Erratum

In the "Free People Read Freely" post, regarding the matter of boats and RVs, I said that "no [BP] resident complained of a specific and distinct restriction on his or her actual functioning."  I further specified that "No one has complained that he or she can no longer keep a boat or RV.  No such consequence ever happened."

While what I said is technically true, there was in fact one person who made a specific complaint and referenced a specific restriction on her functioning.  The affected functioning was not "actual" functioning, however.  It was hypothetical functioning.

One of my friends who, with her late husband, owned a boat years ago, does not have a property that would allow a boat to be concealed behind a fence or foliage.  Her argument against the restriction in question was that if she ever wanted to buy a boat again in the future, she couldn't keep it in BP, because she would have no place to store it, except in her driveway.  The opportunity to keep boats and RVs in driveways does not apply to new boat/RV acquisitions, but only to vehicles that are already here, or that would be acquired during a one year grace period following passage of the Ordinance, or that would be purchased in the more distant future as replacements for vehicles the property owner already owns but is exchanging.  These vehicles and their footprints would be "grandfathered" in.  My friend imagined the possibility, which she herself would acknowledge is essentially out of the question, that she might, hypothetically, some day, like to buy a boat again, but she has no actual plans to do so.

Because of Bryan's odd phrasing, where he alleges that "over 50 families [were] negatively impacted" by the restriction, we don't really know what he means.  If he means there is a consequential restriction on 50 families who own boats or RVs, he's wrong.  There isn't a consequential restriction on anyone who owns a boat or RV, no matter where it's kept on their property.  The one exception is that if a boat/RV owner could keep the vehicle behind a fence or foliage, but simply doesn't feel like it, then the Village would insist.  If Bryan means that he knows or imagines that there are "50 families" who do not currently own a boat or an RV, have no plan or intention to buy one within the next year, but definitely want to buy such a vehicle more than a year from now, and do not have the property layout that would allow them to keep such a vehicle concealed behind a fence or foliage, he's right.  The new restriction would "negatively impact" such property owners.  Precisely as it would hypothetically negatively impact my friend.  And this possibility seems so improbable that if Bryan thinks he actually knows of 50 such families, it would have been useful and instructive for the conversation if he had revealed who they are.  Or if they had revealed themselves.  After all, it was supposedly in their direct and personal interest to come forward and make their argument.