[Moonman62]

So much for private property rights. This law is unconstitutional. The owner should get a lawyer and sue to have it overturned.

If the color of the house wasn't visible beyond the property line, then you'd have a point.

[clee1]

If the law was in force when he painted it, maybe so.

I thought ex post facto laws were unconstitutional on their face.

[Iscool]

If the color of the house wasn't visible beyond the property line, then you'd have a point.

You got it backwards...If the neighbors don't like what they see, they can build a fence to block the view...Whose liberty is really being squashed here??? Or doesn't that count anymore???

[bicycle thug]

"If the color of the house wasn't visible beyond the property line, then you'd have a point."

It's still a subjective opinion whether you like the color or not. This goes against the principles of property rights and free speech.

Purple the right shade has a myriad of beautiful tones in the sun and shade. I have seen astoundingly beautiful homes painted purple. One in Old Saybrook, Ct. and one here in Eugene, Oregon.

So, after home what next?

"Sorry sir, your car is ugly, repaint it or else." "Sorry Ma'am, but you are uglier then sin, stay inside, burka on, or else."

This law could have been written by the Taliban it is so ugly in and of itself.

I want to live in a country where people can make up their own damn minds what color to paint THEIR homes. People are perfectly free to snub the owner over it if they wish.

Not having to endure such narrow minded pinheads would be a blessing enough to make that a win situation for any owner of a purple house.

I hope he sues the city and wins big.