, etc. at one's own cost. This is a cost to be borne by the bonehead solar man, and his alone. Doubtless he'd rather you were his obliging neighbour, instead of the hapless dude who's there, now. But maybe not, when your hens are clucking at 530am, or his patio is downwind of your pad, eh? Ha.

And nice of you not to include the rooster to your henhouse. I bet the nearby dwellers will be tickled at that. As for "Folks have a right not to be wakened by noise at all hours. What they do not have a right to is an arbitrarily pleasant view", well that statement alone is rife with irony. On one hand, you comprehend that it's wrong to inflict the tort of nuisance via noise, and yet it's boffo to ignore the nuisance of visual pollution and subsequent loss of adjacent property values with whatever physical monstrosity or sideshow carnival you choose to throw on your lot. Is that about right? And if so, do you see any inconsistency there? Likely not.

For my part, GL, I could care less what you do on your property. If you live in the sticks, or have a big city lot shielded from your neighbours and want to bring in Ringling Brothers, well, have at it. Be sure to give the kiddies admission at half price on Saturdays. And if you live in a small lot or townhouse and want to put blacksmith shop in your front yard, whatever the neighbours think, go for broke. They'd be cool with it, I'm sure, as long as you're not toiling at the forge past 9pm (11pm on weekends).

But if you're as insouciant towards your neighbours' property rights or opinions as your postings indicate, don't expect them to weep openly if you ever move. And you might not be invited to the farewell-bash, either.

mhb

Mt Dear mhb,

I can't tell you how awed I am that you are willing to postpone your drinking in order to school a recalcitrant, ill mannered neighbour as moi. I hang my head in shame...