I Gotta Stand with Pam

[caroljane]

As one of my brothers puts it, "Zoning delays the inevitable on behalf of the connected."

Robert Campbell

As when land is zoned for foxhunting so that the unspeakable can pursue the inedible...

[Peter]

Robert Campbell wrote:

As one of my brothers puts it, "Zoning delays the inevitable on behalf of the connected."

end quote

Damn that is good. I certainly agree.

Daunce replied:

As when land is zoned for foxhunting so that the unspeakable can pursue the inedible...

end quote

That’s two great quotes I will use at the next public hearing. They may throw me out.

The “Coming to the Nuisance” Doctrine (I will abbreviate it CttN) would be a logical exchange for zoning laws. However, there are still a few applications of the doctrine that need to be expounded upon. How would the change over from zoning to CttN affect current land owners? CttN in its definition states that the owner has a right to use their property in the current way indefinitely, but it has been said that the victors write history. Would conniving, larcenous people concoct the history or be able to bribe the history writers? As Robert’s brother’s quote illustrates “money talks,” and as Barack Obama might add, “and poor folk walk.” How can anyone from memory, describe how a property was used but has now changed? A verifiable history of all property within a jurisdiction would be needed.

Wilens wrote in his article:

. . . when uses of two properties conflict with each other, the use which has priority is the one started first, and the owner has the right to stop others from interfering with this prior use (the “first in time, first in right” rule).

end quote

What would CttN do to stop interference with a prior usages, already contested in the courts? More lawsuits? I can image the Hatfields and McCoys types of feuds occurring without a one hundred percent accurate history of land usage.

Wilens wrote:

This would necessarily involve figuring out which property owners might be affected by a proposed project and what uses these owners are already making of their properties, so that the developer can design his project to be compatible with these uses. (Unfortunately there isn’t space to go into the mechanics of this here; it will have to be the subject of future work.)

end quote

Verifying the land usage of surrounding land owners, perhaps through prior documentation is fine if there is a paper trail along with computer records. Isn’t this process the equivalent of zoning?

Wilens wrote:

This is because the government would not be able to tell anyone how to use his land prior to the creation of a nuisance.

end quote

Excellent point. I am liking this concept more and more.

Wilens wrote:

This is because decisions regarding land use will no longer be in the hands of the government but rather will be handled by the owners of the property to be developed.

end quote

Amen. Of course, CttN rights can be sold by the first nuisance to the second nuisance, because contracts would always be legal, but please call it something else other than Coming to the Nuisance. “Gay marriage” (on the ballot in Maryland in 2012) could be called something else yet equal rights under the law would still exist. The definition of Marriage has already existed so keeping it as a union between a man and a woman would be its own sort of coming to the nuisance.

Wilens wrote:

Unfortunately, this is not the present state of American law. Although it is still used in nuisance cases, Coming to the Nuisance is not regarded as an absolute, but rather as merely “one factor among many” by the courts . . . For example, courts today very often determine the rights of property owners in nuisance cases not solely by who started his use first, but rather by factors such as the “trend of development in an area” — meaning that, if there is a farm or factory in an area that previously was agricultural or industrial but which is becoming residential, the government will force the farmer or factory owner to shut down.2 This opens the door to unjust decisions in nuisance cases, and provides an excuse for government intrusions on property rights such as zoning.

end quote

And this is where zoning becomes the initiation of force in the form of coercive judgments. Not only is zoning “agenda driven” as with the environmentalists, it is also bribe money driven. A local example would be Ocean City, Maryland where businesses, the town council and the mayor seem to call the shots in the county seat. There are two main access roads to Ocean City. From the west is Route 50 which connects Baltimore and DC and from the north Routes 13 and 113 which connect Ocean City with Philadelphia’s vacationers. As these routes approach Ocean City they are considered “corridors” which must provide few businesses and services, no new billboards, and any new business supposedly being considered for a permit must jump through hoops until they finally just give up their due diligence and go home.

My family is having trouble selling one property and two others are nearly ready to be sold after a pipeline company’s lease runs out. We are down to one billboard. If for any reason you drop the Clearchannel lease for a billboard you will not get another. If you have a billboard on the property any new business can only have a dinky little sign advertising their business. We lopped off three acres with the sign and it is now A-1 Agricultural but it could be used for parking or storage and a potential business could put up a better sign on the commercial property. This is totally unfair and a violation of our rights. To top it all off, we have had ongoing eminent domain issues with the fascists in Annapolis and Baltimore.

I have been given it a lot of thought and I truly believe David Wilens is on to something. I cannot think of any other way to stop the encroaching wall of zoning except the doctrine of Coming to the Nuisance.

Peter Taylor

[caroljane]

Peter, you do realise the foxhunting quote is from Oscar Wilde? I should have cited but it is one of his most famous quips and I didn't bother as a lot of OLers would recognise it. But if you are going to use it in a public meeting you should know the source! You do not want to do a Hudgins.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's why I would support some zoning laws. It's because you can't take your property, pull it up off the earth and walk it over to somewhere else when someone degrades your property value by degrading the neighborhood.

Safety Concerns Growing After Opening Of Panera Cares In Lakeview

CBS Chicago

October 2, 2012

From the article:

Panera Bread reopened as “Panera Cares” on June 21. The new concept meant that customers would pay what they could. If they couldn’t pay anything, the meal was free.

Sally Figliulo has lived in Lakeview for 12 years and says that since Panera Cares opened, she feels unsafe.

“It’s just kind of scary,” she said. “A crowd of guys won’t let you through a sidewalk. That’s invasive.

But that’s not all.

It seems businesses around the Diversey and Clark location have made visible changes. One business has recently added a gate.

Trash was also seen piling up on a stoop just a few feet from the café.

Bruce Beal has lived in Lakeview for 12 years as well. He says the neighborhood is safe and a few outspoken neighbors are just worried about property value.

"Just worried about property value"?

"Just worried"?

Well duh.

Those who operate businesses and invest a lot of money in their properties certainly will not welcome trash and bums. And you know that will grow once it starts, unless someone puts a stop to it.

"Just safe" is not enough in a case like this.

If Panera wants to do charity work, OK. But why not take its food to where the bums are instead of bringing bums into a neighborhood where they don't belong, at least not until they can afford it?

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote in support of zoning:

If Panera wants to do charity work, OK. But why not take its food to where the bums are instead of bringing bums into a neighborhood where they don't belong, at least not until they can afford it?

end quote

That is also one of my misgivings about exchanging Coming to the Nuisance legal wording for ALL zoning laws. My remedy would be to keep zoning laws that utilize the “first come, first rights to usage” doctrine in their justifications. Zoning could be a tool that protects individual rights and as with all common laws I would not advocate their abolition until an objective analysis of their impact. Common law, passed down from England, is a gold mine of clear thinking. Objective Zoning could be used so that people using the Coming to the Nuisance Doctrine for land development would not be constantly going to court or public hearings.

I think a freer state like Wyoming would need to pioneer the modification or abolition of zoning – Maryland is not up to this Herculean task. This would also be a great cause for The Justice League to take up. Usually they only deal with cases of Eminent Domain.

Coincidentally I went to a Panera Bread for the first time yesterday. There was a diverse clientele of what looked like high school kids, though it was only one pm, older folks, and yuppie trend setters. It was an upscale place and very busy. We had to sit next to two women in their thirties about one annoying foot away who were loud talkers. I tried their Italian sandwich and it was quite good while my wife got soup and bread (I think you are supposed to dip the bread in the soup, but my wife thinks that is gauche.) The Subway Italian sub is cheaper, less crowded, and better.

Peter

[blackhorse]

Islam has a standing doctrine that says to non-muslims; convert or die. There is no way around it. Freedom of religion only applies to those beliefs that do not actively seek or aspire to desrtoy a man's life, liberty, and property. Just as free speech does not apply to yelling "fire!" in movie theater, the same standard applies to religions, there is no freedom of religion where the religion in question espouses death or submission to non-believers. I stand with Geller 100%.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Freedom of religion only applies to those beliefs that do not actively seek or aspire to desrtoy a man's life, liberty, and property.

Islam is not a belief.

It is a bunch of beliefs (and stories and other stuff).

Michael

[blackhorse]

Tomato / tom-ah-to. It is a belief or system of beliefs defined by the dictionary definition of the word. Here's the rub, the Koran teaches conversion or death, this anti-human idea is not taught nor found in any of the other major world religions. I don't see how islam can seperate itself from this scripture seeing as it is in bold face type and has been forever. I geuss a group of semi-rationally minded muslims could release an edited copy of the Koran ommitting that part, but then that is asking for a fatwa. I see no realistic hope for Islam in general and the middle east in particular. It would have to undergo massive changes willfully at odds with current doctrine.-it's possible, but not in my lifetime.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't see how islam can seperate itself from this scripture...

That's for sure.

Michael

[Grames]

To wrap "Coming to the Nuisance" up with the thread topic, although zoning is wrong I think if there was statutory law and judicial precedent establishing CttN as the sole method of working out disputes over property rights it would still be possible to legitimately hinder the conversion of the particular building selected into a flashy mega-mosque. The property was only affordable to buy for mosque purposes due to the direct damages from the impact of a jet engine crashing through the roof and decrease in property value due to the loss of foot traffic from the destruction of the Trade Center Towers and complex. Since the cause of that damage and destruction was persons acting in the name of Islam it seems morally dubious that Islam should profit from the damage by acquiring property that would have been otherwise unavailable. An assist from a common law principle known as the "slayer rule" might be in order to complete the case. The hindrance would not be to muslims purchasing property, but only converting particular properties into mosques.

In sum, the impulse to stop the mosque is not obviously morally wrong on the basis of property rights. Other people in New York have property rights also, some of those rights have priority over what rights the mosque builders may assert.

[Selene]

Washington DC Judge rules the ads have to go back up in that jurisdiction.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/judge-delays-anti-jihad-free-speech/

A judge in Washington, D.C., ruled today that a “heckler’s veto” of pro-Israel ads that already have appeared in San Francisco and New York cannot be used to censor the message in Washington.

The judge granted a request by the American Freedom Law Center for an injunction to halt the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority censorship of a pro-Israel/anti-jihad bus advertisement.

The judge ordered the agency display the ads no later than 5 p.m. on October 8, 2012.