What reading the article really reminded me, is that it sucks to live among people. I mean, one weirdo thinking he's cool puts transformer statues on what's essentially a public street in a lively neighborhood just because it's technically his property, some other dude cuts down some old trees in his actual own backyard, and gets harassed by his neighbors, because they apparently thought these trees are their family…

Also, considering the length of the article (which includes mentioning the shape of Dr. Howard's glasses) the whole argument sounds oddly unclear about what is or isn't his property and what are the regulations. In place where I'm living rules are pretty explicit (and, apparently, much more restrictive — both with regards to what can be done within my own actual backyard, let alone on the public street). I always thought of these rules being quite annoying, but somehow assumed that they would be much more strict in, say, Seattle.

Anyway, the only way to live a good life is to avoid people at all costs. Also, driving 15 minutes to say hi to your neighbor sounds fun.

In the last year or so two very big, very old trees were cut down in our circle. Both were unfortunately a risk that the property owners didn’t want to deal with (one an issue with possible falling limbs, the other was threatening a sewage line.)

While I understand that, the loss of both trees can have an impact on how the neighborhood is seen, and reduce property value.

Likewise, I think transformer statues are cool. If I lived on the street, I wouldn’t be surprised if it affected my property value, and potential buyers. I would be annoyed, though.

This is why people formed HOAs, and why people like them.

This is also why other people resolutely refuse to buy in an area under the control of an HOA.

I’m in that camp, but I understand the other camp and I’m glad that both arrangements exist and help people sort themselves into more compatible neighbor pairings.

Housing as investment kind of sucks. When all human activity and needs are measured in money it’s a short way away from dystopia

Me too. I'm really glad that we don't have an HOA. I have to say though, I've not heard anyone talk about how awesome their HOA is, and how the neighborhood is better for it.

You seem to be faulting your neighbor for managing their trees responsibly.

Your property values would take a hit if sewer lines were bursting too.

Don't misunderstand me. I get why they did it. I would've done the same thing in their place. I have no ill-will toward them at all. It just sucks. A big old tree takes 30-50 years to grow. People come through the neighborhood and they see a beautiful big tree. No one sees the sewer lines maintained responsibly.

One man's cool is another man's kitsch.

That's true, but it's also beside the point. I don't care enough about transformers to put statues of them in my yard, either. But he does. They're not hurting anyone, and he went to presumably significant effort and expense to do something different and express himself. Good on him. He can be cool whether one likes the statues or not.

It would hurt me to look at that everyday. He can put them in his house where he can look at them all he wants without forcing it upon the world.

Sadly, there are few expectations in public.

I get it and find various things unpleasant myself, but the public spaces are public. And that had to mean something or we all lose.

We all have options too.

Don't look, travel a different route, move, etc...

If that is the case I should be allowed to remix it, repaint and re-sculpt it into something better, it is a public space and we have options after all?

Would you object to the same being done to you in a public space?

You see, I am not a thing/object so apples/oranges.

Nope.

You can do you, on your public facing property same and they do them.

Now, true street art works as you say and many call that graffiti.

Well in that case, I'm sure I can depend on some anonymous friendly neighborhood vandals to deal with these crimes against taste and art.

The thing with graffiti is it is not protected, if someone makes an awful piece someone can just go paint over it unlike this tasteless man that is forcing his bad taste upon the world with no way to "respond".

Freedom is scary. We all must deal with it.

Fact is, that art is as offensive as you think it is. True for everyone.

Responding with crime is profoundly selfish.

Forcing people to look at very large ugly corporate statues because you have bad taste and too much money is profoundly selfish.

Like I said, freedom is scary. Can't hardly count the number of people who say they are all about free expression, until it is something they don't like.

Factor all those dislikes in, and call those people selfish and if we were to actually entertain that (badly) broken reasoning, the resulting set of permissible expression would likely be more constrained than it currently is in regions of the world controlled by fundemental religious theocrats.

And the vast majority of those people would easily say the people living under fundamentalism deserve better!

That's bat shit. Full on, hot, fresh bat shit cray, cray.

I get it. You just don't like the art. Join the club. We all see stuff every day we don't like. And someone here mentioned the cool Flintstone house in California. That is totally relevant!

You see, people, who appear to align well with the opinion you have put here, have tried repeatedly to have it taken down. And their reason was the same as the one you are putting here; namely, they just don't like it and somehow that must mean the world needs to respond and GET RID OF THAT SHIT because?

[ insert it here ]

And they failed.

As they should!

We have a First Amendment for good reason.

This discussion is the reason.

Heck, you basically said crime for hire was an acceptable response! Good grief!

And then you try and call selfish somehow? You flat out lost me.

Seems like a botch to me, like the kind of botch others point to and proclaim their basic joy that they were not the one who botched it that badly.

No Joke!

How would it hurt you? The American Heritage Dictionary gives three definitions of hurt:

> 1. To cause physical damage or pain to (an individual or a body part); injure.

> 2. To experience injury or pain to or in (an individual or a body part).

> 3. To cause mental or emotional suffering to; distress.

Does looking at them cause you mental or emotional suffering?

What if I said that it caused me the same mental or emotional suffering anytime anybody wore a tshirt? Would you also say people should only wear tshirts inside?

7 Billion people wearing t-shirts vs 2 statues, not the same, sorry. There are laws for offensive shirts though so yes, specific t-shirts can cause emotional suffering and could land the person wearing it in a lot of trouble based on hate speech and obscenity laws.

Do you think these statues are hate speech or obscenity?