Just another example of government trying to regulate private property.

There is always that one nosy neighbor who has to go and report everyone.

40 feet sounds like a lot of land to give up, the 45 neighbors should fight to get the use of their land back not just for the one guy.

So this is a “structure”? Government run amuck once again!

It’s a graven image, and so what. It would have been helpful in this story to provide why that ordinace exists in the first place.

Leave the man alone!

It would be interesting to hear the reasoning behind the ordinance. If the city can explain “why” it can’t be that close to the bluff, that we be great. If the city has a good reason, then great, move the statue, if not…leave the guy alone

Although I’m a confirmed atheist, I agree absolutely that this man should be allowed to keep his statue right where it is. The set-back rules that effect every lot in the city are about keeping structures from blocking clean lines of site. A 7ft statue is neither a structure nor the least bit obtrusive, even if you don’t like statue or its meaning.

I wonder if it would have been reported by the one neighbor if the statue would have been a 7 foot image of a walleye? Leave the man alone!

Shoot who ever complained!!!!!

Jesus should be in his heart not his back yard

jesus is and should be everywhere. leave the man alone.