re-evaluating my stance?

It's a rare occasion when I read a book and it causes me to rethink my stance on certain topics. Lost Rights has me doing just that. Not too long ago, I was vehemently opposed to a new condo hotel project that was being proposed in our town. I was upset that the area to be developed, a private "park" area around a historic hotel would be disrupted. I was pretty vocal about it, too.

I was not alone in my efforts to make my opinion heard, either. In fact, so many members of the public spoke out against the project that the developer was forced to make a number of decisions that considerably lessened the environmental and visual impacts of the project. As a result, they got their approvals and there are now modern-looking condos for sale in the historic district.

I'm still upset about it, but these days I am more upset at our town and their planning commission for not working to protect this piece of property beforehand. It was drawn in on the city's master vision plan as a "greenspace", but the city never made any attempts to purchase it. So the current owner of the land is not at fault for wanting to develop their own piece of land.

It's just once example fog how my attitude is changing with this book. I think it is a good thing, as the government and "the people" really shouldn't have more say than the landowner in how they can develop their own land. Short of public nuisances and issues of safety, the government needs to be more hands-free. The problem is when we start to look at situations like historic districts, where I do believe that historic buildings should be saved for future generations, but I don't think it's fair to tell someone how they should maintain or develop their own property. As the oracle from The Matrix likes to say, it's "definitely a pickle."