Fun Facts About Land Use Management
FUN FACT # 1 -- It's really a zoning plan, getting it's authority from TCA 13-7-101 thru 115, which is the chapter of state law entitled "County Zoning." Why was it called "Land Use Management?" For the simple, Orwellian reason that Roger Reedy and the other pro-zoning scoundrels knew they'd never get away with passing a zoning plan that explicitly called itself a zoning plan. So they dubbed their botched creation a "LUMP," and hoped that this deception would pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Sadly, for many people, it did.
More fun facts to come in the comments section. Stay tuned!
More fun facts to come in the comments section. Stay tuned!
posted by J. Kendrick McPeters | 8:22 PM
127 Comments:
FUN FACT # 2 -- Roger Reedy lied over and over and over again, when he reassured people that "the LUMP is not a zoning plan." Besides telling this whopper on the radio, he was stupid enough to put in print in the local newspaper.
In the June 2, 2003 Pulaski Citizen, Reedy wrote "This (the way the LUMP works) is much different from a zoning plan, since new industry and business are not confined to a specific area." Read between the lines, and what was Reedy really saying? He was saying that the LUMP is not a zoning plan. And that, my friends, is what we call a bald faced lie.
What's particularly bad about this particular lie, is that it was placed in the state required newspaper "summary" of the zoning plan. It would be hard to imagine a worse place to tell such a lie, but then, maybe Reedy has no common sense, or just figured he'd never get caught. Whatever.
FUN FACT # 3 -- Not only is the LUMP a zoning plan, it is, for all intents and purposes, the same awful zoning plan that was overwhelmingly rejected back in 1991. Being too lazy to do original work - and quite likely, lacking the intellectual firepower to create an original plan -- the LUMP committee simply dusted off James Miller's old plan (written by "expert" Morton Stein with money provided by pro-zoning group CATI) and changed every use of the word "zoning" to "land use management," and "zone" to "district."
The two plans are 99.9% identical, as anyone can see by comparing them. Both are available online at my (badly in need of updating) website, www.kendrickmcpeters.com.
Read them both, and see for yourself that Roger Reedy not only lied about the LUMP being something other than zoning, but, to add insult to injury, the LUMP is nothing but a rehash of a zoning plan that was soundly rejected some 15 years ago!
FUN FACT # 4 -- The very first sentence of the LUMP is a lie!
It purports that the plan establishes "land use districts" -- note the plural form in "districts" -- when, in reality, the plan places all of rural Giles County into one "no development" district, FAR.
This is not the only example of a lie embedded in the LUMP. Keep reading; there's more to come...
Pro-zoners need to take a weekend stroll on Highway 373 in Lewisburg city limits. Message - Zoners will make sure you can't do a lot of things you may want to do. (breathe) Zoners will make sure you get to do a few things you may not want, too. (life in a sewer?)
dm
FUN FACT # 5 -- The second "whereas" statement on page one of the LUMP is a baldfaced lie, twice over!
It purports that the "Giles County Regional Planning Commission" prepared the LUMP "after a comprehensive study of present land uses, development issues, development trends, and environmental and health issues."
This is all hogwash. Firstly, the Planning Commission did not -- as required by state law -- prepare the LUMP. They fobbed that task off on the "Land Use Management" committee. Claiming that the Planning Commission did their required job is simply a lie.
But the bigger lie is in the claim that some sort of "study" -- comprehensive or otherwise -- was done by anyone. All that the LUM committee did was to plagiarize the 1991 zoning plan. And, being essentially incompetent, they didn't even do this job themselves, but rather hired a wordsmith to do the job for them.
Why does any of this matter? Well, if the LUMP had been written by the Planning Commission, it would have had the input of the half dozen or so ordinary citizens who serve on that Commmission. The LUM committee, on the other hand, was entirely composed of County Commissioners, with no "civilians" to reality check their grab of power. Moreover, the fact that the laundry list of issues was not considered means that the Planning Commission -- despite the extravagent claims of the LUMP -- was derelict in its duty.
Of course, none of this should surprise anyone. It's just business as usual with Giles County politics. But, considering the great loss of property rights caused by the LUMP's passage, these issues are very important, and should be foremost on the mind of the voter come Election Day.
What is keeping someone from buying property and putting a garbage dump, a pipeline, a junkyard etc? I am not aware of any laws in Giles county that would protect its citizens from these types of businesses. Am I wrong? I have been wondering about this for sometime.
Mr. McPeters,
I am curious, are you not going to respond to the above question and comment??
Anonymous,
Yes, I am going to answer it. Probably later today. But right now I am snowed under with work, and I have a very tight deadline. There are about four different projects, including a newspaper ad, that I'm committed to getting done. So please be patient while I work on these other matters.
Thanks.
You have made time to make comments on the other topics today. Why is that??? Just curious.
Anonymous,
I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. If I had any sense, I'd close my email program, and be blissfully unaware of all the postings being made to my blog.
But I leave it on (partly because I'm in correspondence with the newspaper), and so, when a non-technical and easy to answer question is posed, I tend to take a few moments to answer it.
I really do intend to answer, in a comprehensive manner, the question regarding the "protect its citizens" issue. Plus, I have many, many more "fun facts" I'd like to post in this thread when I have the chance to write them.
Please be patient. I'm only one person, and I have a lot of work to do...
Note of "Protection". It's basically you vs. the dump man, the girlie man, or the neuclear waste dump man. You might win if you can raise enough of a fuss.
If you have zoning, it's you vs the three idiots who want to change your life plus the zoning commissioner, the jobs commissioner, the tax hounds, the state, the Feds, and the UN. There's no chance of winning. Sniff around Lewisburg & you might get an idea of what can happen to you.
To Anonymous...
Why don't you and some of the "anti-zoners" take a stroll down Christian Road just off Minor Hill Highway and take a look at what having NO protection did for those homeowners. While you are there, visit with some of these law-abiding taxpayers and ask them about their property rights!
People, you need to wake up and see what is going on in this county with respect to those (mostly outsiders who know better than you do) who are trying to overturn or reverse the zoning protection we now have. And, by the way, would one of those people explain to us how "zoning" has injured anyone? Notice that they are supporting any prospective candidate for commissioner who seeks to do away with it while they belittle those commissioners who voted in favor of it. WHY? Do you ever wonder why these people are doing this? What is their agenda? Remember this....most of them are "higher-level" thinkers who aren't even native Giles Countians. Does it not insult you that they presume to know better what we need? I would suggest that if they are unhappy here they might go back where they came from. Just a thought.
ZONING
Private property becomes public property when government gains the right to determine use, transfer, or sale. The first thing zoning requires is a bureaucracy to run it. Next the bureaucrats have to set regulations that will have the affect of law without the benefit of legislation. It requires extensive mapping, bureaucratic visions of growth, property speculation, infrastructure, and much more. There will be enforcers, interpreters, and judges, while most of the people will be wishing they had the little plot of land someone's relative made a killing on. The cost is beyond measure. The invisible bureaucracy makes the decisions, not you. When your freedom is in his hands, guess what happens next. You’re free to follow!
On the other hand, you can put a deed restriction on your property for almost any reason and it basically lasts a lifetime. You can find a neighborhood that offers the same thing. You can buy your neighbor's property and turn it into your own park. The decisions are yours - you are a free person. No bureaucracy or cost!
If you are a little over 200 years old and moved here when the area was settled, you have lived very well for 200+ years without zoning! In fact we have survived since the beginning of time with no zoning. Further, the forefathers of Giles County have been independent and free to roam most of that time.
If we're talking about downsizing, it's the zoners who have no seniority or squatting rights. Guess they'll have to move to a condo or high rise kennel where every dog has a tag, manicured nails, a fluffy collar, a leash, & artificial clackers.
What a foolish post! Don't be a jackanapes!
When a 22% minority can manipulate a majority of commission votes to deny rights treasured by a 78% majority, we have lost freedom and representative government. If it's important, free people vote on it. If zoning was an important issue voted on and rejected by the citizens before, who in this free country can say they have a right to overturn the will of the people? Any politicican who acts to overturn or overthrow the will of the citizens should be removed from office, regardless of the issue!
TO Friday, July 21, 2006 8:28:41 PM
The majority is not always right.
To Anonymous:
You are so right about that. The interesting thing about the 78% majority is that we all know talk is cheap and people follow like sheep! That's it in a nutshell. Thank goodness for strong men who are not afraid to stand for what they believe!!
Anonymous Bootlicker said:
Thank goodness for strong men who are not afraid to stand for what they believe!!
Standing against the 78% majority? I see you've reached the phase where you love Big Brother. Congratulations.
Incidentally, the "strong men" you praise -- men like Roger Reedy and Edwin Lovell and Bill Holt -- were actually snivelling cowards. If they'd had any real strength, they'd have called their zoning plan a zoning plan, rather than cower in fear of the public, dishonestly calling it a "Land Use Management Plan." And they'd have admitted that it was recycled garbage that nobody wanted 15 years ago, rather than pretend that it was something new and great.
Strong, brave men? In a pig's eye!
Strong men, strong arms, weak morals! The planet is full of tyrants who work 24 hours a day to steal individual freedom. The meaning of 'free" is lost in "free to follow".
The 78% may not always be right in the eyes of the 22%. It's a sure thing the 22% are not right in the eyes of the 78%. Fortunately, the 78% still has the right to vote the 22% presence & influence out of office, wherever they hide. It's time to vote and regain the freedom that so many Americans have died for since founding this nation. Minority rule to oppress the wishes of a majority has no place in America! The reasons are as simple as the word "freedom"!
don m
Anonymous, Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:05:55 AM:
People, you need to wake up and see what is going on in this county with respect to those (mostly outsiders who know better than you do) who are trying to overturn or reverse the zoning protection we now have.
First of all, I'm not in any sense, an "outsider." My family roots probably go back much farther here, than do yours.
Second, people who have lived part of their lives outside the confines of Giles County, often have life experiences that people in Giles do not. For instance, they often encounter zoning, and develop a principled, experience based, and rational, aversion to it. You might ought to listen to these folks, rather than dismissing them as lowly "outsiders."
Third, there is no "zoning protection" to overturn or reverse. The damned LUMP isn't being enforced, so it isn't protecting anyone. And it is so poorly written, that an attempt to enforce it, as is, would be a fiasco.
And, by the way, would one of those people explain to us how "zoning" has injured anyone?
The LUMP isn't being enforced, so it isn't hurting anyone at the time. But if it was being enforced, it would prohibit any building (other than barns and chickencoops) from being built, without the "propertyowner" coming before the County Commission, and begging for permission to use the land they'd bought, paid for, and pay taxes on. In other words, if the LUMP was actually enforced, it would lead to a massive destruction of property rights, with the "owners" of property being essentially slaves to their masters on the County Commission. Funny how supporters of the LUMP tend to downplay that fact, huh?
Notice that they are supporting any prospective candidate for commissioner who seeks to do away with it while they belittle those commissioners who voted in favor of it. WHY?
Gee, maybe we are doing that, because we figure that commissioners who stood with the 78% majority deserve to be returned to office, while the power mad clique that represents the 22% minority, deserves to be canned. That's a possibility. But I'm sure you'll want to put a sinister spin on it.
Do you ever wonder why these people are doing this?
Duh, haven't you been paying attention? It's because we believe in such "radical" ideas as individual freedom and property rights. It's because we know, from deep down in the bottom of our hearts, that the people who OWN land are better qualified to make "land use decisions" than a small handful of amateur politicians-- ie, county commissioners.
What is their agenda?
WE believe in the usual stuff-- truth, justice and the American way. What, pray tell, is the agenda of the powermongers who don't want to allow a church, private school, or minimarket, to be built anywhere in Giles County, without first obtaining PERMISSION from the County Commission to do so? Is this county threatened by unchecked building of churches, schools, and minimarkets? And what's the deal with industries "that have large numbers of employees?" Why did Reedy and his cronies zone them OUT of Giles County? Is he afraid that a large business might locate here, and jack up the wage rates? If not, what was their damned agenda that lead to this abomination? Are you going to press him for an answer?
Remember this....most of them are "higher-level" thinkers who aren't even native Giles Countians.
Again, with the "outsider" smear! Is that the only arrow in your quiver? Sounds like it is...
Does it not insult you that they presume to know better what we need?
Don't you think WE are insulted by the fact that pro-zoners like you, presume that County Commissioners know better what should be allowed to locate in Giles County, than the landowners who own (and pay taxes on) the property in question?
And have you even read the LUMP, all the way through? Didn't think so. Maybe you ought to let those with an IQ high enough to read and understand those "big words" tell you what's in it. And try not to feel envious of your superiors, okay?
I would suggest that if they are unhappy here they might go back where they came from.
I was born here. Maybe you should leave, instead.
Just a thought.
Not much of one. But keep trying!
Mr. McPeters:
Just when I thought there was a snowball's chance that you and I could remotely agree on anything, you say things to change my mind.
As for my use of the word "outsiders", I was never referring to you, so don't be so paranoid. If that word is a "smear" then what do you call the things you have said about people like Mrs. Vanzant, Mr. Reedy, and even a lowly simpleton like me? And why do you condescendingly make remarks that those against zoning believe in truth, justice, and the American way? Do you imply that those like me don't? I hope not. I have been in combat and have seen men die. So don't tell me about truth, justice, and the American way...I fought for it.
Why do you and others continue saying that those wishing to build things like churches would have to approach the "thrones" of the commissioners and beg for permission to do so? That is almost as absurd as people being told they would have to get permission to build a chicken coop or to have a certain breed of dog.
Finally (and this will be my last response to you), I would like to address the majority thing you keep referring to. Do you recall what happened to Jim Jones and the majority of his followers at Jonestown? The majority is NOT always right! Just a thought.
Anonymous,
You have repeatedly said that people who weren't born here shouldn't be listened to on the subject of zoning. (Despite the fact that they may have experienced it elsewhere.) If that is not a "smear," it is certainly kissing-cousins to a smear. What do I call what I've said about Mrs. Vanzant and Roger Reedy? THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. That's what.
Do pro-zoners believe in "truth, justice and the American way?" IN my opinion, they do not. Where is the "truth" in telling people that the LUMP isn't a zoning plan, when it clearly is? Where is the "justice" in a sore loser 22% minority dictating to the 78% who were victorious in a referendum? And is zoning any part of "the American Way?" It clearly is not. Zoning is, in truth, nothing more than Communism Lite, with your property rights taken away and turned over to the zoning commisars. It's based on the same stupid premise as communism (ie, that politicians can "plan" better than free people interacting voluntarily) and is a product of what historians call America's "red decade"-- the 1930s.
You ask why do I continue to claim that people wanting to build a church would have to get permission from Reedy and his fellow zoners? I continue to say it because it is the unvarnished TRUTH of the matter. Here's page 9 of the LUMP -- the FAR zone.
http://www.kendrickmcpeters.com/index.php?rfc=newplanhtml.php&pg=9
Now, do you see anything there about churches being allowed in FAR? You don't, unless you have an active imagination. So where are churches allowed? Go to this page:
http://www.kendrickmcpeters.com/index.php?rfc=newplanhtml.php&pg=10
And you'll see that, in the "Commercial" zone, churches and schools are allowed. Problem is, ALL OF THE RURAL LAND IN GILES COUNTY IS ZONED FAR, which means that it has to be REZONED in order to be converted from FAR to Commercial. You follow me? So what do you suppose is the process, dictated by state law, that has to be followed for such a rezoning??????
That's exactly right. FIRST, you have to go, hat in hand, before the Planning Commission. Then, depending on how they vote, you must, when you appear grovelling before the County Commission, get either a majority vote of the commissioners present, or a vote of a majority of the entire number of commissioners. See TCA 13-7-105(a) for the details, if you doubt me.
Now, I know this procedure is unfamiliar to you, if you've been listening to, and believing, the bilge put out by Reedy... but trust me, the STATE LAW is much more authoritative than Roger Reedy. So yes, my friend, under the LUMP, a person wanting to build a church WOULD have to "approach the throne of the commissioners and beg for permission." I agree, that is absurd... but it is only absurd in that it's very very stupid and unneccessary for a zoning plan to require something like this.
Now, want to have some fun? If you go to my website, you can read the original "James Miller" zoning plan that was rejected 15 years ago, and which was converted, by very slight modification, into the LUMP. Read it, and you'll see that churches and schools, under the old plan, were allowed to locate in FAR, without getting permission from anyone. Yet, when Reedy and his crew slavishly copied the old plan, they changed that part, so that churches and schools were now considered "commercial" and thus would require approval from the County Commission to rezone them in. Why don't you ask Mr. Reedy WHY HE DID THAT? What, pray tell, does he have against new churches being built without his imperial seal of approval? I've asked several times, but never gotten a straight answer. But maybe you will have better luck?
And yes, I of course know that the majority is not always right. But the ONLY alternative to rule by the majority, is rule by the minority. And if we're going to go down that path, we might as well just go whole hog and pick us a dictator who can boss us around. A full fledged dictator would be more "efficient," don't you agree?
Finally, I salute you for the fact that you are a combat veteran. But let me ask you this... those men you saw die... do you think any of them gave their lives so that, in America, a minority could take away the property rights of the majority, even after a referendum ruled otherwise? Somehow, I think your dead buddies would turn in their graves, if they could imagine such a thing happening, after they made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom.
More Oh-zoning
Land Use MANAGEMENT says it all. When you buy land, it comes with the right to manage it ... all the way back to the original land grant. Only an idiot would buy it otherwise. By definition, if there is no right to manage it, you don’t own it.
If you lease land, rent is paid for the right to use it temporarily. The right to control and manage remains with the owner. People buy land to manage for their benefit, to build or not build their home the way they want it - something you can't do when a "village" requires burnt offerings and homage to bless it, before you can touch it.
If a zoner wants to manage private property, they can pay for that right. However, mine ‘ain’t for sale! If it can’t be bought and there isn’t anyone dumb enough to give it away, zoners have an answer. It’s called “hook ‘n crook”. Tell them they are in danger (true), that there’s something really big that will never be forgotten (a shafting), because your neighbor is going to do something bad (after they take his freedom), and they will make you free (to follow). It’s a lot like, “Mary had a little lamb, and the zoners ate it!” It’s hard to imagine words dumb enough to rebut a 22% minority getting away with stripping the freedom of 78% of the people! Mary’s companion disappeared, the zoners are pigging out, and the public got fleeced!
don m
Does a minority not rule the masses anyway in this country? It's always been that way. But, as for a referendum vote on zoning, I do not think it is legal. Perhaps a quick check with the state election commission could verify that one way or the other. I'm not trying to be confrontational here....just trying to understand.
To Anonymous:
You say a landowner has a right to manage his land. I would agree to that. However, let's look at a hypothetical situation. Suppose a landowner adjacent to you set up targets on his property and starting taking target practice at them with a high powered rifle and in the direction of your house. Would you not take him to task on that? Trust me, I would react. Or does he have the right to subject his own neighbor to harm simply because he owns his land?
So am I to understand that the "anti-zoners" are the only ones who have a corner on TRUTH? That is truly arrogance gone to seed!
Anonymous asked:
Does a minority not rule the masses anyway in this country? It's always been that way.
The ideal is for the majority to rule. The fact that we rarely measure up to the ideal, is no reason to toss out the ideal. We can't start, for example, letting the last place finisher in a race be named the winner, simply because, "oh well, the minority always rules."
But, as for a referendum vote on zoning, I do not think it is legal.
Of course it is legal. "All power is inherent in the people" -- TN Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1. The fact that slimy politicians don't follow the TN Constitution is sad, but doesn't change the principle involved. If "all power" is "inherent in the people," then that includes, obviously, the power to vote on zoning.
Perhaps a quick check with the state election commission could verify that one way or the other.
The state election commission is not the final determiner of the truth. Read the Tennessee Constitution for yourself, and try to find the passage that rules out zoning referendums. What is LEGAL is what the CONSTITUTION says, not what some bureaucrat, or black robed jackal, says is legal.
I'm not trying to be confrontational here.... just trying to understand.
Genuine understanding is best attained, on this highly specialized subject, by reading the three legal briefs I wrote a dozen years or so ago, when this question was litigated.
http://www.kendrickmcpeters.com/index.php?rfc=brief1.html
http://www.kendrickmcpeters.com/index.php?rfc=brief2.html
http://www.kendrickmcpeters.com/index.php?rfc=brief3.html
Incidentally, I just googled Zoning Referendum, and got back 784,000 hits. It sure looks like other people are able to vote on zoning, so why can't we?
Shooting at someone's house has never had anything to do with zoning or property rights. Are the zoners planning to zone out hunting rights & gun ownership too?
Truth is telling everyone you want a zoning ordinance, getting a petition signed, and voting for it. It's your right, an American thing to do, & worthy of respect, win or lose. If the odds are 78% you're a loser & 22% a winner, lick your wounds & get a life. - life is too short for hate & BS. It seems we've had a kingsize helping of BS & very little about what's really on the platter.
don m
Anonymous said:
You say a landowner has a right to manage his land.
I'm not the one you were responding to, so pardon me for jumping in...
I would agree to that. However, let's look at a hypothetical situation. Suppose a landowner adjacent to you set up targets on his property and starting taking target practice at them with a high powered rifle and in the direction of your house. Would you not take him to task on that? Trust me, I would react. Or does he have the right to subject his own neighbor to harm simply because he owns his land?
The answer, settled in common law ages before the concept of "zoning" was even imagined, is NO, your neighbor does not have the right to engage in such obnoxious behavior.
What your neighbor is doing, is imposing an "externality" on you. His behavior has effects that cross the property line, and impact you. Pollution out of a smokestack, is the commonest example of an externality.
When someone imposes an externality on you, they have committed a "tort" and you have the right to sue them. Yes, this works even in places that don't have a zoning plan! But of course, it is tedious for each property owner whose land is defiled by some externality, to have to sue individually. So, the common law developed the concept of "nuisance," which allows the government to exert its "police power" to minimize problems.
Just as your right to swing your arm in a circle, ends where my nose begins, your right to use your property ends where it harms the property of someone else. This is a simple principle which I have long believed in, and assume that most other anti-zoners do as well.
But sometimes a simple principle is difficult to apply. Is a company pumping toxic waste into the aquifer a nuisance? Of course it is! What about a junkyard that merely looks ugly? That's harder to say. Clearly, an ugly junkyard can reduce the value of neighboring properties. But equally clear, if we use "looks" as the standard for nuisance, rather than "physical harm," then there's really no end to the mischief that can become law.
Under "aesthetic zoning," the zoners can and do tell you what color to paint your house. They also often ban trailerhomes, thinking that they devalue the neighborhood. Where does it all end?
To me, what is needed, is regulation that stops nuisances which create actual harm, as well as (if it can be defined in at least a semi-objective manner) to regulate extreme ugliness, with an exemption on the ugliness that some might feel a home possesses. (You might call it the "a man's home is his castle, no matter how hideous" proviso.)
Thanks, anonymous, for bringing up such an interesting topic for discussion!
Anonymous said:
So am I to understand that the "anti-zoners" are the only ones who have a corner on TRUTH?
Well, Roger Reedy and other pro-zoners have been known to tell quite a few whoppers:
(1) "The Tennessee Constitution says we can't vote on zoning."
BZZT!!! That's a lie! See links in posting above for explanation why.
(2) "The LUMP is not a zoning plan."
BZZT!!! That's a lie! Of course it's a zoning plan. Any idiot can see that, starting with the first page, where the LUMP claims to be empowered by the state zoning law.
(3) "The LUMP is the least restrictive plan we could pass, that would give us protection."
BZZT!!! That's a lie! Even James Miller's old zoning plan, which was slavishly copied to create the LUMP, was less restrictive. And the Lincoln County "Special Impact" zoning is FAR less restrictive, while (surprise!) actually offering real protection.
(4) "Under the LUMP, industry wanting to locate in FAR district need merely come before the Planning Commission, and prove they meet the siting standards."
BZZZT!!! That's a lie! You can't, under state law, rezone property without a vote of the County Commission. Period!!!
I could go on with additional examples of lies told by the zoners, but by now you probably get the idea. NOW... let's see you demonstrate that I've told any lies when I'm attacking zoning. This should be easy, right? I have a paper trail that goes back fifteen years or more, so... if I'm as dishonest as Reedy, it shouldn't be that hard to prove. So, have at it!
That is truly arrogance gone to seed!
Naw. What truly defines arrogance, is Roger Reedy's statement of three years ago, that the LUMP would pass "if God willed it." By implication, Reedy is just doing God's work when he goes around telling baldfaced lies like there's no Judgment Day, and stealing people's property rights like some two-bit Communist. "It's just the will of God" when Reedy does this, dontcha see?
Now THAT'S arrogance! (And speaking of arrogant, you should see how Reedy runs his zoning committee meetings. It's not a pretty sight, unless you are of the school of thought that citizens need to "sit down and shut up" when their fundamental rights are on the line.)
Would flying rock from passing dump trucks and shaking people's homes on their foundations not be good examples of "externality" as you call it? And the target practice with the high powered rifle IS a good example of people claiming they have that right when neighbors might be in harm's way. And, had the earlier commission acted on James Miller's plan, people affected by the rock quarry wouldn't have the problems they now have. By the way, those people were not lobbying for the Lincoln County plan or one similar to it....they were petitioning the commission to do something to stop the intrusion!
If you owned $200,000 house on a nice lot or acreage, would you not object to your neighbor putting in a mobile home park beside your property? Or would you say that is his right?
It is his right to put a mobile home park beside your property, just as it is your right to build a $200,000 home beside his property.
I wouldn't like a mobile home park beside my home! (and I'm not the same anonymous from this AM)
The ugly head of plantation zonalism emerges - If you don't have a Beemer, a PHD in political correctness, and a designer dog that's afraid of cats, you'll have to live at the bottom of the hill, back of the tracks, or next to the sewage plant. Zonalism is all about power and control to keep the masses and unenlightened out of sight & somewhere else.
Lighten up! Peons have the same rights you have ... but that's really the point, isn't it? If you think you're two steps ahead of them ... what if they wake up, run for office, zone their trailer on top of the hill & rezone your $200,000 house down in the mud flats between the dump & sewer plant on rock crusher road? Free people usually get along until some zealot decides their freedom includes the right to take someone else's freedom. Look what happened to San Francisco.
Anonymous asked:
Would flying rock from passing dump trucks and shaking people's homes on their foundations not be good examples of "externality" as you call it?
Yes, I think they would qualify. The flying rock problem, however, is not a zoning issue, but more of a "moving violation" issue. I don't have the traffic manual memorized, but it just seems intuitive that allowing rock to fly out of an uncovered truck is contrary to the law. So, as far as that matter goes, I'd call the appropraite authorities and swear out a complaint.
Regarding the "shaking" issue, that sounds like a perfect example of an externality. I'm a little surprised, given that shaking people against their will is tortious, that no-one has filed a lawsuit against the quarries. Perhaps a class action lawsuit by all the propertyowners could get some results. Worth trying, IMHO.
And the target practice with the high powered rifle IS a good example of people claiming they have that right when neighbors might be in harm's way.
It's an even better example of sociopathic behavior. Surely this sort of thing is few and far between in real life?
And, had the earlier commission acted on James Miller's plan, people affected by the rock quarry wouldn't have the problems they now have.
That's debatable, for two reasons. First of all, the old plan didn't even mention rock quarries. Second of all, zoning is not voodoo magic. Just because you have a zoning plan, doesn't mean that it will withstand a court challenge. A lot of people seem to believe that, if a zoning plan says "nothing can come here," then nothing can come in. But in fact, the world is littered with the wreckage of zoning plans that got struck down by the judiciary. In truth, if something is a LEGAL use of land, then it has to be allowed somewhere. The best that a zoning plan can do, is slow things down, or direct the unwanted industry to locate in an appropraite area. Absolute exclusion is the dream of every starry eyed zoner, but it doesn't really work that way, and the judges always have the last say.
By the way, those people were not lobbying for the Lincoln County plan or one similar to it....
Well, I remember that the leader of the group (who got to be allowed to speak to the Commission WITHOUT suspending the rules, if I recall correctly) passed out copies of the Lincoln County plan. I myself briefly saw that plan, along with a cover letter to the Commissioners, so I think I'm on pretty safe ground to say that they lobbied for the Lincoln County type plan.
they were petitioning the commission to do something to stop the intrusion!
And yet, thanks to the vesting of grandfather rights, the only thing that COULD be done, at that time, was to condemn the land and take it from the quarry people. I suggested this at the time, but nobody would listen to me. I had the distinct impression that the zoners really didn't care about the quarry victims, beyond their use as "poster children" for the pressing need to enact a zoning plan.
Anonymous, Monday, July 24, 2006 9:05:17 AM:
If you owned $200,000 house on a nice lot or acreage, would you not object to your neighbor putting in a mobile home park beside your property?
let me rephrase the question. Say you build a cozy $200,000 home on a nice lot, and then your neighbor builds a $5,000,000 mansion next door, and petitions the county to have your home torn down, and hauled off? Would you not object?
Or would you say that is his right?
I would say that the concept of "property rights" includes the right to put up a trailer on a lot you own or legally rent. If the idea that your neighbor might move a trailer in next door sends shivers down your spine, then a little due diligence at the time of purchase is in order. You need to find out what deed restrictions, if any, neighboring lots have. And if they are titled such that "anything goes," you might consider buying into a subdivision that DOES have good restrictions.
For whatever it's worth, neither the LUMP or the old James Miller plan, have any restrictions against trailers. They are treated the same as stick built houses, and that's that!
Anonymous said:
The ugly head of plantation zonalism emerges...
What a great term... plantation zonalism! It's perfect, and I like it a lot better than the stuffy old "technical" name for what you describe -- "exclusionary zoning." It's true, as you imply, that a lot of zoning is done to keep poor and minority people "in the right part of town."
I recall a case I once read about, that would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic. A town had zoned that all housing had to have minimum lot sizes of one acre, and nobody could build apartments, or duplexes, live in mobile homes... I'm sure you get the idea. And as a result of this, poor black people couldn't afford to live there, and the town, "coincidentally," was pretty much lilly-white. So, the NAACP sued, demanding that the zoning plan be modified to allow "high density" residential housing. They won their case, and then guess what happened? Yep, the zoners found a few acres of swampland in the most run down part of town, and said, in effect, "the black folk can move in here; it's good enough for them." And I'm not kidding; it really was land that frequently flooded. I believe the court then found the town in contempt, and they probably took over the zoning map and colored it in themselves. But I truthfully can't remember how it turned out.
Anyway, your comments were quite witty, and very, very true.
This is in response to the anonymous entry on Monday, July 24, 2006 9:05:17 AM.
You should not be so harsh toward those less fortunate than yourself. You don’t know what misfortune may befall you someday and you find yourself living in a trailer.
A mobile home park, or even just one mobile home dweller, is ALWAYS viewed by high society as low income, low class society - even though the house a person lives in does not make him/her less a person than the $200,000 homeowner. In the end, we will all be judged not by the size or value of our home, but rather by the size of our heart. Our Lord doesn’t care what your neighbor lived in….just how you treated him/her.
The poor will always be with us. We MUST have compassion for them.
This is in response to the anonymous entry on Monday, July 24, 2006 9:05:17 AM.
You should not be so harsh toward those less fortunate than yourself. You don’t know what misfortune may befall you someday and you find yourself living in a trailer.
A mobile home park, or even just one mobile home dweller, is ALWAYS viewed by high society as low income, low class society - even though the house a person lives in does not make him/her less a person than the $200,000 homeowner. In the end, we will all be judged not by the size or value of our home, but rather by the size of our heart. Our Lord doesn’t care what your neighbor lived in….just how you treated him/her.
The poor will always be with us. We MUST have compassion for them.
I totally agree with you. I do help those less fortunate than I.
However, I do have a problem with this: People who don't use birth control and pop babies out, one after another, so they can get a check. I wish these people would just enjoy sex without having the product to show for it. Also, we have parents who want their child to be diagnosed with certain disabilities so they can get a check. When I'm somewhere (especially Wal-Mart) and see a woman dragging three little kids around and her abdomen poking way out with another child -------- I could just scream!!
I'm all for helping people who try to help themselves. The others just disgust me - the problem is only getting worse. While I'm rambling....all of this talk about helping refugee children irks me.
I think we should send doctors over there to perform tubals, vasectomies, and to hand out condoms. Does anyone else share my frustration?
Our government can take credit for that. Congress has made it too easy for people to qualify for government aid. When someone signs up for welfare, food stamps, etc., they should only be allowed to receive it for a limited time with no increases....no matter how many babies they pop out. After the time allowance, they should be on their own. The U.S. government has turned our country into monetary cornucopia for the moochers.
NOTHING was said about feeling superior to "poor" people who may be livng in a mobile home. NOBODY said it was an embarrassment or shame to have to live in one either...unless you did? The point being made is that a property owner who had a $200,000 home would not want a trailer park put in beside him. As for someone building a $5,000,000 house beside a $200,000 house, I would have to wonder why he/she would do that. That analogy is a stretch at best. If I could afford to build an expensive house like that, I would surely choose a better location, since money would not be a factor.
I think what we're engaging in here is a play on words (semantics).....or, a spin on what I said. I am far from wealthy and have no contempt for the poor as you call them. My contempt would be for the man who put in a trailer park beside my house. But, he can't get away with that anymore in this county unless and until some of the anti-zoners succeed in getting it repealed, which IS thier objective. Right?
What about a pig farm right beside that house you worked your entire life to pay for? Isn't something wrong with that picture?
Plantational Zonalism raises puzzling questions. Will we be able to understand? Those half way up the hill side have earned the status of half gots, which is twice as good as got nots. In turn, they look up the hill to the big gots, hoping they'll pitch some morsels downstream so they'll have more energy to swim a little higher upstream. If one lives long enough, swims hard enough, and crawls over enough got nots, he will become the big got!
As for pigs, I thought everyone loved ham & eggs, sausage & grits, ribs, & BBQ. No pigs, no pork! That reminds me of a T-shirt with pigs, pork, & taxes on the back of it. If plantation zonalism can get rid of that kind of pigs & pork, I'm for it.
First, we need to make sure the zoners don't eliminate the 4 legged pigs we kill to eat (bet you didn't know that!)? Will it be across the tracks, in the mud flats, in the trailer park, next to someone a bureaucrat doesn't like??? I wonder what the pig might think about their neighbors and the barnyard politics of eminent domain. Maybe it's just a hoax about pigs, pork, taxes, & getting rich off of someone else's property.
don m
Don M. -
What would you do if someone started a pig farm beside your property? Would it be a positive or negative thing for you?
Anonymous said:
My contempt would be for the man who put in a trailer park beside my house. But, he can't get away with that anymore in this county unless and until some of the anti-zoners succeed in getting it repealed,
How much nmoney would you like to bet that you can't put a trailer park anywhere you like in Giles County? Anyone who thinks the LUMP prevents that sort of thing, obviously has not read the LUMP. The plain truth, which I apparently have to keep pointing out, is that mobile homes are treated by the LUMP the same as "stick built" houses, and are not under any restrictions whatsoever. (Well, technically, the idiots who came up with the LUMP accidentally zoned all future deveelopment out of Giles County, but I'm talking here about the way the LUMP was intended to work, not the letter of the LUMP.)
... which IS thier objective. Right?
Well, duh. That's what I started a lawsuit to do. The LUMP was passed illegally, and that's a fact. (Which probably doesn't disturb zoners, who are willing to tolerate "hook or crook" politics.)
Left unnoticed, is the small fact that I want to see the LUMP replaced with a much more protective plan, which would cover nuisances only, and would require a referendum vote in order to change the rules. Don't I get any points for that? Or is the motto of the pro-zoning camp "LUMP or bust?" Just curious.
Re: Pig farms
Sorry zoners, but the LUMP doesn't do anything to zone out pig farms. And neither does any other zoning plan in the state of Tenneessee. That's because Tennessee law has an iron clad exemption for all agricultural activities. Pig farms are obviously "agriculture," therefore they can locate any where they wish, under the law.
But as a practical matter, farms tend to locate next to other farms, on land that is conducive to farming, and not downtown on the square, or next to palatial houses. Land value tends to sort land developments out pretty well. The free market in land, and deed covenents, are all that protects the people of UNZONED Houston, Texas. (And gee, their growth is top in the nation... I wonder why?)
IF DOWNTOWN HOUSTON CAN GET ALONG JUST FINE WITHOUT ZONING, WHY DOES RURAL GILES COUNTY NEED IT SO BADLY? Anyone want to answer that?
If my neighbor wants to raise pigs, so be it. A farm is agricultural where people raise good things to eat, wood for your houses, oxygen for you to breathe, a place for the wild critters to roam and generally a place to enjoy freedom.
A city is where taxes and regulations on human activity are raised. If you're living elbow to elbow, it's necessary. You can't raise pigs in town, but may have to live next to one. If you want zoning, live in a gated community where they can't fly the flag & lesser people are turned away. It's called freedom of choice where you chose something over something else.
I also know, if Conagra or Tyson wanted to open a pig or chicken plant next to me, I would not only have to fight corporate billions, I'd have to fight the very bureaucrats you want to create to protect me. Under the zoner plan, I not only lose my property value, I get taxed to help the bad guys take it. If they run a clean operation & don't destroy the area ... life goes on, maybe somewhere else. Freedom isn't for rent or sale. I can't own it. You can't own it.
don m
Kendrick.....that same loss of property value you proposed is exactly opposite of what you said about people NOT losing property values due to industries such as rock crushers moving in beside them. I might add that the loss of property value is exactly what happened to people near the Minor Hill Road quarry. Again, what would you say if you owned a home on that road and had to contend with dump trucks, bad road, and your house being covered with dust on a daily basis?
Please enlighten me...what would you say???
Let's pose a scenario here (not to be taken literally, mind you).
Let's say Mr. Mcpeters built a house on Christian Road twenty years ago and has been working hard to pay it off. Just when he can see the light at the end of the tunnel, along comes a rock quarry on land leased to the firm by his "neighbor" without his having any opportunity to consider selling and moving out before too late. One of his neighbors did try to sell out after the quarry came in, but was unable to sell it...even after marking it down! He found out later that a party would have bought the house had it not been for the quarry. Does that sound anything like loss of property value?
Mr. M used to love sitting on his front porch with a cold glass of tea during the day but now finds that impossible because of the enormous dust and noise from dump trucks. One truck ran over and killed his dog. The nerve of allowing a dog to run loose in the country! He vowed that his next dog will have to be kept on a chain.
In the afternoons Mr. M used to like to go for a walk, but now finds that much too dangerous and dusty. He likes to keep his car washed and clean. He washed the car and put it in the garage to keep the dust off. He bought an old beater for transportation, deciding to drive his nice car only on weekends or after quarry hours.
Sounds like a scenario you wouldn't like, Mr. Mcpeters. But, it is reality to others whom you seem so concerned about.
This is in response to: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:23:29 PM
You certainly did say something “about feeling superior to ‘poor’ people who live in a trailer home.” Not in those exact words, but your implication speaks volume about how far above trailer-dwellers you believe you are!!!!! Apparently, YOU feel that a trailer IS an embarrassment or shame. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have said, “The point being made is that a property owner who had a $200,000 home would not want a trailer park put in beside him.” You are implying that the $200,000 home owner thinks he is TOO GOOD to live next to a trailer park.
A man is entitled to build any value home he prefers, anywhere he prefers. But the same applies to the man who would put in a trailer park beside your house. He has the same rights as you do. He is entitled to put in his trailer park wherever he chooses. Your statement that you would have contempt for him, once again, implies that you think you are too good to live next to a trailer park. And why would you have contempt for him? He has to make a living too, doesn’t he? Maybe he is good at running trailer parks.
You wondered why someone building a five million dollar home would do so beside a $200,000 home. You said, “If I could afford to build an expensive house like that, I would surely choose a better location, since money would not be a factor.” This would apply to the $200,000 homeowner as well. Anyone with enough money to build a home of that worth certainly didn‘t earn that much money by being stupid. Surely he would be smart enough to build his fine home in an area not prone to trailer parks.
Why do you have to look at the glass as half empty? Instead of a trailer park lowering the value of the $200,000 home, maybe the $200,000 home will increase the value of the trailer park.
Anonymous...once again, you miss the point completely. No man is any better than another. Why do you dwell on that? Are you insecure about your feelings toward "lower class" people? But you know as well as I do that you would not want a trailer park put in beside your nice home. And, I might add, there are good and bad people who live in both trailer parks and nice subdivisions...some of which have building restrictions as to what value house can be built on lots within them. You know that though. By the way, zoning or LUMP or whatever you guys wish to call it came to be primarily because your neighbor or mine could sell his land to someone else who would put in a garbage dump or rendering plant right beside your fine home. And county government cannot seize that neighbor's land to prevent it! That would be a good example of loss of freedoms, would it not?
Why not address the above scenario? Put yourself in it and consider how you would feel. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with a man feeling "superior" to others! But I respect your right to be wrong about that.
You can say all you want about the Lincoln County plan, but I know for a fact that the average homeowner involved in that fight simply wanted the commission to help them, regardless of whose plan it might be patterned after. And you say the commission could have stepped in and seized the owner's land to prevent the quarry from coming in? Interesting.
Cat have your tongue McPeters??....
To Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:32:18 PM:
Once again, you miss the point completely. I’m not insecure about those whom you call “lower class” people. I try to defend those less fortunate against people with snub-nosed attitudes like yours. You know….the ones with the ‘not in my neighborhood’ attitudes. If someone (like Kendrick)didn't take a stand, you "haves" would completely run over the "have nots." You snobs can build your homes in those restricted subdivisions you talk about. Then you wouldn’t need zoning laws!
You said, “But you know as well as I do that you would not want a trailer park put in beside your nice home.” You are a fool. You don’t know what I want. I see my neighbor’s trailer every time I look out my front door...doesn’t bother me in the least. I guess someone like you can’t understand that. You’d have to have been born in a trailer like I was to get the point.
Garbage dumps, rendering plants, etc. can be stopped without zoning. Remember what happened when FTI wanted to build here? The citizens acted in a big way and won out….without zoning.
The right to free speech, to vote, to worship as we choose. These are REAL freedoms. To lose one of these would be a REAL loss. You should have to live in a country where everyone lives beside (or in) a garbage dump….except the government officials / dictators. Your examples are the rich man’s examples of loss of freedom. You people can’t see the forest for the trees. Rather than complain about what your neighbor does, be thankful that he has the freedom to do so. After all, you have the same rights.
By the way, I'm sure you haven't heard from Kendrick because he is probably working on a mighty reply to enlighten you.
Someone put this on another thread:
"Taking rights of one to give to another defines power. Power is the magnet of bureaucracy.
"If you think bureaucracy will feather your nest above that of a major contributor, you're just plain not awake.
"The Constitution (Amendments) does an awesome job of defining rights; but we have allowed those protections to be turned against us by letting government created bureaucracies decide for us. We know that a bureaucracy can decide to not talk to you, jail you for speaking to them, or just tell you anything of no substance - and get away with it. We all know this; but some are anxious to turn their property rights over to a new bureaucracy that will be able to do the same thing, except with many more dollars signs attached."
What do you think, Pro-zoners?
As a "pro-zoner" (or LUMPster, or whatever you want to call me, I favor protection of a man's property from his neighbor...whenever that need arises. By the way....government is set up to govern the masses, and it makes laws to protect men from each other. Like it or not.
Please explain how zoning has hurt a single person...other than those who, for whatever reason, want to do away with it? I can paint my house purple if I want to.....WHO CARES?
Go back to page 1, start over, read, read, & read some more - the switch is there, just turn it on
To Anonymous
You call me a fool and then suggest that Kendrick can "enlighten" me? What a joke. I am far from being a rich man. And, you know what, I don't hate anybody who is wealthy and more fortumate than others. Nor, do I hate a person who is not so fortunate. Let's get off this hate the poor thing. Isn't it getting a bit old? Finally, if you think I am a bigot who hates people based on socioeconomic status, you are incredibly wrong. So......who is the fool here?
Well, we really don't care how you did it up North! Nor are we impressed with how much smarter you are and with how you know best what's good for us.
Let's see, we're not a big got, just a wanna got tryin' to get what the rest of us got - sort of a lonely little onion in a petunia patch... It would be a lot easier to arrest the 22% of whiners (zoners) for disrupting the peace than trying to force the 78% of happy people to join the whinery. Question, Who's going to run the whinery if we convert to zonalism?
Will they wear an arm band?
Looks like the whiners are the ones who continually gripe and try to stir up trouble among that 78% in the name of rights and personal freedoms. Haven't you heard, we have converted to zonalism as you guys call it. Thank God.
Anonymous said:
Kendrick.....that same loss of property value you proposed is exactly opposite of what you said about people NOT losing property values due to industries such as rock crushers moving in beside them.
What I said is, the rock crusher out by the airport doesn't seem to be causing ecological doomsday, or depressing property values. What is it about the "new" quarries that is causing such problems? I'm not being sarcastic here; I'd genuinely like to know.
I might add that the loss of property value is exactly what happened to people near the Minor Hill Road quarry.
THe government's job is to protect you from provable physical harm, not to prop up the value of your property. Suppose you lived in an all white neighborhoood, and your next door neighbor sold his house to a black family. Now, thanks to the racism of the community you live in, the value of your house just took a nosedive. What should the government do about this? Suit up the sheriff and his deputies in white sheets, and burn a cross in the yard of the innocent black family? Why not, if the government's job is to prop up the value of your house?
And let's look at another scenario. What if your next door neighbor paints his house purple, with a putrid green roof, and day glo orange shutters and doors? And then, to top it off, he fills his front yard up with plastic pink flamingos and gnomes. You know what this would mean to your property values-- they would go down, down, down. So, do you think it would be right to sic the government jackboots on your neighbors, and MAKE THEM redo threir decorations, so that they're more to your liking? If not, why not?
Again, what would you say if you owned a home on that road and had to contend with dump trucks, bad road, and your house being covered with dust on a daily basis?
I take it you've never lived on a poorly maintained gravel road, because the specter of "dust" and "bad road" are something that anyone who lives on a gravel road eventually gets used to.
Anonymous said:
Please enlighten me...what would you say???
I guess I'd say that it was a fact that rock quarries have to locate somewhere, and that it was too bad I didn't buy into a deed restricted subdivision, so I could have avoided the whole situation.
I'd also take down the tag numbers of trucks that were uncovered and spewing rocks and dust, and report them to the appropriate authorities. I'd also probably talk to my neighbors about a class action .lawsuit, if my house was being shaken of its foundation.
But this is all I would do. I wouldn't petition the county to take away the rights of others for my alleged benefit. I am a man of principle, and I do not compromise those principles lightly. I'm sure you don't believe this, but it is nevertheless quite true.
Anonymous said:
Let's pose a scenario here (not to be taken literally, mind you).
Uggh. How many times do I have to hear about flying rock and dust? So how about this: just take your scenario, and re-run it, this time substituting "a black family" for "a rock crusher" and assume that your neighbors are a bunch of racists. Now, what government action do you favor to prop up your property values?
The fact of the matter is, the job of government is to protect you from violence. Not prop up the market value of your house. Suppose you build a house on a lot that faces a magnificent stand of old growth trees. Someone comes along and buys the lot across the street, and clear cuts the trees, so that your "view" is gone. Now you have nothing to look at, other than a flat field covered in tree stumps. Clearly an outrage, no?
As a matter of fact, it is not. You never owned that land, and the "view" didn't belong to you. So when the real owner of that land chose to cut the trees down, that may have lowered your property values by a considerable amount, but that's just tough... because it was your neighbor's property, not yours.
Does this scenario sound absurd? It is not, I assure you. Just the other day, I read about a movie star suing someone else for the horrible act of building a nice house in front of their "view" of the mountains! This star apparently thought he owned the "view" but, not having thought to buy up the vacant lot that stood between him and the "view," he discovered that he did not.
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO CONTROL YOUR OWN LAND, SO LONG AS YOU DON'T DIRECTLY HARM YOUR NEIGHBOR THROUGH THE USE OF YOUR LAND. And your neighbor has the same rights, as you do. All the government should do, is keep people from harming each other. Not intervening to prop up the value of a house. Sorry, but them's the breaks!
Anonymous said:
...your neighbor or mine could sell his land to someone else who would put in a garbage dump or rendering plant right beside your fine home. And county government cannot seize that neighbor's land to prevent it!
Yes, it certainly could. Under current eminent domain jurisprudence, pretty much any reason given for a condemnation will suffice. Google "Kelo Decision" if you need more proof.
That would be a good example of loss of freedoms, would it not?
No, that would be a good example of the government acting responsibly to protect its citizens, without simultaneously yoking everyone into some tyrannical plan. As long as the would be quarry owners get "fair market value" for their land, what is to complain about? Outright condemnation is certainly a lot less of an imposition than the property tax, which is really just rent paid to the government which owns everything. If you want to talk about your "loss of freedoms," there it is!
Anonymous said:
You can say all you want about the Lincoln County plan, but I know for a fact that the average homeowner involved in that fight simply wanted the commission to help them, regardless of whose plan it might be patterned after.
Maybe so, but I'm sure that the leader advocated the Lincoln style plan. Of course, by the time that the homeowners got wise to what was happening, there was nothing that could be done for them, other than condemnation of the quarry land.
And you say the commission could have stepped in and seized the owner's land to prevent the quarry from coming in? Interesting.
Indeed, it is interesting. Especially considering that none of the "compassionate" pro-zoners would even consider trying it. It was just me, the evil selfish antizoning ogre, that advocated condemnation. Just for the record, it's NOT too late to condemn and seize those quarries, although it would now cost an order of magnitude more to do so, since the market value of an operating quarry is vastly more than an empty field. There was a red hot iron moment three years ago, but the County refused to strike, and now these people are stuck with the end effects.
Anonymous asked:
Cat have your tongue McPeters??....
No, I was just having DSL problems. See "Notes friom the Blogmaster" at the top of the main page.
Anonymous said:
As a "pro-zoner" (or LUMPster, or whatever you want to call me, I favor protection of a man's property from his neighbor...whenever that need arises.
No exceptions? What about your property in a lilly-white community? When your next door neighbor sells out to a black family, will you expect the government to step in, and run the innocent blacks off?
By the way....government is set up to govern the masses,
No it is not; not in America. In America, the people are supposed to "govern" themselves, and the sole purpose of the "government" is to stop those who insist on stealing, raping, and the like, from their neighbors. The instituition of the state, is not supposed to make the ordinary decisions that everyday people can and should make for themselves. THe state was only instituted to protect good people from evil doers. Alas, we have so far deviated from our founding principles that many people believe the government is some sort of godlike entity, capable of "running the country." (Which, if it did, we'd truly be in a sorry shape!)
and it makes laws to protect men from each other. Like it or not.
It makes sense to protect men from aggression and violence. Not the threat of reduced property values caused by your across the street neighbor cutting down his trees and wrecking your view. Or painting his house the "wrong" color, or living in a house that is not as nice as your own. Matters like these are NOT the concern of any proper government authority, in any society dedicated to the ideals of individual freedom and property rights.
Anonymous said:
Please explain how zoning has hurt a single person...other than those who, for whatever reason, want to do away with it?
As I've said repeatedly, the present zoning plan is NOT BEING ENFORCED, and therefore, has not hurt anyone. If it were enforced, it would be a disaster. But don't take my word on it. Read the LUMP, page by page, and ask yourself if you really want to be under its rules.
I can paint my house purple if I want to.....WHO CARES?
Your neighbor would care. And, by the same logic that dicates that trailers shouldn't locate next to "nice houses," so too should purple homes not be allowed next to "normal colored" homes. And, in fact, many zoning plans (but not the LUMP) dictate such aesthetic choices, complete with swatch books of paint chips that your house must match-- OR ELSE!
Anonymous said:
By the way, I'm sure you haven't heard from Kendrick because he is probably working on a mighty reply to enlighten you.
Thanks for the kind words. And actually, I am sort of writing something on the subject of freedom and zoning... but I'm trying to get the Anonymous who doesn't "get" the freedom issue to watch the film "Braveheart" first. I'll give hims some more time, and then I'll probably just post it, whether he's been emotionally put in the right mood, or not.
Anonymous said:
Well, we really don't care how you did it up North! Nor are we impressed with how much smarter you are and with how you know best what's good for us.
I'm pretty sure this wasn't directed at me.... was it?
Anonymous said:
Looks like the whiners are the ones who continually gripe and try to stir up trouble among that 78% in the name of rights and personal freedoms.
So let me get this straight... if politicians go against the expressed will of the majority, and then BREAK THE LAW to pass a zoning plan which massively usurps the freedom and property rights of Giles Countians... it is WHINING to complain about that... and the trouble makers are not the law breaking politicians, but rather the ordinary folks who oppose their illegal activity??? You wouldn't, by chance, be from the Bizarro World of the Superman comics?
Haven't you heard, we have converted to zonalism as you guys call it.
Don't count your zoning chickens before they hatch. Your precious plan was passed illegally, and, once this is (easily) proven in a court of law, your LUMP will be no more. That day is fast approaching, so get ready...
Thank God.
So God is now on the side of a bunch of lying, rights theiving politicians who can't even be bothered to follow the law they swear an oath to uphold??? Well, as the Church Lady would say... isn't that special?
How was LUMP passed illeagally?
Let's see....you are at it again...the freedom and property rights thing. How have people lost freedoms and property rights..other than those who can't even sit on their front porches or go for walks near their homes on quarry road? Enlighten us as only you can do.
And yes, please explain how the LUMP as you call it was illegally passed. Sometimes, and I know this is hard for you to swallow, those in power have to pass legislation for the benefit of a society as a whole (the old majority vs. minority thing again).
Pardon me if I am mistaken, but aren't laws in this country passed, in many cases, to protect citizens from each other? And most of them wouldn't be necessary to begin with if people would love their neighbor as they do themselves. But sadly, some don't. Think about it.
Why do you keep mentioning the "black family" thing? Who appears the racist here? I hate no man because of color.....do you?
Sounds like the zoners will win with the most repeated slogan. "We want it because we can't see nothing wrong with making ourselves happy at the expense of everyone else."
So, who will be the Zone Arranger of Giles County. I wonder where the dump would be located if all the tennents & trailer folks got together & voted in the poorest person in GC rather than the richest? Sometimes God gets even with folks who mistreat his children. Bloggers don't know who the big gots are; but God knows who the annomoussies are!
Re: the legality of the LUMP
Tell you what, fellows. I'll post a detailed explanation of the legal corners that were cut in passing the LUMP. I'll do it tomorrow, because I need to go to bed right now.
But first I want to ask you folks a question: if I can prove that the LUMP was passed illegally, will you join me in asking that the LUMP be put out to pasture, and replaced with something better?
Yes or no. If the LUMP was passed in violation of state law, can we throw it in the trash and start over? See my latest posting in the topic "Muzzled No More" to see what I have in mind. Thanks.
Anonymous asked:
Why do you keep mentioning the "black family" thing?
Because I am trying to test the limits of those people who claim it is the government's job to prop up property values. In the scenario I mention, I always stipulate that it is the racism of the all white community that causes the property values to decline, not anything intrinsic with the black family that moved in to the neighborhood.
For some reason or another, nobody will answer me on this hypothetical. Nor will they on the "view" being cut down scenario, or the "purple paint and pink flamingos" scenario. Odd, that.
Who appears the racist here?
Certainly not me, to anyone with modest reading comprehension and who actually read all that I wrote. I always referred to the black family as "innocent," and the neighbors as "racists," did I not? But it is a fact, like it or not, that if all of your neighbors are whire racists, a black family moving in next door WILL lower your property values. (That's because the property values are SET by their ideas of worth, and they don't want to live near blacks.)
I hate no man because of color.....do you?
Of course not. But, if you're too hysterically sensitibve to the race issue to deal with an imaginary scenario that deals with imaginary blacks and whites, we can revise the scenario to make you comfortable....
On a planet far, far away... there lives a society of green people, and purple people. For whatever reason, the green people despise the purple people, and go to great efforts to avoid living near them.
One day, a house in the all green neighborhood you live in, is sold to a purple person. As a result, the value of your house and land falls by more than 50%.... so the question is, should the government (presumably mostly run by the greens) do anything to restore your lost property values? Such as, you know, burn a cross in the yard of the purple family to scare them into leaving???
I'm sure this scenario is safe for you to answer. So how about giving me an answer? Should the purple people be hounded off their land, to restore the land values of the green family next door? A simple yes or no will suffice. Thanks.
Speaking of pink flamingos, does anyone have a pair they would be interested in selling?
And God just might have a score to settle with those who disregard the Golden Rule?
Anonymous asked:
Speaking of pink flamingos, does anyone have a pair they would be interested in selling?
Archie McPhee does... $16.95 plus shipping for a set of two.
http://www.mcphee.com/items/00352.html
Check out the rest of their online catalog for other items of dubious taste!
Not in my neighborhood...anonymous. Ok. Let's put that garbage dump in yours!
Hey, Anonymouses:
I'm still waiting for an answer.... if I can prove the LUMP was passed illegally, will you agree that it should be trashcanned, and replaced with something that actually works?
A simple "yes" or "no" is all I require. Thanks.
Prove it, and I will be grown up enough to agree.
Thanks Kendrick for the info on the catalogue carrying pink flamingos. I will look. However,I was hoping for a genuine retro pair. Think I'll be lucky? What were they made of? I'm serious about this. I promise in my yard they wont look tacky.
The "all green" neighborhood and the purple. How absurd. Sounds like a Dr. Seuss story.
Anonymous said:
Prove it, and I will be grown up enough to agree.
Great! Here's the URL for Lexis-Nexis, so you can verify the truth of my claims, by reading the relevant parts of Tennessee Code Annotated:
http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0
Let me start by saying that the state law provides a step by step procedure that MUST be followed, in order to legally pass a zoning plan. This procedure is not a "suggestion" or something that is "optional," it is MANDATORY. Follow me on this point?
Okay, it is sufficient for me to prove that the LUMP was illegally passed, merely by pointing out one step in the procedure that was not followed. As it happens, I can name four steps that were not followed. But, because I want to save back one of my trump cards for the upcoming trial, I am only going to mention three on this blog....
First of all, zoning plans MUST, under TCA 13-7-102, be written by the county's Regional Planning Commission. Why would that be? Probably because, under TCA 13-3-101, Regional Planning Commissions MUST be composed of a majority of "civilians" -- ie, non-elected, ordinary people -- rather than made up entirely of commissioners. So, who actually wrote the LUMP? No-one other than the members of the "Land Use Management" committee-- a group entirely made up of county commissioners. And letting them write the zoning plan is a clear violation of state law--- strike one!.
Secondly, TCA 13-7-104 states that "it is sufficient notice if the caption and a complete summary are published at least once in the official newspaper of the county." But no complete summary was ever printed in any newspaper published in Giles County. Further, the incomplete summary which was published, was published less than 30 days before the public meeting (a no-no), and it contains inaccurate and misleading information. It contained the statement by Roger Reedy, "This (the way the LUMP works) is much different from a zoning plan, since new industry and business are not confined to a specific area." Read between the lines, and what was Reedy really saying? He was saying that the LUMP is not a zoning plan. And that is a lie. Reedy also misrepresented how property would be rezoned from FAR to C and LI. He claimed that businesses wanting a rezoning would simply "come before the Regional Planning Commission, proving that they meet the guidelines within the County Land Management Plan." This is untrue for two reasons: firstly, it implies that anyone who meets the standards will get a rezoning, which is not the case. Secondly, no rezoning can be performed by the Regional Planning Commission alone! Under state law, it also takes a vote of the County Commission to rezone land -- even a "majority of the whole commission" vote if the Regional Planning Commission earlier voted against the rezoning.
"Complete" surely implies, at the very least, "accurate and honest." Ergo, the placement of untrue statements in the "complete summary" utterly voids it, and means that the statutory requirement has not been met. (And this is especially true, given that the summary was published with less than the 30 days advance notice required.) Thus, strike two for the LUMP!
Thirdly, TCA 13-7-104 requires that a public meeting of "the county legislative body" be held prior to their voting on a zoning plan. Yet, a special meeting of the Giles County Commission was never called or held. In fact, the newspaper ad which is claimed to have served as notice for the county states "the Land Use Management Committee of the County Commission will hold a public meeting ...etc." The LUM committee is emphatically NOT equivalent to the County Commission, even if a few commissioners may have attended. No roll was called, nor was a quorum convened. Thus it was not a meeting of the county legislative body, and, consequently, came no where near satisfying the legal requirements that govern the adoption of a zoning plan.
It is likely that the legislative intent of TCA 13-7-104 was for the people who would get to vote on the plan (i.e., commissioners) to be forced to have a hearing before the people who would come to live under that plan. As things transpired, the legislators never got this irreplaceable input. So, the state law was again violated-- strike three; the LUMP's out!
I assure you, these are not minor nit-picks. Failure to have "civilians" involved in writing the plan... failure to give an accurate, honest, and complete summary of the plan, and... failure to hold a meeting of the County Commission... are all gross violations of the state's zoning enabling law. Taken together, they suggest that Reedy and company were willing to cut corners, in order to make it easier to pass a zoning plan that, had the law been followed to the letter, might have failed to pass muster.
I think any honest, fair minded person, will be able to clearly see that the LUMP was illegally passed. These procedural errors are not insignificant, and the real question, in my mind, is not whether the LUMP was passed illegally, but whether the LUMP's illegal passage was the result of a deliberate conspiracy to defraud the public, or was simply a case of incompetents being unable to follow a simple law. Either way, the LUMP will likely be toast, just as soon as all these details are brought out before the trial judge. And then we must start over, hopefully not only with the Commission following the laws, but with input from the public being invited (unlike last time around).
But, weren't you told that the zoning commission will come out and confiscate your punk flamingos? hahahahahaha
pink flamingos
Most of those outsiders are from places that had zoning that kept getting tighter tighter, those they chose Giles County because we had no zoning. There are other ways to protect us from bad spots.
I think if you read the zoning guidelines you might ask yourself, why does it matter if you have two families living in a house with one kitchen, which is against the zoning guidelines and make you a felon.
Historically, Giles County had no zoning & believed in individual rights. Those who wanted zoning moved & raised there family elsewhere. Therefore, no zonalillians live here. So, if you claim to be a native GC person carrying on the family tradition, you can't be supporting zonalism. If you are, your pappy & grandpappy, all the way back to Bulwinkle are telling you to go to New yak or San Fransicko.
To Anonymous...
Go make that sales pitch to people on "quarry road."
Guess I need to move that refrigerator off my front porch and get those junked cars out of my front yard! hahahaha
To Anonymous
You stated that, historically, Giles Countians favored individual rights over any kind of zoning protection....or whatever term you wish to call it. So, what you are saying is that all of the surrounding counties do not believe in individual rights since they have zoning to protect them. Help me understand that. And please do not say those people in surrounding counties are led like sheep. That dog don't hunt, as we say around here.
8-7-6 Correct - GC favors individual rights over zoning by a wide margin. If Marshall & Maury County, or Pulaski wants zoning, it's their choice & so be it. The problem is simply that GC zoners want to deny that right & choice by overriding our democratic system. They demand no vote & tyranny rule under the cloak of darkness! Nothing good will ever come out of a project founded on deceit, disinformation, false witness, & secrecy. You know how to do it the right way; but also know you are so far out in left field that everyone knows you can't be right! Therefore, you are left behind.
The quarry folks' rights have been trampled because government (the courts) will not enforce their Constitutional rights. They are on Internet, very simple, & easy to read. Adding another layer of government (zoning bureaucracy) insures that the right to a trial will be denied in addition to violating your Constitutional rights! Bureaucrats have no accountability. Instead of demanding their rights and holding offenders accountable, you want the masses to follow you into the briar patch of zonalism, where nothing ever takes too long to reach your goal of high cost nothingness. You would tax little old ladies out of their home to buy Jackson a multi-million dollar palace.
Anonymous said:
The quarry folks' rights have been trampled because government (the courts) will not enforce their Constitutional rights.
This is apparently exactly the case. The complaints made by the anti-quarry people certainly sound like a perfect case of nuisance. Yet, so far as I know, there has been no lawesuit ever filed by these people. Perhaps they simply are unaware that there is a cause for legal action, in which case, the following should help clear things up for them:
Nuisance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nuisance is a common law tort. It is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded case decisions.
Under the common law, persons in possession of real property (either land owners or tenants) are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lands. If a neighbour interferes with that quiet enjoyment, either by creating smells, sounds, pollution or any other hazard that extends past the boundaries of the property, the affected party may make a claim in nuisance. Under the common law, the only remedy for a nuisance was the payment of damages. However, with the development of the courts of equity, the remedy of an injunction became available to prevent a defendant from repeating the activity that caused the nuisance, and specifying punishment for contempt if the defendant is in breach of such an injunction.
To be a nuisance, the level of interference must rise above the merely aesthetic. For example, if your neighbour paints their house purple, it may offend you, but it does not rise to the level of nuisance. In most cases, normal uses of a property that can constitute quiet enjoyment cannot be restrained in nuisance either. For example, the sound of a crying baby may be annoying, but it is an expected part of quiet enjoyment of property and does not constitute a nuisance.
In the USA, the principle of coming to the nuisance states that existing uses of a property are generally not considered a nuisance if a new neighbour finds them objectionable. For example, if you move next door to a pig farm, you cannot claim that the normal operation of the pig farm constitutes a nuisance. However, if a pig farmer moves into a property that was formerly held by a flower nursery, their activities may constitute a nuisance. Under English law the situation is different: the 1879 case of Sturges v Bridgman is still good law, and a new owner can bring a claim in nuisance for the existing activities of a neighbour.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the law of nuisance became difficult to administer as competing property uses often posed a nuisance to each other and the cost of litigation to settle the issue grew prohibitive. As such, most jurisdictions now have a system of zoning that describes what activities are acceptable in a given location. Zoning generally overrules nuisance. For example, if a factory is operating in an industrial zone, neighbours in the neighbouring residential zone cannot make a claim in nuisance. However, some jurisdictions still do not have zoning laws, which essentially leaves land use to be determined by the laws concerning nuisance.
There are two types of nuisance - private and public. An example of a private nuisance is a stereo being played too loud. In such a case, any property owner offended by the nuisance may sue. However, if a nuisance is widespread enough, but yet has a public purpose, it is often treated at law as a public nuisance. In such a case, a private property owner or lessor has no standing to bring a suit, and such suits may only be brought with the permission of the Attorney-General. In most jurisdictions, the pollution of water is classified as a public nuisance and individual plaintiffs have no standing.
Many states have limited the use of the law of nuisance. This often became necessary as the sensibilities of urban dwellers were offended by smells and agricultural waste when they moved to rural locations. For example, many states and provinces have "right to farm" provisions that allow any agricultural use of land zoned or historically used for agriculture, even if it poses a nuisance.
The boundaries of the tort are potentially unclear due to the public/private nuisance divide and existence of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Writers such as John Murphy of the University of Manchester have popularised the idea that Rylands and Fletcher forms a separate, though related tort. This is still and issue for debate and is rejected by others (the primary distinction is Rylands v Fletcher concerns 'escapes onto land', and so it may be argued the only difference is the nature of the nuisance, not the nature of the civil wrong.)
So, the question remains........are people in surrounding counties as ignorant as we are? They aren't up in arms fighting zoning. And, for the record, the city of Pulaski has been "zoned" for many years!
Mr anonymous, you have to be a mr cause mrs ain't that dumb.
Can't you git somebody to explain things to you. The problem ain't just about zoning it's about this LUMP and the way it was pushed down the throats of everybody without any say from them. Kind of like them British who kept taxing us without representation until we through their tea in the bay and started a fighting. Xcuse me I forgot you don't seem to know nothing worth fighting for.
Atta Boy Chuckles - bet the idiot that wants to zone the county lives in Pulaski. They are never satisfied with their miserable life unless they can inflict it on someone else. Wonder what they'll do about all that nudity & obscene activity in the cow pasture! There's probably a billion Chinese living under who flug dung (can't remember the name), does that mean they're right?
You two are so stupid!
Chuckles
I live in the county, am a combat veteran, and am not a dumb hick. So please don't patronize or try to impress me with your brilliance. I am not impressed.
Hey, I've got a buddy who lives on quarry road. I'll bet he would just love to discuss this with you. Ask him about having something pushed down his throat out there!!
What about the surrounding counties that are zoned? I have talked to people in at least two of them, and they are not having all this whining about it. The question remains......why is that?
Did you ever think that it's not whining but choking you hear since we're the ones who had zoning pushed down our throats and not them. Is your friend that lives near the quarry still upset about the quarry? Do you consider him whining are just mad about having something pushed down his throat?
If "the question remains.... why is that?" The answer must be, because!
Anonymous, Tuesday, August 01, 2006 3:05:19 PM
So, have I proven my contention that the LUMP was passed illegally? Or are you waiting to hear what the judge says?
Just curious....
Anonymous
I apreciate your work in the military. You helped let me talk and write on this blog. To bad this is about the onlyest place left in Giles county where you can do that. I wonder how much longer we'll even be able to do that what with so many politicians getin there toes burned.
I want ask you nothing cause the other anonymous said it better'n me
and I'll just watch for what you tell them.
The question remains...why aren't people in surrounding counties whining???
Condescension is so unbecoming. So silly.
I'll wait on the judge!
I hope yur coment about condescension wasn't directed at me and me saying that I apreciate your work in the military. That would mean you think I was being ensincere. You assume to much. I have great and sincere admiration for anybody that puts themselves in the position of defending this great county and way of life.
Did you ever think that sometimes what people say is just what they mean.
Absolutely..and I do say what I mean. I leave no room for doubt!
Perhaps this particular blog would get more responses if it were renamed. How about....."Should the Whims of the Few Outweigh the Rights of the Many?" Or, to paraphrase, should what's best for the county be tossed aside to satisfy the motives of the malcontent? Just a thought.
If you say what you mean an don't leave no room for doubt why am I so confused about what you said. Maybe you got yore thanking mixed up with yore talking and only thank you was talking clear when it was yore talking that got yore thanking all mixed up.
This has nothing to do with this blog but my God chuckles you need some help and or lessons concerning your spelling and grammer.I hope you are doing it on purpose.
Chuckles - forget about squeeky clean spelling & grammer. You make ten times more sense than those who so eloquently deny the precepts of our country. Profoud innocence of truth and wisdom can not be understood by those more worried by conformity and appearance than content and truth.
Keep writing whatever you want -Common sense needs resurrecting.
So...those who disagree with the whiners are bereft of truth and common sense? Hilarious!
The real whiners are bereft of truth and common sense ... and unable to figure out the 80% aren't whining, they're telling the 20% to take a hike. The "but I won't play with you any more if you won't let me win" gang, sounds painfully like whining & maybe worse. Just another symptom of the mental disorder "LIBERALISM"!
I think you must be a liberal then. You can't afford to be so ill-informed.
I would guess that the percentage of those who truly need to take a LONG hike would be somewhere less than five.
Agreed - maybe 2 or 3 who have visions of land deals or being the arbitrary arbitrator
Actually, I was referring to the leaders of the "whine" gang. Glad you agreed though.
anonymous above, would you please define what you include the "whine gang" to be? I am a bit confused, with all the anonymous post.
Post a Comment
<< Home