Text 11634, 195 rader
Skriven 2009-05-31 08:15:40 av Dan Ceppa (1:138/666.0)
Kommentar till en text av Ross Cassell
Ärende: Unfathomable
====================
-> On 30 May 09 14:24:28, Ross Cassell got back to Dan Ceppa
-> Re: Unfathomable
RC>> It opens the door for Govt to be able to dictate whatever else
RC>> one can do in their homes.
DC> There arlready are laws against what you can't do in your home. Or,
DC> is it legal in your state to run a meth lab?
RC> There are no laws to prohibit one from exercising constitutional
RC> rights.
Yes, there are. The most often cited one is that you cannot yell
"Theatre!" in a crowded firehouse.
RC>> Maybe one cant carve wood figurines in the garage any longer?
DC> It could be, if it is a business.
RC> You never heard of home businesses before?
Have you heard of the fact that some zoning laws prohit such activity?
RC>> Maybe you wont be able to restore that 57 Chevy in your garage
RC>> anymore because you home isnt licensed as a repair facility.
DC> Try shooting urethane paint in your neighborhood and see what happens.
RC> Dont be silly, you working or having worked in the DIY auto parts
RC> business, you know all too well there are plenty of folk turning a
Yeah, and I have also known some of them do be cited for violations
of fair use. So you have any idea of the toxic gases given off by
the use of urethane paint? I refuse to sell it to anyone but a
registered paint shop. Hell, one registered mechanic I know bought
some from another counterman. Then, he didn't show up for a while.
He ended up in the hospital and nearly died.
RC>> Myabe one would no longer be able to work/telecommute from home
RC>> any longer unless they have a permit?
DC> Depending on the business, that can be the case.
RC> Do you even possess the knowledge to know what telecommuting from home
RC> is?
Has it occurred to you that it might be because items are being constantly
shipped in and out of the house and that the house has become a warehouse
instead? People wil put up with reasonable UPS deliveries. They will
get upset when the roads get clogged with various shipping trucks all
day long.
RC> Often requires a PC and a telephone...
RC> There is no depending..
Yes, there is. I just gave you an exanple where the busines requires
far more than just a phone.
RC> Just how much Government do you want in your life?
At least enough to provent Wall Street from fucking up the economy
again. And enough to keep lead and mercury out of my drinking water.
Perhaps enough so I can breathe the air around. And, tgere are more than
just a few more.
RC>> Sound extreme, sure, but when one can rationalize openning
RC>> pandoras box, it leads to other things..
DC> No, it doesn't. There are zoning laws in most every community that
DC> restrict all sorts of things.
RC> Having people over for a pool party, prayer meal or other get together
RC> isnt a zoning violation.
It is when such events are held on a regular basis. Read the codes
for the details.
RC>> No, because the article elaborates that he needed to pay the city
RC>> for a Major Use Permit, and the city could not justify that if
RC>> indeed his gatherings were disturbing or inconveniencing the
RC>> neighbors.
DC> Because that's the way zoning laws often work. If you want a
DC> variance, you'll have to pay for it.
RC> A variance to allow one to disrupt the neighbors??
No, to insure that such variances are done in such a way to minimize impact
on the neighborhood. In this particular case, it most likely would mean
that the perp would have to provide additional paking on his own property.
A;so, he may have to hire someone to insure safe traffic flow at the
times of the events. It really isn't that hard to figure out.
RC> You based your argument in part on the possibility that the neighbors
RC> were disrupted, turns out that in part they were.. Parking, fender
RC> benders.. You are saying that the pursuit of a permit makes all that
RC> ok?
See above. It's rather basic. All the guy has to do is pave over his
back yard to provide additional parking spaces for his guests.
RC>> Yes, but such article did elaborate on the Pastor being asked to
RC>> pay for a Major Use Permit, which presumably if paid, that would
RC>> be have
DC> There's your answer again: "Major Use Permit".
RC> I tend to think your opinion of this case is highly tainted by your
RC> rabid atheism and that if it were more of a case of being a Tupperware
Nice try, Ross, but that don't fly. The problem is obvious. The
neighborhood is subject to disruption of traffic on a regular basis.
Besides being an inconvenience to to them, it most likely is also
considered a fire hazard in that what should be open fire lanes are
blocked.
RC> Better yet, if this man was working for ACORN or having some grassroot
RC> political meeting to elect Democrats to office, you would have no
RC> problem.
Give it break. What's ACORN have to do with this other than your need
to find a diversion?
DC> the zoning codes. They have 2 choices: Pay for the needed variance
DC> or move to another neighborhood where those restrivtions do not apply.
RC> Oh please, paving his lawn and installing a parking lot and erecting a
RC> steeple is a zoning problem, not having people over as guests.
You answered the question again yourself. The guy needs more paking and
it will have to be on his land and not on the neighborhood's streets.
RC>> You do reveal as to how the city found out about the gatherings,
RC>> but fender benders can happen in neighborhoods for many reasons.
RC>> Six
DC> Yeah, something that a real reporter would have brought out in the
DC> original story. Why do you think I'm questioning the validity of the
DC> premise of the piece?
RC> You obviously have no idea of what news aggregation is, the fact that
RC> the article I cited was from a Foxnews RSS feed has no bearing on
RC> Foxnews at all, as they took the story from a local feed.
The fact of the matter is that the story is incomplete. They either
didn't run the full story on purpose or they didn't bother to try
to find out the details to make a valid story. Then again, we are
talking about FOX News[sic].
DC> Has it occurred to you that the disturbance is in the fact that there
DC> is much more than normal traffic in the neighborhood? What about the
DC> fact that other neighbors' guests are deprived of parking at their
DC> friends homes?
RC> When I lived in Vienna Va, a public street was exactly that.. If a
We are not talking about Vienna, VA. The zoning laws controling
this are those of Chula Vista, Ca. My guess would be that they are
not identical.
RC> We can fire off and purchase fireworks around here year round, guess
RC> we are special.
RC> Obviously they cant be used if one is disturbing the peace.
Try again, Ross: There are many states in which pvt ownership of
fireworks is illegal.
RC> Here a script you can use...
RC> "Sirs, this man is worshipping a deity, I dont approve of people
RC> worshipping deities, you must stop this dammit!"
RC> Oh and the fender bender, the Preacher paid for it out of his own
RC> pocket.
That's nice, Ross. Try sticking those works back into your own mouth
and swallowing them. You're the one trying to make this in a debate
on religion when it is about fair land use under existing codes.
RC> Oh and the Neighborhood, it isnt exactly in a hustling bustling
RC> section of the city.
Which is EXACTLY why the extra traffic isn't wanted, is it!
--- OMX/Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
* Origin: Soundly on the Fault Line (1:138/666.0)
|