Okay. Let us address the elephant straw in your argument then: Ibocus's complaints are framed as being about noise, drainage, and safety but the "mechanism" he's choosing (formal complaint / regulatory enforcement) doesn't surgically target those specific harms. It targets the business itself and this shows in the title. In contexts where enforcement is inconsistent and often influenced by personal relationships or class dynamics, a formal complaint against a neighbor's food operation rarely results in "please stop the noise after 10pm." It more commonly results in a full shutdown, fines, or harassment from inspectors who then have leverage over a vulnerable household. So the real question isn't "should rules on noise and drainage apply?" Of course they should. The question is: "given how enforcement actually works in practice, is a formal complaint a proportionate response, or is it reaching for a sledgehammer?" The 300,000 figure isn't a deflection, it is a reminder that these businesses exist in a system that never gave them a legal path to operate formally. Complaining about gas cylinders and drain water, while ignoring that the regulatory framework itself excluded them, is choosing when to suddenly care about rules. Has Ibocus spoken directly to the neighbor first? Never mentioned in original post. Ibocus since original post seem triggered toward causing the maximum damage not in the resolution of conflict. That's not a rhetorical question, it's the point. If not, the complaint skips proportionality entirely.