Perhaps Robert Zeis could explain why he feels the residents of some neighborhoods are not entitled to the same protection under the law (e.g., the noise ordinance) as provided by our Constitution?

Does he think his blame the victim attitude, “they should have known,” or his unsupported assertion that “they paid significantly less” suffices?

Whatever price a person pays for their home (and $150,000+ is not atypical for this neighborhood) they should be able to expect that the laws of their community will be in force there (by enforcement if necessary).

If any concept is really getting old it is “I can do whatever I want regardless of its effect on my neighborhood.”

Perhaps it is the fraternity members who should check the neighborhood and see what the laws are in their area. If they find the noise, or speed or parking limits, for example, to be an “annoyance” perhaps they should just “deal with it” or “move out to the country.”

As for the trains, I fail to see why any audible signal is needed at a (functioning) crossing gate.

If you drive around one I would suggest society has been absolved of any requirement to babysit you. But, since they are required, installing the quieter ones seems a worthwhile use of (0.3 percent of one year’s worth of) our property taxes. After all, the whole point of these taxes is to provide services to the community.

John Hascall

Systems analyst

Durham Computation Center