[TheeBadOne]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/24/tree.convict.ap/index.html (http://)

VENTURA, California (AP) -- A man who bulldozed more than 300 oak trees on his property could face more than 3 years in jail after he was convicted on criminal charges.

William Kaddis, 58, could also face fines of nearly $100,000. He also was convicted Friday of illegally keeping 62 dogs on his property in the town of Ojai, altering a stream without permission and filing a false police report.

The oak trees, protected under a 1992 Ventura County law, were destroyed sometime before October 2001.

"This was the largest rape of land in the history of Ventura County, and if they think we wouldn't prosecute anyone who destroyed our environment, they're wrong," Deputy District Attorney Karen Wold said.

Kaddis' attorney Roger Diamond said he plans to appeal the decision unless he can reach an agreement with the Probation Department.

[Tamara]

"This was the largest rape of land in the history of Ventura County, and if they think we wouldn't prosecute anyone who destroyed our environment, they're wrong," Deputy District Attorney Karen Wold said.

That wasn't "our" environment, Karen honey, that was his environment. No one is stopping you from keeping all the oak trees you want on your property... :scrutiny:

[Sactown]

Don't y'all know that here in Kalifornia trees have rights too!

[BenW]

They're nuts with the oak trees in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. Around here, you could murder someone and (as long as you didn't use a firearm) be thought of as a better person than someone who cuts down an oak tree.:rolleyes:

[CZ-75]

All your oak trees are belong to us. :D

[Sir Galahad]

That guy's goose is cooked. Anyone who's been to Ojai knows what I mean. They'll have tons of witnesses, even some who weren't there (they "channeled" the experience.) They'll be looking for a hand-crafted rope made from organically-grown hemp and knotted by a sustainable collective to hang him from.

I'm also curious as to what was illegal about his keeping 62 dogs on his property. I mean, even if he was raising them as food, that's his business.

[c_yeager]

As long as the dogs are well cared for i dont see an problem there at all. And since he has been responsible for taking care of the trees he should have the right to cut them down as well. Altering the stream could be a problem IF it affected it down stream. Personally i dont see how all of this COMBINED doesnt add up to a simple citation anyways. There are plenty of violent criminals that get less than three years.

[Azrael256]

Don't y'all know that here in Kalifornia trees have rights too! Evidently more than the people who own them.

[TheeBadOne]

http://www.insidevc.com/vcs/oj/article/0,1375,VCS_168_1977536,00.html (http://)

The trial began Tuesday in the unprecedented case of a Los Angeles man prosecutors say ordered the bulldozing of more than 300 oak trees on his Ojai Valley property.

During opening statements in the William Kaddis trial, Deputy District Attorney Karen Wold offered evidence she believes makes it clear Kaddis is guilty.

He bought the land in July 2001, and county planning officials told him about the tree ordinance, which required him to get permission to remove the trees, Wold said.

In August, Kaddis hired Aviram Soltes, allegedly to bulldoze a large group of trees on the land. By October 2001, 301 trees were gone, making it one of the largest unauthorized tree-cuttings ever in Ventura County.

Wold showed Superior Court Judge Kevin McGee before and after photos of the property, shots of the sap-soaked bulldozer that suffered $4,000 damage and a receipt that shows Kaddis bought 340 avocado trees shortly after the oaks disappeared.

He has pleaded not guilty to 13 misdemeanor counts, including altering a stream bed, felling protected trees, violating a hillside erosion-control ordinance, filing a false police report and maintaining an illegal dog kennel. He waived a jury trial, so McGee will decide the case.

Kaddis' attorney, Roger Diamond, declined to give an opening statement Tuesday, but during pretrial arguments earlier in the day suggested that Ventura County's tree-related laws are unclear and unique, and his client was unaware of them.

Kaddis has maintained his innocence and earlier said prosecutors targeted him because he is Egyptian-American.

In April, Soltes pleaded no contest to cutting down the trees, and Wold said he will testify that Kaddis told him to bulldoze them.

Kaddis does not live on the land, but apparently 62 dogs do, at least according to a May 15 tally by investigators. Because he does not have a conditional-use permit, he cannot own that many dogs, Wold said.

If convicted, Kaddis faces more than three years in jail and millions of dollars in fines.

[4570Rick]

You can buy all the property you can afford, just remember, because of Environmental Terrorists, YOU HAVE NO PROPERTY RIGHTS. :fire: :cuss: :banghead:

[243_shooter]

home of the free...

did they put oak tree's on the endangered species list to?

I suppose they enjoy furniture, houses, etc.. as long as the wood comes from someone else's neighborhood? Or did they ban all use of oak?

Perhaps they should stop importing any wood products into Kali, including (but not limited to) paper to write all these crazy laws on, and toilet paper :D

Leo

[winwun]

Know the restrictions B-4 you sign. They can be binding.

I was going to build about 30 years ago in an upscale neighborhood that included Country Club membership with property ownership.

The lots were 1 acre plus.

The subdivision was created in 1927.

The only significant restriction on building was that the dwelling and outbuildings had to cost at least $7,500.00.

Neighborhood Associations should strive to keep restrictions current.

A friend that I meet at the range on Thursdays has a restriction in his deed that precludes him from discharging a firearm in the subdivision. :rolleyes:

[El Tejon]

Quick, someone send the state seal of Indiana to the DA out there!:D

[Waitone]

Property rights.

What a quaint, naive concept. Imagine, holding to the proposition that one's property is actually owned by the individual paying its taxes.

Get use to it. California is merely ahead of the curve. It will get worse throughout the US as long as we are dominated by enviro groups.

[Tamara]

He bought the land in July 2001, and county planning officials told him about the tree ordinance, which required him to get permission to remove the trees, Wold said.

Your ordinance is inane. No wonder people break it. (And in spectacular fashion, I might add!)

Free William Kaddis!

[matis]

the prosecuter (persecutor?) said:

"This was the largest rape of land in the history of Ventura County
____________________________________________________

Really?

That "rape" (I forget which feminist said "...all married sex is rape....") , it seems to me, PALES by comparison to the rape of his private property rights.



Matis

[cuchulainn]

And if Ventura or California wanted to build a road through his property, the same government jailing him would have taken the property at way below market value and bulldozed the trees itself.

[Soap]

Pretty cute that the environmential terrorista didn't notice that he was in fact going to replace 301 trees with 340 trees. :scrutiny:

[Jeeper]

I'll just play the other side for fun:

I am no tree expert by any means but erosion of soil is a big issue. It can cause serious mud slides. If his removing of the tree will ACTUALLY cause damage to someone elses property then he should be found guilty. We have had enough "property rights" discussions here that I think even the harshest critic will agree that actual harm to another is different than a normal zoning restriction. I have no idea whether the trees he intended to replace them with would have done the same thing to prevent this. By the same token he knew of the restriction when he bought the land.

[BenW]

That guy's goose is cooked. Anyone who's been to Ojai knows what I mean.
Ojai used to be a pretty cool town. Then it got the influx of celebrities and spas.

I can't remember the exact date, but about 8 years ago Larry Hagman and a bunch of other celebrities that lived there spearheaded a lawsuit (that they eventually lost) against the National Weather Service. NWS was installing a Doppler radar tower on public land on a mountain in the area. All the celebrities were convinced they would be exposed to radioactivity (hint: there's a difference in the definition of radiation and radioactive:rolleyes: ) from the radar and I don't know, mutate into normal human beings or something. Nevermind that the radar assembly increased coastal safety and saved countless boaters from injury or death because of more accurate short-range weather forecasts. Can't have the negative karma emanating from the radar upset the delicate meditative balance of the fruitcakes.:rolleyes:

[TNCoaster33]

It's funny, here in the land of the free. We are constantly being held hostage by our own government. Why should we still pay property taxes if we have bought the land to begin with? In essence, it's not we that own the land or anything else that we must keep paying taxes on. IT's time that the citizens of America start reclaiming what is ours. This property owner in Ojai has the right to do what ever he wants to his land regardless of what the eco-terrrorists say which are in that county government.

WE ALL KNOW THAT CALIFORNIA IS THE HOME OF FRUITS AND NUTS.

[Shalako]

I am a CA gov't engineer in the flood control business. If we were to do something like this we would need a full EIR-EIS if its not a mitigated negative declaration (not a chance), then go under public review for 30 days and respond to comments, then the US Fish and Wildlife Service would do a 135 day Section 7 Consultation to find out all impacts and provide endorsement (or not) for our proposed mitigation. Mitigation for an elderberry bush (much less an oak tree) currently goes for 6:1 replacement in a riparian setting. We would then be paying out the nose for transplanting and/or replacement and new real estate (full appraisal with comps) to put these things in and monitoring and maintenance in perpetuity (forever).

In essence, the eco-fanatics have made any type of construction or land use fall under their authority. By controlling the govt regulatory agencies, they control the land.

Game, set, and match - to the ecos.

[Poodleshooter]

This would have been much funnier if he had made the oaks into office furniture and sold them to the town council or local officials.

[Battler]

If anyone reading this owns land where you can CURRENTLY clear it, LEGALLY, put a bulldozer through it, NOW. Mindless soulless trees (and their mindless soulless advocates) can't own the land tomorrow if they're (the trees that is) a pile of ash stacked up in the corner today.

[matis]

...what I'm thinking right now --

the mods would probably bar me from the board.



Matis:cuss:

[Sir Galahad]

BenW, LOL!! I see you know Ojai! Pretty soon, they'll be prosecuting people there for eating meat or non-organic vegetables on their own property. It'll all boil down to the state needing to save those oak trees for.......can you guess.......I know you can guess......BINGO!


"...for the cheeeeldddreeeennn!!!!!" :barf:

[jimpeel]

What he should have done was to estimate the cut value of the trees in lumber and firewood and send a bill to the county for that amount. Each tree should be worth at least $1,000 and a bill for $300,000 would certainly get threir attentiion. When they contested the bill, or ignored it completely, he could then sue for the amount owed At that point they would have found themselves having to explain the unlawful taking of private property without compensation for same and the law likely would have been overturned as unconstitutional.

Now they not only have the profit from the downed trees -- which they will certainly take -- they also have the property upon which the trees grew to turn into county property protected forever against the rape of mankind.

[jimbo]

FYI, only 4% of California's oak trees are on the "protected list". I think it includes Valley Oak and Native Live Oak. Not sure.

Whatever, the extreme California environmental laws insure that you cannot cut down a protected oak on "your" property or plow a wetland on "your" property or divert a dry creek-bed that might be Fairy Shrimp habitat on "your" property.

I tell friends we are losing our freedoms daily. I use these examples. People don't care. Hell, they are the ones voting for the socialist bastards entrenched in Sacramento. Nobody cares. And they wonder why I wish I lived before WWII and died in the 70s?

[Greg L]

Nobody cares. And they wonder why I wish I lived before WWII and died in the 70s?

Your kids probably do too. That way you could have bought thousands of those east bay farm acreage at $5/acre (or so) and set them up as multi billionares :D .

I'm so glad that I went over the wall in 1984.

Greg

[Atticus]

I alway knew Californians were squirrely. This love of acorns proves it.

[HankB]

Hmmm . . . seems like there might be a market for bottled oak wilt fungus out there. :evil:

[benewton]

OK, I'll bite.

At what point do you people start shooting?

True, you only have inferior weapons, but, if you can get one for one, the rest of us just might have a chance!

[Shaggy]

Only in the land of the fruits and nuts. UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!

[Malone LaVeigh]

OK, this discussion is in desperate need of some informed opinion.

I've worked on a couple of fires in Ventura County, including one in 1999 on the Los Padres NF just upslope of Ojai (the Ranch Incident, you could look it up). Ventura County Flood Control Dist. is, in my opinion, second only to LA County in the field of flood and erosion risk management. They worked very closely with us on the rehab for that fire, and I was very impressed with their expertise and their proactive risk management. the head hydrologist was the president of one of the most prestigious engineering societies.

Ventura County, like LA County, is in the part of the world that served as the laboratory for our understanding of the effects of fire and other disturbances on hillslope and flood processes. If they have rules against denuding a hillslope, (and if you know the Ojai area, you know that many oaks had to be on a hillslope) then I believe there's a good reason for it.

I hope they throw the book at this turkey.

[Bruce H]

And just what about the avacodos there Malone. By having the avacado trees already purchased there is a good chance they would have taken the place of the oaks. 301 oaks removed and 340 avacados take their place. What about the land at the present time? Are the avacado trees planted or is the land barren. My bet is on the latter.

[CZ-75]

If they have rules against denuding a hillslope, (and if you know the Ojai area, you know that many oaks had to be on a hillslope) then I believe there's a good reason for it.

In case you didn't read, he planted avocado trees instead, in greater numbers. :rolleyes:


Our voice from the left has spoken, and it says we don't have personal property rights - at least beyond what the .gov deigns grant us, temporarily, of course. :barf:

If the county wanted those trees, they should've paid him for them to keep them.

[CZ-75]

Excuse me. It now seems that the county may have PREVENTED him from replacing the oaks w/ avocado trees in their concern for erosion, runoff, etc. :rolleyes:

[Malone LaVeigh]

Planting crop trees does not in any way equate with the loss of natives that could be scores of years old. At least not for many years until their canopies developed. He should have had an approved rehab plan if he wanted to do that kind of veg conversion.

He knew the rules when he bought the land. Boo-hoo. I hope he learned his lesson.

One of the oldest principles in English Common Law, which is the foundation for our legal system, is that most property rights are ultimately usufructory. No one has an absolute right to use land as they see fit. Any use that adversely effects the sovereign (which in the US is the people) is subject to limitations. Get used to it.

[Bruce H]

Now the left has spoken.

[Mike Irwin]

"By having the avacado trees already purchased there is a good chance they would have taken the place of the oaks."

Hum...

Obviously we have some people who don't know much about oak root structures vs avocado root structures.

Oaks are deep root trees. Avocados, as are most fruit trees, shallow root trees.

1 oak tree does NOT equal 1 avocado tree tare replacement value when talking about ability to hold soil against errosion.

[Malone LaVeigh]

Now the left has spoken.Boy, you guys sure know how to win an argument. I guess there's just nothing left to say about the facts

I suspect the county is working on a rehab plan. I hope it costs Mr. Kaddis a lot.

[CZ-75]

He should have had an approved rehab plan if he wanted to do that kind of veg conversion.

IOW, go hat-in-hand to the enviro-nazis to ask their leave.

He knew the rules when he bought the land. Boo-hoo. I hope he learned his lesson.

Probably, but I wouldn't let unjust and asinine restrictions fetter the use of my property either w/o clear-cut proof that my purposes affect my neighbors' property.

Any use that adversely effects [sic] the sovereign (which in the US is the people) is subject to limitations.

How, exactly, other than affecting the aura, karma, dharma, or dogma of his neighbors, did his use of his property have adverse effects?

Get used to it.

Not likely. Molon Labe.

[CZ-75]

I hope it costs Mr. Kaddis a lot.

Not much in Kommiefornia that doesn't.

Oaks are deep root trees. Avocados, as are most fruit trees, shallow root trees.

And?

Grass (shallow roots) is enough to prevent erosion.

[Malone LaVeigh]

Grass (shallow roots) is enough to prevent erosion.Thank you, I guess I can retire now.

I can't find any handy sources on erosion in the Transverse Ranges of So California on the web right now, but take my word for it that surface erosion isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about unstable hillslopes. Read John McPhee The Control of Nature. There's a whole chapter in there on it.

Oh, and here (http://www.carcd.org/wisp/ventura/) are those nasty gub'mint types you're talking about.

[CZ-75]

Oh, and here are those nasty gub'mint types you're talking about.

Yeah, but the tree-hugger govt. flunkies will call on the armed JBT govt. flunkies to go and enforce their will.




Ventura county should PAY property owners for all the non-crop trees it wishes them to preserve, since they are losing income on all the agricultural uses they could otherwise be utilizing their land.

[Malone LaVeigh]

Ventura county should PAY property owners for all the non-crop trees it wishes them to preserve, since they are losing income on all the agricultural uses they could otherwise be utilizing their land.He bought the land with the full knowledge of the uses to which it could and could not be put. He deserves no welfare from the county.

[Tamara]

He deserves no welfare from the county.

Yet apparently the county deserves some from him.

Interesting worldview, there. ;)

[Malone LaVeigh]

Yet apparently the county deserves some from him.No, the people of the county deserve landowners that act like responsible, adult members of the community.

[Tamara]

So, people basically have a right to dictate what others do with their private property?

(I like the "deserve" part, too. I basically thought that all I "deserved" was to be left alone; I didn't know I also "deserve" to impose horticultural standards on the rest of the collective. Cool! :D )

[Malone LaVeigh]

So, people basically have a right to dictate what others do with their private property?As explained above, yes. What's so sacred about your private property? Your right to horticultural freedom ends when you put the rest of the community in danger of having the nearby hillside end up in their living room.

[Tamara]

What's so sacred about your private property?

The fact that you even ask this question tells me that we are so far apart ideologically that we are probably not even speaking the same language. The same sound-symbols likely conjure completely different images in our minds.

The very definition of "my" "private" "property" indicates that it is mine to do with as I wish. If it weren't, then it wouldn't be "my" "property", would it?

A thing belongs to he that controls it; if the state controls what can and can't be done with something, then it is de facto owned by the state, no matter who de jure title may be vested in.

[Wildalaska]

Everybody here is right, in one way or another.

Private real property is private reeal property and cannot, nor should not be "taken" (in the legal sense) by govenrment, except under limited circumstance (see, eg eminent domain)..

The use of private property can be restricted, for example, by covenants or easements..all well recognized in the law (even the common law)..

At the same time, the use or private property can also be "restricted" under a variety of legal doctrines. Thus a landownner can be restrained from doing something on his property if it affects the fair use of anothers, or the community. Hornbook law.

I dont know enough about this case to comment about who is right or wrong here. I suspect however, that the tree cutter is not as innocent as some make him out to be, nor is he as evil as others say. Of course, the situation is complicated by the name callers here (excluding of course the ever latinate Tamara, who de facto recognizes that in some instances, de facto overides de jure)

WildmiddlegroundAlaska

[Malone LaVeigh]

I'm not saying private property isn't a good thing. I even think landowners should generally be given the benefit of the doubt. But zoning restrictions that protect the property of the neighbors are not an unreasonable restriction of property rights, IMO. Rules that protect unstable hillslopes are part of the territory in So Cal. (And don't think your part of the world is immune, either. Some of the worst erosion I've ever seen was in N Miss.)

I also don't want to overstate the flood control angle, either. There are other perfectly legitimate reasons for property rights to be less than absolute. We restrict burning on ag and forest land, for very good reasons. Wildlife is also a public asset, and activities that destroy habitat can be restricted. Those are just two more that come to my mind.

[Byron Quick]

But zoning restrictions that protect the property of the neighbors are not an unreasonable restriction of property rights, IMO.

Yes, just think. I might buy a million dollar lot in Beverly Hills and put in a trailer if it wasn't for zoning laws:rolleyes:


Flood control? Simple: don't build or buy in hundred year flood plains. Same thing with earthquake and hurricane areas...think of it as Nature's way of telling you that you're in a restricted zone.

You own the hillside above my house and cut down all the trees. Fine, they're your trees. The resulting mudslide kills my family? Sounds like premeditated murder for you knew that 1) gravity works and 2) loss of trees destabilizes hillsides and 3) that my house was in the path of the result. So the state executes you. Next guy over decides maybe he didn't want to cut his trees after all. Same thing about burning your leaves: your leaves, your property. But keep the smoke off of my property for when it exacerbates my asthma, that's assault with a deadly weapon and should be treated as such. Don't want criminal charges for burning your leaves? No problem. Keep the smoke out of MY air.

Same thing goes for dumping...dump whatever you want on YOUR property. Just better keep it out of your water table. Cuz' your water table connects to MY water table and not only should you be personally responsible for damage to my health (as in criminally) but you should be financially responsible to clean my water table. Seeing as how that water table is also connected to the property of thousands, if not millions, of others...I doubt you'll ever get out of jail.

See? We don't need the anti pollution laws that restrict what you do on your property. We just need the use of the existing criminal law to make sure that you realize that what you do on your property affects others on their property...and that you are responsible for that effect.

Look around. There are plenty of companies that can pay megafines on a daily basis. All these fines do is clear their way after their smaller competitors fail for inability to pay the fines. Instead, put the presiden and board of directors of the company in prison for criminal assault with five million counts. Give them a day in jail on each charge...but run them consecutively. You'll see a change in pollution activity overnight...without infringing on property rights at all.

Your absolute property rights stop...absolutely...at my property line. (unless you need to cross my property to access your property. Don't litter while doing so.)

[243_shooter]

I wonder if there was much uproar over the trees because

1) it created a dangerous situation

2) it upset the view of some of his neighbors

Living in NY's Adirondack park, most of the Enviromental laws designed to "protect the forest" and restrict a private landowners use of his/her property are in fact primarily to protect the views from the million+ $ houses.

There are restricions on house color, roof color, outdoor lights, all so they don't "spoil" the view.

The "rules" are used extensively by wealthy residents to prevent any type of commercial development, and to get areas around their property deemed unsatisfactory for construction, to of course protect their investment.

I'd be very curious to know if it's a case of a problem with him creating a dangerous situation..

-or-

a case of "I've got mine, screw you"..

Leo

[hammer4nc]

Seems both sides are speculating on the validity of the restrictions, in terms of the "possible" adverse affect on the surrounding landowners, should a landslide occur in this case.

Damages, if any, should be based on "actual" damage to neighboring landowners, not "possible" damages paid to the collective (govt. entity), which is what is being argued here.

Why is it that these quasi governing bodies are always "appointed" rather than elected? I haven't done the research on this particular enviro board (someone correct me if I'm wrong), but the ones I am familiar with have always been appointed. Usually long terms, and untouchable (esp. senior staff positions). Liberal enviro-nazi types (mostly democrat), when pressed about this "lack of democracy", will mumble something about the people being "too greedy" to be allowed to vote for their own government controllers, when it comes to important enviro matters.

These boards evolve and collect power. My experience is that the issues are usually 10% core content (i.e., in this case erosion), and 90% control of the population.

Anyone ever have experience with the Oregon coastal commission? Do some research. Somehow, that board has developed the concept that pre-existing bluff houses should slide into the ocean (repair and maintenance permits dednied), for the sake of the environment!

The ultimate "protection" for the environment, for these types, is when the govt. actually takes title to property. We've had recent threads about eminent domain abuses.

A second popular option is ruining landowners into becoming "willing sellers" (exorbitant fines, harassment by permit)with Nature Conservancy quietly waiting in the wings.

There's much more here than "enviro" issues, people. Many lifetimes before I "get used to" this, as the socialists would command.

[Shaggy]

Malone, most of us out here in the middle of the country could care less if the entire state of CA erodes into the pacific.

[longeyes]

"Malone, most of us out here in the middle of the country could care less if the
entire state of CA erodes into the pacific."

Here we go with the adolescent anti-California stuff. And when will Ohioans have the smarts to not live in flood areas, then expect the rest of us to provide you with Federal assistance from our tax dollars?

As for Kaddis, he knew or should have known the law governing his property when he bought it. I suggest he work to get the laws changed. My words to him: "Quit yer whinin'!"

There are a lot of stupid and selfish people who insist in living in flood plains (we have a vast one here with the Santa Ana River, which the Feds have just spend $2 billion shoring up against flood dangers). There are a lot of stupid and selfish government people who think it's the job of the rest of us to protect them against themselves and then pay their damage bills in the case of a hundred-year event.

I say, if you want something to be your'n, accept the risks that go with it. We have a country where (almosts) no one's willing to do that any more.

Oaks are beautiful trees. You see that or you don't. California is gradually being raped by concrete and stucco. You see that or you don't.

[Battler]

Perhaps it's that fewere people wish to live in Oak trees than in Concrete and Stucco. "Saving the trees" is this thing many people in cities like, they have this image of a tree paradise they'd never want to go to in the back of their minds.

The "rape of the land to make places where humans wish to live" is indeed an anti-human tirade.

[Mike Irwin]

"Grass (shallow roots) is enough to prevent erosion."

On slopes? Frequently no, it's not.

[Shaggy]

Here we go with the adolescent anti-California stuff.

Well, it's not any more adolescent than what you holier than thou people on the left and right coasts think of the normal people in "fly over country"....

As for Ohioans living in flood planes....I would'nt give them a wooden nickle. Neither shoudl the federal gov't.

[longeyes]

Shaggy, I was born in Chicago, have a lot of kin there. Stereotypes are bad, no matter what kind. For every Californian rejoicing about our state's "social progress," there's another lamenting the folly in Sacramento and local governments. Right now, unfortunately, CA looks like a runaway train that only a complete fiscal breakdown will "cure."

[Malone LaVeigh]

Byron Quick:

Let me see if I get your argument. If someone discharges a firearm in a crowded room, and it results in a death, the person should be criminally liable. OTOH, if no one is hurt, there should be no consequences. That's the logical conclusion I draw.

These regulations are in place to stop people from creating a nuisance in the first place. The minute the inconsiderate neighbor puts you at risk, he has infringed on your right to get the reasonable use out of your property. Most people who have lived anywhere around such a character understands this.

Malone, most of us out here in the middle of the country could care less if the entire state of CA erodes into the pacific.Oh, please keep up that attitude. Tell all of your friends, too. This place is really horrible. You'd never want to come here or anything...

[Frohickey]

Oaks are beautiful trees. You see that or you don't. California is gradually being raped by concrete and stucco. You see that or you don't.

It does not matter if oak trees are beautiful trees, or if you do not like being raped with concrete and stucco.

The point, and the only point here, is Kaddis' property rights. When you own property, you can do A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G you want to do with it, because its Y-O-U-R property.

[Shalako]

You really can't do just anything you want on your own property. Otherwise your neighbor could open a toxic waste dump and run trucks into it all through the night. There has to be some middle ground though. Kaddis did not even look for the middle ground. Instead he made a statement. Its one for the courts now.

These days, bulldozing trees on a slope without an engineering analysis or environmental assessment is like building a high rise in earthquake zone 4 without a structural analysis. Not a good idea.

[Jeeper]

I have a question to those who are "property right absolutists" like Tamara and others.

I respect your opinion even if I dont share it but am curious about something. Is there some society that you are basing this belief on? I mean our country definately was not founded with this idea. We took the idea of zoning and eminent domain from the english courts.

[Russ]

Doing anything to an Oak in many parts of California has been a no-no for quite some time. This guy should go to jail for being a blithering idiot.

[Battler]

May I suggest another idea for protecting your property from toxic waste dumps. Something voluntary perhaps?

A government protecting contracts/rights could then still be up to the task of keeping toxic waste dumps out of your neighbor's yard. (I'm assuming no spillage here; but still highly undesirable).

Consider homeowners associations. They're a pain; but go that extra distance to keep the home values the same. Each person owns their own property, yet part of the value of their property is the similar contract they have with other properties.

How is this different to the government doing it? About as different as you working in Soviet Union vs. here - you (or he who you bought the land from) sorted it out and got the contract voluntarily.

Also, the contract's parameters for change could be written to include only the interested parties.

Remember, the local government who can make up zoning rules can change them (and has incentive to if corrupt). A government that can only enforce the contracts can protect the rights of those party to the contract, without screwing them.

Consider if earlier owners of this property and the neighbors signed a contract to leave the oak trees. For cutting them down, this man would be in trouble.

But consider how this rule is put in place by the government. His land, without the option of cutting the trees, is worth less. So imagine a councilman buys his land, cheap. Now, the councilman has incentive to change the zoning rules. The neighbors are still hosed; but the councilman has lined his pockets.

This is the sort of disgusting third-world corruption that contracts like homeowner association/compacts, vs. arbitrary zoning laws, can protect.


Just a thought. I know I would sign the toxic-waste-proliferation mutual contract, and my neighbors would, too. THIS is what preserves the value of property.


Thanks to both sides on this discussion, there is much to be learned in here.

Respectfully,
Battler.

[Mike Irwin]

The concept of property rights being absolute is as quaint, as wrong, as the concept of ANY right being absolute. Not even traditional English Common Law, from which the laws governing 49 of our 50 states derive, recognized absolutism in property law.

Not 48 hours ago I made this point in a reply to Coronach in another thread that has dropped off the front page.

It's obvious that the sentiments I've described here are running rampant in this thread...

"...Because it seemed as if you were taking a stance that I've seen here quite a few times before...

The concept that "rights" give someone free license to do anything, and act anyway, in which they desire.

Own a home in the middle of a suburban neighborhood? Hey, my "rights" should allow me to operate a rendering works or strip mine if I want! Restrictions on the use of my property violate my "rights!"

Well, what about the property rights of your neighbors, who would obviously be affected by such operations?

"Well them! MY rights! MY property! I don't care if I violate any one else's rights, by God forbid anyone violate mine!"

That's just a single example of a trend among some that I sarcastically refer to as the "Me God, you Sh**" concept of Constitutionally protected, or otherwise ordained, rights. And hell, driving's not even a right.

So, no, I missed your sarcasm, because I thought you simply had become a proponent of the Me God, you Sh** camp."


The concept of property rights is really a quaint one, as even the Founding Fathers and those associated with the Founding Fathers didn't believe in absolute property rights.

Some of the first zoning laws in this nation were drafted and designed in the 1700s, by some of the same people who gave us the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to protect not the rights of the property owner to do whatever he selfishly damned well pleased with the property, but to address the needs of the community at large.

"What? My house has to be built of BRICK? Hey, A-hole, this is 1792 and it's MY property, go :cuss: yourself!

What, I can't throw my night waste into the street, I have to connect to this new fangled public sewer? Hey, A-hole, this is 1835 and it's MY property, go :cuss: yourself!"

Absolutism is a quaint concept, but an idiotic one, given that we're a nation of nearly 300 million people, many o f whom are clustered in populous areas, and there's simply little backing, Constitutional or otherwise legal, for adopting such a stance.

If you feel that you MUST exercise some sort of absolute property rights, Montan is probably your best bet, where it's sparsely populated and largely unincorporated.

But, just remember this this next time you're on your on a "The Constitution says I can do whatever the hell I want, no matter what!" kicks...

The Founding Fathers began the Constitution this way...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty..."

The Founding Father's didn't start it this way...

"I, the Individual, in order to do whatever the hell I want, whenever I want, whereever I want, and without regard to the supposed rights of anyone else, do ordain and establish the concept of Absolute Individual Rights at the expense of everyone but me..."

The Founding Fathers obviously recognized that individual rights are important, having drafted a Bill of Rights to enumerate some of those rights, but at the same time drafted laws not to check individual rights, but to balance the rights of ALL citizens.

[Tamara]

If you are damaging your neighbour's property (and I mean really damaging: no "potentially damaging" or "secondhand smoke" or "hurtful and insensitive language") to the point that there is measurable physical or financial harm to your neighbour, then we have a process called the "civil court system" to handle it. Your neighbour can prove to a jury of your peers, twelve good men and true, that damage has occurred, and collect his compensation.

Anything less is a violation of "innocent until proven guilty" as well as being a Constitutionally-repugnant "prior restraint" law.

Also, simmer down. :scrutiny:

Perhaps you can show me where someone has said: "The Constitution says I can do whatever the hell I want, no matter what!" :rolleyes:

[Larry Ashcraft]

For putting my thoughts into more eloquent words than I am capable of.

I DO own a rather substantial property with hundreds of trees on it. There are several things I'm not allowed to do on my property, and I'm glad of it because my neighbors can't do it either.

I can't subdivide (and neither can the neighbors).

I can't destroy a wetland (and neither can the neighbors).

I can't build my house out of furring strips and 1/4" plywood (and neither can the neighbors).

I can't ignore the game laws (and neither can the neighbors).

You get the point. The laws were put there for one simple reason: If it wasn't against the law, some moron would do it.

[Frohickey]

Your property rights end where my property rights begin.

You can switch the words "your" and "my" around, or your can switch the words "end" and "begin".

When a person owns a piece of land, and they want to build a 2 story house, and the neighbor complains that building the house would interfere with his view of the beautiful scenery, the person wanting to build the house should charge the scenery-lover a fee for all the time he was enjoying it.

[Waitone]

Mr. Irwin,

World class rant. I'm right there wicha. Absolute right exist only in the minds of anarcho-libertarians and other fringe elements.

Now let me take up for them just this one time. There are legitimate reasons implementing restrictions of some kinds. I live in a city that has ZERO natural drainage so the city and county have extensive storm water restrictions and requirements. No problem from me.

But in specific localities (like California, but not limited there) for specific excuses (like environmental preservation) used by certain politicians (like Schumer) the move to regulation is single minded and unrelenting. Perceived need for restrictions is the excuse used by those who are annoyed by constitutional restrictions on what the government can do. Big-Mart no doubt needs a storm water drainage plan, but I'm aware of situations where storm water drainage was used an an excuse to confiscate the land (all nice and legal) and resold to a politician's favorite developer who curiously has no problems with storm water regulators.

I can understand why anarcho-libertarians rage against the machine. But just because they are off-plumb in other areas doesn't mean they are completely wrong here. It is a verifiable fact there are organizations, individuals, and governments that believe humans are a curse on the environment so they have well developed plans to put humans on sustainable preserves and return the land to its pre-Columbus condition. That's fact. Now when I look at this situation in California, what do I see? Am I looking at a real-live problem or am I looking at a secondary agenda using a made-up problem as a way to further an agenda?

Skepticism is an admirable attribute when it comes to government and private property.

[Shaggy]

Mike Irwin is on the money with his last post. I agree.

But waitone also has it nailed as it relates to CA in general as well as other places. The .gov has been trying and has succeded many times in stealing land from people.

Farmers, don't let the rainwater puddle up in an unplowed field because there is a good chance that land will get declared a wetland and your prime farmland will be useless.

Gotta save some owls so we can't cut down anymore trees.

Save some sucker fish in a creek someplace. Save a horned toad in some other pool of water. It's plain ridiculous.

And Malone don't worry. I like guns and shooting to much to ever consider CA as a place I'd want to live. I won't even visit. Now you do your best to keep your left wing anti gun, environmental wackos from infecting the midwest. Keep them there in the PRK okay........

[CZ-75]

Absolute right exist only in the minds of anarcho-libertarians and other fringe elements.

And restricted rights exist in the mind and heart of every dictator, statist, and authoritarian.


Actually, I'll concede that this guy may have been in the wrong, but as has been made clear, legitimate usage of property has/is being curtailed and the motivations of the laws preventing such usage is often questionable. Additionally, the harms from a property owner's actions should be demonstrable, rather than merely being a violation of a law that may or may not be based on questionable scientific data, if based on any at all.

And FWIW, taking an absolutist stance makes sense as one seldom gets everything one wants; it makes no sense to concede your rights away beforehand w/o getting concessions in return. RKBA is an excellent example of the fallacy of making concessions to you opponent. It isn't coincidence that our 2nd amendment rights are being infringed and diminished by the day.

[Double Naught Spy]

Just because you own property does not necessarily mean that you own everything on, in, or around it. This is true for things like mineral or water rights. You may own land but not mineral rights on the land. If the guy purchased the land after the law went into effect, then he may not have had the right to remove the trees, sort of like a zoning issue.

[Malone LaVeigh]

I find the progress of this thread amusing. Has anyone else noticed a shift?

[Mike Irwin]

"Perhaps you can show me where someone has said: "The Constitution says I can do whatever the hell I want, no matter what!"


As I distinctly noted, Tams, that's an underlying current in many threads here, and was also evident over on TFL.

So, tell me, how do you quantify the effects from, say, a rendering works that stinks up your property?

Would that be "second hand smoke" type damage (I mean, it can't smell THAT bad, can it?), or would that be actual damage? Who doesn't like the smell of hot rancid grease in our McDonald's-driven society?

And, would YOU really want to be the one to have to wend your way through the courts to protect your customary property rights when the process could take years?

Zoning laws (oh boy, rights violations akimbo!) and property restrictions (more akimboism) are often part and parcel to where any of us live.

The simple solution is to recognize that property rights come with property restrictions, and if you can't abide by them, you simply A) look for some place else to live, B) you attempt to address the situation legislatively, or C) you take the courts route.

I'm sitting in a home on a parcel of property worth, at this point in time, roughly $300,000. When I bought here 10 years ago, my property was worth roughly $150,000.

One of the MAIN reasons why my property has roughly doubled its value is that my homeowner's association (of which I'm vice president) has a set of covenants that control what the other members of the association can do on, and to, their properties, which leads us to "Constitutionally repugnant prior-restraint law..."

Obviously not so Constitutionally repugnant if the Supreme Court, the arbiter of what is and is not, Constitutional in the United States has allowed so many of these laws to stand.

Here's a funny, funny thing, though...

This entire argument?

It's not really a Constitutional issue.

Why?

Because issues of property rights are largely left to the independent states to figure out and deal with.

[Battler]

Regardless of your stance on this, comparing property rights folk with "anarchists" is a tad misguided.

The anarchist does not want property rights respected - he wants the force that would otherwise enforce contracts and property rights (government) to be absent.

The anarchist is at odds with any sort of property rights position.

The socialist wants many many many laws controlling the property and lives of another. The number of these happens to be very high. The capitalist wishes government to enforce contracts, punish agressors, etc. The anarchist wants no laws.

So when the socialist counts his 1000 jobs government does, the 5 the capitalist wants (that probably aren't in the socialist's 1000) and the 0 the anarchist wants look very similar. So the socialist may just count the number of laws and size of government that sets his position apart from others.


Some "capitalists" end up seduced by anarchism to be sure - likewise, being personally swamped in the 1000 laws they figure that all laws must be bad (when it's really just that socialist laws are). Sadly, some libertarians fall into this category - their hearts are in the right place, or they would be WTO protestor type anarchists. The risk one takes with the despair of saying "laws are bad" or "we need less laws", is that you could take away the penalty for murdering someone and replace it with a law that bans handguns - leaving the same NUMBER of laws; but a more fu**ed up legal system that is no longer REMOTELY based on individual rights (as it does not punish murderers).

Lacking protections for one to keep his own property, socialism and anarchism aren't that far apart themselves. In anarchy, some stronger mob will just arbitrarily decide they want "your" land, and just take it. The arbitrary rule of a socialist government just means you have a really big mob. Heck, look at all the socialists at "anarchist" protests.


Not calling anyone on this thread a socialist; but that it may be from socialists that you overheard some link between the capitalist and the anarchist.



The laws governing property modifications wrt. protecting the RIGHTS of neighbors are not necessarily socialist, either. I posted this just to clarify the "anarchist" tag. While the anarchist may want to be able to turn "his" property into a toxic waste dump, he's just as likely to eat his neighbor for attempting same.


Cheers,
Battler.

[Tamara]

In anarchy, some stronger mob will just arbitrarily decide they want "your" land, and just take it.

Heh. See "Donald Scott"... ;)

[Mike Irwin]

"Your property rights end where my property rights begin.

You can switch the words "your" and "my" around, or your can switch the words "end" and "begin".

When a person owns a piece of land, and they want to build a 2 story house, and the neighbor complains that building the house would interfere with his view of the beautiful scenery, the person wanting to build the house should charge the scenery-lover a fee for all the time he was enjoying it."


Obviously a proponent of the ""I, the Individual, in order to do whatever the hell I want, whenever I want, whereever I want, and without regard to the supposed rights of anyone else, do ordain and establish the concept of Absolute Individual Rights at the expense of everyone but me..." preamble to the Constitution.

:rolleyes:

[Tamara]

Obviously a proponent of the "Life, liberty, and the ability to tell other folks what to do with their stuff" preamble to the Declaration of Independence. ;)

(Since we seem to have wandered into the reductio ad absurdum phase of the thread. :p )

[Justin Moore]

Heh. See "Donald Scott"

GRIN. Indeed.....

[hammer4nc]

Why is it that proponents of intrusive government regulations always use the most extreme example to back up their argument? In this thread, the "rendering plant" is about as far from the the issue, as is possible. Using such extremes to make the point, the intention is not to instruct, it is to mislead. Why go there?

Lets dispense with the "all or nothing" debate. In this matter, one can be for reasonable restrictions, and at the same time against unreasonable restrictions. Being fined and put in jail for "changing" the rural landscape (absent actual damage to neighbors) is arguably unreasonable (except in Kali, perhaps).

I'll reiterate the hidden agenda...the bulk of these protection schemes are aimed not at resource protection, but resource control. And if the govt. can control the resources (use of property), that's a major step toward controlling the population, in a socialist utopia. The cure is worse than the disease.

[Mike Irwin]

OK, Hammer...

What type of industrial activity WOULD you find to be peach keen on a property next to yours?

Rock quarry?

Transfer station?

Auto wrecking yard?

Nude bar with a "hotel" out back?

If I were to truly prescribe to the theory of absolute property rights, it shouldn't matter WHAT I decide to put on my propert.

Tamara says that the courts are a viable alternative and remedy in the case of actual, tangible damage from the activities of another.

I'd say that's not the case at all.

Why?

Because if property rights are absolute, which seems to be the claims of some here, then NOTHING would be above those rights. The courts couldn't touch them.

Not a very tenable situation.

The salient point remains, however, that the chest-thumping concept of "absolute property rights" is a fantasy.

People can yell about it all they want, but neither history nor the courts back up claims of absolute property rights. Not even, as I've noted, did the Founding Fathers consider property rights to be absolute.

[Battler]

By having the issue of whether or not a combination junkyard/nudie bar next door were handled through contract, it could be pre-determined before building the first house.

Through government zoning laws, the decision is placed in the hands of those who aren't party to the situation, who tend to change their minds about what is and isn't allowed after the fact based on political expediency, busy-bodiness, or perhaps corruption.

For example, if you wanted a neighborhood to not have a gunstore in it, you would enshrine in the contract for that neighborhood what can and can't be built before the houses go up - with such things in the contracts, that a gun store cannot be built in the neighborhood is a RECORDED part of the value of the property.

Of course, IN CURRENT LAW AND APPLICATION, we accept that the "majority" owns the property, and there are gun stores being shut down because "we don't want those things in our community".


Battler.

[longeyes]

Spotted, libertarian paradise. Open borders, no regs, private property enforced. Read on:

A Dangerous Slum Sprouts in the Desert
Feds try to close village, which sits on sovereign
Indian land. Its founder gears up for
expansion.

By Louis Sahagun, Times Staff Writer

MECCA, Calif. — In a sprawling shantytown between
the Salton Sea and a toxic dump site, children play
barefoot on dirt roads, running beside leaking sewer
lines and piles of rotting garbage thick with flies.

Beneath their feet is broken glass; nearby, rusting
machinery and wire. When the
wind kicks up, they breathe dust and ash from an
adjacent dump that contains
elevated levels of cancer-causing dioxins.

Their families are mostly farm workers who live in
hundreds of hot and
dilapidated trailers, many of them missing windows
and siding. When the water
pressure dropped a week ago, some residents collected
the few drips they could
from their faucets. A year ago, their big problem was
electrical fires caused by
faulty wiring.

They call it "Duroville," a haphazard village of
roughly 4,000 people and dozens
of unregulated businesses that has sprouted from the
desert scrub in just two
years. It was named for its founder, Harvey Duro, a
husky member of the
Torres-Martinez Band of Cahuilla Indians, who said he
just may double the size
of the place.

Whether anybody can stop him remains to be seen.
Duroville sits on sovereign
Indian land, beyond the reach of state and local
laws. So, although one county
official says it is the worst and largest substandard
housing development of its
kind in the region, there's nothing she can do about
it.

Federal authorities are trying to close down the
makeshift town on grounds that it
is a dangerous slum.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs in March ordered Duro to
dismantle the entire
operation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
last week banned the
burning of trash at the adjacent dump after
discovering high levels of dioxins in
the soil. This week, they are investigating reports
that a sewage lagoon on the
property has sprung a leak near the path children
take to their school bus.

Although federal officials are trying to crack down,
the dispute certainly will be
litigated in court. A resolution could take years.

"When I went out there to take samples, I was
stunned," said EPA investigator
James Sullivan. "I looked around and thought, 'Wow.
Places like this actually
exist in America?' "

Duro defends his enterprise as "an expression of my
sovereign right, and I'm
using it to make a better living." Leaning back in a
white plastic chair in his office,
Duro, 56, who favors Ram football jerseys, athletic
shorts, running shoes and
sunglasses, added, smiling: "Heck, I'm thinking about
doubling in size and maybe
adding an auto mall."

The community started to take shape in early 2001
shortly after Riverside
County began enforcing health and safety codes at 500
trailer parks scattered
across the Coachella Valley.

In a region where regulated low-income housing is
hard to find, the crackdown
forced some of the state's poorest residents to seek
shelter anywhere they could:
in shacks, backyards, even chicken coops, county
officials said.

Taking advantage of the opportunity, Duro and
associates dreamed up the idea
of allowing people to haul their substandard trailers
onto 40 acres of allotted
Indian land off California 195 near the community of
Thermal.

Initially, Duro envisioned a few dozen farm workers
living in fixer-uppers on
rented spaces along tree-lined lanes. He told other
tribal members he would be
"mayor" of the community, which would be a shining
success story on what has
been one of the unluckiest of the state's 100 Indian
nations. (Of the tribe's
22,000 acres of reservation land, half lies beneath
the Salton Sea, which was
created after a Colorado River flooding accident in
1905.)

Almost overnight, however, hundreds of displaced
Latino migrant workers
leaped at the chance to drag their condemned trailers
onto the property, which
grew with astonishing speed and creative abandon.
Tenants built additional
rooms out of plywood and fencing and then sublet them
to untold numbers of
fellow workers.

"Harvey was shrewd enough to build a park that
attracts people who are
desperate and think they have no other place to go,"
said John Mealey, executive
director of the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition, a
nonprofit group dedicated
to building low-income housing. "He allows these
people to live in substandard,
unsafe trailers, which is disgraceful."

"I've never seen any trailer park so large, or so
risky," said Leah Rodriguez of
the county economic development agency. "But there's
nothing I can do."

Since the landfill is located on Indian territory, it
is beyond the jurisdiction of
cities, the county, even the state.

Because it is virtually free of government
regulation, costs are low, particularly
helpful for business owners.

Duro conceded that the growth of his trailer park has
raced ahead of his ability
to provide its tenants with reliable basic services.

"I started something that has just exploded," he
said. "We were so far behind,
and now we're trying to catch up. We're doing the
best we can to make sure
everything is safe for the people who live here."

Flies clustered at the tattered trailer shared by
welder Jose Rivera, 26, his wife
Lourdes, 26, and their three young children. Their
dirt yard was strewn with
broken glass, rusting metal machinery and rotting
garbage.

The area's leaking sewer lines were built above
ground and run past a swing set
erected beside the 40-acre toxic landfill.

The Riveras, who live in a battered trailer rented by
a relative for $250 a month,
talked of one day "cleaning the place up and planting
grass."

"We like it here," Lourdes said. "The kids go to
public school. And you can do
most anything you want. You can throw a party, or
build a fire. No one
complains."

That is not entirely true. When the lights flickered
out and the water pressure was
reduced to a trickle in their cramped, hot trailer on
a recent weekday, Francisco
and Beatrice Lara took their gripe to the main
office. But it didn't do much good.

Nursing the youngest of her seven young children in
front of a massive, rusty
swamp cooler installed beside her small, red kitchen
table, Beatrice Lara said,
"It's terrible living here. Sometimes the trailer
fills up with smoke from the landfill.
Other times the sewer ponds smell so bad I can't
stand it. Señor Duro says he'll
fix things, but he never does. When we complain he
says, 'If you don't like it,
move.' "

"I'd give anything to get out of here," added her
husband, a construction worker
who pays $330 a month rent. "But we can't move to
Mecca or Thermal because
we don't have proper immigration documents."

Business, however, is thriving on the land. Five
used-car dealers operate on the
property, where they say lot rental rates are
one-tenth of what they are in nearby
Mecca and Thermal.

Standing beneath brightly colored plastic banners
flapping in the hot wind at his
car lot, Salvadore Hernandez boasted, "I pay $200 a
month to operate here, and
I don't need permission of the county."

There is also a coin laundry, a beauty parlor, a
video rental outlet, a restaurant
specializing in Mexican food and prepared lunches, a
variety store, auto repair
and wrecking operations, and scads of smaller niche
businesses without permits
of any kind.

Some sell churros, shrimp, tacos, soda, ice cream,
fruit, vegetables or
secondhand clothes out of their trailers. Others
recycle paper and scrap metal, or
provide baby-sitting for field workers.

Residents stream in and out of the dusty enclave,
which is surrounded by
wooden walls, along roads marked by signposts
designed by Duro and named
for his family members: Mary Lou Avenue, Lilian
Street, David Street and Wiley
Street. Duro's own trailer, which is among the few
without dented sides, is
parked on Harvey Street.

"I've tried planting trees," Duro said. "But they
don't do too good because the
ground is too salty."

Park Faces Fines

A week ago, the EPA warned the owners of the landfill
next door that they could
face large fines if they continued to burn such
wastes as household trash,
wallboard, plastic and tires. The practice, EPA
officials said, has been
discharging dangerous pollutants throughout the
region.

This week, "we plan to dispatch a team of
investigators to see how the trailer
park's sewer ponds are affecting the residents and
their water supplies," said
EPA spokesman Mark Merchant.

"That whole area is a health nightmare," said
Riverside County Supervisor Roy
Wilson, who has no authority over it. "And it is
growing by leaps and bounds."

The Torres-Martinez tribal council, of which Duro is
a member, is divided on
whether the trailer park should stay or go. Among his
supporters is his
brother-in-law, tribal Chairman Raymond Torres.

"We want him to stay and grow, but we want to see
some improvements first:
water mains, light poles, fire hydrants and a sewer
system," Torres said. "If he
can add those things, he'll be a success story for
this tribe."

Tribal member Scott Lawson, whose brother owns the
landfill, agreed. "Harvey
is one of the first successful businessmen on this
reservation," he said. "Let that
poor Indian survive. Give him a chance."

But for tribal administrator Mary Belardo, it is all
a dismal reminder of a similar
controversy that erupted a decade ago when sludge
firms created a smelly
nuisance on the reservation by allowing the buildup
of 500,000 tons of dried,
processed sewage on a 160-acre parcel of land.

"There are more and more families and children at
risk every day," she said.
"We've been working with Harvey to see if he is
amenable to cleaning it up, or
shutting it down."

Duro said, "No one is getting sick here, and we're
checking the well water."

Ready to Expand

He is also preparing for expansion. Later this year,
he said, he plans to pave the
streets and add light poles. Eventually, he said, he
hopes to build a sewer system
shaded by palm trees that will also serve as "a bird
sanctuary."

Duro and his maintenance crews, meantime, are busy
with more pressing
matters.

A water pump failed a few days ago, and there were
reports of blown fuses
across the trailer park.

The phone system, which ties into an enormous tangle
of wires near the park's
entrance, needed work.

"I just wish people would give me a little more time
and money to make the
changes they want so badly. It won't happen
overnight," Duro said. "If they point
things out, we'll try and correct them. But if they
close me down, I'll say, 'You
want it, you can have it. But you have to clean it up
and relocate all these
people.' "

[Battler]

I don't know the details by which this "dump" was founded; but do you think that maybe everyone just signed up to live in a dump?

An example of someone's $300K house value being trashed, perhaps?


I would hope that the topic would be how someone could build a property of value and obtain the assurances to preserve that value. Zoning laws CAN achieve this. So can enforced contracts.

If a whole bunch of people decide to live together in sewage, it is not an example of someone being abused by "liberty" at all. Would these people VOTE the town clean? They all live together! What would a representative of these people be doing? Executing the will of the people, which is probably a different will than where you happen to live.

[Bruce H]

Are avacado trees verbotton on his property? Shoving all the oaks out and leaving the ground barren is of no use to anybody. He was going to replant. Chances are the pattern of avacado planting would have covered more of the soil surface that the oak stand. I smell a real stinker coming here. If the landowner has to sell this property to cover bills it would be real interesting tosee who comes up with it. They waited untill he was done with the oak removal and the watercourse straightening before making a move. This kind of work isn't done in thirty minutes. Something smells here.

[cordex]

These regulations are in place to stop people from creating a nuisance in the first place.
Yeah! Just like those helpful gun laws. The AWB prevents nuisances of people running around spray-firing from the hip to blow away their neighbors. The NFA of '34 too. Anti-CCW laws prevent the nuisance of blood flowing in the streets after every traffic incident.

Malone, you know darn well that having a law against something doesn't prevent it (didn't in this case, even). It just makes "maybe", "possibly" and "likely" actionable offenses against the state.

Signed,
-Quaint but idiotic

[Waitone]

I'll predict the Nature Conservancy.

NC typically waits around until properties are distressed at which time they show up and make an offer well-below market value. The mark takes the deal because of the various guns levelled at his head. NC takes title to the property and turns around and donates it at full market value to the federal government or its appointed seconds.

Now here is the real magic. NC then takes a deduction for the donated value of the land. Great racket, Huh?

[Mike Irwin]

"In a sprawling shantytown between
the Salton Sea and a toxic dump site, children play
barefoot on dirt roads, running beside leaking sewer
lines and piles of rotting garbage thick with flies."

New Jersey's been moved to an Indian Res?

[Mike Irwin]

"Chances are the pattern of avacado planting would have covered more of the soil surface that the oak stand."

Bruce,

This has already been discussed.

An avocado tree doesn't equal an oak tree in its ability to hold soil against errosion.

Oaks are deep rooters, most domesticated fruit trees are shallow rooters.

[Frohickey]

One of the MAIN reasons why my property has roughly doubled its value is that my homeowner's association (of which I'm vice president) has a set of covenants that control what the other members of the association can do on, and to, their properties, which leads us to "Constitutionally repugnant prior-restraint law..."

Ah... that kind of explains the stance that you have.

Would-be kings do not like rules/regulations tying their hands. Much better to have the regulations tie everyone else's hands. Even in a democracy, you can have tyranny. Much better to have a Constitutionally-limited government, and much better to have this type of limitation go all the way down to the smallest organization, since that is where it best reminds people that limited government is best or all.

[Mike Irwin]

Quite frankly, my ownership in an HOA community only reinforces the beliefs that I already had long before I purchased my home.

I joined my HOA board of directors for two reasons, actually.

1. To ensure that promulgated community standards were enforced in a manner that would protect EVERYONE'S property values, not the values of one owner over another.

2. To ensure that the HOA otherwise remains low impact, with as few restrictions on property owners as possible.

Before I purchased, though, I took the copy of the association's rules & regs (provided per Virginia statute) and disected them thoroughly.

I also went to a board meeting and requested, and received, copies of minutes going back several years.

I knew EXACTLY what I was getting in to:

A community with relatively few restrictive regulations (yes, some of them are a little bit of a pain in the butt, but in the grand scheme of things, the fact that the Washington Post is the dominant newspaper here is FAR more distressing).

A well-run community in which the board of directors worked for the community, not themselves.

A community with adequate financial reserves, low receivables, and good relations with contractors -- in general, one with a solid fiscal plan.

A community with well kept commons properties.

In many ways, I rool into my community every evening and realize that where I live is part and parcel to what the Founding Fathers had in mind, at the most basic level, with the preamble to the Constitution.

[Battler]

I'd just like to reiterate something I said before.

A home-owner's association is NOT council/government-dictated use of private property. A homeowners association is a contract entered into by the original property-owner of the land to protect the land against all of the problems that people on this thread have, quite legitimately, raised.

The difference is that the enforcement mechanism is known up front, and was voluntariliy entered into.

Somebody from the other side of town, with no vested interest via the contract, will be dictating the terms.

That the homeowners association may benefit or be hurt by being able to have a few very interested members take control is another matter. Coming up with a good contract up-front is not easy, as dealing with the issues raised on here are not easy.

But it is a moral solution, as the contract exists without coercion. That the terms are set in the predetermined contract, not the day to day whim of a council elected by people elsewhere, make the homeowners association THE PROPERTY RIGHTS solution.

[Mike Irwin]

"A home-owner's association is NOT council/government-dictated use of private property."

You may be right, or you may be wrong, DEPENDING on the state in which the association is chartered, Battler.

In Virgiania the way HOAs are established they have powers analagous to, and are recognized largely as, governmental entities by Virginia law.

HOAs, as can towns and cities, establish zoning ordnances.

"Somebody from the other side of town, with no vested interest via the contract, will be dictating the terms."

Again, this depends on HOW the HOA was established and where it was established.

In the case of my HOA, your statement is absolutely incorrect. The Board of Directors, acting on behalf of, and elected by, the membership at large, controls the HOA.

Of course, the HOA must abide by strictures laid out by the Commonwealth, but that's no different than an incorporated town in Virginia.

"That the homeowners association may benefit or be hurt by being able to have a few very interested members take control is another matter."

And that's different from any other type of elected government how?

"That the terms are set in the predetermined contract, not the day to day whim of a council elected by people elsewhere,"

You may also be incorrect about that, depending on the manner in which the laws governing the HOA are established by the state.

In Virginia HOAs have WIDE lattitude to pass regulations (essentially zoning ordnances) by vote of the board without having to go to the membership for approval.

My HOA recent revised parking regulations in the community to take into account that one side of the state road leading into our community was No Parked.

We rewrote the parking regs, had our attorney review them, passed them at a meeting, and informed the members of the change.

[Battler]

I guess then that there is a semantical distinction - homeowner contracts/association, and this other pseudo-fascist entity.

You're going to find it even less funny when the government starts deputizing any given local (private) ecomarxist advocacy group and giving THEM bureaucratic powers and a tab for starting lawsuits, like in Australia (although I could be mistaken - they may already exist in the US in some form).


One thing of which I can always be certain. The outcome will always be in the collective good of society :banghead:

[RAY WOODROW 3RD]

QUOTE:
New Jersey's been moved to an Indian Res?

I take offense to that Mike!

New Jersey is a beautiful state. It's the politics of this state that stink!
:neener:

[Bruce H]

Since I have been farming all my life I guess I don't have a clue about erosion control. All of my ground is hill. I'll try my best to not let it wash away because it is how I make my living. I guess I'm just not smart enough to set down and shut up. California's mud slide problems are mostly related to the type of soil and the environmental conditions. Extreme dry followed by lots of rain will cause slides even in very stable slopes. When soil gets saturated to a certain depth with hard dry underneath it is is very little different from an avalanche. The top heavy layer slips and away it goes. The degree of slope has a lot of bearing but I have seen some four to one slopes slide here. Ground cover and an extensive root system will do more for erosion control than scattered large trees. When i get done planting I'll crank up the 8K and shove out an oak in remembrance of the man.

[Sir Galahad]

Geez, in the time this has been on the board, those oaks could have already been 600 rolltop desks, 10 walk-in humidors, and about 1,000 cutting boards. And the avocado trees would already be providing us with guacamole.

[Mike Irwin]

"I guess then that there is a semantical distinction - homeowner contracts/association, and this other pseudo-fascist entity."

No, boats, not a question of semantics.

It's a question of law.

[CZ-75]

A Dangerous Slum Sprouts in the Desert
Feds try to close village, which sits on sovereign
Indian land. Its founder gears up for
expansion.

By Louis Sahagun, Times Staff Writer


Sorry, but that article proves the opposite of what you think it does.

After reading it, it seems that the people live there because they can't afford any better, which is a by-product of regulations.

[Mike Irwin]

Ray,


http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/srchrslt.cfm?start=1

Not sure, but I believe NJ has the highest concentration of contaminated sites per capita in the United States...

[Mike Irwin]

"Since I have been farming all my life I guess I don't have a clue about erosion control. All of my ground is hill. I'll try my best to not let it wash away because it is how I make my living. I guess I'm just not smart enough to set down and shut up. California's mud slide problems are mostly related to the type of soil and the environmental conditions. Extreme dry followed by lots of rain will cause slides even in very stable slopes. When soil gets saturated to a certain depth with hard dry underneath it is is very little different from an avalanche. The top heavy layer slips and away it goes. The degree of slope has a lot of bearing but I have seen some four to one slopes slide here. Ground cover and an extensive root system will do more for erosion control than scattered large trees. When i get done planting I'll crank up the 8K and shove out an oak in remembrance of the man."

And this addresses the issue of the soil stabilization abilities of oak vs. avocado how?

I've seen more than my fair share of cultivated fruit trees at the bottom of slope, along with the slope, while farther along the same slope, deep rooted trees haven't moved, nor has the soil surrounding them...

Whatever.

[CZ-75]

Grass might not be as ideal as oak trees (though I doubt oak trees work well by themselves), but the Flint Hills of
KS and those in other plains states sure seem to be none the worse for wear from lack of stabilizing trees of any kind.

[BenW]

I've seen more than my fair share of cultivated fruit trees at the bottom of slope, along with the slope, while farther along the same slope, deep rooted trees haven't moved, nor has the soil surrounding them...

Uh, do we all even know for a fact that this guy's land even has hills before we get deep into erosion arguments? I didn't see pictures to go along with either article. One of them mentioned he violated hillside erosion ordinances, but the charge doesn't prove his land is on a hill. This is centered in a place called the Ojai VALLEY. His land might be hilly, but it might be flat as a board as well.

[Sergeant Bob]

Grass might not be as ideal as oak trees (though I doubt oak trees work well by themselves), but the Flint Hills of KS and those in other plains states sure seem to be none the worse for wear from lack of stabilizing trees of any kind.

Take a look at the levee's along the Mississippi River, covered with.....grass.

[gun-fucious]

they used a bulldozer

they did not harvest the lumber
they bulldozed it

no logging operation with chainsaws and skidders

most likely these were 300 saplings and 6 inchers

and it took them 2 years to discover the missing trees

[Butch]

Kaddis has maintained his innocence and earlier said prosecutors targeted him because he is Egyptian-American. From TheeBadone's post on the first page.

I don't know, I think this may be a racist problem.:cuss:

What the He double hockey sticks has that quote got to do with the story :what: :cuss: :cuss:

[longeyes]

"After reading it, it seems that the people live there because they can't afford any better, which is a by-product of regulations."

Right, people live in shantytowns because of "regulations." You keep on believing that.

[Mike Irwin]

Sgt. Bob,

"Take a look at the levees..."

Care to take us through a dissertation on how levees are built, or would you like me to do it?

I can also include a dissertation on how a levee is NOT the same as a hillside, and finally, why levees are kept tree-free.

[CZ-75]

Right, people live in shantytowns because of "regulations." You keep on believing that.


I think I will. People in Silicon Valley are living in garages ($700 a month or so for this) and homeless shelters b/c they can't find decent housing (A good National Geographic article about this a few years ago.). These are families with low six-figure incomes, too.

What do you expect the poorest of the poor to do?

It's all the product of an artificially high cost of living. It's no coincidence that living costs are highest in the most liberal and over-regulated areas of the country.

[Sergeant Bob]

Care to take us through a dissertation on how levees are built, or would you like me to do it?

No...just making an observation. Never said it was better than oak trees, avocado trees, rose bushes or chia plants. It was in response to CZ-75's observation...
Grass might not be as ideal as oak trees (though I doubt oak trees work well by themselves), but the Flint Hills of

I can also include a dissertation on how a levee is NOT the same as a hillside, and finally, why levees are kept tree-free.
Please do, it'll give you yet one more opportunity to blow your horn.

Contrary to what you may believe, not every post made, not in total aggreement with what you think, is made in order to elicit a condescending response from you. If you actually have something constructive to add, why not enlighten the rest of us, instead of just making your snide little remarks?

[QKRTHNU]

"Chances are the pattern of avacado planting would have covered more of the soil surface that the oak stand."

Bruce,

This has already been discussed.

An avocado tree doesn't equal an oak tree in its ability to hold soil against errosion.

Oaks are deep rooters, most domesticated fruit trees are shallow rooters.
How do you know that those 300 Oaks were necessary to prevent erosion affecting the neighbors properties?

Sounds like Pre-Crime to me. :uhoh:

[Shalako]

I think the thread has drifted a tad bit as far as the importance of the trees. In the eyes of the regulatory folks, I can guarantee you the issue of concern is.....(drumroll please)....

Habitat Value

Thats the new catch phrase when nuking the environment or installing a public works project. And as far as letting trees grow on levees, if they are already established (i.e. over 4" in diam) forget about it, they stay. We don't allow them to get established on the levees out here (if at all possible) because when they die, the roots decay and lead to piping (water channels) through the levee and landside boils. Also, some trees have a huge root ball that can displace a large amount of material when the tree falls over. Bad ju ju.

Not trying to be a smarty pants or anything, just FYI.

[Sergeant Bob]

We don't allow them to get established on the levees out here (if at all possible) because when they die, the roots decay and lead to piping (water channels) through the levee and landside boils. Also, some trees have a huge root ball that can displace a large amount of material when the tree falls over. Bad ju ju.
Not trying to be a smarty pants or anything, just FYI.


Not smarty pants at all, very informative and makes perfect sense. My guess (just a WAG) was that the root structure of large trees might cause partitioning which might weaken the levee.