Posted on 10/29/2013 9:39:21 AM PDT by Eagle Bomba
I rather live under an interstate overpass than in a “gated community” with a hoa.
The van was not behind a fence. It was basically at the street, and the fence was part of what looks liek a driveway..
I looked at it from Google Earth and from street view.
Yes, it was partially obstructed by some sort of vegetation, that I would be willing to bet was not evergreen and this was visible from the road once the weather got cooler.
I do feel bad for this guy, he gave his life to save a piece of junk. Being a pack rat, is a tough thing to give up.
If they had been sending him compliance notices for years about it, then he should have made some token effort to move it from the present location to someplace else on his property. Even the slightest effort will give them the ability to respond to the complaining neighbors, that THEY were the ones being unreasonable.
No, I don’t necessarily like zoning ordinances when they effect me adversely, and yet I have been protected by those same ordinances when a neighbor decided to hire a local drunkard to take down his old mobile home. The drunk took all the aluminum and copper, left the steel, wood, and fiberglass insulation which the wind was scattering in the whole area because the drunk was... drunk and never finished the job.
After a few months I call up the neighbor and politely tell him to keep his trash on his own property, and have that drunk that he hired finish the job. The trailer (12 x 72) in question was in full view of my front window and my front yard, and I had to look at that mess every day. After 10 months of a mess that sat there with no visible changes, codes enforcement got the job finished by threatening the property owner with the cost to clean up the mess being attached to his taxes. I didn’t call them, though I was tempted to. Either codes enforcement drove by and saw that there was no progress, or another neighbor called them. This was outside of Columbus Mississippi on the Alabama line.
If you look at the pictures on Google Earth street view, you can see George sitting on the porch. Picture is dated 9/2012. While his house was neatly kept, he could have made more of an effort to keep codes out of his hair by making even the slightest gesture. Cut the weeds down, and air up the tires is usually enough. Maybe roll it back a few feet.
The inherent risk is that if you dig in your heels too deeply, you force their hand. They were going to make an example of him and so they did. Shame it cost him his life.
I remember this little gem from when I lived there;
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/04/nyregion/finale-to-zoning-opera.html
IIRC, What he did was add on to his house, where basically there was no way to get from the front to the back without going through the house. Then after the fact went and tried to get a variance. Others had done this prior, and it was becoming a problem for the town.
This guy dug in his heels too figuring that others had goten away with it (and they had though to a lesser degree than this guy) and they made him pay. They made an example of him and seized his house and dozed it down and hauled it away.
It was quite the circus at the time.
Unbelievable! Coming to a neighborhood near you soon!
Before you go accusing me of being a liar and lazy why don’t you prove how this was the police officers fault in this case? Or would you just like to not read things and continue false accusations FRiend?
I’m speaking to the issue of shutting down debate through accusations of hate speech or being hateful. The tactic is an affront to the 1st Amendment where depraved and threatening speech are not factors. Those that apply the charge are liars, lazy, or simply malicious, but I’m sure there are exceptions.
I made no remarks concerning enforcement.
So, fighting for your Rights and property isn’t worth it. Accept the Collective.
Or am I reading you wrong again. Because, you keep going ‘round in circles trying to blame the victim here using the “greater good” as justification for trampling some poor sod into the ground.
Welcome to the somewhat free world, Brit.
FYI, we say "ass" over here.
I don’t live in an absolutist mindset where any deviation from the libertarian line makes me a statist.
You suggest that a person should be able to use their property in any manner they wish. That may be acceptable in your mind, not to me.
In your world there is no civil tort for damages since there are no codes regarding land usage and everybody is on their own. Therefore I have no rights, either to justice, domestic tranquility or liberty.
This absolutist libertarian crap is annoying. You only think of yourself, not of anyone else, and how your liberty may adversely affect me and the enjoyment of my liberty.
So you decide you’re going to open a slaughterhouse next dorr to me. This may very well negatively affect me. What recourse do I have? To you...I have none, and thus my recourse will be to avail myself of hastening your untimely death to prevent my being harmed.
That’s where your libertarinaism leads.
and we here on FR use "arse" to be polite.
Libertarian?
Constitutional.
Don’t like it?
Leave.
Constitutional...really? Anarchist.
Leave...no.
Laws regarding land use are not prohibited by the Constitution, and it is within the scope of the power of the states, and more importantly the municipalities to define.
You shout it is unconstitutional....really. Show me where in the constitution that prohibits individual states and municipalities from enacting any land use restrictions?
It doesn’t.
More liberal logic from you. I support the rule of law based on the limits in the Constitution. Therefore, in your tiny little mind, I'm an "anarchist".
When you have gone back to remedial Social Studies and actually taken in the information given... Then you can come back here and expound upon property Rights.
The pronunciation and meaning is the same.
Property use restrictions are not exactly defined in the Fifth Amendment. You may consider such restrictions on use to be a “taking” but it is clear that under common law it is not.
Under common law (yeah, that common law which guided the framers), people cannot use their property
in ways that damage their neighbors’ property, as taking things those neighbors hold free and clear. Property rights are self-limiting: they constitute a judicially crafted and enforced regulatory scheme in which rights of active use end when they encroach on the property rights of others.
You don’t seem to think that encroaching on another’s property rights to quiet enjoyment or by introducing unacceptable risk is something that needs to be addressed.
Under the Fifth Amendment then, does government have to compensate owners for the losses they suffer when regulations reduce the value of their property?
When government acts to secure rights like when it stops someone from excessively endangering others, it is acting under its police power and no compensation is due the owner, whatever his financial losses, because the use prohibited or ‘‘taken’’ was not consistent with common law to begin with. Since there is no right to endanger others, we do not have to pay those who created the dangerous situation not to do so. Thus, the question is not whether value was taken by a regulation but whether a right was taken. Proper uses of the police power take no rights. To the contrary, they protect rights.
And thus the constitution does not expressly prohibit land use regulations. It only prohibits “takings” that are tangible and where the owner can show where he was adversely affected, as long as his actions are consistent with common law understandings of encroachment on his neighbors property rights.
Well... Since they came onto HIS property to TAKE his property away... It's seriously germane to the discussion and ensuing events.
You don’t seem to think that encroaching on another’s property rights to quiet enjoyment or by introducing unacceptable risk is something that needs to be addressed.
None of which is met by a van hidden by shrubs and fencing. So, even your silly test doesn't meet your requirements.
IOW... Just stop. You are trying very hard to make your Socialist argument stick and you just aren't doing a very good job.
Great point!
Thank you.
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.