garden police gone wild?
"paghat" wrote in message ... Communities regulated by Home Owner Associations CAN define the age, religion, social status, & race of "appropriate" members permitted to buy houses within the housing enclave -- & no matter how agregiously prejudiced, it's perfectly legal, nothing those gawdamn queers & darkies or whoever's left out can do to stop it, neener neener. The loophole makes it legal to keep grandparents from letting their kids or grandchildren move in when a housing community outlaws anyone under the age of 60; it keeps Jews out of Christian housing districts; it can even be "gated" with a guard at the front gate to protect middleclass whities from "crime" which is a code-word for "******s." It makes it legal to be upfront & openly judgemental about why the mixed-race family is rejected from buying into the given community, & if they think they should have the right to sue over discrimination, tough. Most of what your wrote is a complete fabrication. Here is the applicable federal law. The complete statue can be found at: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/title8.htm Sec. 804. [42 U.S.C. 3604] Discrimination in sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices As made applicable by section 803 of this title and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 of this title, it shall be unlawful-- (a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. (b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. (c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. (d) To represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available. (e) For profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. (f) (1) To discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of-- (A) that buyer or renter, (B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or (C) any person associated with that buyer or renter. (2) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of-- (A) that person; or (B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or (C) any person associated with that person. (3) For purposes of this subsection, discrimination includes-- (A) a refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises, except that, in the case of a rental, the landlord may where it is reasonable to do so condition permission for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted. (B) a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; or (C) in connection with the design and construction of covered multifamily dwellings for first occupancy after the date that is 30 months after the date of enactment of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, a failure to design and construct those dwelling in such a manner that-- (i) the public use and common use portions of such dwellings are readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons; (ii) all the doors designed to allow passage into and within all premises within such dwellings are sufficiently wide to allow passage by handicapped persons in wheelchairs; and (iii) all premises within such dwellings contain the following features of adaptive design: (I) an accessible route into and through the dwelling; (II) light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations; (III) reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars; and (IV) usable kitchens and bathrooms such that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space. (4) Compliance with the appropriate requirements of the American National Standard for buildings and facilities providing accessibility and usability for physically handicapped people (commonly cited as "ANSI A117.1") suffices to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (3)(C)(iii). (5) (A) If a State or unit of general local government has incorporated into its laws the requirements set forth in paragraph (3)(C), compliance with such laws shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of that paragraph. (B) A State or unit of general local government may review and approve newly constructed covered multifamily dwellings for the purpose of making determinations as to whether the design and construction requirements of paragraph (3)(C) are met. (C) The Secretary shall encourage, but may not require, States and units of local government to include in their existing procedures for the review and approval of newly constructed covered multifamily dwellings, determinations as to whether the design and construction of such dwellings are consistent with paragraph (3)(C), and shall provide technical assistance to States and units of local government and other persons to implement the requirements of paragraph (3)(C). (D) Nothing in this title shall be construed to require the Secretary to review or approve the plans, designs or construction of all covered multifamily dwellings, to determine whether the design and construction of such dwellings are consistent with the requirements of paragraph 3(C). (6) (A) Nothing in paragraph (5) shall be construed to affect the authority and responsibility of the Secretary or a State or local public agency certified pursuant to section 810(f)(3) of this Act to receive and process complaints or otherwise engage in enforcement activities under this title. (B) Determinations by a State or a unit of general local government under paragraphs (5)(A) and (B) shall not be conclusive in enforcement proceedings under this title. (7) As used in this subsection, the term "covered multifamily dwellings" means-- (A) buildings consisting of 4 or more units if such buildings have one or more elevators; and (B) ground floor units in other buildings consisting of 4 or more units. (8) Nothing in this title shall be construed to invalidate or limit any law of a State or political subdivision of a State, or other jurisdiction in which this title shall be effective, that requires dwellings to be designed and constructed in a manner that affords handicapped persons greater access than is required by this title. (9) Nothing in this subsection requires that a dwelling be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others. It is legal to establish adult communities. In such cases "Adult" means senior citizen. No one is required to buy into such a living arrangement. If you want to have an extended family then don't move to Sun City. It is legal to refuse to sell to gays. That said, I have never heard of a HOA that requires that you sell to heterosexuals. If you can cite an instance where this is true I would be interested in knowing about it. There are a growing number of jurisdictions that include sexual orientation in their civil rights laws. I wonder how many people of feel you should be able to have the fence of your choice also think that gays should be the legal targets of discrimination? |
garden police gone wild?
"paghat" wrote in message ... I don't like trailer houses myself. I seriously believe even "po' folk" could be more aesthetic than that & an old wooden shed, a lean-to, or a teepee could be beautiful in a way a trailer house never can be -- so being poor isn't excuse enough to trucking in a square tin house & plopping it down on a fourth of a lot right next door to another quarter-lot just like it. There are exceptions. I've seen some vintage trailers that have none of the horror-associations of doublewides & mobile homes; people make fun of silverstreams that look like toasters, but I think those are beautiful. You don't see that many. What you see is rectangle tin boxes & doublewides that just reek of ugly. I see what a trailer is now - I thought it was a trailer that was towed by a truck, never realised it was a caravan / mobile home. There has been a story in the paper over here about something similar recently - a neighbour didn't like a luxury caravan being parked on someone in his roads driveway. His solution? Hate mail and then stealing it at night. Bearing in mine this was middle class England. I can't believe people do stuff like this - for christs sake, it's so petty. Charlie. |
garden police gone wild?
On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 17:27:00 GMT, "Cereoid-UR12yo" wrote
in rec.gardens.edible: Look in your own back yard before criticizing the country that saved your up-tight asses in two world wars. World War I was 1914 - 1918. The United States entered the war in 1917 and did not save anyone's ass. World War II was 1939 - 1945. The United States entered the war late in 1941 after Pearl Harbor was attacked. The Battle of Britain had already been fought and won, by Britain, by the summer of 1941. Hitler had already turned the bulk of his troops and equipment toward Russia, where he suffered such severe losses of both men and materials that he might as well have surrendered at that time (as an aside, this is the same mistake that Napolean made and the same consequences). The outcome of World War II was already established when the US entered it; although, US entry greatly expedited the end of the war. Why is this discussion happening in the gardening groups? -- Gardening Zones Canada Zone 5a United States Zone 3a Near Ottawa, Ontario |
garden police gone wild?
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 19:04:55 +0100, "Charlie"
wrote in rec.gardens.edible: And don't bring the World Wars into it, this is niether the time or the place. At least we don't start them. Sure, bring the World Wars into it. We have nothing to be ashamed of and we had the strongest ally of all: the English language in the hands of a master. ================================================== ==================== What General Weygand has called the Battle of France is over. The Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour." Winston Churchill House of Commons, June18th 1940 -- Gardening Zones Canada Zone 5a United States Zone 3a Near Ottawa, Ontario |
garden police gone wild?
|
garden police gone wild?
ratgirl, you need to take those blinders off and see what trailer living can be
like. Take my trailer I rent, it's a 2br one bath trailer that had at one time a expando living room, which was converted into a fix room size. It's also 65ft long, the max lenght allowed by law. My kitchen is split fromm the living room by a short wast high shelf. There are NO beer cans or soda cans or bottles laying around the trailer park. We;ve got chinese elms growing by the trailers for shade and all the trailers have swap coolers too, most ontop, mine is side mounted. Plus NONE of the trailers have roofs that go bang when hot, as they have all be coated with roofing paint that reflects 90% of the heat/light from the trailers roof. I'm not going to say that everyone here is real good, we've had to boot out some too, but there are still those in here that own their trailers too. I've seen trailer parks where they have trailers that are just as good as any house and they look just as good too. As for us trailer people being trailer trash, I've seen enough people in houses that I would call House Trash. As it is, for the $350 in rent and the $50 for gas/elect.(park has it's own water wells), I've not seen a house out here that I could rent for the same amount. -- In This Universe The Night was Falling,The Shadows were lenghtening towards an east that would not know another dawn. But elsewhere the Stars were still young and the light of morning lingered: and along the path he once had followed, Man would one day go again. Arthur C. Clarke "The City & The Stars" SIAR www.starlords.org Telescope Buyers FAQ http://home.inreach.com/starlord Bishop's Car Fund http://www.bishopcarfund.Netfirms.com/ Starlord's Personal Page http://starlord-personal.netfirms.com Freelance Writers Shop http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com "paghat" wrote in message ... In article , "Charlie" wrote: I don't like trailer houses myself. I seriously believe even "po' folk" could be more aesthetic than that & an old wooden shed, a lean-to, or a teepee could be beautiful in a way a trailer house never can be -- so --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/03 |
garden police gone wild?
many of those so called "CLEAN WHITE gated" areas are so full of crime as to be
junkie heavens! Also the top court in the land KILLED that loop hole, it can no longer be inforced on bases of sex,color,religon, THAT is against Fed. Law. -- In This Universe The Night was Falling,The Shadows were lenghtening towards an east that would not know another dawn. But elsewhere the Stars were still young and the light of morning lingered: and along the path he once had followed, Man would one day go again. Arthur C. Clarke "The City & The Stars" SIAR www.starlords.org Telescope Buyers FAQ http://home.inreach.com/starlord Bishop's Car Fund http://www.bishopcarfund.Netfirms.com/ Starlord's Personal Page http://starlord-personal.netfirms.com Freelance Writers Shop http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com "paghat" wrote in message ... In article , wrote: "Charlie" wrote: I've never heard of restrictions on this sort of thing. America really puzzles me sometimes. I'm sure other countries have some communities like this. A variety of planned communities have sprung up over the last 20-30. This is where a small twon is virtually planned. Everything matches, there are color schemes. More afluent commuities try to do similar things. Trust me this only happens in well-to-do areas, often within sometimes gated communities with clearly defined property limits. People pay to live in these manicured suburbias. They have commitees that run them. Older natural neighborhoods don't have such extremes. While town/city ordances might adopt certain limitations on grass height to avoid fires it would never apply to city-owned properties especially those in poorer parts of town since they are the ones the city will allow to be regularly overgrown with 5 foot high wild grasses and weeds. These communities began for racist reasons, as when the idea of Civil Rights for more than just white people got a strong if belated foothold in America, a few court cases settled certain issues & it became illegal to discriminate in housing. But a loophole was built into the law, & remains the Communities regulated by Home Owner Associations CAN define the age, religion, social status, & race of "appropriate" members permitted to buy houses within the housing enclave -- & no matter how agregiously prejudiced, it's perfectly legal, nothing those gawdamn queers & darkies or whoever's left out can do to stop it, neener neener. The loophole makes it legal to keep grandparents from letting their kids or grandchildren move in when a housing community outlaws anyone under the age of 60; it keeps Jews out of Christian housing districts; it can even be "gated" with a guard at the front gate to protect middleclass whities from "crime" which is a code-word for "******s." It makes it legal to be upfront & openly judgemental about why the mixed-race family is rejected from buying into the given community, & if they think they should have the right to sue over discrimination, tough. If this origin has changed slightly over time, & such enclaves are no longer fully dominated by the initial purpose to keep racism legal, it is only different insofar as there are now Chinese housing associations here in Washington, & lots of them in California wherein only middleclass Latin Americans are permitted to buy homes. So we're working toward equal opportunity appartied. So trying to force people not to paint their house pink or have a basketball hoop over the garage door or redefining a hunter as inherently evil BECAUSE he's a hunter & therefore suitably harrassed by Neighbors United, up to & including anonymous reports to the police that he's a child molester -- all that is just the tip of an iceberg made of hate, among unsophisticated surburbanoids for whom "Property Values" is a scare-word disguising the real purpose, & is synonymous with "Intolerance." -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/03 |
garden police gone wild?
In article , "Vox Humana" wrote: "paghat" wrote in message ... Communities regulated by Home Owner Associations CAN define the age, religion, social status, & race of "appropriate" members permitted to buy houses within the housing enclave -- & no matter how agregiously prejudiced, it's perfectly legal, nothing those gawdamn queers & darkies or whoever's left out can do to stop it, neener neener. The loophole makes it legal to keep grandparents from letting their kids or grandchildren move in when a housing community outlaws anyone under the age of 60; it keeps Jews out of Christian housing districts; it can even be "gated" with a guard at the front gate to protect middleclass whities from "crime" which is a code-word for "******s." It makes it legal to be upfront & openly judgemental about why the mixed-race family is rejected from buying into the given community, & if they think they should have the right to sue over discrimination, tough. Most of what your wrote is a complete fabrication. Here is the applicable federal law. The complete statue can be found at: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/title8.htm Sec. 804. [42 U.S.C. 3604] Discrimination in sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices You're just so dead wrong. The loopholes require first that no government funds be involved in building these private communities; incorporated housing enclaves run by Homeowner Associations, cooperative apartment buildings, just like private clubs, have all been dragged into court REPEATEDLY, & their right to be bigots has always been upheld. These communities would not exist otherwise. Though communities with racist covenants go back to the late 1800s or earlier, Homeowner Associations really only began to take hold in America in a major way in the 1960s & early 1970s when there was no longer any question but that Civil Rights was making it harder for bigots to have their way, & covenants alone might no longer keep the ******s out. The founding father of Homeowner Associations was California real estate tycoon Ole Hanson, a racist of the first water (not the same Ole Hanson who was Seattle's only fascist mayor early in the last century). Ole composed charters of incorporation that were pure venom, & assisted by his bought & paid for congressional connections, saw to the establishment of laws that made his Whites Only idea of Utopia legal even in the post-Civil Rights era. His charters & deeds provided that homes within a given enclave could never (into perpetuity) be sold to any Hindu, Negro, Asian, or other racial minority. He's THE great hero of the Homeowner Association movement. He set the model, & that model has never changed. He's as close to Evil as any Norwegian American ever got, yet he gets to have a an elementary school named for him, & Richard Nixon was pleased to live in in Ole's first no-minorities-allowed project. Over time Ole's overt racism has become submerged; it's not likely that any Homeowners Association still puts right in their charter "no ******s need apply" as Ole did, because in 1966 the Supreme Court made racist covenants illegal (though no one enforced that). The spirit is still there, & it's still the primary reason such enclaves feel it necessary to incorporate in the manner of private clubs but with added features of independent village government. Without the overtly statedly racist covenants (which were standard from about 1900 to the 1950s) a Homeowners Association COULD make the specific choice to become an integrated neighborhood, but the recent example in San Clemente with Ole's original racist experiment STILL behaving like white upper class variants of trailer trash Ku Klux Klan members, well, it's clear that the spirit behind the invention of Homeowners Associations still runs profoundly deep, & it is NOT a coincidence 99% of them are to this day lilywhite. Though the Supreme Court theoretically knocked down the overtly racist covenants in 1966, the covenants somehow managed to remain broadly in effect until 1999! The first legislation against them in California was that year, but it didn't actually outlaw racist covenants, rather, it outlined a method by which homeowners who were NOT racist could ask that the wording be removed from charters & covenants, & when the Associations refused (they invariably refused) they could be sued for damages. This is why the majority of the "harassment" that Homeowners Associations have been experiencing of late (with either federal or county governments taking actions against their standard racist policies) have been post-1998, & nearly all the attempts to change the norm are still being worked out in long court processes. Another tepid law was sponsored by Senator George Nakano & got through in 2000 -- though it makes the CONVENTS illegal (rather than their continuing spirit which is legally kept active), even that limited illegality takes effect if there is HUD or other government funding entering the racist enclave. If there is government funding, even the most outrageous racist covenant is legal right now (but subject to suit by members thanks to the 1999 legislation). Most Homeowner Associations don't feel the need to have the strong racist wording in order to behave the same as ever; they're satisfied to have the continuing right to be bigots, & who needs HUD anyway. What California starts, other states follow, & soon the same challenges were happening in Texas, Florida, etc. Most states don't yet even have anyone looking at covenants & older charters, let alone at "mere" policies that "just happen" to work out in a manner that'd please the KKK. It would be nice if I fabricated all that as you so misguidedly supposed, but you clearly need to do some REAL research rather than cutting & pasting an inapplicable law you found too hastily with a google search without knowing squat beforehand. For three years now, the Civil Rights Commission on Hate Crimes has been attempting to get Homeowner Association standard policies defined as Hate Crimes so they can be prosecuted successfully (since the law you cited does not apply). So far, the Commission has failed, as in case you haven't noticed government has tilted back toward ideals of a a pre-Civil Rights America. But the law does now move in occasionally in the most overt cases where an "inappropriate" race managed to buy into one of those enclaves & Association members begin terror campaigns, such as were undertaken by the Palacio del Mar Homeowners Association in California against one elderly Malaysian woman. The Association waged a ten-year campaign against the Malaysian woman -- & that whole time the Association never had to contend with any other "inappropriate" races as their "coincidentally" were no other successful buyers from any minority community. Their tactics against that one woman included arranging to have streetside watering devices left on 24 hours a day, aimed up the hillside at the Southeast Asian woman's home, & when that didn't annoy her sufficiently, they intentionally broke a water main near her house creating a geyser. The when the sewer pipe mysteriously broke near her home, the Homeowners Association informed her hell would freeze over before it would get fixed. After TEN YEARS of the police refusing to help this elderly Malaysian woman, some good activists got wind of it & made her a bit of a celebrity, & that's when other immigrants & also gays & lesbians poured out of the woodwork with their complaints about legal housing discrimination by Homeowner Associations, & if they managed to sneak into the housing anyway, the harassments that forced them out. But one brave old Malaysian gal wasn't going to cave in to it! Eventually the H.A.'s mischief caused the ground under her house to move & the house still sits 12 inches off its foundation. All this while, by night, curse words & the command "MOVE!" were spraypainted on her house -- repeatedly. When on the television news she called the Association a pack of racketeers, they set their lawyers on her with a baseless but for her costly civil suit. And so at long last entered the California Attorney General who attempted to prosecute the gang of attorneys the Association AS racketeers, since they had indeed been hired to harass the only non-white family in that lilywhite community by every means they could drum up. The state attorney general's attempts to find a way to prosecute hate crime behavior rather than just use Section 804 is because Section 804 does not apply under the laws & methods of establishing a Homeowner Association run private enclave, which like a private club can be as racist as it desires to be & be so legally. The commission on Hate Crimes & the California attorney general wouldn't've had to get "creative" attempting (unsuccessfully) to stop Homeowners Associations' racism if the normative antidiscrimination laws applied; but they do not apply. This is a big Homeowner Association which was historically proud of its political pull, but by the new millennium they were at long long last beginning at least to experience some few repercussions for their brand of legal racism. If there were any non-racists in the whole damned community, not a one ever came forward to even hint that the decade of harassment to get rid of the only gook in the neighborhood served no good purpose for anyone. TO DATE, NOTHING HAS CHANGED except that it is now better known what Homeowners Association really means. Congressman Inouye said that public education was necessary, as the law was just not providing the corrections. So here I am doing what Inouye said to do -- NOT fabricating as you so wrongly accused, but telling the truth as it stands. Curiously, now that there ARE all-Latino Homeowner Associations in some of the nicest areas of California, a few white people have come forward to fight for change in laws that for the last fifty years have permitted whites to be as racist as they please if they can orchestrate their housing districts legally as semi-independent private governments. There is nothing unique about the extreme & venomous racism of the Palacio del Mar Homeowners Association. It is standard, & the government has gone after only the most egregious cases where the policies were either written into incorporation documents, charters, or covenants, or when the Associations committed physical hate crimes against persons & property to get them to leave the Association's territory. If such Associations make even a moderate effort to keep their heads down while misbehaving, then whatever their excuse -- that they're a Christian community therefore no Jews, that they're an Elderly community therefore no women of childbearing age nor even any grandchildren living in, that they're an Aryan community therefore none of those really nice black people who if they don't like it should start their Black Homeowners Association, which would of course be just as legal, & in in recent years Mexican Americans have taken advantage of that even if black folk haven't been able to. Now you might argue (as Homeowner Associations argue) that we should all have the RIGHT to gang together with people of our own kind & do everything possible to make sure we don't have to live in integrated communities. But you, instead, argue that reality doesn't exist. I know you're smarter than that -- I've read your posts too long to believe you're really that dumb -- & yet you posted such fantastic nonsense! What or who ever convinced you of such nonsense?? I hope you'll now question & look into it seriously, rather than kneejerkedly deny reality. Obviously many people involve themselves in their Homeowner Association never thinking about these issues, & may not be individually racist, but by living in De Nile, & refusing to notice what is going on all around them, they are High Fivin' participants in an ongoing racist situation. So now & then the government is pressured to attempt to do something about it, as in a Houston Homeowner Association lorded over by an intensely racist conservative named Geneva Brooks. Since a Homeowners Association's "right" to be bigoted is the reason such Associations exist, the government couldn't go after her on the basis of housing discrimination. George Bush when governor had signed a law into effect that permitted Homeowner Associations to foreclose on houses over missed payments as small as one penny --the purpose of which was to assist these Associations in getting rid of Mexicans & Blacks on the thinnest basis. But that hideous law leapt up to bite the Association itself in the ass, when the county seat decided to get "clever" in attempting to make it unpleasant to be a bigot. They began citing Kirk on dozens of minor housing infractions & dragging her into court on any pretext (much as racketeers end up in jail for tax evasion when the government couldn't get them on their dozens of murders & racketeering). Then the county struck out to foreclose on her home inside the racist housing development, on the basis of unpaid legal bills & fines, using the same law that was supposed to make it easier for such Associations to harass unwanted races or religions out of their enclaves. If section 804 applied to Homeowner Associations, it would not be necessary to go after these miscreants by such roundabout means. The majority of Homeowner Associations aren't so overt. They are only "coincidentally" lilywhite. The middleclass honky rednecks that buy into such communities NEVER took into consideration the happiness they would feel if they could be pretty sure they'd never have to live next door to hymies or gooks or ******s. Anyone who hasn't heard of retirement housing projects wherein grandparents signed away any privilege to have a grandchild live with them for longer than a month has been closing their eyes. Anyone who hasn't noticed the lack of Jews or Blacks in the majority of these enclaves (or of whites in the all-Latino housing associations), is playing the See No Evil Hear No Evil game on themselves. Case law includes a woman who bought into a "no children allowed" community who later became pregnant, was informed she had to sell her home now that she had a child, but WON the resultant court case. This induced all such enclaves thereafter to discriminate (legally!) against women of childbearing age so that this wouldn't happen again. Clubs & housing enclaves that ban anyone they pick out, generally minoritiesm can & do continue to maintain bigoted policies, & it is not illegal. There are a few (damned few) Homeowner Associations around the United States which, knowing their origin, & ashamed of that origin, actively issue periodic statements that their private communities do not support the racist desires that birthed these enclaves. Homeowner Associations should not be confused with Neighborhood Associations which do not have the same legal standing -- N.A.s tend to be good things though they can be overzealous about what they consider tidiness, but they're more inclined to be against racism & for integration than any Homeowners Association which would not have gone through all the trouble to become an semi-independent self-governed entity if their primary goal hadn't been to circumvent certain federal laws that make life better for everyone except racists. My own experience with one of these Associations was was when Granny Artemis & I were home hunting. The Association first turned us down officially because they did not permit women of childbearing age. We apparently looked younger than we are. We assured them we had no desire to become lesbian mothers anyway, as we thought it was a joke. Their eyes got big & round & they said they didn't permit homosexuals. I was ignorant of what these Associations meant, but I spoke to an attorney, & was apprised of the legal reality, they can be as racist as they please, incorporated communities of that sort CAN ban faggots, dykes, ******s, jews, & anyone they please. From then on we were careful to find out who our neighbors were. We found a great place with great neighbors & gays, straights, blacks, asians, indians, & whites all living happily together, with several interracial families right here on our block, & I now count myself lucky those racist munchmonkey Homeowners Association people rejected us for being dykes. It would've been absolute hell if we'd accidentally ended up in a Klan-like neighborhood of that sort! If you want NOT to get caught up in the future claiming people are "fabricators" when they know a heck of a lot more than you have as yet bothered to learn, you might look into this a bit deeper. If YOUR Neighborhood Association has managed to orchestrate a fully integrated neighborhood, good for them. They'd be the less than one out of a hundred. But if your neighborhood is lilywhite & the best you can do is cite Section 804 as proof reality doesn't exist, then shame, shame, shame on you. What you should do instead of keeping your head in the sand is invite the NAACP to address your Homeowners Association. They have an active & polite approach to educating what amounts to White Homeowners Associations, attempting not to alienate on the off chance that some of you are good people who just need your hard-won unconsciousness turned into awakening. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
garden police gone wild?
In article ,
wrote: On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 17:27:00 GMT, "Cereoid-UR12yo" wrote in rec.gardens.edible: Look in your own back yard before criticizing the country that saved your up-tight asses in two world wars. World War I was 1914 - 1918. The United States entered the war in 1917 and did not save anyone's ass. World War II was 1939 - 1945. The United States entered the war late in 1941 after Pearl Harbor was attacked. The Battle of Britain had already been fought and won, by Britain, by the summer of 1941. Hitler had already turned the bulk of his troops and equipment toward Russia, where he suffered such severe losses of both men and materials that he might as well have surrendered at that time (as an aside, this is the same mistake that Napolean made and the same consequences). The outcome of World War II was already established when the US entered it; although, US entry greatly expedited the end of the war. Why is this discussion happening in the gardening groups? -- Gardening Zones Actually, a pretty good argument could be made that without the Patten in Africa & without the US's hard-won liberation especially of France, Germany might still have taken Europe down, & most certainly England couldn't've stopped them. But I'm not up to that particular argument just now, as I have trouble drumming up much jingoism even where it might belong. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
garden police gone wild?
"Charlie" expounded:
I've never heard of restrictions on this sort of thing. America really puzzles me sometimes. Not all of us, Charlie! -- Ann, Gardening in zone 6a Just south of Boston, MA ******************************** |
garden police gone wild?
"Mark Anderson" wrote in message .net... Read the recent Pulitzer Prize winning book by Rick Atkinson, "An Army at Dawn," the first of a three book trilogy. The other two haven't been written yet. The book is about the Africa campaign, the first involvement of the US in WWII in that hemisphere. According to those accounts, Britain had zero chance of invading Africa by herself let alone continental Europe. Even the US with Britain learned a lot and lost a lot of men through their adventures and mis-adventures in Africa. I'm only halfway through the book but it's very enlightening. Let me guess. Written by an American? Charlie. |
garden police gone wild?
On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 17:27:00 GMT, "Cereoid-UR12yo" wrote:
What is you problem, Charlie? How does her jurisdiction having the ordinance make HER pathetic? She isn't the one that made the law, you nimrod. Posting pictures of her neighbors transgressions on the Internet might be interpreted as harassment by some slick lawyer. You limies have a lot of room to be poopooing crazy laws. Your country have far more crazy laws and hundreds of years head start making them over us poor Yankees. For example, your country's draconian Cities restrictions have made importing and exporting plants from your country impossible and has seriously hurt your country's nursery trade. If that isn't crazy, what is? Look in your own back yard before criticizing the country that saved your up-tight asses in two world wars. Not to mention several years ago there was a This Old House project in the U.K. If I recall correctly, the facade of the building they were re-designing was five feet off and the ordinance forced them to tear down the entire thing are move a whole steel structure five feet back. The U.K. has far more historical district codes than we could ever dream of. |
garden police gone wild?
|
garden police gone wild?
there were no rules like this when she moved into an agricultural area. the fences
were barbed wire (which we found posts and remnants of as we put up the fence). in fact the rules were you HAD to fence in livestock. and all the original inhabitants of the area (with 2+ acres each) had high fences around their veggie gardens to keep rabbits and deer out. they did not make provisions for those who were already here for many years. In effect, they changed the rules (ordinances). They are increasingly restrictive on what can and cant be done on ones own property whether or not it can be seen by anybody. So, for example, nobody in the city can put up a fence around their vegetables to keep the rabbits out. even wood fences must be 50% open (careful with picket fences cause some of those wont meet specs either). and of course, the laws are only enforced when somebody turns into a bloody Bitch. this city has been destroyed by "developers". they had the money to buy themselves into power and immediately started developing the abundant wetlands. they ran out of land that passed perk tests, so they forced a sewer system onto everyone in order to spread the cost so new construction (developers) would get a break. and everyone pays the same no matter what the situation... elderly on fixed incomes (many had to sell their homes of 50+ years because they couldnt afford the hookup), small house with 1 bathroom worth 50K, huge new house with 5 bathrooms at 300K, etc. everyone paid the same. well except for my mother with her long drive. She had to pay 40,000 to get hooked up. nobody was grand fathered in, like when the house is sold then the sewer will be attached. the money grubbing politicians completely rewrote the zoning laws and allowed huge homes to be built on 1/4 acres in swamps on pads. pads are like when camping one often sees "pads" or high areas where one pitches the tent. well these homes are built on pads that stick out into the swamps and wetlands. they filled in other wetlands and built huge business parks... And every kind of strip mall and chain store is there. It has become such a commercial piece of crap that all over Wisconsin people fight development citing Brookfield of an example of development gone totally insane. People who built on land years ago that had good perk for their own sewers, and were forced onto city sewer have had raw sewage backed up into their basements for the first time since the houses were built. The city doesnt pay to have their houses decontaminated. oops. sorry. The roads are flooded in heavy rains since the water has no where to go from all the in filling and the acres and acres of concrete. It has become an ugly, horrible city. Of course, now the mayor and her henchmen the developers are gone on to other places to exploit, and in 40 years it will be a decaying mess ready for urban renewal. There are already empty stores from over building. And there is my mother, a peasant from Yugoslavia who came to this country at 8, went thru school to become a social worker, who's one abiding passion has been gardening so they moved to the "country" 60 years ago so she could raise veggies but especially flowers and make a spot of beauty. And all the neighbors would come to look at everything flowering and she would give plants to them so they could also make beauty. But when she was in her 70's we found she had been falling over the little fences she put up around the flowers to keep the rabbits out (which werent working anyway) and thought it would be safer to put up a fence around her garden area. Well the BITCH also made her remove part of this fence too.. never mind she would have to be standing IN my mothers front yard to see that fence. Thankfully, the city inspectors have not required we remove the entire fence that abuts other lot lines or cross our own (oh yes, it is illegal to put up a wire fence ANYWHERE on ones own property). All we could do to prevent rabbits from coming in along that wild brush area was plant little pine trees and surround each one with circles of mesh fencing.. which just happen to touch. Because just inside that area my mother has put in a nature walk with wild flowers under the heavy trees and between the lichen and moss covered boulders they put there when they built the house. Rules should make sense. They should have a very damn good purpose and they should not be applied arbitrarily. If these "laws" were so damn important, so damned necessary for the "general good" why not fund "fence police" to go around making sure everyone was in compliance? Why not publish these "very important new laws" so everyone DOES know about them. Because sure as hell having rules that no one knows about, that people routinely break or even ignore leads to complete contempt for law. Ingrid "Warren" wrote: Let me see if I get this straight. Ignorance of the law is an excuse? Or the rules your mother broke weren't in black and white on paper? Or if the local government doesn't have you sign a piece of paper that you've read and understand all the applicable rules, laws and ordanences, they shouldn't apply to you. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List http://puregold.aquaria.net/ www.drsolo.com Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the endorsements or recommendations I make. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter