Housing development bans cats, dogs (good)

[The Straight Story]

Housing development bans cats, dogs


LONDON, Dec. 27 (UPI) -- A British property developer has banned cats and dogs on an estate 1 mile from a heathland that is home to several endangered bird species, officials said.

The controversial ban will affect anyone buying or renting a house at a 500-home development on the site of a former airfield in Hampshire, where three-bedroom houses start at about $400,000, the Daily Mail reported Saturday.

The ban, approved by the local council, was imposed as a condition of planning permission being granted for the development.

Redrow, the developer, says the restriction is to keep pets from harming bird life in the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area in violation of the European Union Birds Directive.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/12/27/Housing-development-bans-cats-dogs/UPI-43581261965912/

Good for them, pets and their dander/hair might bother someone. Only those who own stand alone homes/mansions/etc should be allowed to own pets/smoke/etc.

Pets harm people and other animals, and unless you can afford to live away from other people you should not be able to do things like own pets, smoke, have BBQ's, etc, and so on.

If I have learned anything here it is that we have to give up certain things unless we are willing to work harder and have the financial means to have more space between us.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Are you suggesting that only people with enough money

to be able to afford a single-family home should be allowed to smoke, have BBQs, or own pets?

[LeftyMom]

5. No, he's comparing cats to cigarrettes.

Most of his posts are about how goddamned oppressed smokers are. :eyes:

[The Straight Story]

12. You would like to think so, but it is about rights of people

From "your body, your choice" to where you live.

But hey, think it is about one topic when it is about the core ideals that we are supposed to espouse as progressives.

Your body, your choice - from where you work, to where you go to drink, to where you live, smoke, etc.

I stand by the logic and ideals of choice.

[LeftyMom]

18. You're oversimplifying.

Nobody has a problem with individual freedom in a vacuum. The problem is what to do when one person's enjoyment of their rights is detrimental to another person, and how to resolve situations where rights come into conflict. The question was all the rage during the enlightenment, and your attempt to roll that back to an earlier "do whatever you want and fuck anybody who gets hurt" ethos in the name of some small-l libertarian freedom nonsense is both overly simplistic and hundreds of years out of date in terms of ethical and political thought.

[DesertFlower]

20. i've noticed that. nt

[pitohui]

6. no he's suggesting endangered bird species have no right to even one tiny last remaining patch

that's why i despair of the human race

you think somebody is decent and then you realize, nope, they're a piece of dirt who truly doesn't care about wildlife like pretty much 99.99 percent of the human race

apparently the OP and most other people truly believe -- there should never be any place where an endangered bird enjoys protection, the earth should be scrubbed free of all except a few tame, domestic species that lick human being's ass and ego, which pretty much narrows it down to the dog and the cat

forget science, forget simple decency, forget that it is cheating all future generations of these species you destroy

all that matters is some uncaring slob be allowed to have a cat destroy every last fledgling in the nest

people disgust me and, at the end of the day, in the safety of their computer, even the ones who appear nice for awhile -- apparently it's all a hoax

there is always an excuse for why an endangered species should be wiped out to the last speciment, ALWAYS

there is no hope for this world as long as even self-identified progressives are this ... is there another word for it, other than evil? surely the genocide of a species is an evil thing to do and an evil thing to advocate for, and to pretend that you're advocating for the genocide of these species because some old lady "needs" a cat...more than these species need to SURVIVE?

it really makes you stop and think

i used to believe most people were mostly good, but the internet allows us to see into hearts

most people couldn't give the tiniest shit abt anything except themselves and their cats, and people exactly like themselves, a different alien rare species? they don't give a fuck abt that, it's not part of THEIR tiny world so why should it even be allowed to live

truly i am disgusted by the attitudes i've seen here, over and over again

and i expected better from this particular poster but i honestly don't know why any more

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. Hey, relax. No need for the rant.

I DO agree with the restriction in areas where there are endangered species. I do not agree with the suggestion that only the well-off who can live in big houses should be allowed to smoke, have barbecues or own pets. Totally different issue.

[The Straight Story]

9. I am suggesting that only the wealthy should be afforded some things, I learned that here

some will tell you it is about smoking, but when you use the logic they do on that topic to other topics, they get all weird.

[aquart]

23. OH! The OP is an attempt at cleverness!

And only succeeded in disgusting, condescending heartlessness. Oh well.

[noamnety]

2. Protection of endangered species

seems like a reasonable reason for a restriction.

[enlightenment]

3. I agree with that - but the OP's assertions?

Not so much . . .

[noamnety]

17. I figured he's having a bad day.

This isn't his best reasoned post.

He's trying to equate this to one person's rights infringing on another person's rights. This is different, it's about imposing building code restrictions as an environmental concern.

In truth, if it's an area that's serving as a refuge for endangered species, they shouldn't be building on it at all.

[valerief]

4. As long as dangerous breeds are banned.

Like pit bulls and mountain lions.

[napi21]

7. All they would have to do is mandate restricting pets to their own yard unless on a leash!

Those restrictions exist in many neighborhoods here in the US. I'm not sure where I'd live if I were a resident of LOndon, but it sure wouldn't be THERE! I wouldn't trade the love and companionship of my Bichons for ANYTHING!

[LeftyMom]

10. It's a cultural thing, in the UK they generally think it's cruel not to let cats out.

In the US most cat-savvy people keep them inside for safety and protection from disease.

[DesertFlower]

21. i've never let any of my cats

outside, except my beloved, departed cat joey. when we lived in new york we taught him to walk on a leash. we never went far. sometimes hubby would just walk him i/2 block to the bus stop to meet me. none of our other cats would walk on a leash.

[flvegan]

8. Hilarious. A developer with "concerns" about wildlife.

Hey...how about the habitat you just eliminated, shithead?

Morons.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. Ironic, indeed. If you really want endangered birds, don't tear up their habitat

and then have a fit about cats and dogs.

[NMMNG]

16. Good point

Though I don't trust anything I read in the Daily Mail (it's about as reliable as Fox News).

[MindPilot]

14. For $400,000, I will smoke, BBQ, have 8 dogs, 14 cats,

and a half-dozen alligators. I will work on my Harley at 3am, water my lawn with perfume, grow peanuts and use the most odoriferous cleaning chemicals I can find. Maybe I'll keep some chickens and raise chinchillas too.

On second thought, keep your $400k, snooty bastards.

Edited to add: If you are really concerned about an endangered habitat, don't build 500 houses next to it!

[daleo]

15. As long as people know ahead of time, before they buy

This seems ok.

By the same token, there could be developments that specialize in being especially pet friendly - people could let their dogs and cats roam freely (in packs as God meant), dogs could bark all night long (possibly in unison), pet feces could be left where it fell as nature intended, cats could exercise their hunting skills on birds...it could be a paradise for a certain type of pet owner.

I mean, what's the alternative? Pet owners being responsible and non-pet owners being tolerant?

[Trillo]

19. Because it's so much easier to ban dogs and cats than

housing developments in areas with endangered species.

[aquart]

22. This is abominable. PETS KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE.

Bringing up children with pets is vital for avoiding allergies. It also makes them more empathetic, feeling individuals.

One suspects the OP was not raised with pets.

[DainBramaged]

24. So you think that owning pets, smoking, and barbecuing are evil?

And that because YOU don't like them they should be banned unless there is enough space between you and those violating YOUR ideas of bad taste?


your OP should be called, "when Progressives become Fascists". And Jesus thank you for the fucking ignore button this is bullshit.

[StarfarerBill]

25. Have to disagree on this one.

I have and apartment and two cats. The cats are always indoors and harm no one, humans or other animals. I even catch the bugs that come in and put them back outside, so the kids don't get too interested in them.

You can take my kittehs when you can pry them from my cold, dead hands!

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Two things. The people I know with the most private homes

have very little money. But that is not the good story, the good story comes from my Dad, in a CA Beach town, in the years I think after WW2. My Dad loved cats. So he had cats as a single guy. This beach town made an anti cat ordinance, with fines. My Dad kept his cats hidden, knowing he's move at some point. But before he did, the beach town had become rodent infested, they changed the law to 'show us that you own a cat, and we will give you money.' Dad took his cats to City Hall, got a feline stipend, and told the story for a lifetime as proof positive that governments are out to lunch. He would also point out that many people got rid of their pets in many ways to avoid that inhumane and stupid anti cat fine.
So may the same go on at this UK development. May the rats rule their retreat.