| In what was estimated to be the largest crowd to ever attend a Kenneth City Council meeting, an outraged group of residents railed at the proposal that would regulate the upkeep of both the exterior and interior of all property in the town. The proposal basically sets standards for upkeep and appearance and gives town officials the right to enter homes. If the owner refuses to allow the official to enter, the town can go to a judge for an "administrative search warrant" to allow access to the interior of buildings. Violations would cost up to $250 a day. Angry residents likened the proposal to rules created by Communist or Nazi dictatorships. One person said the result would be to create a network of spies to snitch on neighbors to council members and other town officials. Someone suggested the town should change its name from Kenneth City to "Petty City." |
This is one of those filler stories. Local government run amuck. And they do get carried away sometimes, believe me I know.
But consider this.
Is it a frontal assault on liberty to require that homes be built to minimum safety standards as prescribed in building codes?
Is it a frontal assault on liberty to require a working septic or plumbing system so that raw sewage is not puddled in your yard or your neighbors yards or migrating into the water table?
Is it an assault on liberty to require minimum standards for animal housing so that cat ladies do not collect thousands of kitties and live in dwellings feet deep in feline feces?
Reasonable people might agree that these are worthy ordinances.
Judging by your response i am not sure whether you are for or against local building codes. Are you?
I am also not sure whether you understand a house full of feces affects not only the dweller but public safety officials called to the scene because of a fire or medical emergency.
Would you say a precautionary ordinance reflecting this reality is also out of line.
What's the adage? Your rights end where my nose begins?
Am I for or against local building codes? Yes. I am definitely for or against local building codes.
I might. I was mostly objecting to the sort of "reasonable people are obviously for these things" implication in your comments. I'm sure the folks who want the ordinance to allow town officials to judge and enforce standards of upkeep inside and outside a home think it's reasonable.
I congratulate you on having the courage to take a stand on such a controversial position.
And again, taking a courageous stand on the feline feces issue. Bravo!
Seems a bit odd though, you criticizing me on this when you've apparently taken the position that proposed law mentioned in the article is just something people have to tolerate because that's the way city council can be. It's so unfair to criticize the law, your posts seem to imply, because they people making the law are just trying to do a difficult job. Aw, the poor little dears. Yes indeed, I'd say your stand is far more "courageous" than mine. So bravo to you, sir, bravo to you.
Yeah. I read the article too. And I know what your posts said. I read them as well.
Did I?
Seems a bit odd though, you criticizing me on this when you've apparently taken the position that proposed law mentioned in the article is just something people have to tolerate because that's the way city council can be.
It's so unfair to criticize the law, your posts seem to imply, because they people making the law are just trying to do a difficult job. Aw, the poor little dears. Yes indeed, I'd say your stand is far more "courageous" than mine. So bravo to you, sir, bravo to you.
And again, taking a courageous stand on the feline feces issue. Bravo!
This is one of those filler stories. Local government run amuck. And they do get carried away sometimes, believe me I know.
But consider this.
Is it a frontal assault on liberty to require that homes be built to minimum safety standards as prescribed in building codes?
Is it a frontal assault on liberty to require a working septic or plumbing system so that raw sewage is not puddled in your yard or your neighbors yards or migrating into the water table?
Is it an assault on liberty to require minimum standards for animal housing so that cat ladies do not collect thousands of kitties and live in dwellings feet deep in feline feces?
Reasonable people might agree that these are worthy ordinances.
But when these ordinances are reviewed by committees what comes in as a horse often comes out as a zebra.
Imagine this forum trying to come up with an housing standard ordinance. That gives you an idea what council can be like.
Seems a bit odd though, you criticizing me on this when you've apparently taken the position that proposed law mentioned in the article is just something people have to tolerate because that's the way city council can be. It's so unfair to criticize the law, your posts seem to imply, because they people making the law are just trying to do a difficult job. Aw, the poor little dears. Yes indeed, I'd say your stand is far more "courageous" than mine. So bravo to you, sir, bravo to you.
Come on. That wasn't sarcastic criticism?
Your reply to the story was basically, "yes it sounds bad, but..." And then you mentioned building codes and animal care laws, and said, "Reasonable people might agree that these are worthy ordinances." I'm not sure how your words do not carry the implication that the Kenneth City Council and its proposal have somehow been unfairly criticized.
This is one of those filler stories. Local government run amuck. And they do get carried away sometimes, believe me I know.
My neighborhood would probably benefit from some upkeep ordinances. I spent last weekend ranking my yard, cleaning my curbs where leaves had collected (I also went ahead and edged and mowed my yard though it has already started winter browning).
An hour after I was done, the boy and I headed out to run an errand and the curbs had already collected fresh leaves from the high winds clearing neighbors' yards.
I often daydream while mowing and edging and planting in my own yard that if I ever won the lottery, I would quit working and, among other dreams, in the summer, I would maintain a team of landscapers who I would take door to door in my neighborhood offering to generally upkeep and improve everyone's yards. I would even start a fund to keep it going after I died.
QuoteAm I for or against local building codes? Yes. I am definitely for or against local building codes.
I congratulate you on having the courage to take a stand on such a controversial position.QuoteI might. I was mostly objecting to the sort of "reasonable people are obviously for these things" implication in your comments. I'm sure the folks who want the ordinance to allow town officials to judge and enforce standards of upkeep inside and outside a home think it's reasonable.
And again, taking a courageous stand on the feline feces issue. Bravo!
Our town has an ordinance about grass height.
It has no ordinance about painting your house. The house next to mine has bare plywood panels for exterior walls. People complain except during property assessment time, when it is the most photographed dwelling in town. It seems to lower property. values. Prospective buyers are told it is owned by a purple heart viet nam vet and his estate will eventually do something with it.
Hasn't hurt home sales.
If this is indeed a disabled vet's home, why doesn't the neighborhood get together and paint it for him/her? After all, it IS the Season of Giving!
Could you find enough likeminded persons to make this really happen?
People don't really need Barn raisins , quiltin bees , corn shuckins and the like anymore , but the social occasion went away when the chore went away.
There are a lot of little old ladies that arn't rakeing their leaves because they can't , but they might bake some cookies for the party that followed a neighborhood rakein.
Could you find enough likeminded persons to make this really happen?
People don't really need Barn raisins , quiltin bees , corn shuckins and the like anymore , but the social occasion went away when the chore went away.
There are a lot of little old ladies that arn't rakeing their leaves because they can't , but they might bake some cookies for the party that followed a neighborhood rakein.
I toy with that idea sometimes. The thing that I can't figure out is how to go to the door and ask if they want their yard raked for free. If someone did that to me, I'd immediately be suspicious of that person. Not only that, what if that person is offended by the offer?
In the spring, I'm going to spend more time talking to the people I don't know on my street, maybe it will grow from there.
Every now and then you find a church that feilds a ministry like this , but modern neighborhoods are full of strangers.
You mean they CHOSE to do such? It wasn't mandated by any governmental body or coerced thru taxation?? *gasp* And here I thought that's the only way anything ever gets done
;)
But, imagine what a complete "army" of construction workers could do if they were funded by the government like the Armed Forces are.
You mean they CHOSE to do such? It wasn't mandated by any governmental body or coerced thru taxation?? *gasp* And here I thought that's the only way anything ever gets done
;)
Yeah, that's great and all, but check this out.
I found this site that said that SOS's income was a little over 3 mil from 2003 to 2006. In 2008, they did repairs on something like 34 houses. I didn't find any numbers on houses repaired from '03 to 06 but let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say they did repairs on as many or more. Let's say in those years, they did repairs on 40 houses per year.
So, in 4 years at 40 houses a year, that's a 160 houses. Their total net assets for those four years was 12.7 million (there abouts).
Now, what they did with that 12.7 mill was they had a bunch of kids come from all over the country to their camps. They sang songs, ate, prayed, worked on houses, listened to sermons and showered. (Their site mentions showering a LOT for some reason.) That money came from a small group of people comparatively to the US taxpayer rolls.
Now, you may disagree, but if the government budgeted 12.7 mill to a team of say 20 people who were home repair types who just needed a job, I daresay they would have gotten a lot more houses fixed up, I bet.
If you pay 20 people $20 an hour for four years, that's just shy of 4 mill. That means my secular, government-paid group would have over 8 million to spend on repair cost on houses. And these 20 people wouldn't be dicking around with spouting gods' glory and spilling paint and cutting boards twice 'cause Susie got scared by the table saw.
Not to mention, they wouldn't be figuring in the cost of housing my 20 people or worrying about two of them sneaking off and kissing behind the shed.
I mean, according to SOS's own info, the spent only 26% of their budget on "construction". I mean, expanding that out theoretically, 26% of 12.7 mill is 3.3 mill. With my secular, government-funded 20 people, I more than double the amount spent on construction ergo, in four years, my group would have done repairs on 320 houses in that same timeframe.
What's more important? Helping people maintain their neighborhood and giving people their dignity when they thought all hope was lost or spending 12.7 mill on a gods' glory and repairing half as many houses?
I'm being a little too snide here and apologies for that, old habits die hard. Obviously, the 12.7 mill was spent by donors on what they thought was important and they got to make their own choices and some kids got some great stuff to put on their resume's and all the parents of the kids should feel proud.
But, imagine what a complete "army" of construction workers could do if they were funded by the government like the Armed Forces are.
...why should they be limited to one wife if their religion says otherwise?
QuoteCome on. That wasn't sarcastic criticism?
No that was sarcasm.
QuoteYour reply to the story was basically, "yes it sounds bad, but..." And then you mentioned building codes and animal care laws, and said, "Reasonable people might agree that these are worthy ordinances." I'm not sure how your words do not carry the implication that the Kenneth City Council and its proposal have somehow been unfairly criticized.
Perhaps my opening sentence would provide a clueQuoteThis is one of those filler stories. Local government run amuck. And they do get carried away sometimes, believe me I know.
bet you said that with a straight face too.
Sigh. Yes, it can be. You're a big boy. Look it up.
You used sarcasm but somehow you were not criticizing what I said?
"OMG. Headache!!!!!!!!!"
yes a very big headache!
"define is"...."no..define "define"
WTF-ingEver ::)
Sorry, BT and UP, but really if you look at the last couple of pages of this thread it is one that simply needs to die.
Critcism! No, sarcasm! Is too! Is not! Whose on first? ;D
QuoteSorry, BT and UP, but really if you look at the last couple of pages of this thread it is one that simply needs to die.
Is that subtle sarcasm or overt criticism, they blend so well you know.
I'm sure the thread about whether wages is (are) singular or plural needs our undivided attention.
Sarcasm or criticism. It's all so confusing.
Critcism! No, sarcasm! Is too! Is not! Whose on first? ;D
That's "Who's on first?" ;-]