where the city geologists warned about unstable soil and landslide potential in certain areas of town. They stated that this land was completely unsuitable for development. The city approved it anyway and the developers built on the land. The city knew of the problems and so did the developers. When the landslides began and homes were destroyed, the taxpayers ended up paying for the mess. None of the city officials who approved development there were ever held accountable, nor did the costs come from the developers, either. Nope, we taxpayers got to pay while the developers kept their money and the city officials kept their bribes, er. campaign contributions.

The biggest problems we have in some neighborhoods doesn't come from city regulations but from covenants. Some neighborhoods have very draconian policies to the point where people have to get approval for the color of their paint or shingles. It has been my experience that the people who gravitate towards running those covenant committees are, pardon the term, "Neighborhood Nazis." By that, I mean they're people who get off on telling everyone else how to live their lives.

It can be argued that people voluntarily choose to live in those covenant controlled neighborhoods. That's true. It can also be argued that if the people don't like how the committees are ran, then they should get on the committees themselves and change things. That's also true. However, change like that can get very messy and can tear a neighborhood apart. We've had homeowners forced to put inferior cedar shake roofs on their homes in some neighborhoods because that's what the committee dictates, regardless of the fact that those roofs are fire traps, don't stand up to wind very well, and are butt ugly. While I'd prefer not to have a neighbor with junk cars in his yard, I'd actually prefer that to some neighborhood busybody bossing everyone around.