 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / July 20072003 RAM 2500 Diesel towing do's and don'ts
I just bought this truck..really impressed being a GM gas guzzler owner before. I am planning on towing a 5th wheel RV trailer and have a question on the proper use of the automatic transmission. I did not get a manual with the truck and haven't got one from the dealer yet but am going out tonight with the trailer for the weekend. Shoud I tow with overdrive off or does it matter? With the GM I towed it in 3rd without o/d otherwise it would cook the tranny......damn expensive lesson..... The tailer loaded is approx 7000 lbs. Any helpful hints would be appreciated....smart remarks are also useful. (my nosey neighbor complained about me having my RV on my property 'cause it impacted her ability to get into her garage....seems she likes to drive across the corner of my lot...which brought the city down on me and made me store the RV off-site......the sound of the diesel warming up sufficiently (lol) at 6:00AM is my consolation prize....wish it was noiser.) > I just bought this truck..really impressed You're going to love it. > Shoud I tow with overdrive off or does it matter? With the GM I towed > it in 3rd without o/d otherwise it would cook the tranny......damn > expensive lesson..... Turn O/D off if it starts hunting. i.e. downshifting constantly. > The tailer loaded is approx 7000 lbs. Depending on grade, you should be able to use O/D. I tow my boat, which weighs 7000+ lbs., using O/D without any problem. But then, I'm in Texas. Flat. > warming up sufficiently (lol) at 6:00AM is my consolation > prize....wish it was noiser.) Wait until it gets colder outside. You can wake the dead (and shitty neighbors. I've done it many times myself.) Craig C. >> warming up sufficiently (lol) at 6:00AM is my consolation >> prize....wish it was noiser.) > >Wait until it gets colder outside. You can wake the dead (and shitty >neighbors. I've done it many times myself.) I was sitting in the drive though bank line with my windows down, enjoying some fresh breezes and jazz on the radio. One of those boom boxes on wheels pulls right next to me in another line. The guy looks at me and smirks, obviously enjoying his windows down experience also, and not caring that his sub woofer is rattling every ones car around him. I rolled my windows up, cranked up the Cummins and revved it up a bit. Poor old Mr Boom Box had to roll his windows up also. Bummer. bb > him. I rolled my windows up, cranked up the Cummins and revved it up > a bit. Poor old Mr Boom Box had to roll his windows up also. Bummer. That's great. I like to do the same thing to high maintenance North Dallas women in their BMW, Mercedes or Saab convertibles. Optimal placement is for their front bumper to be lined up with my passenger rear tire at a stop light. Rev it up a little, watch the horrid look, smile big and say to myself "It's gonna be a good day, tater." Craig C. People like you guys are flaming a.sholes. Let's see, you violate codes, a neighbor complains, so you harrass her. Another doesn't like someones lifestyle or car, so smokes them out with his exhaust. You are doing wonders for public acceptance of diesel vehicles. Is your truck your phallic symbol? Do everyone a favor and grow up. >> him. I rolled my windows up, cranked up the Cummins and revved it up >> a bit. Poor old Mr Boom Box had to roll his windows up also. Bummer. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Craig C. > People like you guys are flaming a.sholes. Let's see, you violate codes, a > neighbor complains, so you harrass her. Another doesn't like someones > lifestyle or car, so smokes them out with his exhaust. You are doing > wonders for public acceptance of diesel vehicles. Is your truck your > phallic symbol? Do everyone a favor and grow up. You better hope I don't catch you at a light with your windows down. Craig C. > People like you guys are flaming a.sholes. Let's see, you violate codes, > a neighbor complains, so you harrass her. Lets see, the neighbor uses his property to gain access to her garage. But he wants to use his PRIVATE property to store his PRIVATE possession, and its illegal? So the neighbor complains to the government, rather than politely asking for a compromise? I smell bullshit. > Another doesn't like someones lifestyle or car, so smokes them out with > his exhaust. Which is far better than their terrible driving and arrogant manners behind the wheel, right? > You are doing wonders for public acceptance of diesel vehicles. Is your > truck your phallic symbol? Do everyone a favor and grow up. Seems like a perfect time to mention to those of you, who think codes that take away property rights are ok, to shuit the hell up and leave Right of ownership alone.  SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > People like you guys are flaming a.sholes. Let's see, you violate codes, > a neighbor complains, so you harrass her. Another doesn't like someones [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> Craig C. I see you have that double post problem again. Isn't that a PITA. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > People like you guys are flaming a.sholes. Let's see, you violate codes, > > a neighbor complains, so you harrass her. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >> > >> Craig C. yeah, its something to do with Verizon's server. I had been direct to their server, now (after a massive problem on their part, and a tech line that has less of a clue) I'm now posting to a server that sends to verizon. At some point, I'll figure it out again... SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >I see you have that double post problem again. Isn't that a PITA. > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >> >> >> >> Craig C. > People like you guys are flaming a.sholes. Let's see, you violate codes, > a neighbor complains, so you harrass her. Lets see, the neighbor uses his property to gain access to her garage. But he wants to use his PRIVATE property to store his PRIVATE possession, and its illegal? So the neighbor complains to the government, rather than politely asking for a compromise? I smell bullshit. > Another doesn't like someones lifestyle or car, so smokes them out with > his exhaust. Which is far better than their terrible driving and arrogant manners behind the wheel, right? > You are doing wonders for public acceptance of diesel vehicles. Is your > truck your phallic symbol? Do everyone a favor and grow up. Seems like a perfect time to mention to those of you, who think codes that take away property rights are ok, to shuit the hell up and leave Right of ownership alone. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > People like you guys are flaming a.sholes. Let's see, you violate codes, > a neighbor complains, so you harrass her. Another doesn't like someones [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> Craig C. > > People like you guys are flaming a.sholes. Let's see, you violate codes, > > a neighbor complains, so you harrass her. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Max, it appears you have a stutter > > People like you guys are flaming a.sholes. Let's see, you violate codes, > > a neighbor complains, so you harrass her. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > its illegal? So the neighbor complains to the government, rather than > politely asking for a compromise? I smell bullshit. Why do you smell BS? There can be some restrictions that prevent the storage of huge objects on a property, especially if the properties are small. Where I lived in NJ, you could keep a boat on your property but it had to be kept out of site and behind a fence which translated into not keeping a large boat on a very small property. How do you know if she talked to him first or not? I don't recall him saying either way. He could always park a car or erect a small decorative structure to prevent her from using his property which will not disturb his other neighbors like endlessly idling his engine early in the morning. > > Another doesn't like someones lifestyle or car, so smokes them out with > > his exhaust. > > Which is far better than their terrible driving and arrogant manners behind > the wheel, right? Please explain how one has anything to do with the other. As for the a.shole with the 10,000 watt subwoofers I can see to a point making that a.sholes drive as uncomfortable as he is making others with noise pollution but smoging someone out for no other reason but jealousy is just being an ignorant a.shole and as they say, what comes around goes around. > > You are doing wonders for public acceptance of diesel vehicles. Is your > > truck your phallic symbol? Do everyone a favor and grow up. > > Seems like a perfect time to mention to those of you, who think codes that > take away property rights are ok, to shuit the hell up and leave Right of > ownership alone. What's the matter Max, some of these code pissing you off? While I agree with the feeling, some of these codes are unfortunately necessary in many communities. Not everyone gives a damn about the rights of others as seen in this very thread and because of this, some rules need to be placed to retain the rights of the majority to maintain their property values. In a perfect world, your property value would not be affected by what your neighbors are doing but this simply isn't true. You could take a lot of pride in the way your property looks and take great care to keep it looking its best and the same could be true for most of your neighbors and the property values should reflect that but all it takes is one a.shole that doesn't give a sh.t and never cuts the lawn, the house looks abandoned, and the yard is full of junk cars and garbage and then your property value isn't worth a whole lot more than the crap house because nobody wants to live near or next door to that. Sometimes associations get a little carried away with these restrictions and that is unfortunate but even there, if people get involved then that can be changed as well. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Why do you smell BS? Because property codes should inherently be a method for two individuals to settle a disagreement. Codes should NOT be a way for government to restrict the use of private property. However, as you mention, codes are used to restrict silly things, like boats, motorhomes, fence height, etc. I can see where property codes might be beneficial if the public welfare is at risk. In fact, PA law says exactly that. I have a PDF of the PA General Assembly Local Government Commission Nuisance Law framework, if you'd like to take a look. It basically states that the Legislature cannot make something a nuisance just because they do not like it. It has to interfere with the public right: "Interference with a public right is unreasonable when the conduct involves a significant interference with the public's safety, the public peace, the public comfort, or the public convenience..." Also, the law differentiates between a condition that is an infringement on the public right and one that infringes on an individuals right. This documant does not address infringement on an individuals right. I suspect that when private infringement is the case, it becomes a matter of civil law, rather than property code. Thus my claim of "bullshit". In the case here, an individual was offended by a trailer, which presented no other hazard than one of convenience lost. Rather than pursue private action, she invoked public code. That in and of itself is bullshit. Next, the public code forbids something that does not constitute a public hazard. Yet it is illegal. Thats bullshit. Thus, I smell bullshit. > Please explain how one has anything to do with the other. As for the > a.shole with the 10,000 watt subwoofers I can see to a point making that > a.sholes drive as uncomfortable as he is making others with noise > pollution > but smoging someone out for no other reason but jealousy is just being an > ignorant a.shole and as they say, what comes around goes around. The point was not one of who was more deserving, but one of why complain about one offensive act when both actions are offensive. IOW, each individual is as likely to commit an act that is found offensive, yet the reply only addressed one act. I watched a BMW driver play games at an intersection, aggressively showing that she WOULD make a left turn in front of me, but failing to do so because she was waiting for cross traffic. After three demonstrations which put her well into the intersection while she waited for one more car, I made the right and she then followed. At such time as I stopped to back into my driveway (to the left of the roadway), she then attempted to drive into the right side of my truck. This after I had stopped all traffic, made clear my intent to make a left turn, further made clear by blocking the entire road for all of 5 seconds. She apparently had too much money and not enough time. It was fairly ironic that she wouldn't make a left turn into traffic, waiting several minutes for sporadic traffic, but would in turn come close to ramming my truck because I cost her 5 seconds. IMO, she deserves the smoke. > What's the matter Max, some of these code pissing you off? While I agree > with the feeling, some of these codes are unfortunately necessary in many > communities. Wrong. In fact, as my document demonstrates, they are unconstitutional, at least in this state. > Not everyone gives a damn about the rights of others as seen > in this very thread and because of this, some rules need to be placed to > retain the rights of the majority to maintain their property values. Property value is determined by the buyer, not the camper sitting in the driveway nextdoor. Civil law covers the possible infringement of private rights. > In a > perfect world, your property value would not be affected by what your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > its best and the same could be true for most of your neighbors and the > property values should reflect that So a camper isn't a problem, because its likely to be well kept, just as the house. Yet some places forbid them. > but all it takes is one a.shole that > doesn't give a sh.t and never cuts the lawn, the house looks abandoned, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > near > or next door to that. Yes, BUT... what you refer to isn't just a private infringement. If it can be proven that the house hosts vermin, or otherwise presents a hazard, it can be dealt with by the governing body. I don't have a problem with that. > Sometimes associations get a little carried away with > these restrictions and that is unfortunate but even there, if people get > involved then that can be changed as well. In my case, the borough tried to enforce a junk vehicle ordinance against me by claiming that a vehicle without registration or inspection was illegal. However, when stored on private property, the DOT (which regulkates registration and inspection) has no authority to enforce their requirements, since they apply to public thoroughfares. The next flaw in their case was that the ordinance had no reference to registratoin or inspection.... none. The words weren't even in the code. Thus, enforcement is on the basis of paperwork, which has no bearing on the condition of the vehicle. You can register anything; inspection has minimal requirements, all of which could be met by a vehicle recently wrecked, which IS junk. Its also on a basis that is not in the code. They chased me down four times on this, lost all of them on the above problems. They installed a new law that stipulated that any vehicle WITH inspection and registration was NOT junk. However, they STILL did not stipulate that lack of paperwork meant a vehicle WAS junk. So they cited me again. And we went to court again. And I verbally beat the borough attorney senseless. At one point, he had nothing to ask except, "so, you feel you've done nothing wrong?" "Exactly Bob, because if I felt I HAD done soemthing wrong, we wouldn't BE here." The police chief, a good friend and the borough's only witness, was laughing so hard, he had to ask for the court's pardon. The case was sent from the magistrate to a Judge, where the DA took over. The DA had no clue, and agreed to a deal. The DA and I had had a casual conversation at one point, and I told him, "Bob (yeah, my lawyer, the DA and the borough attorney are ALL named Bob, and yes, I know them ALL, its a small town) "Bob, if you look at the wording, and the case history of (me) vs Borough, you'll find that I have a great chance of retiring early. I'd be glad to come to your office and discuss the details." Subsequently, the Borough attorney felt I had failed to honor the deal. He told the DA to schedule a court date. The DA did so, wording the letter as, "here is your court date, the borough attorney will prosecute." I had my lawyer call the DA, who referred him to the borough attorney. The case was dropped when the borough Bob found out that DA Bob wouldn't take the case. Essentially, if I parked a car in my driveway without paperwork, it was illegal in the eyes of the PEOPLE at the borough, but the CODE said differently. THAT is why I think property codes are bullshit. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > What's the matter Max, some of these code pissing you off? While I agree > with the feeling, some of these codes are unfortunately necessary in many [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > these restrictions and that is unfortunate but even there, if people get > involved then that can be changed as well. >> Why do you smell BS? > > Because property codes should inherently be a method for two individuals > to settle a disagreement. Codes should NOT be a way for government to > restrict the use of private property. If it is a violation of a zoning law or restriction then the use that is in violation should be pursued by the zoning authority. In MA it is the city govt. > If it is a violation of a zoning law or restriction then the use that is > in violation should be pursued by the zoning authority. In MA it is the > city govt. And exactly why would say... a 6' fence be violation of a zoning code, where a 5'11" fence is not? If two adjacent neighbors feel that a 7' fence between their two properties is ok, who is the government to step in and make a case out of it?? Again, zoning should be a means for two individuals to find an equitable solution, not a means for government to step in and persecute the individual. BTW, don't confuse "property codes" with "building codes." While I find some of the building codes a bit stifling, they are generally written with the cause of public safety and welfare in mind. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> Why do you smell BS? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in violation should be pursued by the zoning authority. In MA it is the > city govt. >> If it is a violation of a zoning law or restriction then the use that is >> in violation should be pursued by the zoning authority. In MA it is the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > where a 5'11" fence is not? If two adjacent neighbors feel that a 7' fence > between If for the zoning district the two properties are located the max hieght is 5 feet for a fence. One could appeal and get a permit for a 6 foot. I some areas like those that are strictly residential a 7 foot is not permitted. I areas zoned commericial or industrial they are. > their two properties is ok, who is the government to step in and make a > case out of it?? If one of the owners is in violation of the zoning laws the govt. is the enforcment party. > Again, zoning should be a means for two individuals to find an equitable > solution, not a means for government to step in and persecute the > individual. In MA zoning defines what can be built in certain area's, size, density, and use of the building.. You can't put a auto repair operation in a area zoned for single family homes. A multi family house or apartment building can't be built in a area zoned for industrial use. > BTW, don't confuse "property codes" with "building codes." I'm not. While I find some > of the building codes a bit stifling, they are generally written with the > cause of public safety and welfare in mind. Yup, and to keep fly by night contractors from building pos structures and screwing those who buy them. In Ma all contractor's have to be licensed. You can't get up some morning and say I'm a builder and stick a sign on your truck. >>>> Why do you smell BS? >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> in violation should be pursued by the zoning authority. In MA it is the >> city govt. > If for the zoning district the two properties are located the max hieght > is 5 feet for a fence. One could appeal and get a permit for a 6 foot. I > some areas like those that are strictly residential a 7 foot is not > permitted. I areas zoned commericial or industrial they are. Why? Why is a 7 foot fence not ok if the properties it seperates have two agreeable owners? What POSSIBLE reason could the govenrment have to regulate something that is inherently the property owners right to decide? >> their two properties is ok, who is the government to step in and make a >> case out of it?? > > If one of the owners is in violation of the zoning laws the govt. is the > enforcment party. Why? Why is a 7 foot fence not ok if the properties it seperates have two agreeable owners? What POSSIBLE reason could the govenrment have to regulate something that is inherently the property owners right to decide? > You can't put a auto repair operation in a area zoned for single family > homes. A multi family house or apartment building can't be built in a area [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm not. You are, see above. I don't have a problem with zoned use, or building codes. I have a problem with government thta thinks it knows better than the owner of the property when it comes to use and modification that is not a public hazard. > Yup, and to keep fly by night contractors from building pos structures and > screwing those who buy them. In Ma all contractor's have to be licensed. > You can't get up some morning and say I'm a builder and stick a sign on > your truck. Which is a good thing. However, property codes do nothing but regulate things that are none of the governmentes business, and 50% of the time the codes are ignored by the GOVERNMENT.... such as one local code that stipulates all driveways must be paved. Again, if the code has nothing to do with the public saftey, then it shouldn't be "enforced", but should be used as a guidleline in CIVIL action between neighbors. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> If it is a violation of a zoning law or restriction then the use that is >>> in violation should be pursued by the zoning authority. In MA it is the [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >>> in violation should be pursued by the zoning authority. In MA it is the >>> city govt. >> If for the zoning district the two properties are located the max hieght >> is 5 feet for a fence. One could appeal and get a permit for a 6 foot. I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > agreeable owners? What POSSIBLE reason could the govenrment have to > regulate something that is inherently the property owners right to decide? Just for this exercise. A 7 foot fence could degrade adjancent property value. >>> their two properties is ok, who is the government to step in and make a >>> case out of it?? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > agreeable owners? What POSSIBLE reason could the govenrment have to > regulate something that is inherently the property owners right to decide? What about the owner across the street that has to look at it. He bought his property pursuant to the zoning in place.5 foot max. >> You can't put a auto repair operation in a area zoned for single family >> homes. A multi family house or apartment building can't be built in a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You are, see above. I disagree. Property utilization and what is placed on the propertry is under a zoning code. Construction of the buildings in a given zoning district are governed by building codes. > I don't have a problem with zoned use, or building codes. I have a problem > with government thta thinks it knows better than the owner of the property [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > shouldn't be "enforced", but should be used as a guidleline in CIVIL > action between neighbors. I disagree again. If you look at a zoning district and decide to build in a area that is for single family residence with lot's of 1 acre minimum that prevents your next door neighbor from starting a heavy trucking company on his property. Don't you think that your properties value would drop if that happened? A well thought out land use plan requires zoning laws to protect the individual homeowner and the large corporation. Your idea, imo, would result in expensive, avoidable litigation. The one with the most money would win. With zoning, the situation for civil action does not arise as everybody knows the deal before they purchase the property. >>>> If it is a violation of a zoning law or restriction then the use that >>>> is in violation should be pursued by the zoning authority. In MA it is [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >>>> is in violation should be pursued by the zoning authority. In MA it is >>>> the city govt. > Just for this exercise. A 7 foot fence could degrade adjancent property > value. 1) How?? 2) If both owners agree to it, how is there any negative issue with the fence height? > What about the owner across the street that has to look at it. He bought > his property pursuant to the zoning in place.5 foot max. He should see an optomotrist for his eye problems. The fence has no effect on his property. He has no right to dictate what happens on property he does not own, unless it threatens his safety. > I disagree again. If you look at a zoning district and decide to build in > a area that is for single family residence with lot's of 1 acre minimum > that prevents your next door neighbor from starting a heavy trucking > company on his property. Don't you think that your properties value would > drop if that happened? A well thought out land use plan requires zoning > laws to protect the individual homeowner and the large corporation. You say you understand, but you don't. Zoning for uses such as manufacturing, business or residential is not the issue here. The issue is property codes pertaining to private use on private property within the definition of residential use. If my neighbor chooses to park his tractor trailer on his property when he arrives home, he should do so with no complaint from anyone. If he and I agree that a 7' fence should go on our mutually owned property line, then there should be no isssue with anyone else. > Your idea, imo, would result in expensive, avoidable litigation. The one > with the most money would win. With zoning, the situation for civil action > does not arise as everybody knows the deal before they purchase the > property. You clearly do not understand "my idea", which is the basic tenent of property rights, as established by the U.S. Constitution and case law. You keep referring to zoning of land usage residential vs. business, where I am referring to private homeowners and their use of their private land within the definition of residential use. If you would like, I can send you the document to which I referred previously. As to the expensive litigation, the Borough's improper prosecution against me cost them roughly $2000 each incident, and they lost all five. My defense cost me almost nothing. IOW, thje public lost $10,000 over a code that should never have been in place according to the state recommendations and case law supporting those recommendations. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> Just for this exercise. A 7 foot fence could degrade adjancent property >> value. > > 1) How?? Let's say the 2 neighbors decided to put in a row of dumpster's and call it a fence.. > 2) If both owners agree to it, how is there any negative issue with the > fence height? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > He should see an optomotrist for his eye problems. The fence has no effect > on his property. If it looks like sh.t it certainly could. He has no right to dictate what happens on property he does > not own, unless it threatens his safety. If it degrades his property value he sure does. >> I disagree again. If you look at a zoning district and decide to build in >> a area that is for single family residence with lot's of 1 acre minimum [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > trailer on his property when he arrives home, he should do so with no > complaint from anyone. Wrong. the tractortrailer is used for commercial use, thus should be parked in a area zoned for residential use. >If he and I agree that a 7' fence should go on our mutually owned property >line, then there should be no isssue with anyone else. Wrong. What a person does to his property in a residential area can easily impact a neighbor. >> Your idea, imo, would result in expensive, avoidable litigation. The one >> with the most money would win. With zoning, the situation for civil [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > within the definition of residential use. If you would like, I can send > you the document to which I referred previously. You bought your house with the understanding that it was residentially zoned, no commerical, industrial use, just residential. The next door neighbor sell's his house and the guy who buy's it decides to put 100 pigs under your bedroom window. That has a impact on your quality of life and the value of your property, but his neighbor on the other side agreed to it. They didn't ask you. Your okay with that? What I am talking about is the zoning for land in MA. I think that you will find that although it is established by the U.S. Constitution, a state can establish more restrictive standards. Follows a city can place even more restrictive standards. > As to the expensive litigation, the Borough's improper prosecution against > me cost them roughly $2000 each incident, and they lost all five. My > defense cost me almost nothing. IOW, thje public lost $10,000 over a code > that should never have been in place according to the state > recommendations and case law supporting those recommendations. I'm glad you won. I think you'll agree that most cases having to do with land use are pretty much based on past practice and precedent. In MA there are special permits, a appeals board and other remedies usually based on need or hardship. My wife has been on the zoning board of appeals for about ten years so what i9nfo I pick up is pretty much what I get from her and the books of reg's she bring's home. Try this site. www.lawlib.state.ma.us/aboutzoning.html that should put us on the same page for a bit. > Wrong. the tractortrailer is used for commercial use, thus should be > parked in a area zoned for residential use. Ooops! Should be, parked in a area zoned for commericial or industrial use. >> Wrong. the tractortrailer is used for commercial use, thus should be >> parked in a area zoned for residential use. > > Ooops! Should be, parked in a area zoned for commericial or industrial > use. Disagree. It is the use, not the presence, of such a vehicle that would be offensive. Uses which disturb the public welfare are addressed under the crimes code. They who do not believe in gun control should see the wisdom of this... it is not the presence of a gun which is harmful, but the use thereof which may be. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> Wrong. the tractortrailer is used for commercial use, thus should be >> parked in a area zoned for residential use. > > Ooops! Should be, parked in a area zoned for commericial or industrial > use. >> 1) How?? > > Let's say the 2 neighbors decided to put in a row of dumpster's and call > it a fence.. But, thats not a fence. So your example is moot. >> He should see an optomotrist for his eye problems. The fence has no >> effect on his property. > > If it looks like sh.t it certainly could. If the fence looks like sh.t at 5', what then? What I keep seeing is that your examples are predicated on a devaluation based on something OTHER than the height of the fence. Further, the devaluation is based on something that isn't even next to the other guy's property. Lets say the entire neighborhood agreed that 7' fences were ok. What then? What right would the borough have to step in? > If it degrades his property value he sure does. No, he does not. I'll be glad to send you the document to which I refer. > Wrong. the tractortrailer is used for commercial use, thus should be > parked in a area zoned for residential use. Huh? I think I just said that. Furthermore, as I addressed with Tbone, its the operation of said truck, not the presence of it that might be offensive. Thus, it should be enforced on a complaint about operation, rather than a presence. That would be a crimes code violation, not a property code violation. >>If he and I agree that a 7' fence should go on our mutually owned property >>line, then there should be no isssue with anyone else. > > Wrong. What a person does to his property in a residential area can easily > impact a neighbor. Not in this case. > You bought your house with the understanding that it was residentially > zoned, no commerical, industrial use, just residential. Sadly, no. > The next door neighbor sell's his house and the guy who buy's it decides > to put 100 pigs under your bedroom window. That has a impact on your > quality of life and the value of your property, but his neighbor on the > other side agreed to it. They didn't ask you. Your okay with that? Again, that is a residential vs. business use. Thats not where I have an issue. Further, pigs WOULD fall under the public health and safety definitions. > What I am talking about is the zoning for land in MA. I think that you > will find that although it is established by the U.S. Constitution, a > state can establish more restrictive standards. Follows a city can place > even more restrictive standards. Massechusettes is also the state that regards emininant domain as a means to take private property and hand it to developers for use to make a profit. > Try this site. www.lawlib.state.ma.us/aboutzoning.html that should put us > on the same page for a bit. What section is pertinant to our discussion and to my points? SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> Just for this exercise. A 7 foot fence could degrade adjancent property >>> value. [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > Try this site. www.lawlib.state.ma.us/aboutzoning.html that should put us > on the same page for a bit. >>> 1) How?? >> >> Let's say the 2 neighbors decided to put in a row of dumpster's and call >> it a fence.. > > But, thats not a fence. So your example is moot. No, the defination of a fence in your world can be what the property owner calls it. >>> He should see an optomotrist for his eye problems. The fence has no >>> effect on his property. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Lets say the entire neighborhood agreed that 7' fences were ok. What then? > What right would the borough have to step in? A permit is required for a fence from the building inspector. If it was taller than what is permitted , yes. >> If it degrades his property value he sure does. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > rather than a presence. That would be a crimes code violation, not a > property code violation. If it was lettered and used for commerical pupose's it is not allowed to parked overnight in a residential zoned district. >>>If he and I agree that a 7' fence should go on our mutually owned >>>property line, then there should be no isssue with anyone else. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sadly, no. That is too bad. >> The next door neighbor sell's his house and the guy who buy's it decides >> to put 100 pigs under your bedroom window. That has a impact on your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > issue. Further, pigs WOULD fall under the public health and safety > definitions. The pigs would fall under farm use as well. >> What I am talking about is the zoning for land in MA. I think that you >> will find that although it is established by the U.S. Constitution, a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to take private property and hand it to developers for use to make a > profit. That is why I'm pretty much out of there. Emininant domain is one of the lessor problems. Hell one of the larger problems left and is running for president. >> Try this site. www.lawlib.state.ma.us/aboutzoning.html that should put >> us on the same page for a bit. > > What section is pertinant to our discussion and to my points? Sorry the site I posted is way to general, wish I had the wife's stuff with me.Want to see somthing scary, take a look at 40B, low income housing . > No, the defination of a fence in your world can be what the property owner > calls it. A flat out lie. In my world, a fence is a fence, no matter its height. In your world, the government determines its height, or its not allowed to be a fence. You have yet to address the issue... why is a 5' fence allowed, but a 7' fence is not? Next question: Why is a fence agreed upon by the property owners on each side of said fence not agreed upon by the government? The answers should be based upon logic and reason, not "because the government said so." Last I checked, that sort of logic works on 5 year olds, but not so much on adult citizens of a free country. >> If the fence looks like sh.t at 5', what then? What I keep seeing is that >> your examples are predicated on a devaluation based on something OTHER [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > A permit is required for a fence from the building inspector. If it was > taller than what is permitted , yes. You clearly are not getting this. There is no reason to regulate or enforce property codes in most instances. In Pa, fences are property code, not building code. Furthermore, regulating such things as fence height, unless the height is truly out of reason, is an invasion of individual property rights. Again, I can show you documentation proving this. > If it was lettered and used for commerical pupose's it is not allowed to > parked overnight in a residential zoned district. Why not? What threat to the public welfare is a parked truck? Don't recite laws... give reason and fact. > That is too bad. Yup. Hate the house, and the location. Currently looking for a bigger house in a better location, or land with same qualities. > That is why I'm pretty much out of there. Emininant domain is one of the > lessor problems. Hell one of the larger problems left and is running for > president. So the very reasons I say are bullshit are why you left, yet you'll stand by the laws as reasonable and enforceable. Ok..... SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>>> 1) How?? >>> [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > with me.Want to see somthing scary, take a look at 40B, low income housing > . >> No, the defination of a fence in your world can be what the property >> owner calls it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a fence. You have yet to address the issue... why is a 5' fence allowed, > but a 7' fence is not? What is a fence? What is constructed of? > Next question: Why is a fence agreed upon by the property owners on each > side of said fence not agreed upon by the government? > > The answers should be based upon logic and reason, not "because the > government said so." Last I checked, that sort of logic works on 5 year > olds, but not so much on adult citizens of a free country. Well, the answer is that it is law and enforcable. >>> If the fence looks like sh.t at 5', what then? What I keep seeing is >>> that your examples are predicated on a devaluation based on something [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > So the very reasons I say are bullshit are why you left, yet you'll stand > by the laws as reasonable and enforceable. Ok..... Yes they are enforcable. Do I think they are reasonable? No in most cases, yes in a few. >>>>> 1) How?? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] >> with me.Want to see somthing scary, take a look at 40B, low income >> housing . >> A flat out lie. In my world, a fence is a fence, no matter its height. In >> your world, the government determines its height, or its not allowed to >> be a fence. You have yet to address the issue... why is a 5' fence >> allowed, but a 7' fence is not? > > What is a fence? What is constructed of? Again, not the issue. Your failure to address the issue is disappointing. >> Next question: Why is a fence agreed upon by the property owners on each >> side of said fence not agreed upon by the government? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Well, the answer is that it is law and enforcable. What is the reason behind the law, not "because it says so." >> So the very reasons I say are bullshit are why you left, yet you'll stand >> by the laws as reasonable and enforceable. Ok..... > > Yes they are enforcable. Do I think they are reasonable? No in most cases, > yes in a few. Nuisance laws are enforcable only if written properly, and most are not. Property codes are a violation of private individuals rights, given that they have no basis in fact, but in what is "offensive", such as the last foot of a 6' fence. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> A flat out lie. In my world, a fence is a fence, no matter its height. >>> In your world, the government determines its height, or its not allowed [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > they have no basis in fact, but in what is "offensive", such as the last > foot of a 6' fence. Max we can dance all night. The zoning is to protect the majority of people from the actions of a few a.s holes like the guy who wants to a motorcycle repair shop between two house's in a residential zoned area and have it open until 11pm. The fence bit is there to prevent people from doing just what I said. A guy placed 75 roll off dumpster's around the majority of his property and called it a fence because he was pissed at one of his neighbors. Now wtf is going to buy a house that's back yard abuts a row of 30 foot grenn, blue and black dumpster's complete with lettering. This guy maintained that it was a fence to him You can go on all night about a individuals property right if ya want but when a owner's actions have a detrimental impact with regard to other's property that is where zoning law comes in. > Max > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." > -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > Max we can dance all night. The zoning is to protect the majority of > people from the actions of a few a.s holes like the guy who wants to a > motorcycle repair shop between two house's in a residential zoned area and > have it open until 11pm. The example above isn't property codes, but instead is zoning codes. I agree with the intent of the zoning codes, which is to seperate manufacturing, residential, business and agriculture. > The fence bit is there to prevent people from doing just what I said. A > guy placed 75 roll off dumpster's around the majority of his property and > called it a fence because he was pissed at one of his neighbors. Clearly its NOT a fence. However, the fence restrictions of the property code make no sense when two people agree on a fence's construction and dimensions. Thus the fence restrictions do not address some a.shole with dumpsters and a vendetta, but reasonable individuals who merely desire privacy. > Now wtf is going to buy a house that's back yard abuts a row of 30 foot > grenn, blue and black dumpster's complete with lettering. Who knows. I just watched a guy offer just under the asking price on a house next to a dog kennel. > This guy maintained that it was a fence to him > You can go on all night about a individuals property right if ya want but > when a owner's actions have a detrimental impact with regard to other's > property that is where zoning law comes in. In the case you mention, it makes sense. However, it makes no sense if BOTH individuals decide that the fence is acceptable. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>>> A flat out lie. In my world, a fence is a fence, no matter its height. >>>> In your world, the government determines its height, or its not allowed [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >> soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." >> -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > > No, the defination of a fence in your world can be what the property owner > > calls it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 7' fence is not? Next question: Why is a fence agreed upon by the property > owners on each side of said fence not agreed upon by the government? Because it can cause problems in the neighborhood. > The answers should be based upon logic and reason, not "because the > government said so." Last I checked, that sort of logic works on 5 year > olds, but not so much on adult citizens of a free country. This is still a society Max, which means that you cannot do whatever the hell you feel like, even in a free country. > >> If the fence looks like sh.t at 5', what then? What I keep seeing is that > >> your examples are predicated on a devaluation based on something OTHER [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You clearly are not getting this. There is no reason to regulate or enforce > property codes in most instances. Sure there is, it keeps peace in the neighborhood. > In Pa, fences are property code, not > building code. Furthermore, regulating such things as fence height, unless > the height is truly out of reason, is an invasion of individual property > rights. Again, I can show you documentation proving this. It really doesn't matter. Making these rules provides for the public comfort that you said were part of the rules. > > If it was lettered and used for commerical pupose's it is not allowed to > > parked overnight in a residential zoned district. > > Why not? What threat to the public welfare is a parked truck? Don't recite > laws... give reason and fact. Because it makes the neighborhood look like a white trash neghborhood and lowers property values. That and the noise and smell from it warming up every morning. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> 7' fence is not? Next question: Why is a fence agreed upon by the > property >> owners on each side of said fence not agreed upon by the government? > > Because it can cause problems in the neighborhood. Really? What sort of problems? Problems that create a hazard to the safety of the public? Feel free to make a list. Remember, according to the document I have, the reasons must pose a risk to the general PUBLIC, not the guy next door, and must be a problem that infringes on the public right, not just the eyes. > This is still a society Max, which means that you cannot do whatever the > hell you feel like, even in a free country. Wrong. I CAN do whatever the hell I like, unless it infringes on someones rights. A 7' fence doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, as per the Constitution. This is particularly true if the two property owners which the fence seperates agree on the existance of the fence. >> You clearly are not getting this. There is no reason to regulate or > enforce >> property codes in most instances. > > Sure there is, it keeps peace in the neighborhood. A 7' fence is not a disturbance of the peace. A kid squealing his tires is, as are the super bass stereos. But those infractions are covered in the crimes code and the vehicle code. > It really doesn't matter. Making these rules provides for the public > comfort that you said were part of the rules. No. Making these rules provides for the governments ability to regulate that which doesn't need regulating. A fence doesn't make anyone uncomfortable, nor do most of the things regulated in the property code. > Because it makes the neighborhood look like a white trash neghborhood and > lowers property values. That and the noise and smell from it warming up > every morning. I know people whose teenagers make more noise and smells than a Kenworth. Are they against the property code? Again, its not the object that is offensive, but how it is used. Those that argue for Second Amendment Rights should easily see that the Kenworth isn't a problem, just as the gun isn't, but the user can be. Thus, regulating the existance of an object is against the inherent rights of the property owner. Regulating the USE of those objects is generally covered in the crimes or vehicle codes. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> > No, the defination of a fence in your world can be what the property > owner [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > lowers property values. That and the noise and smell from it warming up > every morning. > Really? What sort of problems? Problems that create a hazard to the safety > of the public? Feel free to make a list. Remember, according to the document > I have, the reasons must pose a risk to the general PUBLIC, not the guy next > door, and must be a problem that infringes on the public right, not just the > eyes. Because if you built a fence too high then the neighborhoods dogs can't get over it to get to to neighbors female dog thats in heat. The result is that the entire neighbors dogs will bark all night disturbing the peace and quiet. > Wrong. I CAN do whatever the hell I like, unless it infringes on someones > rights. With that logic there would be few zoning laws. If it doesn't infringe then heck, build whatever you want next door to who cares what. Doesn't work that way Max. Max, I am a little confused here. I have been following the thread and I have read it all. The part that confuses me is how you can make such a stretch from something being "unconstitutional" such as a few rules (cc&r's call them what ever)? Honestly from reading the thread, it sounds more like there are some that are "unhappy" about some of the things you have done, maybe rightfully so (maybe not) but you are being to stubborn and/or pigheaded to see anything other than what you want to. Larry, the point is this: Property codes are chock full of stuff that isn't enforced BECAUSE its an infringement of the individual rights of the Property Owner. For instance, local PC requires that driveways be paved. None of us on the block have paved driveways. The borough attorney has a gravel driveway, etc. Enforcing that code would be unreasonable to most of those who would come under its effect. Fact is, in any example thats been discussed so far, no one has found a reason beyond, "well, its the law" to claim something is illegal. Further, most of these things would be termed "nuisances." In a five page paper, litttered with court citations and case law references, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through its Local Government Commission, delineates what is permissible by law to make illegal under the property code. Again, I have this document in pdf form if you'd like to read it. The most basic requirements are that the "nuisance" must affect more than just one person, putting it under the property codes, rather than civil law. Second, it has to pose a hazard to the public (more than just hte guy next door) to be something that can be made illegal. Just because a fence is 6' high doesn't mean its a hazard. Just because a Kenworth is a truck doesn't make it a hazard. But, if the Kenworth idles all night long, thats disturbing the peace..... a criminal code misdemeanor. Not a property code violation. Property codes are duplicate laws that generally do not follow the recommendation of the state on such codes. Furthermore, they are randomly enforced based on complaints from one person, and may not pose a hazard to the public at all. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > Max, I am a little confused here. I have been following the thread > and I have read it all. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > rightfully so (maybe not) but you are being to stubborn and/or > pigheaded to see anything other than what you want to. > For instance, local PC requires that driveways be paved. None of us on the > block have paved driveways. The borough attorney has a gravel driveway, etc. > Enforcing that code would be unreasonable to most of those who would come > under its effect. Paved driveways prevent dust. It also prevents rocks from being spread out onto the roadway. With your views neighborhoods would go down the tubes with the "I can do anything I want" mantra. Your views are also the very reason why home owner associations have been formed. I dislike them completely but they are a necessity in areas with people that have your views. Would you want to live next door to someones house thats basically a dump strewn with junked cars, weeds, and basic filth? > Paved driveways prevent dust. It also prevents rocks from being spread > out onto the roadway. True. However, at thousands of dollars to do so, it would be a finacial imposition to suddenly enforce this code, which has been on the books for decades. As such, it has no business being there EXCEPT as a guideline to settle disputes. Much as I said to begin with, the borough here does EXACTLY that, and does NOT enforce this section of the property code. > With your views neighborhoods would go down the tubes with the "I can do > anything I want" mantra. Your views are also the very reason why home > owner associations have been formed. I dislike them completely but they > are a necessity in areas with people that have your views. Fortunately, in the areas where people have my views, there are usually more of us than those of you who feel your Rights are infringed if someone else breathes in the same room. Homeowners Associations are different than law and government. HA's are much like country clubs.... they are for people who seem to feel more rules are better. A neighborhood with an HA can put forth rules, as long as the the property owners who are there when the rules are put in place AGREE to those rules, AND the rules are put forth to anyone buying property. In an area without an HA, the Constitution and case law are the law. Thus, if two neighbors ssay that the fence on their mutual property line is fine by them, it is merely a "rule" by which they agree to abide, much as a set of rules that an HA might put in place. So..... If your HA can put in place rules that bind the members of the group, why can the average citizen not do the same, so long as all affected agree? > Would you want to live next door to someones house thats basically a dump > strewn with junked cars, weeds, and basic filth? All of the above can be proven to be a hazard to the safety and health of the public. A fence, OTOH, cannot be proven such. However, if I lived next to such a place, I would simply erect a 7' fence and be done with it. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > Because if you built a fence too high then the neighborhoods dogs can't > get over it to get to to neighbors female dog thats in heat. The result > is that the entire neighbors dogs will bark all night disturbing the peace > and quiet. Might seem funny, but the problem is well described.... because of other people's ACTIONS, a fence is not allowed. The fence didn't do anything. >> Wrong. I CAN do whatever the hell I like, unless it infringes on someones >> rights. > > With that logic there would be few zoning laws. If it doesn't infringe > then heck, build whatever you want next door to who cares what. Doesn't > work that way Max. But it DOES work that way. Check out the Constitution sometime. I can excersize my Rights are much as I wish to, as long as I don't infringe on anothers Rights. Anyone who says differently isn't reading the words as they are written. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > But it DOES work that way. Check out the Constitution sometime. I can > excersize my Rights are much as I wish to, as long as I don't infringe on > anothers Rights. Anyone who says differently isn't reading the words as they > are written. No Max. The constitution does not give you the right to do anything you please. You also seem to have a rather strange definition of whats considered infringement. You have certain rights but so do your neighbors. They have the right to not be bothered by the very things you claim a right to be able to do as you please. Should we therefore not have zoning laws because they aren't constitutional? Commercial businesses intermixed in a residential neighborhood? What the heck...anything goes because you have the right to do as you please huh? > No Max. The constitution does not give you the right to do anything you > please. You also seem to have a rather strange definition of whats > considered infringement. You have certain rights but so do your > neighbors. They have the right to not be bothered by the very things you > claim a right to be able to do as you please. Actually, it does. Try reading the Tenth Amendment. My "strange definition" of what is in fringement is exactly what yours is, using different words. My Rights extend as far as your Rights. So long as I do not infringe on your Rights, I can do as I please. > Should we therefore not have zoning laws because they aren't > constitutional? No, we should therefore not have property codes because they are unlawful. Zoning Codes, as I've said previously, serve an important purpose. > Commercial businesses intermixed in a residential neighborhood? What the > heck...anything goes because you have the right to do as you please huh? Yes, anything goes on your own property, so long as you follow ZONING and BUILDING codes. Property Codes are a pile of malarky that should be done away with. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > Actually, it does. Try reading the Tenth Amendment. The 10th simply states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." The constitution does not prohibit a state from creating CC&R's, Deed restrictions or zoning regulations that imposes restrictions on what you can and can't do with or on your property. > My "strange definition" of what is in fringement is exactly what yours is, > using different words. My Rights extend as far as your Rights. So long as I > do not infringe on your Rights, I can do as I please. True Max but you seem to have defined what your rights are and what my rights are and what entails infringement and what does not. > No, we should therefore not have property codes because they are unlawful. Show me where in the constitution it outlaws such codes. You mentioned the 10th and it certainly does not. Instead it specifically gives such powers to the states for anything not specifically prohibited by the constitution elsewhere. > Yes, anything goes on your own property, so long as you follow ZONING and > BUILDING codes. Property Codes are a pile of malarky that should be done > away with. So you really feel that you should be able to build any structure you want on your own property without limitation? You best become a hermit and live far away from others with that attitude! Your idea of the perfect neighborhood where people can do anything they want on their property would result in a complete disorganized mess of a dump. Our disagreement is with respect to what you consider infringement of rights. >> Actually, it does. Try reading the Tenth Amendment. > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > So you really feel that you should be able to build any structure you want > on your own property without limitation? I take it he is saying he would not put a trucking operation (a commerical business) in a area zoned single family residential. You best become a hermit > and live far away from others with that attitude! Your idea of the > perfect neighborhood where people can do anything they want on their > property would result in a complete disorganized mess of a dump. Our > disagreement is with respect to what you consider infringement of rights. If the permitted use is zoned single family residental, he wouldn't be converting his single family home into a 2 family house. Am I correct? > I take it he is saying he would not put a trucking operation (a commerical > business) in a area zoned single family residential. Thats true. But I do not think its right to allow a mega-huge elaborate 10,000sf house in the middle of small 1200sf homes or vis-versa. I feel a neighborhood should have some uniformity to it. A free for all is not desirable. > Thats true. But I do not think its right to allow a mega-huge elaborate > 10,000sf house in the middle of small 1200sf homes or vis-versa. I feel a > neighborhood should have some uniformity to it. A free for all is not > desirable. Why is a "uniform" neighborhood desireable? You are aware, are you not, that many neighborhoods that were built before the "tract housing" boom are far from "uniform?" Besides, in your example, a 10kSF house would be an improvement to the neighborhood. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> I take it he is saying he would not put a trucking operation (a >> commerical business) in a area zoned single family residential. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > neighborhood should have some uniformity to it. A free for all is not > desirable. > Why is a "uniform" neighborhood desireable? You are aware, are you not, that > many neighborhoods that were built before the "tract housing" boom are far > from "uniform?" I'm not referring to the all look alike tract housing. I grew up in an area where single story ranch style homes were the norm. Some people lately have wanted to bull doze their home and put up a mega huge multi-story home. Some nearby neighborhoods have such houses and they basically look like small hotels! They were stopped because they disrupt the uniformity of the neighborhood and make it look like something much different than why people bought there in the first place. > Besides, in your example, a 10kSF house would be an improvement to the > neighborhood. Thats not true at all. A massive house in the middle of simple small homes is not always an improvement. Its a distraction and an eyesore in many areas. It looks out of place. > I'm not referring to the all look alike tract housing. I grew up in an > area where single story ranch style homes were the norm. Some people [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the uniformity of the neighborhood and make it look like something much > different than why people bought there in the first place. Feel free to move. If its not against the building code to go more than one story, who cares? Wow, they look like small hotels... whats next? Small casinos??? > Thats not true at all. A massive house in the middle of simple small > homes is not always an improvement. Its a distraction and an eyesore in > many areas. It looks out of place. yeah, thats horrible...... See, in the neighborhood where my place is in Maryland, people buy the small house, and they put up a second floor, or add on in some way. And yeah, its a change to the neighborhood, and it looks "out of place", but its THEIR land. So I don't have a problem with it. Besides, its probably pulling my property value up. Thats a double edged sword, since the taxes are reassessed every three years. So I'll be selling, puttting together a good retirement, and maybe buying some toys. And whoever buys my place will probably add on to it. Oh well.... it'll be theirs at that point. The mentality you display is one of, "I don't like what that guy did, so I'll petition to make a law against it." Maybe we should simply outlaw a.sholes who figure they can control more than they own. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> I'm not referring to the all look alike tract housing. I grew up in an >> area where single story ranch style homes were the norm. Some people [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >Maybe we should simply outlaw a.sholes who figure they can control more than >they own. im with max on this whole thing. while i understand the need to try to set some sort of standards in an area, people always end up going too far. i live in a pud, with cc and r's. the home owners association runs the deal but have the legal authority to fine you if you don't comply and place a lien if you don't pay your fine. that was ok when they had people with half a brain but the new group are idiots. i got a warning notice from them a couple of weeks ago because i left my garbage can out at the curb for pickup for 30 hours rather than the allowed 24 hours. i was out of town. next time i do such a horrible thing they said they would have to fine me. i sent the notice back to them and told them where they could put it. if you build an outbuilding or a fence, even to code, but don't get it approved in advance by their building committee, you will get a fine until you remove it. some guy down the street painted his house a color they didn't like so they passed around a petition to add house color to their things that they need to approve. the petition didn't pass and they couldn't understand why. people simply go too far. in the final analysis, id rather have no codes than have to deal with the rules that fucksticks set up. just my 2 cents worth :) >>> I'm not referring to the all look alike tract housing. I grew up in an >>> area where single story ranch style homes were the norm. Some people [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > just my 2 cents worth :) A PUD is a whole other deal than zoning. Actually a PUD is part of MA zoning. I rather have the zoning to keep the fucksticks in line. On Jul 8, 2:19 pm, the...@whatever.net wrote: > >> I'm not referring to the all look alike tract housing. I grew up in an > >> area where single story ranch style homes were the norm. Some people [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I agree with you, I have seen HOA's like that, but there are also some I have seen that are the complete opposite, allowing anything, anywhere. I have lived in a getto a.s trailer park when I was younger and hated it because there was not rule or order. I grew up as a kid in a great neighorhood that is nothing more than a drug dealing getto now, full of "true" niggers (you now, the dealing, shoorting kind) and my parents hate it. I now live in an area that has an HOA and CC&R but they are logical ones (sort of like Rancho Sauhrita miles) I think it really boils down to good ole common sense, sure be yourself, have things how you would like, but don't be so damn tacky about it that it is a constant eye sore to everyone else that lives there. If you want a 10' block wall a 50k square foot house and a 10k square foot garage move to a location that would allow for those things, not a developed community and do it just to be an a.shole. FYI my point earlier was the fact that Max and miles are arguing different state codes/laws and trying to make them appicable to another state, sorry, doesn't work like that. > If you want a 10' block > wall a 50k square foot house and a 10k square foot garage move to a > location that would allow for those things, not a developed community > and do it just to be an a.shole. Thats what my point is and not difference in application of laws in different states. Max and I differ on what we prefer a neighborhood to be regardless of what state its in. > Feel free to move. If its not against the building code to go more than one > story, who cares? Wow, they look like small hotels... whats next? Small > casinos??? Such an attitude! Do what you want, F' the neighbors and anyone can move if they don't like it. Great harmony your neighborhood must have. Sorry Max, I prefer a neighborhood where neighbors actually know each other, are friends and get along which means respecting each other. You have pretty well told me you have no respect for others in your area. F' em if they don't like anything you do. You fail to realize one big part of what makes a neighborhood...PEOPLE Max, not just buildings. > The mentality you display is one of, "I don't like what that guy did, so > I'll petition to make a law against it." No Max, its about respecting your neighbors instead of your "I'll do anything I want and F' anyone who is bothered by it.". Some of that I agree with but there must be limitations. Otherwise a neighborhood goes right down the gutter...and yes, I have seen many do so because of the attitude you pride yourself on. > Such an attitude! Do what you want, F' the neighbors and anyone can move > if they don't like it. Pretty much. The way I see it, if someone doesn't like what I do with my property, and its not a hazard to their safety and wellbeing, its none of their damn business. Liekwise, if I don't like what the neighbors do with their property, so long as its not a hazard to me or my well being, its none of my damn business. > Great harmony your neighborhood must have. Sorry Max, I prefer a > neighborhood where neighbors actually know each other, are friends and get > along which means respecting each other. Same here. Which means, of all things, ya don't complain about something if the only reason is you don't like it. Respect the fact that the neighbor OWNS his lot, and can do as he sees fit. > You have pretty well told me you have no respect for others in your area. False. You have assumed that my attitude isn't a two way street. Furthermore, I gave an example where talking to the neighbor is part of the deal. Sadly, your vast intellect was thrown aside when it came to addressign the issue, and you preferred to complain about my attitude. I'd STILL like to know why a 7' fence that the neighbors on both sides approve of is a problem to anyone else, especially the government. But I'm sure people such as yourself have reasons, if only to say, "we don't like it." > F' em if they don't like anything you do. You fail to realize one big > part of what makes a neighborhood...PEOPLE Max, not just buildings. Yup, which is why I advocate leaving the government and its intrusive property codes out of it until the neighbors need a guideline to solve a disagreement. > No Max, its about respecting your neighbors instead of your "I'll do > anything I want and F' anyone who is bothered by it.". Some of that I > agree with but there must be limitations. Otherwise a neighborhood goes > right down the gutter...and yes, I have seen many do so because of the > attitude you pride yourself on. Lemme guess, you live in an urban or suburban development. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > I'd STILL like > to know why a 7' fence that the neighbors on both sides approve of is a > problem to anyone else, especially the government. What if your neighbor came to you and asked and you said what he wanted would look like hell next to your property...and he did it anyways? > Lemme guess, you live in an urban or suburban development. I am 35 miles from central phoenix on the far northern outskirts. My neighborhood is bordered on two sides by open desert. I do agree that in areas where houses are just scattered far apart among open countryside there should be far less restrictions. Thats why others have said that if you wanna do as you please then move to an area where that doesnt bother anyone. > What if your neighbor came to you and asked and you said what he wanted > would look like hell next to your property...and he did it anyways? 1) Its unlikely I'd have an opinion, since I'm not anal retentive about what someone else is doing on their property. 2) I'd probably put up a fence that looked better on my side of his fence. 3) As stated way back at the beginning, the property codes should be guidelines to settle a dispute should one arise. Too often, the government sees them as a way to interfere with property Rights of the individual. > I am 35 miles from central phoenix on the far northern outskirts. My > neighborhood is bordered on two sides by open desert. I do agree that in > areas where houses are just scattered far apart among open countryside > there s |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message