If you breach the common law, you can be sued by the person you injure but the government has normally no right to take you to Court; if you violate a by-law you can be prosecuted by the municipality but other people normally have no right to take you to Court. So the only effect of a bylaw would be that it would add, to your right to sue the bad guy, your right to ask the City to prosecute him (and the City's right to do so if they accepted your request). What reason would you give city council for why the common law needs to be duplicated/supplemented by a bylaw in that way? Admittedly, we do have noise bylaws - and I think that West Vancouver enacted a smell bylaw a while ago that was widely seen as an anti-Curry bylaw and really designed to keep the municipality "pure" but doubtless that was an uncharitable thought - but the common law with respect to things like smells and noises is very difficult to apply, for it is part of the rather vague area of the law called "nuisance", so you can see why the enactment of something more precise could be justified as regards those subjects. But property rights are perfectly precise and well established already. But although we do not have anything like California's "initiative" system - more's the pity - by-laws are sometimes proposed by citizen's groups and if they seem desirable may well be enacted, so if you can think of a way to sell it, go ahead. If you can get it enacted there on the North Shore, we may follow suit here in the lowlands.