OK. Let's try again, without the silliness. This is a serious question that requires a serious answer.
There is a difference between a neighborhood having a say in its future and a neighborhood having a dictatorial stranglehold on all changes within its bounds. Does the rest of the city have no say? The county? The state? The country?
Do you think it's OK for a city to tell a neighborhood that they need to accept a certain set of non-discriminatory zoning rules based on land use, even if it's not what the people there want?
> Do you think it's OK for a city to tell a neighborhood that they need to accept a certain set of non-discriminatory zoning rules based on land use, even if it's not what the people there want?
Residents answer to their neighborhood, neighborhoods answer to their district, districts answer to the city, state, and so on.
How to respect individuals, communities, and a plan for the future across all of those lines of responsibility isn't answerable with a simple "yes" or "no"; however, the onus should be on the individuals requesting the change to 1) justify its necessity and value, 2) quantify its cost to existing residents, and 3) recommend mechanisms for remediation or renumeration for externalities imposed upon the local residents by whatever project is imposed upon them to the benefit of the broader populace.
In other words, you don't believe a neighborhood has an absolute dictatorial right to control all changes within its borders. Thank you for your in-principle agreement!
There is a difference between a neighborhood having a say in its future and a neighborhood having a dictatorial stranglehold on all changes within its bounds. Does the rest of the city have no say? The county? The state? The country?
Do you think it's OK for a city to tell a neighborhood that they need to accept a certain set of non-discriminatory zoning rules based on land use, even if it's not what the people there want?