Communists overwhelm Florida’s defenses

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
46,832
10,970
Eastern NC
Put a rusty pickup on blocks in the front yard and grow your veggies in the bed.
012-728x485.jpg


Considering that tires suffer degradation from UV, figuring out a way to put it up on round cement blocks painted black would be a nice upgrade

- DSK

 

bletso

Member
212
55
Louisville KY
Actually, don't you all realise that you don't own the property or abodes thereon.  You lease it from the man in the form of various taxes.  Proof - don't pay and they take it from you.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
63,496
2,138
Punta Gorda FL
Actually, don't you all realise that you don't own the property or abodes thereon.  You lease it from the man in the form of various taxes.  Proof - don't pay and they take it from you.
I've never bought that argument.

How does anyone know that I own my property? Well, public records say so and if someone should disregard that and trespass, I can call the Sheriff, who will enforce my ownership.

Keepers of public records at the Clerk of Court's office have to be paid, as do cops. How? Taxes. And who should pay such taxes? Well, how about the property owners who benefit from those things?

So I'd say the fact that I pay property taxes is more proof of ownership, not proof of any lack of ownership.

Which the city retained to deal with a scofflaw. And he remedied the situation after being sued. There is some cost there. As I said, the amount doesn’t seem reasonable but the scofflaw, by forcing the city to take action, owes some reimbursement. Maybe if he sued over the amount he’d have a better shot at relief.
The scofflaw in question got the receivership vacated by not being a scofflaw. Same for the 1969 building permit.

The amount that bothers you is the direct result of the conflict of interest I noted above: despite losing those legal fights, the law firm had every incentive to run up a yuge bill, which they did.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
63,596
6,128
De Nile
The amount that bothers you is the direct result of the conflict of interest I noted above: despite losing those legal fights, the law firm had every incentive to run up a yuge bill, which they did.
Yes, but that wasn't your argument.  Your argument was that the State Supremes let the judgement stand even though he remediated his offenses. I'm just pointing out that his offenses had a cost that was born by others to get him to perform said remediation.

If you want to go on about for-profit institutions running code-enforcement, why don't you start a thread about it, or hijack this one?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
63,496
2,138
Punta Gorda FL
Illinois Might Legalize Gardening
 

The Illinois Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved the Illinois Vegetable Garden Protection Act (HB 633), a bill that would preserve and protect the right of all Illinoisans to “cultivate vegetable gardens on their own property.” Introduced by Rep. Sonya Harper, the Act would protect the right to grow vegetables, as well as “herbs, fruits, flowers, pollinator plants, leafy greens, or other edible plants.”

HB 633 now heads to Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who has 60 days to act on the bill. For many Illinoisans, reform has been a long-time coming, as similar measures have come close to passage in prior sessions.

“I just want to grow my own food on my own property. In America, that really shouldn’t be such a controversial idea, and it certainly shouldn’t be illegal,” said Nicole Virgil, an Elmhurst resident whose efforts to grow vegetables in her rear yard have been repeatedly stymied by local officials. “I want to teach my kids the importance of self-sufficiency and self-reliance. I want them to understand and appreciate where food comes from.”

If passed, Illinois would become a national leader in the local food movement, becoming just the second state to provide express protection for the right to grow one’s own food. In 2019, Florida enacted the nation’s first statewide Vegetable Garden Protection Act, which sprouted from a years-long legal battle the Institute for Justice fought on behalf of a Miami Shores couple that was forced to uproot their 17-year old vegetable garden, after the city banned vegetable gardens in front yards. The Florida and Illinois legislative reforms are part of IJ’s National Food Freedom Initiative, which promotes the ability of individuals to produce, procure and consume the foods of their choice.

...
I hope the commies in Illinois are as successful as the ones down here!

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
63,496
2,138
Punta Gorda FL
Communists Overwhelm Illinois' Defenses
 

Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Friday signed the Illinois Vegetable Garden Protection Act (HB 633), a bill that will preserve and protect the right of all Illinoisans to “cultivate vegetable gardens on their own property.” Introduced by Rep. Sonya Harper, the Act will protect the right to grow vegetables, as well as “herbs, fruits, flowers, pollinator plants, leafy greens, or other edible plants.” 

...

With the governor’s signature, Illinois is now the second state to provide express protection for the right to grow one’s own food. In 2019, Florida enacted the nation’s first statewide Vegetable Garden Protection Act, which sprouted from a years-long legal battle the Institute for Justice fought on behalf of a Miami Shores couple that was forced to uproot their 17-year old vegetable garden, after the city banned vegetable gardens in front yards. The Florida and Illinois legislative reforms are part of IJ’s National Food Freedom Initiative, which promotes the ability of individuals to produce, procure and consume the foods of their choice.

“This new law will strip local governments of the power to impose HOA-style prohibitions on an act of self-sufficiency in which humans have been engaged for thousands of years,” said IJ Nutjob Ari Bargil.

...
Koch-$pon$ored commies, at that. What is the world coming to?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
63,496
2,138
Punta Gorda FL
In zoning news,

Victory in North Carolina! Federal Court Rejects Bogus Zoning Arguments That Kept Homeless Out in the Cold
 

A few days before Christmas, a small homeless shelter in northwestern North Carolina received the best present it could have imagined: a victory awarding it the right to open. The Catherine H. Barber Memorial Shelter, represented by IJ, won its lawsuit against the town of North Wilkesboro, which had invoked bogus reasons to stop the shelter from opening. A federal judge cut through the irrationality and declared the town’s actions unconstitutional. It is a momentous decision not just for the Barber Shelter but also for other property owners restrained by draconian zoning boards.

For more than 30 years, the Barber Shelter has provided a warm and safe space to sleep for people experiencing temporary homelessness. In 2020, the Barber Shelter was looking for a new space to serve the community when a local dentist generously offered to donate his office building. The building is perfect—it is in an ideal location for a shelter (nonresidential, near public transit, and near social services) and satisfies all the North Wilkesboro zoning requirements.  

There was a hitch, though: The town’s Board of Adjustment had to sign off by approving a conditional use permit. Instead, the Board invented reasons to deny the permit. For example, the Board fretted about sidewalk and traffic safety issues supposedly presented by the nearby major road. But the zoning code requires that homeless shelters have public sidewalks and be near major roads. Paradoxes like this pervaded the Board’s decision. Its reasoning meant that there was literally nowhere in town a homeless shelter could go.

The Barber Shelter teamed up with IJ to fight back and filed a federal lawsuit in October 2020. Following an intensive year of discovery, the parties briefed the issues and had oral argument in Charlotte, North Carolina. The wait for a decision was mercifully short—and it was a grand slam. The court engaged with the evidence, analyzed the arguments, and ultimately saw the Board’s tortured reasons for what they were: excuses to keep the county’s only homeless shelter out of town. In doing so, the court vehemently rejected the defendants’ pleas for deference: “The Board apparently believes—incorrectly—that it can say the magic words ‘traffic and safety’ and this Court will rubber stamp the classification no matter the facts,” wrote U.S. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell. The judge acknowledged that courts are often deferential to state zoning regulations but said “such deference cannot be an excuse for the Court to abdicate its duty to protect the constitutional rights of all people.” 

...
Nice to see a judge who doesn't believe in blind deference when he sees the magic words.

 

phill_nz

Super Anarchist
3,504
1,149
internet atm
Believe it or not, some US communities' zoning codes explicitly forbid that . . 
Not without a permit and an inspection.
yes i knew that

didnt friken believe it when i first heard it

but it was the same for almost every yank i spoke to online  no matter the state

just for interest .. i dont own a dryer .. i also dont have any mold  in my house .. im pretty sure a lot of that will be able to be traced back to a dryer and why it's my number 2 reason for not having one

 
Last edited by a moderator:

hasher

Super Anarchist
6,972
1,208
Insanity
yes i knew that

didnt friken believe it when i first heard it

but it was the same for almost every yank i spoke to online  no matter the state

just for interest .. i dont own a dryer .. i also dont have any mold  in my house .. im pretty sure a lot of that will be able to be traced back to a dryer and why it's my number 2 reason for not having one
Luv life in the land of the free.  I hand out guns as party gifts when the kids come over.

 
Top