Posted on 10/06/2009 12:12:10 PM PDT by Gordon Pym
A Pennsylvania man who refuses to allow city officials to enter his home without a warrant has been forced out to stay in a hotel instead, evicted by a notice posted on his door that forbids him from using or occupying the building he owns. Borough Ordinance No. 1188 of Lansdowne, Penn., requires all rental properties – including the private residence of the landlord, if he lives onsite – be subjected to annual inspections, with or without a warrant. But Michael Marcavage, who lives in half of a Lansdowne duplex he owns, renting out the other half, believes the city knocking on the door and demanding warrantless entrance and inspection of his private residence – just because it also happens to be part of a rental building – is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The implied randomness of this really bothers me. Is there a history of being a bad landlord with this guy? Complaints on file? Visibile signs of dangerous conditions from the Street?
I suspect the same - perhaps the inspector has anatomical shortcoming, a need for decaf, or just didn’t get handed enough cash?
I wish more private citizens would have this type of moxie when it comes to opposing even the most seemingly innocuous encroachments upon their constitutional rights.
Yeah, Here in the Democrat Mob run Northeast any kind of operation involving the building trades needs to budget for bribes and lawyers just to remain in business.
Goonions and state government are the greatest threat to individual rights. They work in tandem to fleece the flock. Got a goonion card yet?
Nope, I work for a living. Actually, I think the root of this is the abomination called property tax.
You purchase your house, You occupy your house, You maintain your house, You insure your house, You hold title to your house, You have liability issues if some moron injures himself in your house; But if you do not pay the town an annual rent THEY will remove you from your house and give it to someone who will.
Where there is a property tax there are no property rights.
Poor deluded guy. He only THINKS he owns the home. Actually it belongs to Big Brother, like every other piece of property in the nation. The Supreme Court made that clear a few years ago when it decided that government could take your home and sell it to someone else if an increase in tax receipts made it desirable. We’re ALL just renters now.
Where there is a property tax there are no property rights.
You are so right. The property tax is used to finance the union holy places that we call government schools most of which are used to forcibly convert our children into the cult of "Progressiveism" (Or Liberalism, Or Socialism, Or Statism,...) Where they will learn hymns to their patron saint Obama the wise. And the blood sacrament of abortion will be practiced without parental consent.
Thomas Jefferson said that the worst form of tyranny was that a man be taxed to finance what he considered a moral evil.
This local system sounds tyrannical to me and I'm glad to see that some are fighting back
Time for the obligatory, “If he’s got nothing to hide...”
I guess another way to look at it is that the government has a perpetual interest in your home, an annuity of sorts, secured by a first trust deed in the house, and you are allowed to own the rest of the house. A right to collect 1 % annually is probably worth about 7 to 10 times the annual payment, which is about 7 to 10 percent of the value of the house. So you can never own more than about 90 to 93 percent of your house. In California, since we have prop. 13 (for now), if the value of your home goes up, your interest in the home vis a vis the government, would increase.
This fact is taken into account when valuing the home, though. House prices would increase if there were no property taxes, just as HOA fees decrease the sales value of homes to an extent.
To be specific, what I am suggesting is that a parcel of land can be removed forever from the property tax rolls, so that it can be owned, and sold, unencumbered by anything, including government taxes. To do this, you have to figure out the present value of the right to collect property taxes from that land in perpetuity. If the annual assessment is $10,000, the present value of that right to payment might be $100,000, depending on interest rates that exist at the time. So, give people the right to remove the property from the tax rolls for a lump sum payment equal to that.
If it was an option, I'd have added it to the amount of the mortgage and then I could forget about the damn government. They got their money up front. I could also sell the property for a higher price down the road, and recoup the initial investment.
I know, I know. It will never happen. Politicians will never let properties escape their control. But it is an interesting concept.
the problem with your idea is that you are giving the town (or state) something they have no right to. It's like saying to a rampaging gang of pirates I'll let you rape my daughter if you will leave me alone. The whole concept of direct taxation has got to go. If you want to fund things do it with user fees then whoever uses the government service will pay for what they use
The other thing I realize is that no matter what the government says, they will find a way to start taxing me again. They will spend the money I give them now, and then when their profligacy requires more money, they will back out of the deal (without giving the money back). So, it is merely a wishful dream.
There are some things that are not able to be funded in that way such as fire or police protection. You could have a fee after the fire is pout out I suppose but the police would need to write many more dubious tickets to pay for their salaries and sirens.
How about when your selectman wants to raise money they have a whacking day at the town hall. You could pay fifty bucks a whack to hit them with a stick. The more they want to spend the more whacking they they would need to endure. It would keep them from spending too much and they would find out what the public really thinks of them.
There are a couple of selectmen in town here that I'd put up a few thousand for under this system.
well, it is a rental property. the guy makes money off it. if there are dangerous conditions for his tenants, then they need to be addressed.
‘well, it is a rental property. the guy makes money off it. if there are dangerous conditions for his tenants, then they need to be addressed.”
But it was NOT a rental property. It is his personal residence that just happens to be attached to the rental property.
Interesting. This article put me in mind of some places in Spanish and Italian cities. Looked like a dumps on the outside, yet built like a fortress. When the gate opened. Oh my!
What one has ‘under the hood’ is the other issue. The UK is getting especially intrusive. Number of loo’s? did you put tile on your patio? do you have a view? etc. etc. ALL jack up your tax rate. Inspectors to come by and ‘check on things’.
This is one of the worst problems with direct taxation. The town can decide to build a new teacher lounge or parking lot at the local school and bang, your taxes just doubled. BTW most folks around here have lost half the value of their houses in the last couple of years but assessments are going up. Funny how that works aint' it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.