Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: roo_ster on June 30, 2011, 01:39:55 PM
-
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7Yy-roIT1A&feature=player_embedded
Article:
http://www.laweekly.com/content/printVersion/1303834/
L.A. Weekly found in a six-week investigation that county inspectors and armed DA investigators also are pursuing victimless misdemeanors and code violations, with sometimes tragic results. The government can define land on which residents have lived for years as "vacant" if their cabins, homes and mobile homes are on parcels where the land use hasn't been legally established. Some have been jailed for defying the officials in downtown Los Angeles, while others have lost their savings and belongings trying to meet the county's "final zoning enforcement orders." Los Angeles County has left some residents, who appeared to be doing no harm, homeless.
The video is more like stills with audio. The most hilarious part is when the one resident shows the letter he got from the county saying his neighbors didn;t like what he was doing. Resident said, "Nieghbors?! You mean the jack rabbits, snakes, and spiders?" and then the photos pan out showing resident is in the middle of BFE with no neighbors in sight.
-
For the record, "phonehenge" looked pretty cool.
This is just disgusting. Why does a privet residence require hall widths to be wheelchair accessable? Why does the hight of electric sockets matter?
If a guy wants to park his classic cars (or his beaters for that matter) on his property, as long as they arn't leaking nasty into the ground matter?
And the bit about the older ladys water tank was just stupid.
LA County officials need a whoop upside the head, to knock the stupid out.
-
have to string 'em upside down, and bleed 'em for weeks, to get it all out. =|
-
The article makes it sound as if the "authorities" are deliberately TRYING to provoke something.
If they ultimately succeed and target a cold, calculating person rather than an excitable hothead . . . they may be left quite unhappy at the result. =(
-
The state of california is going out of it's way to drive everyone out. My wife looked up on zillow the house she lived in with her dad and step mom. Nice homes but not mansions. The taxes on the home 2 doors down went from $3500/year to $16,000/year. Who can live there? No wonder Nevada is chock full of displaced californians. They voted this mess in and it turned on them and bit them on the rear end.
-
FTR, I am not against all property regs at all levels of gov't.
I am in favor of folks enacting them at different levels and applying them with some sense.
What has happened here is that urban folks and bureaucritters in LA County, with numbers on their side, have decided to impose wholly inappropriate regs on rural folks, most of whom made a conscious choice to live out in BFE to be left alone and leave their neighbors alone. But, now the urban busy-bodies are after them.
For my own part, I live in a municipality that does some relatively rigorous code enforcement. I knew that when I bought my home. Heck, that is partly why I bought where I did. I had options to buy elsewhere if I could not manage to keep cars out of the front yard and un-upholstered furniture off the front porch.
-
HGood point, rooster.
I still don't get the code regarding hallways and electric sockets. The halls may hurt resale value, but thats the homeowners business.
-
Well then, roo-ster, ya gonna just love this one....http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13575
-
I wonder how many of those folks always just voted D.
I do feel sorry for them though, I just hope they remember their CA experience when they move away, like I did.
-
Well then, roo-ster, ya gonna just love this one....http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13575
Just what we need, a bunch of metrotards trying to tell us country folk how to live. :facepalm:
-
We must have ordered liberty. We can't have them just doing what they want.
-
I still don't get the code regarding hallways and electric sockets. The halls may hurt resale value, but thats the homeowners business.
Height of electric sockets is to ensure that a person in a wheelchair can reach the socket to plug something in. The electric code is only concerned with the wiring, so it would allow receptacles to be right at floor level, which is too low for most wheelchair occupants.
However ... I've never heard of any jurisdiction that enforced handicapped requirements in single family residences. In my neck of the woods the accessibility requirements apply only to apartments, and to a percentage (10% IIRC) of condo units or townhouses in a project.
-
HGood point, rooster.
I still don't get the code regarding hallways and electric sockets. The halls may hurt resale value, but thats the homeowners business.
Electrical outlets are probably part of the National Electric Code. Dad is a retired electrician and he usually informed me of such things.
Hallways are probably part of the Americans with Disabilities Act, doesn't surprise me that California has stricter codes.
Basically if you don't like a the laws/codes of a place, move.
-
Basically if you don't like a the laws/codes of a place, move.
Unless you cannot afford moving (disabled and fixed income, etc), and you're overwhelmed by voters who don't mind voting away your freedom to line their pockets.
I concur with roo_ster. This is a deliberate way of controlling folks that wanted to live out in the boonies. Personally, I'd follow charby's idea. Don't move to areas where this sort of thing is inevitable.
-
Personally, I'd follow charby's idea. Don't move to areas where this sort of thing is inevitable.
Problem is, you can't know the places where this is inevitable or not. It might look like a great place for you now, but lots can change in 20-30 years.
-
Problem is, you can't know the places where this is inevitable or not. It might look like a great place for you now, but lots can change in 20-30 years.
I'm pretty sure places like WY and ND will still be the same in 30 years.
-
Unless you cannot afford moving (disabled and fixed income, etc), and you're overwhelmed by voters who don't mind voting away your freedom to line their pockets.
I'm pretty sure the Boonie Rats could out number the other folks in terms of voting if they would get off their asses and do so. Folks who attend meetings (in numbers) and voice their concerns usually are the ones who are at the table.
-
People usually think of the Federal and State governments being responsible for most of the tyrannical laws out there, but a lot of folks don't realize that local governments can be quite a pain in the ass as well. Zoning and codes are some of the biggest infringements on our liberty. Nobody has a right to enjoy the view of his neighbor's property.
I'd love to find a city that doesn't have all these BS codes, but it seems to be a pretty much universal phenomenon among cities that are any larger than the "podunk" category.
-
People usually think of the Federal and State governments being responsible for most of the tyrannical laws out there, but a lot of folks don't realize that local governments can be quite a pain in the ass as well. Zoning and codes are some of the biggest infringements on our liberty. Nobody has a right to enjoy the view of his neighbor's property.
I'd love to find a city that doesn't have all these BS codes, but it seems to be a pretty much universal phenomenon among cities that are any larger than the "podunk" category. I guess that's why I plan on buying a large acreage in the country as soon as I can afford it, and hoping that some city doesn't come along and incorporate my property without my consent.
-
People usually think of the Federal and State governments being responsible for most of the tyrannical laws out there, but a lot of folks don't realize that local governments can be quite a pain in the ass as well. Zoning and codes are some of the biggest infringements on our liberty. Nobody has a right to enjoy the view of his neighbor's property.
I'd love to find a city that doesn't have all these BS codes, but it seems to be a pretty much universal phenomenon among cities that are any larger than the "podunk" category.
West Virginia, the land that zoning forgot. It has definite plusses and minuses.
-
that's "the land zoning ran screaming like a little girl, bleeding profusely, from". :laugh: or something like that. my english is extra bad today. :lol:
-
I'm pretty sure the Boonie Rats could out number the other folks in terms of voting if they would get off their asses and do so. Folks who attend meetings (in numbers) and voice their concerns usually are the ones who are at the table.
Did you look at the pictures? This ain't rural Iowa.
-
Houston, Texas has no zoning laws, and they are proud of it. =D There are still building codes tho'.
It sounds like LA County is trying to enforce current codes on old buildings that may have met the codes at the time they were built. Ex post facto law. (that's why old structures are supposed to be grandfathered)
-
Basically if you don't like a the laws/codes of a place, move.
I believe that's what these folks thought they were doing.
It also sounds like many of them have been there for decades, and the County is only now putting them in the crosshairs. Makes you wonder how many of the regulations they are being clobbered with are ex post facto, enacted after the construction was done and therefore not applicable.
My house was built by my parents in 1950. There are a LOT of things that don't meet the current code for private homes, but were legal in this state in 1950. I am not required to change anything. The only legal requirement is that any new work has to meet current code.
The ADA does not apply in private, single-family residences. California, of course, probably has its own accessibility regs, but it's still pretty surprising to hear that they are being applied inside a private dwelling.
-
I concur with roo_ster. This is a deliberate way of controlling folks that wanted to live out in the boonies. Personally, I'd follow charby's idea. Don't move to areas where this sort of thing is inevitable.
Where is that? I have a cousin in AZ who always wanted to live way out of civilization. He has built out (WAY out) in the boonies three or four times, then had to move still farther out as the unincorporated areas where he lived were gobbled up and subsumed by one of the incorporated municipalities. You can't always predict where such encroachment is inevitable.
-
if you build a nice big firing range. then even if they takeover, you have a nice grandfathered firing range, that you can open to the public, and make enough selling to rebuild. :laugh:
-
a friend built in northern nevada, he was worried about zones and code. its over one hundred miles from the county seat, with pretty much nothing in between and the bureaucrats hate coming all the way out. So he built to code and they drove to the property line, looked at it from a few acres away said "fine" and left.
most folks out here only get code inspections if some one complains.
-
Where is that? I have a cousin in AZ who always wanted to live way out of civilization. He has built out (WAY out) in the boonies three or four times, then had to move still farther out as the unincorporated areas where he lived were gobbled up and subsumed by one of the incorporated municipalities. You can't always predict where such encroachment is inevitable.
My grandmother used to live in rural NC and was surrounded by farmland (small farms with few if any livestock) and modest homes on 1-5 acre lots. She lived there for close to 60 years before moving into assisted living last year. About 20 years ago, a guy bought a bunch of property on the other side of a 2 lane highway, about 200yds away from my grandmother's house, and set up a turkey farm (close enough you can hear the turkeys). Now when the wind blows right or when the smell is particularly strong, you can smell it quite plainly from her front yard. I guess he has the right to do what he wants with his property and there were no laws saying he couldn't, but it's pretty damn rude to build something like that in what is mostly a residential community (and right across the street from a church).
Zoning is a response to such aholes.
Chris
-
People usually think of the Federal and State governments being responsible for most of the tyrannical laws out there, but a lot of folks don't realize that local governments can be quite a pain...as well. Zoning and codes are some of the biggest infringements on our liberty. Nobody has a right to enjoy the view of his neighbor's property.
I'd love to find a city that doesn't have all these BS codes, but it seems to be a pretty much universal phenomenon among cities that are any larger than the "podunk" category.
It's called federalism. As you move from the national to the state to the more local governments (even down to HOAs), tighter controls and stricter laws become more acceptable. What may be tyranny at the national level may be good governance at the local level.
-
It's called federalism. As you move from the national to the state to the more local governments (even down to HOAs), tighter controls and stricter laws become more acceptable. What may be tyranny at the national level may be good governance at the local level.
My views on the legitimate role of government do not depend on what level of government is involved. If a government does anything other than protecting the liberty of its citizens, its actions are illegitimate, period.
The national government should only be doing this job in a handful of narrowly-defined ways. The state and local governments should have more leeway, but they should still be strictly limited to that role. At least that's how it should work in a free society. Far from what we live in today, I know.
-
Did you look at the pictures? This ain't rural Iowa.
If the land was greener it looks a lot like a lot small acerages of rural Iowa.
-
We bought way out where we did just because we wanted to be as far from anything as possible, yet still get a place we could afford. We are about as far from the main highways as you can get in every direction.
If we had had more money, I would have bought 20 or 30 square miles up at the base of the Snowy Mountains and lived in the middle of it. But there are no smaller parcels out that way - it is all big ranches which of course is the main reason that it's so remote.
Unfortunately we have some neighbors that would like to have a fine road through our area, but fortunately our county is so poor that it will likely be another 20+ years before we even get some gravel on the upper end. You should have heard them whining to the commissioners when the river washed out the good end of the road. ;/
No building codes except for septic systems in this five county district (which is why I didn't want to buy in Jellystone County or anywhere on the I-90 corridor) and it's pretty obvious because you see some real interesting structures alongside some nice houses. :lol:
When I was working out in Commiefornia, I drove out to Antelope Valley, and also up to the San Joaquin and Cuyama valleys, because I just wanted to see something other than city. It's funny how one side of the mountains there are ten million people and forty miles away over the hills it is remote desert with a few ranches and homesteads, that could almost be Montana. (except the SJ is all big ag) But I guess the city folks just can't stand anyone living in something resembling freedom anywhere that they can reach their bloodsucking tentacles :mad:
-
yep. =|
-
My views on the legitimate role of government do not depend on what level of government is involved.
Perhaps they should.
-
"...a few acres away..."
Heh.
I used to use a line like that as a joke: "five acres by ten acres."
-
Perhaps they should.
Initiation of force is initiation of force, regardless of the identity of the aggressor or the victim.
-
Perhaps they should.
Why?
-
Initiation of force is initiation of force, regardless of the identity of the aggressor or the victim.
You think I'm justifying the initiation of force?
-
My views on the legitimate role of government do not depend on what level of government is involved. If a government does anything other than protecting the liberty of its citizens, its actions are illegitimate, period.
The national government should only be doing this job in a handful of narrowly-defined ways. The state and local governments should have more leeway, but they should still be strictly limited to that role. At least that's how it should work in a free society. Far from what we live in today, I know.
Thank you for highlighting the incompatibility of libertarian doctrine with the COTUS and classical liberalism in general.
-
Thank you for highlighting the incompatibility of libertarian doctrine with the COTUS and classical liberalism in general.
In what way is libertarian doctrine incompatible with COTUS?
The most conservative interpretation of COTUS will tell us that [at the barest minimum, and ignoring certain historical facts] COTUS is mostly a restraint against FedGov and the states against violating a narrow range of rights.
But even if I were to accept this position, just because something is Constitutional does not make it right or legitimate morally. It is not 'incompatible' with the Constitution to believe that local governments should follow libertarian views, and we have the tools to make them do so provided within the existing Constitutional framework, if there are enough libertarians.
-
In what way is libertarian doctrine incompatible with COTUS?
The most conservative interpretation of COTUS will tell us that [at the barest minimum, and ignoring certain historical facts] COTUS is mostly a restraint against FedGov and the states against violating a narrow range of rights.
But even if I were to accept this position, just because something is Constitutional does not make it right or legitimate morally. It is not 'incompatible' with the Constitution to believe that local governments should follow libertarian views, and we have the tools to make them do so provided within the existing Constitutional framework, if there are enough libertarians.
I agree with what you just wrote.
henschman went a bit farther, though:
My views on the legitimate role of government do not depend on what level of government is involved. If a government does anything other than protecting the liberty of its citizens, its actions are illegitimate, period.
The COTUS does envision a federal system where the states (or other duly constituted govt's) can exercise legitimate powers not granted to fed.gov.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Libertarians with their doctrine down (and not just liberty-minded conservatives who appropriate the term "libertarian" for the chicks and a whiff of naughty radicalism) generally side with henschman's view, since that pretty much is the logical end point of much libertarian doctrine.
-
Legitimacy may have other definitions other than 'constitutional legitimacy'.
-
Legitimacy may have other definitions other than 'constitutional legitimacy'.
OK...
(Most every time I hear "illegitimate" WRT gov't or gov't action, it is in the context of usurpation of powers, coup d'etat, etc.)
Which is kinda beside the point, since my contention was that henschman's libertarian assertions were incompatible with the COTUS...and you are stating that the COTUS is not the yardstick henschman is using to measure legitimate exercise of powers.
It seems we are then in agreement, no?
-
Thank you for highlighting the incompatibility of libertarian doctrine with the COTUS and classical liberalism in general.
I do not believe that government or a piece of paper can be a source of rights, or can legitimately deny them to anyone. I believe rights are inherent. The Constitution is not the end-all -- like Lysander Spooner said, it has either authorized such government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. However, I wouldn't say that the Constitution is "incompatible" with liberty -- it leaves the states unrestrained from perpetrating many violations of liberty, but it does not require them to perpetrate them, either. Under the Constitution, a state would be free to limit its government to legitimate roles.
I am not a big detractor of the Constitution. I think that if our government were to start following it, it would be a wonderful step in the right direction, as it would require the cessation of many of at least the national government's activities -- but like I said, it would not be the end-all.
You think I'm justifying the initiation of force?
You are if you advocate any level of government doing anything other than protecting the maximal correlative liberty of its citizens.
In the context of this topic, I was referring to the government forcing people to make their yards pretty, forcing people to obtain their permission to build or add onto their house, forcibly preventing people from building certain categories of structures or undertaking certain categories of free association on their property, etc.
-
We must have ordered liberty. We can't have them just doing what they want.
Ordered liberty is the intellectual's way saying: "Well, I love freedom and all. There just ought a be a law..."
-
OK...
(Most every time I hear "illegitimate" WRT gov't or gov't action, it is in the context of usurpation of powers, coup d'etat, etc.)
Which is kinda beside the point, since my contention was that henschman's libertarian assertions were incompatible with the COTUS...and you are stating that the COTUS is not the yardstick henschman is using to measure legitimate exercise of powers.
No, we are not. Libertarianism is still not incompatible with the COTUS, because COTUS nowhere mandates a specific kind of rule. It is constitutional (not 'a good idea', or 'wise') for you to install all sort of governments on the local and state levels - a welfare dystopia that enforces wheelchair access laws on camping tents, a hyperconservative horror with curfews for everybody under 21, or a libertarian madhouse with state pre-emption against zoning laws.
Were you to say that the Constitution does not mandate complete libertarianism everywhere, you would be right. But this is far from saying libertarianism is incompatible with the constitution.
-
I've often thought that if I win the lottery, near the top of my "to do" list will be buying small chunks of land just outside the city's ETJ in every direction to put up everything I can think of that doesn't meet city codes. If they annex it, they're stuck grandfathering it, and it would really put a knot in the drawers of the "build a fancy house just outside the city limits" crowd.