Should the Needs of the Few Outweigh the Rights of the Many?
I'm speaking, of course, about "floodplain zoning." Most people (myself included) didn't realize it when it happened, but a few years ago, Giles County was put under a very comprehensive (and expensive, if implemented) zoning plan...
Under the floodplain zoning passed (apparently in the dark of night) in 1999, no "development" may be initiated without first obtaining a permit from the County Executive. And on what basis is this permit given? According to a story written by Claudia Johnson, in the January 20, 2005 Giles Free Press, "among the items to be included in the application were plans in duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions and elevations of the area in question, existing or proposed structures, earthen fill, storage of materials or equipment or drainage facilities. The applicant was to obtain a certificate from a registered professional engineer or architect that a nonresidential flood-proofed building would meet specified criteria. Also included was to be a description of proposed alteration in watercourses."
Whew! That's a heck of a lot of stuff to do, and a heck of a lot of surveying, engineering and architectural talent to pay for, before being allowed to break ground for a new house. Easily, to meet all these requirements would add thousands of dollars -- if not tens of thousands -- to the cost of a new home. Fortunately for the people of Giles County, we haven't (yet) elected an Executive crazy enough to actually implement and enforce this dastardly scheme...
But that fact, happy though it is for those (like me) who believe in property rights and individual freedom, is not so good news to the handful of people who currently participate in the federally subsidized flood insurance program. Just how many beneficiaries are we talking about? Well, out of the thirty thousand or so folks who live in Giles County, a grand total of FORTY are enrolled in the flood insurance program.
That means, in theory, that the RIGHTS of 29,960 people are being sacrificed in order to BENEFIT 40 people who (let's be honest here) were stupid enough to build in a flood plain, and now want to be bailed out by Uncle Sugardaddy. The big problem is, Uncle Sugardaddy will only bail these 40 "victims" out if the county places all the rest of us in the shackles of zoning. Is that a tradeoff we would make, voluntarily? I propose we put it to a vote, and see just how eager the majority of us are to be buried under paperwork in duplicate, and harassed by a building inspector. The referendum would surely fail, with probably no-one casting "yes" votes than the 40 beneficiaries of the program.
Unfortunately for them, their days of scamming Uncle Sugardaddy wil soon be coming to an end. According to the article I mentioned above, the federal bureaucrats are wise to what's going on, and intend to cancel the floodplain insurance subsidy in Giles County, unless the county "gets with the program," and starts enforcing the draconian and quite expensive regulations. (I believe that EMA Director Pierre Billard has mentioned this fact, elsewhere on this blog.)
Are we prepared to see the forty "victims" cut off? Speaking for myself, I'd rather see these people pay their $15,279 worth of yearly premiums directly to Giles County, and let the county bail them out, in the event they get hit by a future flood. That premium money is insuring less than $4 Million worth of property. If the premiums were invested in a good mutual fund, they might be enough to pay for future claims. The average flood insurance recipient in Giles County is apparently only insured for $100,000 in property. If these properties are, on average, flooded every hundred years, then that's about $38,000 worth of premiums (plus compounded interest) to pay each claim. It might just work, and, in the event that the insurance fund runs low, we could always pay off claims by hiking the property tax rate...
Sound bad? Well, I'd rather see these folks subsidized by local money, than to have the hydra-headed monster of federally mandated zoning placed as a yoke around every landowner's neck. Taxes are bad, true, but zoning plans that require armies of surveyors, engineers, architects and building inspectors represent not only a cost in lost freedom, but a great financial cost as well.
Speaking of zoning... did anyone watch the Channel Four news tonight? An elderly black lady, 85 years old I believe, has been ordered to tear off the vinyl siding of her charming and quite attractive little house--- or ELSE. She has fought this idiocy for some ten years now, appealing all the way to the Supreme Court. And she faced the very real threat of going to jail for the "contempt" she showed by refusing to ask "how high" when the judge said to jump.
Well I have nothing but contempt for the megalomaniacal dictator in black robes who made this insane ruling. Hey judge! I have sheer and utter contempt for you, and all you stand for. Whaddya gonna do about that, sweetie? Please, lady, go straight to Hell. Really, I'm not joking here. For treating an innocent senior citizen in such a shabby manner, and for stomping on the basic freedoms that made this country great, I hope she burns. For a long, long time!
Back to local zoning. I strongly advocate that everyone who cares about freedom, for themselves, or their grandkids, only vote for commissioner candidates who promise to repeal the Floodplain Zoning Resolution of 1999. Also make sure that your County Executive candidate promises NOT to enforce this idiotic plan. Maybe, with a little luck, my candidate questionnaire will help us separate the wheat from the chaff. If not, I suggest you call the candidates in your district (I'll be posting their phone numbers) and ASK THEM where they stand. Working together, perhaps we can make a difference in Giles County...
Under the floodplain zoning passed (apparently in the dark of night) in 1999, no "development" may be initiated without first obtaining a permit from the County Executive. And on what basis is this permit given? According to a story written by Claudia Johnson, in the January 20, 2005 Giles Free Press, "among the items to be included in the application were plans in duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions and elevations of the area in question, existing or proposed structures, earthen fill, storage of materials or equipment or drainage facilities. The applicant was to obtain a certificate from a registered professional engineer or architect that a nonresidential flood-proofed building would meet specified criteria. Also included was to be a description of proposed alteration in watercourses."
Whew! That's a heck of a lot of stuff to do, and a heck of a lot of surveying, engineering and architectural talent to pay for, before being allowed to break ground for a new house. Easily, to meet all these requirements would add thousands of dollars -- if not tens of thousands -- to the cost of a new home. Fortunately for the people of Giles County, we haven't (yet) elected an Executive crazy enough to actually implement and enforce this dastardly scheme...
But that fact, happy though it is for those (like me) who believe in property rights and individual freedom, is not so good news to the handful of people who currently participate in the federally subsidized flood insurance program. Just how many beneficiaries are we talking about? Well, out of the thirty thousand or so folks who live in Giles County, a grand total of FORTY are enrolled in the flood insurance program.
That means, in theory, that the RIGHTS of 29,960 people are being sacrificed in order to BENEFIT 40 people who (let's be honest here) were stupid enough to build in a flood plain, and now want to be bailed out by Uncle Sugardaddy. The big problem is, Uncle Sugardaddy will only bail these 40 "victims" out if the county places all the rest of us in the shackles of zoning. Is that a tradeoff we would make, voluntarily? I propose we put it to a vote, and see just how eager the majority of us are to be buried under paperwork in duplicate, and harassed by a building inspector. The referendum would surely fail, with probably no-one casting "yes" votes than the 40 beneficiaries of the program.
Unfortunately for them, their days of scamming Uncle Sugardaddy wil soon be coming to an end. According to the article I mentioned above, the federal bureaucrats are wise to what's going on, and intend to cancel the floodplain insurance subsidy in Giles County, unless the county "gets with the program," and starts enforcing the draconian and quite expensive regulations. (I believe that EMA Director Pierre Billard has mentioned this fact, elsewhere on this blog.)
Are we prepared to see the forty "victims" cut off? Speaking for myself, I'd rather see these people pay their $15,279 worth of yearly premiums directly to Giles County, and let the county bail them out, in the event they get hit by a future flood. That premium money is insuring less than $4 Million worth of property. If the premiums were invested in a good mutual fund, they might be enough to pay for future claims. The average flood insurance recipient in Giles County is apparently only insured for $100,000 in property. If these properties are, on average, flooded every hundred years, then that's about $38,000 worth of premiums (plus compounded interest) to pay each claim. It might just work, and, in the event that the insurance fund runs low, we could always pay off claims by hiking the property tax rate...
Sound bad? Well, I'd rather see these folks subsidized by local money, than to have the hydra-headed monster of federally mandated zoning placed as a yoke around every landowner's neck. Taxes are bad, true, but zoning plans that require armies of surveyors, engineers, architects and building inspectors represent not only a cost in lost freedom, but a great financial cost as well.
Speaking of zoning... did anyone watch the Channel Four news tonight? An elderly black lady, 85 years old I believe, has been ordered to tear off the vinyl siding of her charming and quite attractive little house--- or ELSE. She has fought this idiocy for some ten years now, appealing all the way to the Supreme Court. And she faced the very real threat of going to jail for the "contempt" she showed by refusing to ask "how high" when the judge said to jump.
Well I have nothing but contempt for the megalomaniacal dictator in black robes who made this insane ruling. Hey judge! I have sheer and utter contempt for you, and all you stand for. Whaddya gonna do about that, sweetie? Please, lady, go straight to Hell. Really, I'm not joking here. For treating an innocent senior citizen in such a shabby manner, and for stomping on the basic freedoms that made this country great, I hope she burns. For a long, long time!
Back to local zoning. I strongly advocate that everyone who cares about freedom, for themselves, or their grandkids, only vote for commissioner candidates who promise to repeal the Floodplain Zoning Resolution of 1999. Also make sure that your County Executive candidate promises NOT to enforce this idiotic plan. Maybe, with a little luck, my candidate questionnaire will help us separate the wheat from the chaff. If not, I suggest you call the candidates in your district (I'll be posting their phone numbers) and ASK THEM where they stand. Working together, perhaps we can make a difference in Giles County...
posted by J. Kendrick McPeters | 10:10 PM
63 Comments:
I'm confused by your post. Can you please clarify?
You stated, "The applicant was to obtain a certificate from a registered professional engineer or architect that a nonresidential flood-proofed building would meet specified criteria." But then you stated, "That's a heck of a lot of stuff to do, and a heck of a lot of surveying, engineering and architectural talent to pay for, before being allowed to break ground for a new house."
A "new house" is residential, but your other statement says only "nonresidential" buildings require all the engineering and architectural approvals. Which is it?
Anonymous,
I'm somewhat ashamed to admit it, but all I really know about floodplain zoning, is what I read in the newspapers. I've never read the local plan, I'm sorry to say.
But I think it's safe to say that what is being insured, is residential. The feds may in fact insist on proof from an engineer that barns, chicken coops and other outbuildings are flood proof, but I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that their primary interest is in regard to the houses that they insure.
Why the mention of "nonresidential" structures? I don't know; Claudia Johnson wrote that story, not me. But earlier in the paragraph I quoted, it mentioned the requirement for scale drawings in duplicate of "existing or proposed structures." This sounds all inclusive to me, and we all know that scale drawings don't draw themselves. It takes architects, engineers, and surveyors to create them-- clearly an expensive and time consuming proposition.
The bottom line is, if the feds require engineering and architecting for uninsured chicken coops, you can be sure that they do the same for insured residences. The newspaper story may not have made that crystal clear, but anyone with knowledge of the feds knows how the feds operate. And floodplain zoning is clearly federally mandated, as a stratagem to minimize the amount of money they have to pay out in flood insurance claims.
You can obtain a copu of Resolution 99-12A from Carol Wade.
As written this resolution requires any "development" with a value of overe $5,000.00 must obtain a permit from Giles County government. To obtain said permit a person wanting to complete their "development" must provide numerous documents to the permit issuing authority.
1. "development" is defined as any new or improvement to existing structures.
2. The issuing authority was identified to be the County Executive's office. Now do not jump on Mrs Vanzant. she did not know of this requirement until I brought it to her attention. The resolution in question was passed in March 1999 by the County Commission and signed by Mr. Wakefield as County Executive. Neither Mr. Wakefield nor Mrs, Vanzant have attempted to commence the administrative portion of this resolution.
If anyone wished to discuss this in detail, please contact my office (931) 424-4400 and I will be glad to assist in any manner.
I have suggested to the State of TN that we modify this resolution to require the supporting documentation if and only if "development" is to be accomplished within a designated flood zone area and if and only if the person requesting the "development" wants flood insurance. all other development would not require the "mountain" od supporting documentation.
By the way, if all development was to be reported to a certralized office (not asking permission to accomplish the development) but to report the existance of new or improvement to existing structures.........
would this reporting not help the tax assessor's office to properly identify what is being build where and by whom?
Just a suggestion for thought.
Pierre Billard - Director
Giles County
Office of Emergency Management
Thanks for the clarifications. I'm still a little confused as to what the "permit" Mr. Billard mentioned actually covers. Can you explain a little more about what this permit actually "permits" someone to do? Or what it guarantees? And who does the review of the submitted plans, the county engineer? Thanks!
Mr. Billard,
Thank you for providing an explanation of the flood zoning plan. And kudos for your suggestion that it only apply to those who want flood insurance.
Alas, I suspect that you will find, at the state level, the resolution has been hi-jacked by those "green" fanatics who oppose any and all growth. So the chances of getting the plan sensibly modified are slim. But it was a nice idea all the same; thanks again for trying.
What a "permit" would require, guarantee or cover would be better discussed after you read the resolution. such a discussion would take way too long to present in this blog site.
Again, i do have coipes of the resolution and you are welcome to read them.
Pierre Billard
Well, Mr.J.Kendrick McPeters,that leads me to believe that you don't know much about the Land Use Management Plan either.
Mr. Billard & Mr. McPeters,
Thanks for the information. I appreciate all the answers. Mr. Billard, do you know who actually reviews the plans that are submitted to the County for this "permit"? I just wondered who is actually doing the reviewing. Thanks again.
As mentioned previously, the administrativeaspects of this resolution have not been implemented.
Pierre Billard
An anonomous person sniped:
"Well, Mr.J.Kendrick McPeters,that leads me to believe that you don't know much about the Land Use Management Plan either."
Want to place some money on that?
Honestly, I don't see the connection. I think a reasonable person can know enough about, say, the Internal Revenue Code, to oppose the income tax without reading every one of the countless pages of IRS rules and regulation.
But the analogy that is most applicable, is one where someone has read every page of the current tax code, opposes it, and has also read a short synopsis of another tax system (say the flat tax) and voices their opposition to it, without first reading the whole flat tax plan.
In other words, a person can be a bonafide expert in one area, and be able to offer opinions on other areas, without necessarily being a total expert on them. The key to that is having enough correct information on which to base an opinion. And lack of knowledge in one area does not reflect back on other areas where one has knowledge in abundance.
So in the instant case, I am someone who went to almost all of the LUMP committeee meetings, who has read the plan from cover to cover more than once, who went to the trouble and expense of publishing the entire plan -- and the 1991 plan it was plagiarized from -- on the internet, who, two days after the LUMP was passed, offered a comprehensive plan for amendment, and who, a year later, launched a lawsuit to have the (illegally passed) LUMP struck down by the courts.
I've done all that, and more, and yet you suggest that because I haven't read the (totally unrelated) Floodplain Zoning Resolution, that I don't know anything about the LUMP? That "logic" simply does not compute.
But since you think you've found fault with me, I'll gladly take the oppportunity to prove you wrong. Just for you, I'm going to start a new thread entitled "Fun Facts About Land Use Management." Then you can see that I really do know quite a lot on the subject...
Kendrick, The guys in the black robe do not make the laws, they rule on the laws. A man of superior intellect such as you should know that.
Anonymous,
In theory judges don't make law. But in practice, they do quite a bit of legislating from the bench. (Just Google "judicial activism" for more examples than you can shake a stick at.)
At any rate, the judge I was criticizing failed to use her "judicial review" power to strike down the idiotic "historic zoning" statute that had victimized an elderly woman.
Failure to strike down a bad law is just as rotten as creating, through judicial fiat, the new "laws" which Mr. Barrett has enumerated above. In fact, when the obituary for this nation is finally written, I believe it will say "killed by judges who refused to enforce the letter of the Constitution."
Just to take one small example, the letter of the Supreme Law says "Congress shall make no law..." regarding freedom of speech. And yet, today, thanks to a law which passed muster with the current bunch of Supremes, I face jail time if I run an ad attacking the record of an incumbent officeholder, too close to election day. What part of "Congress shall make no law..." don't these people understand?
And don't even get me started on the Court's complete abandonment of the Enumerated Powers doctrine!
Some of you continue to harp on the idea that the property rights of MANY are being trampled under foot for the sake of a privileged few. How so? As a private property owner near the rock quarry just off the Minor Hill Highway, let me just say that our rights are disregarded every working day of the week by dump truck drivers who speed up and down the road at will. We practically have to come to a stop for them or duck into one of the "few" driveways in the area until the trucks pass by in clouds of dust. Oh, but some call this progress; we call it a violation of our rights. I wish some of you who are so against land use protection had to contend with our situation for a few days. I submit that you just might change your minds. What happened to the Golden Rule??
WAB. Judges still do not make law! They interpret it.
Your use of words has some people fooled, but not me. I am looking forward to you finishing fourth on election day!
Did you say you were a preacher?
Mr Barrett your response to anonymous is childish, rude, and out of order. You write in this manner yet you are always quoting the scriptures. Surely this is not acceptable behavior for an ordained minister.
To Mr. McPeters....
I noticed that you live in the city. Would your opinion about zoning change any if you owned a home on Christian Road beside the rock quarry...or would you say your rights are not as important as theirs? Just wondering.
Kendrick, you are losing the thread of this blog's purpose. Please remember that the zoning issue is not the only one that is important. It's just your issuse of concern. Right now we need people to understand that they must get rid of Janet Vanzant. She really is a liar, incompetent, ignorant, deceptive. She has really dontten nothing for this county. She did not revamp the debt service. if anything, she fought against it bacuase of jealousy. How dare she have the nerve to even act like she did anything to help. At least she will answer on judgement day for her lies. I can't believe she has forgotton about judgement day.
Everyone must remember the disaster Eddie Bass got us into with the jail. he can't represent his way out of a paper bag.
I don't recall "the disaster Eddie Bass got us into with the jail." Please refresh my memory.
He caused the lawsuits related to employees.
Wasn't that a construction flaw?
He and janet vanzant knew BEFORE the employees filed the suit that there was no harmful mold there. Bass refused to tell the employees. this is all documented.
Does the "document" have a signing off signature from Vanzant? I think not. Fact is the attorney in the case had the document specifiying no dangerous mold found and refused to release it. Charles Greene then had an environmental consultancy/test house out of Decatur do a test which proved the jail was clean. Only then, in 2005, was the original test report/document released.
What about the mold found in the Courthouse and the report on it?
Understand that Janet also was real quiet about that one also.
Was the employees' informed on that one? Not to mention the Public, we don't seen to have any rights about what is going on within our own government, and we are paying all the bills.
There wasn't any mold found inn the basement of the courthouse. Don't you read the paper? Basement pump failed during heavy rain which went into back room of assessor's office. Employees in that dept hollered "mold" even though they put up with stinking cigarette smoke from McGill. Cleaning was done and new flooring laid, all under insurance. All this was in paper. Vanzant not at faulkt. She got the repair done.
I don't beleive anything i read in the paper about Vanzant, because she reports what she wants'.
I bet you vote for her due to the news in the paper, and radio.
Maybe you need to dig a little deeper like Mr.McPeter did on the zoning of the county. You'll find Mrs. Vanzant is known for her disreguard with her use of Power of Office in the office she holds!
Never met Allen Barrett in my life but I am so tired of seeing people attack his character and the fact that he is a preacher. When you come to a comment labeled WAB why do you bother to read it if you're just going to throw slurs at him? You point the finger at him for doing it yet you do the same thing!!!!!!!!!!!
The point is, a preacher doesn't go about calling people anal buffoons. As for finger pointing, it's not fair, but preachers are expected to adhere to a higher standard, don't you think? I do. But, the Righteous Judge shall judge us all in the end.
I don’t know Mr. Barrett either but you will have to admit he is one thing, intelligent! I personally think we could use a little more intelligent commission. Sorry I not in his district because I would vote for him.
To Anonymous of 28 July 1:29 post.
Well said!
To Anonymous of 28 July 6:52 post.
Thanks, wish you were in the 7th district.
To Anonymous of 28 July 6:33 post.
Again I ask, what is the problem with "anal buffoon"? I guess I could have called the person "a snake and the son of the devil", would that have been more acceptable? To me if the shoe fits wear it.
You state, "As for finger pointing, it's not fair, but preachers are expected to adhere to a higher standard, don't you think?"
My question to this statement is, if you know a thing is unfair why do you continue to take part in it? As for the higher standard being expected from preachers I would ask from whom does this expectation emanate from? There is a difference between a higher expectation and an unrealistic expectation.
I believe we are all given the same basic responsibilities by God. Why would my failings be more or less important than your failing? Allen Barrett
Mr. B....you know better than that. So I'll not even go there with you.....preachers do accept a higher standard..we all know that. As for matching wits you about where it all came from...how on earth would I know?
To Anonymous of 28 July 11:59 post.
I treated your questions and statements as legitimate and responded as such. Why do you avoid my question, "What is so objectionable about me referring to someone as an anal buffoon?"
It reminds me of the story about a preacher who was speaking on the subject of "If thy eye offend thee pluck it out". During this sermon he stated that "if something was offensive to you that it should be cut off". At the end of the service he stood at the exit speaking with individuals as they were leaving. One lady, known for her overly abrasive criticisms of most all things, asked the preacher if he really meant what he said in the sermon about "if something offended you to cut it off", or if it was just another hypocritical thing preachers say"?
The preacher assured her of his sincerity. The lady then took out a pair of scissors, reached over and cut the preacher's tie off. She then looked him in the eye and said, "your tie offended me". The preacher without missing a beat asked, "may I use your scissors?" After being handed the scissors the preacher then said, to the lady who had just cut off his tie, "stick out your tongue".
If you can't defend your position and actions then maybe you might need to reconsider them.
I have no objection to a higher standard as long as it is not an unrealistic expectation. Allen Barrett
If you do not understand WHY you shouldn't refer to someone as an anal buffoon, then we have no reason to discuss the matter further.
You DON'T know why a preacher shouldn't call anyone an anal buffoon? WOW!
Ok folks, it seems that those who find the term "anal buffoon" so objectionable but can't explain why they find it so objectionable. I am now forced, seriously, to ask if anyone can enlighten me as to what is so objectionable about referring to a person as an "anal buffoon". I await your response for my enlightenment. Thanks, Allen Barrett
The term is just as offensive as calling people pinheads. Could you gain a new convert by calling him/her a name like that? I doubt it.
To Mr. Barrett - Most parents teach their children that it is unkind to call people names. For you to use the words that you use in your replies is not only unkind, but childish. Even if someone says something to you that is insulting, you should be the "bigger person" and respond without all of the name-calling.
Alan Barrett is not claiming to be perfect. Quit treating him like he's supposed to be. That's the problem with people they won't step foot into a church because they're afraid someone is going to expect them to be perfect. You can still love the Lord with all your heart and all your soul and He knows you aren't perfect and never will be. There's only been one human to walk this Earth who was perfect and that was Jesus himself. Alan knows he is judged the same as everyone else, leave him alone. Oh and by the way, all of you who have thrown it up in his face because he's a preacher, thanks for steering this topic towards religion! Please stick to the topics at hand or stop coming to this blog.
To anonymous of July 31, 9:17:21 AM - I could not have said it better. Very well put. Amen!
It would be impossible for you to fail to live up to my expectations!
Will anal buffoons and pinheads be found in Heaven with you?
to anonymous August 1, 3:07:46 PM
ABSOLUTELY!!!
Perhaps the anal buffoons and pinheads will be zoned into a different section of Heaven?
To Anonymous of 2 August 9:22:05PM
post:
Excellent response!!!!
I'm sure that we anal buffoons and pinheads will (thank goodness) be in a different section.
When they get to Heaven, will they become holy and no longer be buffons?
Education cures ignorance....stupidity is hopeless...
And....grandiose delusions about self are shallow.
And an ill-informed public cannot be trusted to vote responsibly. Isn't that the other side of the argument? Could it be that laws are enacted by powers that be simply because they know that to be a fact? When peole are led to believe they cannot add a board to their chicken house without begging a zoning commission, what else can you expect of them at the voting booth?
I added on to my tractor shed and didn't have to ask a single person. We were told that we couldn't even do that. Looks like time alone has proven that to be a blatant lie designed to scare the pants off people who live out in the county. And if I should paint my shed lavender or UT orange, I fear that the only person who would care one way or the other would be me. But that is NOT what these anti-zoners told us. Right?
Sometimes it takes a bit of mental energy to determine fact from fiction.
Looks like a nother Mr anonymous was hiding in the closet when the brains was being handed out.
Why is it so hard to understand that the zoneing ain't being inforced. Until the law suit is finished it won't be inforced.
What you got to watch out for is when it starts being inforced. If you want to know about the LUMP don't listen to nobody just go read the thing for yourself.
By golly, I believe chuckles is McPeters!
There is nothing in LUMP that says you can't build onto your barn, house, garage, shed, or anything else. The LUMP is fair. I believe you guys are just like Mrs. VZ. You'll tell any lie to get what you want!
This is EXACTLY what they are doing. They told people all kinds of horror tales about LUMP and most people apparently believed them. Surely time has proven most of those things to be misrepresentations. And I just hope those new commissioners will have the vision to see that for themselves.
Yep, chuckles must be Mr. McP. I wondered if any other dumb Giles Countian besides me noticed!
chuckles said:
Until the law suit is finished it won't be inforced.
That may be the case, but the lawsuit isn't the reason it's not being enforced. The real reason it is unenforced, is that it is UNENFORCABLE. That is, it is so poorly written and self contradictory that there is no point to even bother trying to enforce it.
In point of fact, the LUMP went unenforced for 364 days, before the lawsuit was even filed.
Anonymous said:
By golly, I believe chuckles is McPeters!
Nope. I post under my own name, whenever I post. Perhaps chuckles has been influenced by my arguments, and therefore makes similar arguments (eg, the LUMP isn't being enforced) but that is his doing, not mine. I don't need an anonymous sockpuppet to make arguments for me -- I never have, and I never will.
Anonymous said:
There is nothing in LUMP that says you can't build onto your barn, house, garage, shed, or anything else.
Other than that minor problem on page 9, which prohibits any use of land in the FAR zone, which, as it happens, is all of Giles County. Only someone who hasn't read the LUMP, or someone who is an idiot, would defend such megalomania as that.
The LUMP is fair.
You think it's "fair" to slam the door shut on all future growth and development in Giles County? Okay, I'll admit that the waterheads who came up with the LUMP probably didn't do that ON PURPOSE, but laws are interpreted literally, whether you like it or not. And speaking of fairness, what's sensible, let alone "fair," about zoning out churches, private schools, and large (ie, good paying) industries from Giles County-- all of which was done deliberately and with malice aforethought by the LUMPsters.
I believe you guys are just like Mrs. VZ. You'll tell any lie to get what you want!
Funny you'd say that. Without the backstabbing of Vanzant, the LUMP would never have passed. And as for "telling any lie to get what you want," would you mind pinpointing an instance where I have lied about the LUMP? I have quite a long paper trail, so if I'm an indiscriminate liar, it should be easy for you to do. So why dontcha find one, and point it out???
Finally, your beloved LUMP was passed in a blatantly illegal manner, and this probably was done on purpose to increase the odds of it passing. Are you troubled in the least by this fact? Do you simply not care when politicians break the laws that were designed to protect us from local tyranny? I'm just curious, and would really like to hear your answer...
Anonymous said:
This is EXACTLY what they are doing. They told people all kinds of horror tales about LUMP and most people apparently believed them. Surely time has proven most of those things to be misrepresentations.
How many times must it be knocked over your head, that the LUMP is not, repeat NOT!, being enforced? Do I have to draw you a picture, so you finally get the point???
And I just hope those new commissioners will have the vision to see that for themselves.
Run through the Translat-O-matic: I just hope the new commissioners will ignore the wishes of their constituents.
Yep, chuckles must be Mr. McP.
And you must be drunk. Can't you people keep the story straight? One minute, I'm the most arrogant person who ever lived, and the next, I'm so timid I'm afraid to post under my own name, so I create a sockpuppet and name him "chuckles?" These stories can't both be true, so which is it?
I wondered if any other dumb Giles Countian besides me noticed!
I wonder if anyone else is dumb enough to think that I'd post under another name??? Geeze, Anonymous, does it just tear you up inside to see someone agreeing with me (in a county of nearly 30,000) and you just know in your heart that, since no-one agrees with me, that "chuckles" has to be me? Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but chuckles and I are two different people. Period.
Hey you guys (a yankee term) I'M CHUCKLES and I ain't no sock pupett.
I might agree with Mr Mac on some things but we sure ain't the same person. O my if we was the same person does that make my husband one of them preverts?
Wrong again mr mcp
Anonymous said:
Wrong again mr mcp
Could you be more specific here? I"m not sure what it is that I'm "wrong again" about, so I have no idea how to respond...
Don't we have an industrial park for those good paying industries? If so, why do we need to locate them in residential areas?
We have two industrial parks.
Post a Comment
<< Home