 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 200759% Experience Road Rage During Their Daily Commute
http://preview.tinyurl.com/y7aw7r Or, if you prefer: http://msn.careerbuilder.com/custom/msn/careeradvice/viewarticle.aspx?articleid= 903&SiteId=cbmsnhp4903&sc_extcmp=JS_903_home1>1=8934&cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=63 87e83c800c4cc998218cc94a17c9c5-221083427-RN-4 Buried in this article are a couple little tidbits of driving information: >Isn't it time you improve your commute? Fifty-nine percent of >workers surveyed by CareerBuilder.com admit to experiencing >road rage while traveling to and from work. With 128 million >commuters in the United States that's a lot of road rage. > >And it seems your commute is only going to get worse according >to "Commuting in America III" by Alan Pisarski published by >the Transportation Research Board. The average national travel >times grew to 25.5 minutes in 2000, up from 22.4 in 1990 and >21.7 in 1980. That time is increasing even though more >people are leaving for work between 5 a.m. and 6:30 a.m to >beat rush hour. Find something closer to home, or better >yet, become one of the 4 million Americans already working from home.  SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. >>Isn't it time you improve your commute? Fifty-nine percent of >>workers surveyed by CareerBuilder.com admit to experiencing >>road rage while traveling to and from work. With 128 million >>commuters in the United States that's a lot of road rage. "road rage" is proportional to the number of drivers on the road and their competence. As competence increases and the number drivers decreases road road rage decreases. Increasing traffic density without increasing competence is a recipe for disaster. The US is decreasing the competence while increasing the number of drivers... tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >"road rage" is proportional to the number of drivers on the road >and their competence. As competence increases and the number drivers >decreases road road rage decreases. Increasing traffic density without >increasing competence is a recipe for disaster. The US is decreasing the >competence while increasing the number of drivers... ...Which means Road Rage will approach 100%. SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. > >>Isn't it time you improve your commute? Fifty-nine percent of > >>workers surveyed by CareerBuilder.com admit to experiencing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > increasing competence is a recipe for disaster. The US is decreasing the > competence while increasing the number of drivers... Ho-ooold on thar, Baba Looey! Are these the same eminently qualified expert drivers for whom speed limits are set too (artificially) low? ----- - gpsman > http://preview.tinyurl.com/y7aw7r > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>road rage while traveling to and from work. With 128 million >>commuters in the United States that's a lot of road rage. Always beware of statistics from people with something to sell. How do they define "road rage" and how often does it occur? In the past year, I've been pissed off TWICE while driving to and from work and they were only momentary lapses which lasted a total of about 5 minutes (combined). The more egregious case was about a half-mile from my home, so a shorter commute wouldn't have mattered unless my job were within walking distance. In both cases, I honked and flipped them off - is that "road rage"? In one case, honking prevented an an accident and in the other, I honked after quick reaction time and good brakes prevented the accident. Slightly more often, I am annoyed by other drivers, but that's not exactly the same thing as "road rage" - or is it? (according to careerbuilder.com) >>And it seems your commute is only going to get worse according >>to "Commuting in America III" by Alan Pisarski published by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>beat rush hour. Find something closer to home, or better >>yet, become one of the 4 million Americans already working from home. I'd love to work from home. On occasion, I do, but only when I have a good excuse - like there's 2 feet of snow on the ground or something like that. As it is, my commute is slightly less than the average, but I love my job and I don't mind the commute at all. Also, consider the sample population. Perhaps people dissatisfied with their jobs are more likely to experience road rage on their daily commute. "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> said in rec.autos.driving: >In the past year, I've been pissed off TWICE while driving to and from >work and they were only momentary lapses which lasted a total of about 5 >minutes (combined). Must be nice to live in a rural area/work from home/take the train to work most days. Most people, however, have to deal with heavily congested roads and lots of MFFY drivers, and road rage is the rule. >In both cases, I honked and flipped them off - >is that "road rage"? I'd say so. When I get pissed off, the anger evaporates almost instantly once I get away from the MFFY that triggered it. I consider that road rage even though the duration may only be a few seconds. >Slightly more often, I am annoyed by other drivers, but that's not >exactly the same thing as "road rage" - or is it? Well, what trite term would you use to describe it? >I'd love to work from home. I wouldn't - at least, not every day. BTDT for two years, and it can get kinda boring at times. Plus it can become difficult to separate work time from personal time. On the plus side, it's easy to take a "power nap" in the afternoon if you want. :) >As it is, my commute is slightly less than the average, but I love my >job and I don't mind the commute at all. A couple of years ago I had a 3 mile commute. I didn't experience much road rage on THAT commute. Nowadays, however, the only times I don't see some sort of asinine driving behavior on my commute is when I take the train. >Also, consider the sample population. Perhaps people dissatisfied with >their jobs are more likely to experience road rage on their daily commute. Where does it say they *only* surveyed commuters who were dissatisfied with their jobs? SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. > "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Must be nice to live in a rural area/work from home/take the train to > work most days. There's no train, but it is fairly rural and occasionally I do work from home and yes, it is very nice. I've done the big city sh.t before and it sucks. (Of course, it's still no reason to get road rage). > Most people, however, have to deal with heavily > congested roads and lots of MFFY drivers, and road rage is the rule. Nope - raging doesn't get you anywhere fast except more pissed off. >>In both cases, I honked and flipped them off - >>is that "road rage"? > > I'd say so. When I get pissed off, the anger evaporates almost > instantly once I get away from the MFFY that triggered it. I consider > that road rage even though the duration may only be a few seconds. Fair enough. >>Slightly more often, I am annoyed by other drivers, but that's not >>exactly the same thing as "road rage" - or is it? > > Well, what trite term would you use to describe it? I'd say "rage" is a bit strong for just being annoyed. >>I'd love to work from home. > > I wouldn't - at least, not every day. Every day? Nah, but 95% of days it would be great and I would probably get a shitload more done. > BTDT for two years, and it can > get kinda boring at times. Plus it can become difficult to separate > work time from personal time. Not for me - when I work at home, I'm dedicated. I'm focused on my work and there are no distractions. OTOH, at work, there's always someone who wants to take a few minutes to shoot the sh.t. > On the plus side, it's easy to take a > "power nap" in the afternoon if you want. :) Never happens with me unless the reason I'm working from home is because I made up a bullshit excuse because I had a hangover or something. >>As it is, my commute is slightly less than the average, but I love my >>job and I don't mind the commute at all. > > A couple of years ago I had a 3 mile commute. I didn't experience much > road rage on THAT commute. Well, come to think of it, I didn't either when I dealt with that, but maybe it was because I had matured a bit beyond my teenage years. > Nowadays, however, the only times I don't > see some sort of asinine driving behavior on my commute is when I take > the train. Oh, I didn't say I didn't see asinine behavior - I saw it all the time, I just didn't let it get to me. >>Also, consider the sample population. Perhaps people dissatisfied with >>their jobs are more likely to experience road rage on their daily commute. > > Where does it say they *only* surveyed commuters who were dissatisfied > with their jobs? It doesn't explicitly say that, but I inferred it (perhaps incorrectly) from the site that it came from. Do you think Careerbuilder.com commissioned an unbiased study? Perhaps they did, but I wouldn't bet my next paycheck on it. In the next 10 years we will see a lot more people working from home thanks to the ubiquity of hi-speed internet. we will also see people rely more on other forms of transportation like rail if gas prices continue their upward trend.. just my 2 cents. > In the next 10 years we will see a lot more people working from home > thanks to the ubiquity of hi-speed internet. we will also see people > rely more on other forms of transportation like rail if gas prices > continue their upward trend.. just my 2 cents. Rail is excellent for ppl doing city commuting from the suburbs. Rather less useful elsewhere. Graham Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >Rail is excellent for ppl doing city commuting from the suburbs. Rather less >useful elsewhere. I take the train to work regularly. I live in a suburb and I work in a suburb (in fact, they are the SAME suburb). SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I take the train to work regularly. I live in a suburb and I work in a > suburb (in fact, they are the SAME suburb). Your idea of a suburb may be somewhat larger than mine ! Graham Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >> >Rail is excellent for ppl doing city commuting from the suburbs. Rather less >> >useful elsewhere. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Your idea of a suburb may be somewhat larger than mine ! This is the Los Angeles basin, one of the most sprawled-out urban areas on the planet. EVERYTHING is bigger here. :) As to your statement, simply replace "city" with "employment center" and "suburb" with "residential area" and it gets much better. SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. >As to your statement, simply replace "city" with "employment center" >and "suburb" with "residential area" and it gets much better. Only comes close to working if there's a rail line running between the employment center and the residential area. You can't have a rail line running between every employment center and every residential area. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >As to your statement, simply replace "city" with "employment center" > >and "suburb" with "residential area" and it gets much better. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > line running between every employment center and every residential > area. That depends on the size of the area you're considering. Rail only really makes good sense in larger areas where rail's capacity can be put to good use. Graham >> >As to your statement, simply replace "city" with "employment center" >> >and "suburb" with "residential area" and it gets much better. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Rail only really makes good sense in larger areas where rail's capacity can be >put to good use. Except that rail fails to scale to larger areas for the reason I mentioned. If all your employment centers and residential areas are in a line, it can work. If there's only one employment center or one residential area, it can work (hub and spoke). Once you get multiple employment centers and multiple residential areas, it falls apart rapidly. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> >As to your statement, simply replace "city" with "employment center" > >> >and "suburb" with "residential area" and it gets much better. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Except that rail fails to scale to larger areas for the reason I > mentioned. Can you clarify in that case ? > If all your employment centers and residential areas are > in a line, it can work. If there's only one employment center or one > residential area, it can work (hub and spoke). Once you get multiple > employment centers and multiple residential areas, it falls apart > rapidly. You end up with several hub / spokes. I fail to see the problem with that. Most of the hubs are far enough apart that it's essentially inconsequential. Or maybe you had something like London in mind where there are radial routes too, such as the Circle Line on the Tube. That's one you missed. Graham >> If all your employment centers and residential areas are >> in a line, it can work. If there's only one employment center or one [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You end up with several hub / spokes. I fail to see the problem with that. The time and distance cost involved with changing trains mounts rapidly. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> If all your employment centers and residential areas are > >> in a line, it can work. If there's only one employment center or one [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The time and distance cost involved with changing trains mounts rapidly. In London for example, overground rail and underground tube lines have many dedicated interchanges. It causes little trouble in reality. Graham russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in rec.autos.driving: >Except that rail fails to scale to larger areas for the reason I >mentioned. With proper urban planning, it CAN work. When you have willy-nilly sprawl, then yes, rail is less effective. Still, even in willy-nilly sprawl, I would rather have rail as part of the transit mix. At least that way I can CHOOSE to buy a house near a rail stop if I want, and I can CHOOSE to take a job served by the rail line if I want. I am not forced to be 100% auto-dependent. More importantly, people who *cannot* drive (such as the young, the handicapped, and the elderly) still have some choices. SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. >russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in >rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >With proper urban planning, it CAN work. When you have willy-nilly >sprawl, then yes, rail is less effective. Arranging everyone's entire life for the convenience of rail transit is ridiculous. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Arranging everyone's entire life for the convenience of rail transit is > ridiculous. That's not the way it works. Graham >>>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That's not the way it works. You mean it doesn't work very well when tht happens. > Graham >> >russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >That's not the way it works. Right; it doesn't work. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> >russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in > >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Right; it doesn't work. Living near a train station does make your life slightly easier as a commuter it has to be said. You can even walk there ! Graham russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in rec.autos.driving: >>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in >>rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Arranging everyone's entire life for the convenience of rail transit is >ridiculous. Better tell that to all the city planners who are RIGHT NOW building TODs (Transit Oriented Developments) all over the country. SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. >russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in >rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Better tell that to all the city planners who are RIGHT NOW building >TODs (Transit Oriented Developments) all over the country. Speaking to brick walls is not among my specialties. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > importantly, people who *cannot* drive (such as the young, the > handicapped, and the elderly) still have some choices. Well.... London and the surrounding area is as big a willy nilly sprawl as you're likely to get, bar the very sensible 'green belt' that delineates its limits. Long, long predating any urban planning ideas it functions surprisingly well with its mix of overground and underground train lines and their interchanges. Graham >>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in >>rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > you're likely to get, bar the very sensible 'green belt' that delineates its > limits. LMAO - anytime a limey uses the word "sensible" always brings tears to my eyes because I'm laughing so hard. > Long, long predating any urban planning ideas it functions surprisingly > well with its mix of overground and underground train lines and their > interchanges. > > Graham > >>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > LMAO - anytime a limey uses the word "sensible" always brings tears to > my eyes because I'm laughing so hard. You clearly know very little in that case. Have you even the tiniest clue what the 'green belt' is about ? Graham >>>>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Have you even the tiniest clue what the 'green belt' is about ? The green belt in England or the green belt in a nice civilized town like Austin? I know what the latter is, but can't say for sure what the former is. > Graham > russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > With proper urban planning, it CAN work. When you have willy-nilly > sprawl, then yes, rail is less effective. Well when you put it that way.... I tend to think of "willy-nilly sprawl" as the free market at work and "urban planning" as overly intrusive government. 100 years ago, rail was common and it was privately owned. No taxes were required to support it and there weren't zoning laws. > Still, even in willy-nilly sprawl, I would rather have rail as part of > the transit mix. At least that way I can CHOOSE to buy a house near a > rail stop if I want, and I can CHOOSE to take a job served by the rail > line if I want. I am not forced to be 100% auto-dependent. More > importantly, people who *cannot* drive (such as the young, the > handicapped, and the elderly) still have some choices. > > russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 100 years ago, rail was common and it was privately owned. No taxes > were required to support it and there weren't zoning laws. And your point was... ? Other than dreaming of the past. Graham >>>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > And your point was... ? It seems you won't get the point until someone pokes it in your eye. > Other than dreaming of the past. In the past, the free market reigned supreme. You should remember the free market - it was the impetus that caused you to lose control of your precious conolies. > Graham > >>>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said > >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > It seems you won't get the point until someone pokes it in your eye. I see an absence of a point for sure. > > Other than dreaming of the past. > > In the past, the free market reigned supreme. You should remember the > free market - it was the impetus that caused you to lose control of your > precious conolies. The free market was causing the railway companies to go bust. Or was that the war. Anyway, what was your point again ? The free market also had zilch to do with our former colonies wanting independence ( mind you Bermuda still doesn't want to be independent ). Graham > The free market was causing the railway companies to go bust. That would be the sharpened pencil I stuck in your eye, wouldn't it? Get the point now? > The free market also had zilch to do with our former colonies wanting > independence You don't think so? Perhaps King George's failure to recognize the will of the people (i.e. the free market) is a major reason you lost us as colonies.). > ( mind you Bermuda still doesn't want to be independent ). Why should they? It's a symbiotic relationship. > Graham > > The free market was causing the railway companies to go bust. > > That would be the sharpened pencil I stuck in your eye, wouldn't it? > > Get the point now? I can see you're an idiot for sure. > > The free market also had zilch to do with our former colonies wanting > > independence > > You don't think so? No I don't. > Perhaps King George's failure to recognize the will of the people (i.e. > the free market) is a major reason you lost us as colonies.). What's that got to do with it ? Graham >>>The free market was causing the railway companies to go bust. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I can see you're an idiot for sure. Sigh - how f.cking stupid are you? The free market let (most of) the railroads die out, just as the market for buggy whips has disappeared. If we needed rail transportation, the market would demand it and we would get it. >>>The free market also had zilch to do with our former colonies wanting >>>independence [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What's that got to do with it ? The free market is the exercising of the free will of the people. We didn't want your tyranny. The free market demanded that we free ourselves from it. We did. QED > Graham > The free market let (most of) the railroads die out, just as the market > for buggy whips has disappeared. > > If we needed rail transportation, the market would demand it and we > would get it. Passenger rail you have a point. Freight on the other hand, no. It just has to do with how the taxes are paid to build the roads. "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> said in rec.autos.driving: >> The free market was causing the railway companies to go bust. > >That would be the sharpened pencil I stuck in your eye, wouldn't it? > >Get the point now? Except it's not a valid one. On the one hand, you had roads for automobiles built with public funds. On the other hand, you had rail companies who either had to purchase property for their rights-of-way, or, in the case of streetcars, maintain the public streets upon which their tracks ran (in effect, street railway comanies were forced to subsidize their competition). This is NOT a free market. SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. > On the one hand, you had roads for automobiles built with public > funds. On the other hand, you had rail companies who either had to > purchase property for their rights-of-way, or, in the case of > streetcars, maintain the public streets upon which their tracks ran > (in effect, street railway comanies were forced to subsidize their > competition). This is NOT a free market. The rail companies had some pretty generous land grants etc in the 19th century. I suppose the difference lies with the tax dollars non drivers pay that end up in local roads. But those local roads would be there rail or no. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >> On the one hand, you had roads for automobiles built with public >> funds. On the other hand, you had rail companies who either had to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The rail companies had some pretty generous land grants etc in the 19th >century. Some did, yes - the Illinois Central and the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy come to mind. However, Charles Tyson Yerkes had to pay bribes to the Chicago city council AND to the downtown property owners to get his elevated companies and the Union Loop built. No freebies for the Galena & Chicago Union railroad, either - William Butler Ogden had to go out and personally sell shares to all the farmers along the proposed route. And one of the reasons the Pacific Electric went under was because their 1910-era franchise agreements required them to maintain the roads that the streetcar tracks ran on. SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. > > On the one hand, you had roads for automobiles built with public > > funds. On the other hand, you had rail companies who either had to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > pay that end up in local roads. But those local roads would be there rail > or no. Rail companies in the UK received no grants. Graham "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> said in rec.autos.driving: >>>100 years ago, rail was common and it was privately owned. No taxes >>>were required to support it and there weren't zoning laws. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >In the past, the free market reigned supreme. You bet. The Grey Wolves in the Chicago city council performed shakedowns of traction companies. Property owners who demanded bribes before they would give their signatures allowing the new streetcar and elevated lines to be build along/above the streets in front of their properties. Free Market Capitalism at work! SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> said in rec.autos.driving: >> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) said in >> rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I tend to think of "willy-nilly sprawl" as the free market at work and >"urban planning" as overly intrusive government. I strongly disagree. Developers don't give a sh.t about making their neighborhoods fit in with other nearby neighborhoods or any overall transit plan - they are in it for short-term profits and nothing more. Without zoning, urban planning, and similar regulation, they would design everything in the cheapest possible way. For example, in the unincorporated areas of Pima County surrounding Tucson, developers habitually build neighborhoods without sidewalks or street lights. That sh.t costs money, and since there are no laws requiring developers to put those things in, none of them do. >100 years ago, rail was common and it was privately owned. That's because nobody had cars. Developers provided the rail lines so that people would buy the lots. Nowadays, most people not only have cars, THEY TAKE THEM FOR GRANTED. They forget that not everyone can (or wants to) drive everywhere, and they behave as though they themselves will be able to drive forever. Then they are caught completely by surprise when, for example, they twist their right ankle and cannot drive a car for 6 weeks. That minor injury becomes a major hardship - how would YOU get to work if you couldn't drive? People who lose the ability to drive when they get old suddenly discover that, without a car, they are shut-ins - completely dependent on someone with a car to buy groceries for them, take them to the doctor, and all the other little tasks of daily life. For many years, people were so conditioned to automobile dependency that they cannot envision an alternative. So when developers built houses with no access to transit, people still bought them. But that is starting to change, now that so many millions of people are spending a couple of hours every workday mired in nighmarish gridlock. People are starting to realize that auto-dependency is impacting their quality of life, and they are looking for alternatives. Urban planners are responding by changing their rules to require a balanced mix of transit options. Now instead of just a new freeway, they require a freeway with a light rail line in the median. Instead of a housing tract, they want a housing tract surrounding a small commercial area with a transit stop. One look at freeways like CA-91 will convince you that these sorts of changes are desperately needed. We cannot continue to build bedroom communities on the urban fringe forever - we have neither the funds nor the political will to expand our road capacity fast enough to keep up. SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. > "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > neighborhoods fit in with other nearby neighborhoods or any overall > transit plan And why should they? Oh, it would be nice to build a church here and a park there, but if the free market demands a liquor store and a pawn shop, let them build it. >- they are in it for short-term profits and nothing more. They're also in it for long term profits. > Without zoning, urban planning, and similar regulation, they would > design everything in the cheapest possible way. It's worked well for Houston - very little zoning and when new zoning laws have been put in place, more problems result - Oh my god, there's a titty bar across 8 lines of freeway and a quarter mile down the street from a church. What will we do? > For example, in the unincorporated areas of Pima County surrounding > Tucson, developers habitually build neighborhoods without sidewalks or > street lights. And someone is FORCING people to move into these neighborhoods? > That sh.t costs money, and since there are no laws > requiring developers to put those things in, none of them do. If that is really how you describe it, it would seem the free market doesn't give a sh.t about sidewalks or streetlights. I grew up in a neighborhood with no sidewalks and only two streetlights at the end of 2 streets which had between 15 and 30 houses on them. What's the problem? It was a nice neighborhood with very little crime and not much traffic. We got by just fine. >>100 years ago, rail was common and it was privately owned. > > That's because nobody had cars. Yes, and as such there was a demand for rail. Are you going to make the case that nobody has cars today? I didn't think so. > Developers provided the rail lines so > that people would buy the lots. No, railroads existed because people needed to get from one location to antoher and they didn't have cars. > Nowadays, most people not only have > cars, THEY TAKE THEM FOR GRANTED. And that's fine - the free market doesn't demand rail, so it only exists at great expense and operates at a loss in large cities which feel it's okay to tax the sh.t out of its residents to provide a crappy service to very limited areas and thus only serves an extremely small portion of its citizens. > They forget that not everyone can > (or wants to) drive everywhere, The free market remembers - that's why so many private rail lines don't exist anymore. People bought cars. > and they behave as though they > themselves will be able to drive forever. Then they are caught > completely by surprise when, for example, they twist their right ankle > and cannot drive a car for 6 weeks. So should we, as taxpayers spend billions of dollars just beacuse 0.1% of the population becomes temporarily disabled each year? Sorry, but I don't think we should. > That minor injury becomes a major > hardship Yes, it does, just as surely as being diagnosed with inoperable cancer does. As Eeyore said, life is "imperfect". > - how would YOU get to work if you couldn't drive? Well, I would arrange a ride with a co-worker and I would contribute to the cost of their fuel. If there were no co-workers who could help me (which I know is not the case - there are several I can think of off the top of my head), I would take the bus or even a cab. In fact, I have worked for a project manager who did exactly that many moons ago. I wish I had asked him why he didn't have a license and didn't drive, but my guess is he had a DUI (or 2 or 3) in the past, which brings up an interesting point. If you believe people need publicly financed rail to get around and it doesn't exist, is it really fair to suspend people's driving privileges because they got busted for a DUI? > People who > lose the ability to drive when they get old suddenly discover that, > without a car, they are shut-ins - completely dependent on someone > with a car to buy groceries for them, take them to the doctor, and all > the other little tasks of daily life. There are a whole host of things you'll find you cannot do when you get old enough. How far should we go to accomodate them? > For many years, people were so conditioned to automobile dependency > that they cannot envision an alternative. So when developers built [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > People are starting to realize that auto-dependency is impacting their > quality of life, and they are looking for alternatives. Ah - so it seems the free market should see an opportunity! But why should they if people are willing to shell out billions of dollars of taxes to do it for them. How can private business compete against taxes? A co-worker of mine spent nearly 3 hours just getting to work today. I think that's insane, but he makes the nearly 70 mile (each way) drive each day. Should I have to pay money out of my own pocket to build people like him a rail system? I don't think so. He can move closer to work or find another job or just deal with the commute as he does today. > Urban planners > are responding by changing their rules to require a balanced mix of > transit options. Now instead of just a new freeway, they require a > freeway with a light rail line in the median. Where? I've lived in a couple of large cities which either introduced rail at great expense or are in the process of doing so and negatively affecting businesses as construction cripples traffic flow and parking, thus effectively crippling businesses where the rail line will eventually flow. There has been no call for implementing rail lines along new freeways. They just want to put it in because lobbyists are begging for it and donating millions of dollars to politicians in the expectation of reaping billions of dollars subsidized by taxpayers. > Instead of a housing > tract, they want a housing tract surrounding a small commercial area > with a transit stop. > > One look at freeways like CA-91 will convince you that these sorts of > changes are desperately needed. Actually, one look at anything in California convinces me all the more that we should steer clear of any sort of gov't funded transit systems. After all, it's worked so well there, hasn't it? And the freeways are just wonderful, aren't they? > We cannot continue to build bedroom > communities on the urban fringe forever - we have neither the funds > nor the political will to expand our road capacity fast enough to keep > up. Wanna bet? > Oh, it would be nice to build a church here and a > park there, but if the free market demands a liquor store and a pawn > shop, let them build it. Free markets don't exist, and never have. It's a pipe dream of the "I've got mine, f.ck all the rest of you" crowd. Markets, an invention of man, will never be any freer than they were in the late 19th-early 20th centuries. The so-called "Gilded Age" that brought on the rise of socialism and labor unions through it's excesses. As with business, land use is another thing which will never be "Let me do as I please", because the "I" in that ignores all the rest of the "we" that must live next door. Funny thing - a guy I know is a real fire-and-brimstone free-marketeer. His neighbor bought a boat, and parked it on the street in front of his own house. Would you like to take a wild guess as to what my "free-marketeer" friend did? Go ahead, take a wild guess... E.P. >>Oh, it would be nice to build a church here and a >>park there, but if the free market demands a liquor store and a pawn >>shop, let them build it. > > Free markets don't exist, and never have. It's a pipe dream of the > "I've got mine, f.ck all the rest of you" crowd. Actually, it's usually the "f.ck you, give me what you've got" crowd that usually loves to attack free markets. > Markets, an invention of man, will never be any freer than they were in > the late 19th-early 20th centuries. The so-called "Gilded Age" that > brought on the rise of socialism and labor unions through it's > excesses. As with business, land use is another thing which will never > be "Let me do as I please", because the "I" in that ignores all the > rest of the "we" that must live next door. You don't have to live there if you don't want to. > Funny thing - a guy I know is a real fire-and-brimstone free-marketeer. > His neighbor bought a boat, and parked it on the street in front of > his own house. Would you like to take a wild guess as to what my > "free-marketeer" friend did? Go ahead, take a wild guess... I have no idea, nor do I really care. The way you introduce this anectdote would suggest to me he probably did something hypocritical. So what? What would I have done in that situation? Go ahead, take a wild guess. > E.P. >>>Oh, it would be nice to build a church here and a >>>park there, but if the free market demands a liquor store and a pawn [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Actually, it's usually the "f.ck you, give me what you've got" crowd > that usually loves to attack free markets. I have learned that 'free market' means the desire to create a monopoly. Ed is correct, there is no such thing as a free market. Those who usually spout the term are either deluded followers of an ideal that doesn't exist or those that have such control over the market place that they can preach free market as justification for their practices of squashing anyone who might come along with a better product. >> Markets, an invention of man, will never be any freer than they were in >> the late 19th-early 20th centuries. The so-called "Gilded Age" that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You don't have to live there if you don't want to. Love it or leave it is not a counter argument. It's the sign of someone who has nothing to offer. >>>>Oh, it would be nice to build a church here and a >>>>park there, but if the free market demands a liquor store and a pawn [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I have learned that 'free market' means the desire to create a monopoly. You've learned wrong then. Monopolies are a deterrent to free markets. > Ed is correct, there is no such thing as a free market. Those who usually > spout the term are either deluded followers of an ideal that doesn't [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Love it or leave it is not a counter argument. I never told him to love it. > It's the sign of someone > who has nothing to offer. Freedom is a better offering than exercising control over what your neighbor can do on his own property when it does not affect you. >>>>>Oh, it would be nice to build a church here and a >>>>>park there, but if the free market demands a liquor store and a pawn [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You've learned wrong then. Monopolies are a deterrent to free markets. That is where those in big business that preach 'free market' want to take us all too often. >>>You don't have to live there if you don't want to. >> Love it or leave it is not a counter argument. > I never told him to love it. Same difference. >> It's the sign of someone >> who has nothing to offer. > Freedom is a better offering than exercising control over what your > neighbor can do on his own property when it does not affect you. The USA is full of control freaks. > >>>>>Oh, it would be nice to build a church here and a > >>>>>park there, but if the free market demands a liquor store and a pawn [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Same difference. Exactly. > >> It's the sign of someone > >> who has nothing to offer. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The USA is full of control freaks. If what a neighbor does on his own property does not affect me, then I have no problem. Too often, the folks that rail against land use laws are those who wish to do something with their property that *does* affect the neighbors negatively. Which is why there are land use laws to begin with! It's not because my neigbor wants to paint his house purple. It's because he's decided to store 30 cars in various degrees of repair on his property - which *directly* affects my property value. Now, let's imagine he's got a lot of dough. Now he's lawsuit-proof (essentially), so I have to take a loss because of his "I got mine, f.ck the rest of you" behavior. BTW, the above is illustrative only - I live in an area zoned R1, and this area will be R1 for the rest of the time I'm likely to live here. E.P. > If what a neighbor does on his own property does not affect me, then I > have no problem. Too often, the folks that rail against land use laws > are those who wish to do something with their property that *does* > affect the neighbors negatively. Which is why there are land use laws > to begin with! > It's not because my neigbor wants to paint his house purple. It's > because he's decided to store 30 cars in various degrees of repair on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > zoned R1, and this area will be R1 for the rest of the time I'm likely > to live here. And many times not someone who wants to bother the neighbors at all. For instance how is a car that is cosmetically and functionally kept up but not driven and parked in the driveway occasionally moving from one spot to another a problem for neighbors? And I stress, perfect running order, cosmetically without a flaw that could be seen more than foot away (and that one took some looking for). Nobody looking at houses in the area would have know it from a car that was driven everyday and looked better than cars neighbors had in their driveways. And mine isn't illustrative but something that has occured because of a car kept on my property, in perfect running order, that I washed, kept tires inflated, ran, etc and have kept up in ready-to-go condition was ticketed for adbandoned and inoperable. Now sure it could have been a cop on revenue patrol, but odds are it was one of the neighbors. The one who is the likely suspect doesn't even have a window from where it is visible (I know because there is nothing but wall on that corner of her house, and since that house used to belong to someone in my family, I've been inside it and know exactly what can be seen from the windows) She has left the piles of mud from her sewer work there where I can see it for the last 6 months. (probably is responsible for my tree's limb cracking on that side, but I can't prove it. (cutting all that off was a job and a half) Oh, and the work has ruined my lawn over there as well, and they ripped out a bush I planted over there too. All my run in's with 'neighbors' were people who just didn't like something about me. Like the ones at the condo who didn't like me keeping my bicycle in my unit. Never interfered with them. They might see it twice a year. Or the apartment I lived in, where someone decided a '73 mustang convertible must have been mine and it put me over the car limit and reported me. It wasn't my car, it would have been nice to have, but it wasn't mine. Or when some neighbor reported me because I kept a cover on my maverick... It goes on and on. But my run ins have always been with some control freak that decided to have a problem with something that had zero effect on them. You chide me for what you see as slipperly slope, but that's exactly how these land use laws view everything. Stomp out the car that isn't being used because it might become a eyesore... (although in my case, no actual law was broken, I looked them all up and found if I kept the car in good order and cosmetically fine, it broke no law) > You chide me for what you see as slipperly slope, but that's exactly how > these land use laws view everything. *Everything?* The reason I chide you is because of your extreme stance. Someone screwing with you because they don't like you, and misapplying laws, doesn't imply the *laws* are bad - it's the misapplication that's wrong. > Stomp out the car that isn't being > used because it might become a eyesore... (although in my case, no actual > law was broken, I looked them all up and found if I kept the car in good > order and cosmetically fine, it broke no law) In your (special) case, a pissed-off neighbor set out to teach you a lesson. But if you actually had an eyesore, that *is* affecting the neighborhood. It's what happens when MFFY types (not you, in this case) decide that what they're doing trumps everything. Then laws get passed, then control freaks bend them to their will. But it starts with the guy who decides he's going to run a shade-tree auto repair/resale business out of his garage, and his property becomes a blight on the neighborhood, driving down EVERYONE'S property values. Which is real damage, not imagined. Where do you draw the line? It's got to be drawn, because MFFYs are everywhere, and they cost us real time and money. So, where to draw it? Right up to the point where *your* ox isn't gored, but no further? E.P. >> You chide me for what you see as slipperly slope, but that's exactly how >> these land use laws view everything. > *Everything?* Sorry for the usenet sin, but you'd get the point reading the rest. > The reason I chide you is because of your extreme > stance. Someone screwing with you because they don't like you, and > misapplying laws, doesn't imply the *laws* are bad - it's the > misapplication that's wrong. The misapplication, gee. isn't that what I post about fairly often? How if you give government power to do X they will use it for Y? >> Stomp out the car that isn't being >> used because it might become a eyesore... (although in my case, no actual >> law was broken, I looked them all up and found if I kept the car in good >> order and cosmetically fine, it broke no law) > In your (special) case, a pissed-off neighbor set out to teach you a > lesson. Special my a.s. These busy bodies are everywhere in the society and this is so commonplace it's boring to most people now. > But if you actually had an eyesore, that *is* affecting the > neighborhood. It's what happens when MFFY types (not you, in this > case) decide that what they're doing trumps everything. Then laws get > passed, then control freaks bend them to their will. Wait... that's what I've argued on countless topics. And you accuse me of slippery slope! Purposeful misapplication and color of law. > But it starts with the guy who decides he's going to run a shade-tree > auto repair/resale business out of his garage, and his property becomes > a blight on the neighborhood, driving down EVERYONE'S property values. > Which is real damage, not imagined. Didn't say it wasn't. But I'll wager that for every case like the one you mention there are at least 2 like mine. Where I am, for the length of the block it's already 2 to zero. > Where do you draw the line? It's got to be drawn, because MFFYs are > everywhere, and they cost us real time and money. So, where to draw > it? Right up to the point where *your* ox isn't gored, but no further? That's where the control freaks draw it. Control freaks want everyone to live as they do. They always take their car in to a shop so should every else. Yes, there are annoying, self centered, MFFY types out there, but I rarely seen anything done about them. Just laws passed that are then used and mis-used against people who aren't bothering anyone while the MFFY types are left alone. Which generates more laws.... Look at the roads. Is anything done about the MFFY types driving like total arseholes? We've all seen it, right in front of cops and the cop does nothing. Of course speed traps on an underposted near empty expressway are common. And what do we get in response to the MFFY arseholes? Speed cameras, rigged RLCs, and checkpoints. There are reasonable ways to deal with instances like your example (the actual law in my experience is such), but generally they have been in place for decades already, but not enforced. The new laws are just about pleasing the neighborhood busy body and giving the government power over everyone and the ability to extract revenue from them. And somehow, the actual problem people aren't even touched. > > The reason I chide you is because of your extreme > > stance. Someone screwing with you because they don't like you, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The misapplication, gee. isn't that what I post about fairly often? How > if you give government power to do X they will use it for Y? And the cases you point to amount to what proportion of the application of the law? If you are always bringing up the special case, then your message means little. Giving power x does not imply use y, not matter how strongly you state otherwise. > >> Stomp out the car that isn't being > >> used because it might become a eyesore... (although in my case, no actual [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Special my a.s. Yeah, special. You have no idea what the proper application to misapplication ratio is. > These busy bodies are everywhere in the society and this > is so commonplace it's boring to most people now. So what? That doesn't mean that the laws under discussion don't have right and proper application. > > But if you actually had an eyesore, that *is* affecting the > > neighborhood. It's what happens when MFFY types (not you, in this > > case) decide that what they're doing trumps everything. Then laws get > > passed, then control freaks bend them to their will. > > Wait... that's what I've argued on countless topics. You argue the final end like it's inevitable or expected - purposeful, even. Without evidence, other than the logical fallacy. > Purposeful misapplication and color of law. Even in your case, you can't prove it was a purposeful misapplication. I was giving benefit of the doubt to you, and taking your neighbor to be a jerk. What if I swap those two? > > But it starts with the guy who decides he's going to run a shade-tree > > auto repair/resale business out of his garage, and his property becomes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Didn't say it wasn't. But I'll wager that for every case like the one you > mention there are at least 2 like mine. Prove it. With real numbers, not a collection of anecdotes. > > Where do you draw the line? It's got to be drawn, because MFFYs are > > everywhere, and they cost us real time and money. So, where to draw [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > everyone and the ability to extract revenue from them. And somehow, the > actual problem people aren't even touched. Well, that's all a very nice rant, but it doesn't tell me anything about where the line *should* be drawn. You imply it should be drawn differently - so tell me where. E.P. >> The misapplication, gee. isn't that what I post about fairly often? How >> if you give government power to do X they will use it for Y? > And the cases you point to amount to what proportion of the application > of the law? I would say most of it, given the ticky-tacky-laws selectively enforced habbit. > If you are always bringing up the special case, then your message means > little. I don't believe it to be a special case, but the majority application. > Giving power x does not imply use y, not matter how strongly you state > otherwise. Yet countless people experience X being used for Y. You act as if it is some fantasy when government operates that way on a daily basis. >> > In your (special) case, a pissed-off neighbor set out to teach you a >> > lesson. >> Special my a.s. > Yeah, special. You have no idea what the proper application to > misapplication ratio is. Neither do you. At least I have a real world example, as opposed to your fictional one created expressly for your point. Here's another example... In chicago car dealerships were puting their inventory in street parking places. To stop this practice the city outlawed placing cars for sale on the street. Dealers stopped doing it. You know who gets ticketed for it now? Joe sixpack who has a for-sale-by-owner sign with his phone number in his car's window. >> These busy bodies are everywhere in the society and this >> is so commonplace it's boring to most people now. > So what? That doesn't mean that the laws under discussion don't have > right and proper application. And exactly how are you going to ensure that right and proper application? >> > But if you actually had an eyesore, that *is* affecting the >> > neighborhood. It's what happens when MFFY types (not you, in this >> > case) decide that what they're doing trumps everything. Then laws get >> > passed, then control freaks bend them to their will. >> Wait...that's what I've argued on countless topics. > You argue the final end like it's inevitable or expected - purposeful, > even. Without evidence, other than the logical fallacy. I argue what has actually been experienced, rather than creating fictional examples. >> Purposeful misapplication and color of law. > Even in your case, you can't prove it was a purposeful misapplication. > I was giving benefit of the doubt to you, and taking your neighbor to > be a jerk. What if I swap those two? I damn well can prove it's a misapplication. I still have the photos of the car and the exact text of the local laws. How about your fictional example? How many neighbors have you had that ran repair shops out of their garages? >> > But it starts with the guy who decides he's going to run a shade-tree >> > auto repair/resale business out of his garage, and his property becomes >> > a blight on the neighborhood, driving down EVERYONE'S property values. >> > Which is real damage, not imagined. >> Didn't say it wasn't. But I'll wager that for every case like the one you >> mention there are at least 2 like mine. > Prove it. With real numbers, not a collection of anecdotes. You're the one arguing for more laws. You prove this problem of people running repair shops out of their garages exists in the first place. I can tell you for a fact, that the guy who is fixing up cars for sale in my neighborhood was NOT ticketed, yet at least two with simply parked cars that were cosmetically fine, were. >> > Right up to the point where *your* ox isn't gored, but no further? >> That's where the control freaks draw it. >> There are reasonable ways to deal with instances like your example (the >> actual law in my experience is such), but generally they have been in >> place for decades already, but not enforced. The new laws are just about >> pleasing the neighborhood busy body and giving the government power over >> everyone and the ability to extract revenue from them. And somehow, the >> actual problem people aren't even touched. > Well, that's all a very nice rant, but it doesn't tell me anything > about where the line *should* be drawn. You imply it should be drawn > differently - so tell me where. I implied no such thing. How about you show me that people running repair shops out of their residential garages is such a huge problem it requires these laws that give government power to come on to our property and issue tickets that can only be 'fought' in a revenue court. (plead guilty or you can pay court costs and the fine) > >> The misapplication, gee. isn't that what I post about fairly often? How > >> if you give government power to do X they will use it for Y? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I would say most of it, given the ticky-tacky-laws selectively enforced > habbit. So, you don't have proof - just a "feeling"? > > If you are always bringing up the special case, then your message means > > little. > > I don't believe it to be a special case, but the majority application. What you "believe" is immaterial. What you can *prove* is something else. > > Giving power x does not imply use y, not matter how strongly you state > > otherwise. > > Yet countless people experience X being used for Y. Right. Countless means there are very few concrete examples. > You act as if it is > some fantasy when government operates that way on a daily basis. Strawman. > >> > In your (special) case, a pissed-off neighbor set out to teach you a > >> > lesson. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Neither do you. You're making the implied claim that the misapplication ratio is high. Prove it. > At least I have a real world example, as opposed to your > fictional one created expressly for your point. Your example is not as clear-cut as you think it is. > Here's another example... In chicago car dealerships were puting their > inventory in street parking places. To stop this practice the city > outlawed placing cars for sale on the street. Dealers stopped doing it. > You know who gets ticketed for it now? Joe sixpack who has a > for-sale-by-owner sign with his phone number in his car's window. Really? How many folks have been ticketed? And maybe it was to ALSO stop shadetree resellers, too... > >> These busy bodies are everywhere in the society and this > >> is so commonplace it's boring to most people now. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And exactly how are you going to ensure that right and proper > application? Moving the goalposts again? > >> > But if you actually had an eyesore, that *is* affecting the > >> > neighborhood. It's what happens when MFFY types (not you, in this [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I argue what has actually been experienced, rather than creating > fictional examples. Which doesn't mean that your claim of purposefulness or inevitability logically follows. > >> Purposeful misapplication and color of law. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I damn well can prove it's a misapplication. No you can't. You have no idea what the neighbor was thinking. > I still have the photos of the > car and the exact text of the local laws. And written proof of what the neighbor was thinking? It's not even possible that you over-reacted to a neighbor's honest mistake? > >> > But it starts with the guy who decides he's going to run a shade-tree > >> > auto repair/resale business out of his garage, and his property becomes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You're the one arguing for more laws. Strawman - no proof provided. > I can tell you for a fact, that the guy who is fixing up cars for sale in > my neighborhood was NOT ticketed, yet at least two with simply parked [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I implied no such thing. You're clearly complaining about too much regulation. OK, fine. The other end is NO regulation (anything goes, might-makes-right, essentially land use anarchy.) I have to assume that you don't want this, either. So, draw the line in the middle somewhere, and tell me where it is. Precisely, not by saying "somewhere in the middle." E.P. >> I would say most of it, given the ticky-tacky-laws selectively enforced >> habbit. > So, you don't have proof - just a "feeling"? No more than your feeling that the guy next door who might be repairing cars out of his garage as a business drives down your property value. > What you "believe" is immaterial. What you can *prove* is something > else. Yet what you "believe" is material, since you don't bother proving it. >> > Giving power x does not imply use y, not matter how strongly you state >> > otherwise. >> Yet countless people experience X being used for Y. > Right. Countless means there are very few concrete examples. So where are your examples of car repair businesses being run out of a residential garage? >> You act as if it is >> some fantasy when government operates that way on a daily basis. > Strawman. You do act that way. >> Neither do you. > You're making the implied claim that the misapplication ratio is high. > Prove it. You're making the claim that neighbors running car repair businesses out of their home is a problem. Prove it. >> At least I have a real world example, as opposed to your >> fictional one created expressly for your point. > Your example is not as clear-cut as you think it is. It's very clear cut given the text of the law. >> Here's another example... In chicago car dealerships were puting their >> inventory in street parking places. To stop this practice the city >> outlawed placing cars for sale on the street. Dealers stopped doing it. >> You know who gets ticketed for it now? Joe sixpack who has a >> for-sale-by-owner sign with his phone number in his car's window. > Really? How many folks have been ticketed? And maybe it was to ALSO > stop shadetree resellers, too... It's a regular complaint by those in the city who didn't know better. How many car repair shops run from residences have been busted? > Moving the goalposts again? That's always been your job. >> I argue what has actually been experienced, rather than creating >> fictional examples. > Which doesn't mean that your claim of purposefulness or inevitability > logically follows. Like your fictional example has any basis for anything. >> I damn well can prove it's a misapplication. > No you can't. You have no idea what the neighbor was thinking. I can prove misapplication by the city. The neighbor, if it was her or the guy down the street, doesn't matter one bit to the misapplication done by the city. >> I still have the photos of the >> car and the exact text of the local laws. > And written proof of what the neighbor was thinking? Who gives a sh.t what the neighbor was thinking if one was even involved, it doesn't matter because the neighbor has no ticket writing ability. The neighbor can't just put a police tow sticker on the car and try to hawl it away after X number of days. If the neighbor did that, it's called theft. The city is what matters. > It's not even possible that you over-reacted to a neighbor's honest > mistake? It only cost my mother a $100 and me and her a trip to court. Nah.. If it's an over reaction, why don't you send me a $100, I can take pay-pal. >> You're the one arguing for more laws. > Strawman - no proof provided. Where's your proof you need the laws? >> > Well, that's all a very nice rant, but it doesn't tell me anything >> > about where the line *should* be drawn. You imply it should be drawn >> > differently - so tell me where. >> I implied no such thing. > You're clearly complaining about too much regulation. OK, fine. I was discussing how things are done in the real world as opposed to rosy fantasy world. > The other end is NO regulation (anything goes, might-makes-right, > essentially land use anarchy.) I have to assume that you don't want > this, either. > So, draw the line in the middle somewhere, and tell me where it is. > Precisely, not by saying "somewhere in the middle." The problem is not so much where a line is to be drawn, but that in use it's a moving line. One determined by who you are and who you know vs who someone else and who they know. The system as it exists is one of made up color of law selectively enforced. It's like drawing a line with your finger in pool of oil. > >> I would say most of it, given the ticky-tacky-laws selectively enforced > >> habbit. > > > So, you don't have proof - just a "feeling"? [non-response snipped] > > What you "believe" is immaterial. What you can *prove* is something > > else. [non-response snipped] > >> > Giving power x does not imply use y, not matter how strongly you state > >> > otherwise. > > >> Yet countless people experience X being used for Y. > > > Right. Countless means there are very few concrete examples. [non-response snipped] > >> You act as if it is > >> some fantasy when government operates that way on a daily basis. > > > Strawman. [non-response snipped] > >> Neither do you. > > > You're making the implied claim that the misapplication ratio is high. > > Prove it. [non-response snipped] > >> At least I have a real world example, as opposed to your > >> fictional one created expressly for your point. > > > Your example is not as clear-cut as you think it is. > > It's very clear cut given the text of the law. Then you did a sh.t-a.s job of defending yourself. Somebody screwed up, and you are making a claim of purposeful malice without one shred of proof, THEN go on to imply that even though the application was wrong, you still couldn't figure out how to make it work out properly for you. That speaks more ill of you than the city/county. > >> I argue what has actually been experienced, rather than creating > >> fictional examples. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Like your fictional example has any basis for anything. Non sequitur. > >> I damn well can prove it's a misapplication. > > > No you can't. You have no idea what the neighbor was thinking. > > I can prove misapplication by the city. Not in court, you couldn't. So, you can't prove anything. Q.E.D. > > It's not even possible that you over-reacted to a neighbor's honest > > mistake? > > It only cost my mother a $100 and me and her a trip to court. Nah.. If > it's an over reaction, why don't you send me a $100, I can take pay-pal. Your lack of talent in navigating the legal system doesn't imply misapplication. Sorry. > >> You're the one arguing for more laws. > > > Strawman - no proof provided. > > Where's your proof you need the laws? More straw. The kind for grasping. > >> > Well, that's all a very nice rant, but it doesn't tell me anything > >> > about where the line *should* be drawn. You imply it should be drawn [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I was discussing how things are done in the real world as opposed to > rosy fantasy world. Luckily, no rosy fantasy world has been discussed. Now you're just dodging, and for good reason. You can't draw the line either. All you can do is bitch. Which is really all you ever do. No solutions, no action, only complaint. You must be a hoot at office parties :rolls eyes: E.P. P.S. Since you're done replying in any kind of constructive manner, why not just go ahead and have the last "neener", and we'll call this one good. Or done. > [non-response snipped] > [non-response snipped] > [non-response snipped] > [non-response snipped] In other words, you demand I prove things, while you only need assert. We are done here. <snipped rest, unread> >It's not because my neigbor wants to paint his house purple. It's >because he's decided to store 30 cars in various degrees of repair on >his property - which *directly* affects my property value. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message