Not all ethical land use issues need to be at the Supreme Court level in order to be important.  Here's and example of choosing the right ethical path that created a win win solution for both sides.  It involves both legal and ethical considerations and takes place in a subdivision in the Sierra foothills of northern California near the town of Grass Valley.  The subdivision is named Alta Sierra.  This subdivision has a property owners association with a board of directors and throughout this subdivision are easements for hiking trails, which were laid out before any homes were built.  However, not all the planned hiking trails were initially developed as trails.  This is the story of one such trail that was not developed, but was under consideration by the board to be developed now.  Not at question is whether the board has the 'legal' right to improve the trail, but what was at question is whether it is a 'good' thing to do because now the path is lined with homes and in some cases the trail is only a few feet away from these homes.  With the path so close to some of the homes, the owners privacy became an issue.  The board went an extra step and surveyed the home owners in the subdivision, and while the overall vote was 90% in favor of building the trail, 70% of those directly affected asked that it not be built.  Now as with any land use issues there were arguments on both sides, however the outcome at this point was not to build the trail.  That was a choice by the board, keeping in mind that legally they didn't have to survey the residents, and could have gone ahead with developing the trail regardless of what the vote was. Here's why it was an ethically good decision not to build.  The subdivision of Alta Sierra is not without trails already. In fact a fairly new trail is only a few blocks away, not to mention the dozens of trails within a few miles.  So did this trail need to exist because there were no other trails, no.  The residents have many other choices for walking/hiking trails, they would not be deprived if this trail was not built. Could the board have built it anyway, yes. But because the association chose the more ethical route, the bottom line is no one lost.  Those who want trails have them, the home owners who would loose their privacy kept it.  So we choose to use this small situation as an example of what we meant by looking at a land use situation through the ethical perspective and not just the legal aspects. That's what we call a win win solution. The complete story can be found on the local newspapers archives at The Union