Saturday essay: Annoyed in Lebo
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, April 26, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
The property gendarmes in Mt. Lebanon didn't like my new front-yard split-rail fence. Against the rules, don't cha know. But a pretty much opaque hedgerow or shrubs would be A-OK, they said.
In went the shrubs. They're more of a fence than the fence was. Ha!
At the same time, it was discovered that the public sidewalk in the public right of way in front of my house infringes on my private property by about 4 inches. Fair being fair, rules being the rules, I want Mt. Lebanon to move the sidewalk.
Down the street and around the corner, a neighbor was spied gingerly scraping moss off the top of his slate-roofed garage. Roof moss is against the rules, don't cha know. Surprising that trend-conscious Mt. Lebanon never heard of a green roof.
He also said he was denied permission to build a double-car garage to replace the mossy offender. It would impinge on his backyard, he said he was told. Well, it is his backyard, is it not?
This is the same Mt. Lebanon that levies a rain tax. These clever 'crats of the bureau call it a “fee” for the rain that they say each property sends into the stormwater system. But none from my property does (except, maybe, from the 1,920 square inches from that illegally infringing sidewalk); it goes into a large greenspace where it's absorbed.
Yes, late American newspaperman E.W. Howe got it right:
“(G)overnment does little for fairly respectable people except annoy them.”
— Colin McNickle
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Liquor privatization: Now’s the time
- Keystone caper: Pipeline politics
- Saturday essay: Resurrection
- All taken seriously
- Easter 2014: Churches’ vital role