Different strokes for different folks, Frank.

In my view, I didn't give up anything when I built in a neighborhood with
restrictive covenants. Instead, I gained the peace-of-mind that the
neighborhood wouldn't decay. I gained "rights" as I agreed to covenants
that I would have followed anyway, because my neighbors will as well.

Your "public sector versus private sector" infringement of rights arguments
isn't simply valid in this case because it is voluntary. My rights are just
fine, thank you.

However I do agree that there are plenty of cases where the public sector
(government) does infringe on the rights of private property owners. I am
vehemently against it. I believe it is unconstitutional for a city
government to use eminent domain laws to force an owner of private property
to sell it (so the government can grant the land to a developer who will
build a shopping center) because the government will make more tax revenue
on a new shopping center. Yet this is happening time and again all over the
United States. It' just plain wrong.

-- Stinger

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Stinger" wrote in message
. ..
Frank,

As I mentioned to Wes, nobody forces you to buy into a neighborhood
with
covenants. I also mentioned that they are not for everybody. In my
case,
they are a good idea, and one of the reasons I built my house where I
did
was specifically because I knew what to expect from neighbors as they
built
nearby.

I don't feel bad that I can't let my yard get waist high, park junk
cars on
the lawn, or paint my roof purple. Rather, I feel good knowing my
neighbor
won't.

By the way, I happen to be a Republican Kung-Fu black belt (Dragon
Claw
1992) that knows a good, honest mechanic that helped me teach my son
how to
change the heads on his antique T-Bird in his garage.

So much for your lily-livered weenie who won't fix their own car
argument.

I honestly don't understand the hostility in your tone, Frank. What's
the
real problem?

-- Stinger




I am hostile to the whole concept to a Homeowner's Association. These
are contractual arrangements, and not laws. If a person is penalized,
he doesn't have his usual legal rights. He either pays the penalty,
sells the property or sues the Homeowner's Association. If he sues,
it's the Homeowner's Association which will get the benefit of doubt in
Court. Policing power is one of genuine responsibilities of the
publicly elected government, and it ought to be done by public employees
who are directly answerable to the courts.

And there's the related issue of ownership. Let's say, after another
marathon session of listening to SW kooks, I completely lose it and
paint my roof purple. It's my roof, isn't it? If it does cause some
damage to someone else it should be provable. But the complainer ought
to be prepared to put up some sort of evidence.

So, yeah, homeowner's associations ain't for me.

I could go on with my opinions about the public sector getting
improperly in the private sector and vice versa.

My brother and I practically rebuilt his 64 T-Bird right in the
driveway. If I was bothering anybody, nobody spoke up.

"Stinger" wrote in message
.. .
Different strokes for different folks, Frank.

In my view, I didn't give up anything when I built in a neighborhood
with
restrictive covenants. Instead, I gained the peace-of-mind that the
neighborhood wouldn't decay. I gained "rights" as I agreed to
covenants
that I would have followed anyway, because my neighbors will as well.

Your "public sector versus private sector" infringement of rights
arguments
isn't simply valid in this case because it is voluntary. My rights
are just
fine, thank you.

This probably doesn't have anything to do with anything, but it crossed
my mind some weeks ago, with all the controversy over the removal of
Judge Moore's monument to the Ten Commandments. After the removal, I
pretty much expected Judge Moore would put the monument on his front
lawn. It's his property, and he should be free to do so. Well, maybe
Judge Moore rents an apartment or lives in a condo and doesn't own a
front lawn. But wouldn't be ironic if Judge Moore negligently signed
onto a list of restrictions which effectively banned any such monument
on his own property?


However I do agree that there are plenty of cases where the public
sector
(government) does infringe on the rights of private property owners.
I am
vehemently against it. I believe it is unconstitutional for a city
government to use eminent domain laws to force an owner of private
property
to sell it (so the government can grant the land to a developer who
will
build a shopping center) because the government will make more tax
revenue
on a new shopping center. Yet this is happening time and again all
over the
United States. It' just plain wrong.

-- Stinger


If it's government using eminent domain to effectivly transfer private
property from one owner to another private owner, yeah, there's a big
problem there. Even if it's not a Constitutional problem, the voters
should be deeply skeptical of all the promises the politicians make
about these wasteful projects. But we have a long history of being
negligent with our votes, as well.

Frank Dresser

The supreme court has ruled that it s perfectly legal if the aim is to
improve the tax base.

The most oppressive, draconian, government entities are your local zoning
boards.


"Stinger" wrote in message
.. .
.. I believe it is unconstitutional for a city
government to use eminent domain laws to force an owner of private
property
to sell it (so the government can grant the land to a developer who will
build a shopping center) because the government will make more tax revenue
on a new shopping center. Yet this is happening time and again all over
the
United States. It' just plain wrong.

-- Stinger

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Stinger" wrote in message
. ..
Frank,

As I mentioned to Wes, nobody forces you to buy into a neighborhood
with
covenants. I also mentioned that they are not for everybody. In my
case,
they are a good idea, and one of the reasons I built my house where I
did
was specifically because I knew what to expect from neighbors as they
built
nearby.

I don't feel bad that I can't let my yard get waist high, park junk
cars on
the lawn, or paint my roof purple. Rather, I feel good knowing my
neighbor
won't.

By the way, I happen to be a Republican Kung-Fu black belt (Dragon
Claw
1992) that knows a good, honest mechanic that helped me teach my son
how to
change the heads on his antique T-Bird in his garage.

So much for your lily-livered weenie who won't fix their own car
argument.

I honestly don't understand the hostility in your tone, Frank. What's
the
real problem?

-- Stinger




I am hostile to the whole concept to a Homeowner's Association. These
are contractual arrangements, and not laws. If a person is penalized,
he doesn't have his usual legal rights. He either pays the penalty,
sells the property or sues the Homeowner's Association. If he sues,
it's the Homeowner's Association which will get the benefit of doubt in
Court. Policing power is one of genuine responsibilities of the
publicly elected government, and it ought to be done by public employees
who are directly answerable to the courts.

And there's the related issue of ownership. Let's say, after another
marathon session of listening to SW kooks, I completely lose it and
paint my roof purple. It's my roof, isn't it? If it does cause some
damage to someone else it should be provable. But the complainer ought
to be prepared to put up some sort of evidence.

So, yeah, homeowner's associations ain't for me.

I could go on with my opinions about the public sector getting
improperly in the private sector and vice versa.

My brother and I practically rebuilt his 64 T-Bird right in the
driveway. If I was bothering anybody, nobody spoke up.

"Stinger" wrote in message
.. .
Different strokes for different folks, Frank.

In my view, I didn't give up anything when I built in a neighborhood with
restrictive covenants. Instead, I gained the peace-of-mind that the
neighborhood wouldn't decay. I gained "rights" as I agreed to covenants
that I would have followed anyway, because my neighbors will as well.


Many areas with restrictive covenants DO decay. The homes get old and out
of date. The shingles aren't replaced often enough and so on. The
covenants generally do not and cannot force a specific maintenance cyle on
people. I seen some very run down areas that had covenants. Yeah the grass
was mowed and there weren't any junk cars but the houses looked old and
tired.

Your "public sector versus private sector" infringement of rights
arguments
isn't simply valid in this case because it is voluntary. My rights are
just
fine, thank you.


While you have every right to sign away rights, the rest of it will continue
to consider it foolish.

However I do agree that there are plenty of cases where the public sector
(government) does infringe on the rights of private property owners. I am
vehemently against it. I believe it is unconstitutional for a city
government to use eminent domain laws to force an owner of private
property
to sell it (so the government can grant the land to a developer who will
build a shopping center) because the government will make more tax revenue
on a new shopping center. Yet this is happening time and again all over
the
United States. It' just plain wrong.


That is not the purpose of eminent domain laws. If the law has been abused
in such a manner, then the citizens affected should be filing a class action
suit.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

That is not the purpose of eminent domain laws. If the law has been
abused
in such a manner, then the citizens affected should be filing a class
action
suit.

"Filing a class action"? Give me a break. More like locking and
loading!!!!! Just kidding