<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:14pt"><div style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:18.6667px;font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;background-color:transparent;font-style:normal;"><span>I don't want to wade into the back-and-forth in yesterday's listserv, but I would like to share my thoughts about the ordinance itself. I
can't make it to the meeting this Monday night, so I wrote my councilman but in case others are reading, but I wanted to share my input. I am against the
ordinance banning chain link fences in back/side yards. If I had lived here in '98 I would have objected to banning them in
people's front yards too!</span></div><div style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:18.6667px;font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;background-color:transparent;font-style:normal;"><br><span></span></div><div style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:18.6667px;font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;background-color:transparent;font-style:normal;"><span>I
really value a minimal approach to regulation- one that sets up the
town to serve everyone's common good while leaving them at maximum
liberty as to how they carry out their daily activities, as long as it
doesn't infringe on the well being of others. Things like
lawn maintenance and house painting all are in that middle zone- what
makes for enough liberty for one person and yet maintains a nice-looking
neighborhood. But </span><span><span>I'm really opposed to regulations that enforce one group's aesthetic values on everyone else. Several family members live in 'better off' neighborhoods and </span>I shudder at
the level of Home Owner Association interference I see (what color your shutters can be).</span><span>
The chain link ordinance is an example of this kind of over-reach of regulation. The explanation offered notwithstanding, I really can see
no legitimate interest that the town has in what kind of materials
people choose for fencing
in their back yards and side yards. I think it's
inappropriate to legislate this.<br></span></div><div style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:18.6667px;font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;background-color:transparent;font-style:normal;"><span><br></span></div><div>For what it's worth, I WANT to live an an economically diverse neighborhood, where people who are better off and less well off live together. I cringe when people are throwing around 'makes the neighborhood look impoverished'. I hope that we are a welcome community for both rich and poor and not be embarrassed if one neighbors car or fences (?!) indicate they don't have a lot of money. It doesn't mean they won't keep their houses beautiful and be great neighbors. It just means they don't have a lot of money. If people need fences, I don't want to burden them with additional expenses for what seems like a silly aesthetic preference.</div><div><br></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 18.6667px;
font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;">Personally, I think that the current trend in my neighborhood (permitting 6 foot high wooden slat fences) does more to deteriorate the 'neighbor'hood than a chain link fence ever could. When we can't see each other, we don't meet each other and talk. My fantastic relationship with my next door neighbor flourished because we have a 3.5foot chain link fence in our backyards, and would strike up a conversation when working in the yard. My friends live in a tightknit community in NE in rowhouses where only chain link separates the back yards. He talks about how important the permeable fences have been to a sense of community. SO I realize not everyone will share my point of view on this, but I actually VALUE having chain link fences (yes, yes, I know, ... the other materials proposed could still permit
conversation). My preference: Please don't legislate against them further.</div><div>Sincerely</div><div>Kathy Galleher<br></div></div></body></html>