Posted on 02/10/2002 6:39:53 AM PST by Skooz
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:32:30 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
NAPERVILLE, Ill.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
It really means more expensive homes and less sqaure footage for the rooms you live in. Wider doorways means bigger hallways and bathrooms will have to be bigger too, so they can meet the requirements.
fine, I am ripping out the bathroom and installing an outhouse and installing "twist-lock" electrical outlets
The Arizona ordinance includes the significant additional requirement of a zero-step entrance.
no problem, the entrance will be at ground level, but the rest of the house will be 50' higher with a rope ladder
"being really sensitive to the needs of a growing segment of the population" is the most important thing.
Not really. You are just conditioned by the building trades who focus only on penny wise pound foolish. If everyone does it by incorporating it in the pre-planning stage, the additional costs are very minimal. In many cases, it will actually be cheaper.
Look on the bright side. It will be easier to move belongings and furniture into the house, you can get an oversized refrigerator and giant beer kegs, and in the bathroom you can more readily install heavy duty exercise machines or fancy Swedish sex apparatus. Not a bad deal at all.
Any chance the above could become law, "Honest Hun, it's in the building code!"
Yes, but now that these rules been codified, it's just a short step to requiring you to make changes for "reasonable accomodations" to your existing house before you can sell it.
I mean, after all, if you are selling a house that cannot be immediately occupied by a handi...oops! disabled person then you are effectively practicing descrimination.</sarcasm>
Feds demand all vans be made as handicap vans.
"Is this the last stand for private property? Is this incremental socialism?"
AMENDMENT V, U.S. Constitution
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Constitution of the State of Illinois
ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS
SECTION 15. RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN
"Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation as provided by law. Such compensation shall be determined by a jury as provided by law."
If I lived in Naperville, Il., I would be filing a federal law suit and a state law suit for violating my constitutional rights.
Remember "rights" cannot be legislated. When "rights" are legislated, they are then privleges, not rights. "Rights" are inalienable, inviolate, absolute, and categorical.
If the good citizen's of Naperville want regulate private property for the public use, then they will have to tax themselves for the revenue needed for compensation of private property owners.
We citizen's who believe in the sanctity of private property need to become more proactive in exerting our constitutional rights.
How?
1, elect or seek election ourselves, as property right's advocates for city council positions;
2, file a barrage of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of "regulatory" laws and ordinances.
Those in Naperville have the best, legal advocate of property rights in the country, in the name of Richard Epstein, at the University of Chicago.
I would contact him for his assistance.
A co-worker moved here (the People's Soviet of Washington) from Arizona. To hear him tell it, Arizonans would never put up with the foolishness we have here (residential fire sprinklers, as my neighbor had to install as part of his add-on).
But this is a new one, and I expect we'll see it here soon, in Seattle -- Sodom on the Sound. (Where houses are already not affordable.)
Except a single-car garage would now be against the law.
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.