I was extremely disturbed by your recent article “Elite neighbor keeps coming up in talks of moving on” (Lifestyle, Nov. 11).
By presuming that resistance to change is the primary contributing factor in the various anti Mountain Brook remarks, you ignore the fundamental ideology that necessitates such a response.
When I purchased property in St. Clair County in 2000, I made a calculated decision based on personal preferences and priorities.
I chose this area specifically because of the lack of intrusive regulation and arrogant city ordinances.
If I add 30 minutes a day to my commute or drive past “unsightly” areas on a trip to the store, I consider that a small price to pay for the liberty we enjoy in comparison to other cities.
I harbor no ill will toward residents of more regulated areas; I am pleased that they have found somewhere to live that suits their needs and defend their right to live in that manner. It is not change that I resist, it is the premise that I must live as my neighbor dictates and abdicate choice and responsibility.
I realize that eventually change will come. There will be rules on how tall my lawn can be, what kind of trees I can plant or cut, where I can place my garbage can, what color I can paint my house.
When that time comes I pray that I will have the opportunity and ability to follow freedom; I can only hope that your “leash laws and bike lanes” don’t make my journey too far.
Isn’t it ironic that someone would leave a highly regulated area, impose those same regulations on their new neighbors in the name of improvement, and then tell anyone who resists to move elsewhere if they don’t like it? Live and let live.
— David Smith, Odenville