I understand the bylaws. I'm not arguing that the woman did not violate the bylaws. I expect she did and was punished for it. I'm saying that the fact that the city can create bylaws which can override property rights in the name of the "greater good" far oversteps what it should be allowed to do. Are there any limits on what a government can do for the greater good? Can the city for example decide that it has a problem of affordable housing and homelessness, so can it force a homeowner to use his extra bedroom to provide shelter to a stranger?licenced wrote: ↑Apr 19th, 2017 6:56 pmThat's correct, you can't that's because while you have the right to do whatever you want to your vehicle, you do not have the right to affect what is called 'the greater good' by driving that unsafe vehicle down the road where there are other people.
I do believe that's the point engineered is trying to make to you.
Your right to do what you will on your property does not give you the right to impose any unwanted effects on your neighbours.
We are a law and order society. We elect people and empower them to, by committee, without our further input, act on our behalf as per their conscience and beliefs.
What you're technically arguing for is governance by 100% consensus which is impossible.
Any specific argument here in defense of this particular homeowner is semantics in that the rules are clear. The by-laws are clear as to what she must do if she wishes to change anything on her property from the landscaping to the building and if she chooses to continue living in Markham those rules apply to her. She chose to ignore them.
Her choices were clear - adhere to City's by-laws and if you can't move somewhere more accommodating because the city owes her nothing of the sort.
The unfortunate aspect of our society is that property rights are not entrenched and the bounds are constantly changing. Beyond the threat of government defeat, there are not enough bounds on the power of government.