"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Nad R" wrote in message
...
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Nad R" wrote in message

That is one building so TMWOT it's a bit of a stretch to call it a
'community'. It's hardly community minded to whine or have rules about
a
person having one tomato plant on their deck.

Do not bet on that one... It depends on the association. Some condominiums
have very strict rules. Such places are nice for the elderly and those
with
a busy city lifestyle.

I'm quite sure there are places which say they are a 'community' and have
extremely strict rules. That does not meant hat they have any idea
whatsoever of what 'community' means.

In the country where I live there are no such ordinances. I do not even
have to mow my lawn and I can have old rusted out cars on my front lawn
and
no one would say or do anything about it.

Well that soudns much better than living some place where anal retentives
waffle on about 'nice lawns'.

The US has different kinds of communities and I believe those that are
like
minded should have them.

Segregation and apartheid works just like that.

If I remember reading many years ago that Australia had a White Only
immigration policy. Is that true of today's Australia?

In the US it is illegal to prevent any person of color from living where
they want. When they get there they may or not have restrictions on the
look of there area they live in. Grass only front lawns, height of
antennas, RVs in driveways... That kind of restrictions, not who may move
in.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

"Nad R" wrote in message
...
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Nad R" wrote in message
...
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Nad R" wrote in message

That is one building so TMWOT it's a bit of a stretch to call it a
'community'. It's hardly community minded to whine or have rules
about
a
person having one tomato plant on their deck.

Do not bet on that one... It depends on the association. Some
condominiums
have very strict rules. Such places are nice for the elderly and those
with
a busy city lifestyle.

I'm quite sure there are places which say they are a 'community' and have
extremely strict rules. That does not meant hat they have any idea
whatsoever of what 'community' means.

In the country where I live there are no such ordinances. I do not
even
have to mow my lawn and I can have old rusted out cars on my front
lawn
and
no one would say or do anything about it.

Well that soudns much better than living some place where anal
retentives
waffle on about 'nice lawns'.

The US has different kinds of communities and I believe those that are
like
minded should have them.

Segregation and apartheid works just like that.

If I remember reading many years ago that Australia had a White Only
immigration policy. Is that true of today's Australia?

Yep, but they were cleverer than calling it that. It was implemented by a
'Dictation test'. Language of test not specified so if anyone of dusky hue
who was not wanted applied, they could be given a test in any language. If
they did happen to be of a dusky hue but wanted for some reason, then they
would/could of course be given the Dictation test in their native language
thus guaranteeing admission to our hallowed shores. But we don't have such
a thing these day. These days we're not so fussy about colour - except for
poor sods who risk life and limb try to come here on boats after paying
people smugglers.

In the US it is illegal to prevent any person of color from living where
they want. When they get there they may or not have restrictions on the
look of there area they live in. Grass only front lawns, height of
antennas, RVs in driveways... That kind of restrictions, not who may move
in.

You missed the point. Segregation and apartheid were specifically based on
skin colour but just because those rules you mention may (note the use of
the word 'may') have nothing whatsoever to do with colour, that sort of
mindset that was the source of being discriminatory or controlling or
restrictive or unwelcoming etc etc, is exactly the same. "We don't want
your sort round here". "That sort" might just be someone who wants to grow
vegetables, but once you start that sort of silly rule, where do you end?

I can certainly understand rules relating to health and safety issues such
as those relating to barking dogs, keeping poultry or horses or playing
music for more than an short time each day or at excessive noise levels, but
growing tomatoes on a deck or in front yard or an insistence on having a
'nice lawn'????

In article ,
Nad R wrote:

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Nad R" wrote in message
...
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Nad R" wrote in message

That is one building so TMWOT it's a bit of a stretch to call it a
'community'. It's hardly community minded to whine or have rules about
a
person having one tomato plant on their deck.

Do not bet on that one... It depends on the association. Some condominiums
have very strict rules. Such places are nice for the elderly and those
with
a busy city lifestyle.

I'm quite sure there are places which say they are a 'community' and have
extremely strict rules. That does not meant hat they have any idea
whatsoever of what 'community' means.

In the country where I live there are no such ordinances. I do not even
have to mow my lawn and I can have old rusted out cars on my front lawn
and
no one would say or do anything about it.

Well that soudns much better than living some place where anal retentives
waffle on about 'nice lawns'.

The US has different kinds of communities and I believe those that are
like
minded should have them.

Segregation and apartheid works just like that.

If I remember reading many years ago that Australia had a White Only
immigration policy. Is that true of today's Australia?

In the US it is illegal to prevent any person of color from living where
they want.

But done never the less.

http://varbuzz.com/2008-10/discrimination-in-virginia/
The folks at Housing Opportunities Made Equal conducted a “fair housing
audit�; they sent people with “similar profiles� (age, income, marital
status) to the same rental homes and documented the treatment they
received.

In two-thirds of the visits — 66 percent — HOME says that white testers
were offered lower rent, lower security deposits, lower fees, and shown
other available units. Black testers were more likely to be asked for
identification to view units, and white testers were more likely to
receive follow-up calls.

http://mastheadmobile.com/clnew/2010/01/
Despite widely publicized advance warning, a "secret shopper" audit of
the Quarter found rampant discrimination in local businesses. Bars had
different dress codes, admission charges and drink prices—all based on
whether the patron was Black or white.

http://www.thelandlordtimes.com/archives/ValleyOct07.pdf
According to studies conducted by
HUD and the National Fair Housing
Alliance, African Americans were
discriminated against in one out of
every four transactions. Latinos and
Asian Americans experienced discrimination
in one out of every five
transactions. And, Native Americans
and people with disabilities experienced
discrimination in one out of
every two transactions. You can read
the study for yourself on the HUD
website, www.HUD.gov. Keyword
HDS2000.
---

And so on, and so forth ad nauseum.

When they get there they may or not have restrictions on the
look of there area they live in. Grass only front lawns, height of
antennas, RVs in driveways... That kind of restrictions, not who may move
in.

Right, overt race restrictive covenants are forbidden now (Shelley v.
Kraemer). Now it is all done with a wink and a nod.
--
- Billy
Obama is now backing a bipartisan Senate budget plan that would overhaul Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/21/headlines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLNt1IsDOT0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFymBUsoNWY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLJ2z8BSUPc&feature=youtu.be
Vote 3rd Party

Billy wrote:

When they get there they may or not have restrictions on the
look of there area they live in. Grass only front lawns, height of
antennas, RVs in driveways... That kind of restrictions, not who may move
in.

Right, overt race restrictive covenants are forbidden now (Shelley v.
Kraemer). Now it is all done with a wink and a nod.

But how is it discriminating to require all homes in that community to have
a manicured front lawn?

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

In article ,
Nad R wrote:

Billy wrote:

When they get there they may or not have restrictions on the
look of there area they live in. Grass only front lawns, height of
antennas, RVs in driveways... That kind of restrictions, not who may move
in.

Right, overt race restrictive covenants are forbidden now (Shelley v.
Kraemer). Now it is all done with a wink and a nod.

But how is it discriminating to require all homes in that community to have
a manicured front lawn?

I suppose it isn't, but it is a restrictive covenant. Can a property
owner make whole their ownership of their property? It is clear that a
court can remove racial covenants (Shelley v. Kraemer). I suppose the
answer is to keep nibbling at the legally questionable edges of the
covenant until it becomes so restrictive that the homeowners association
is disbanded. Neighbor may even have to learn to talk and cooperate with
each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictive_covenant
Some have accused homeowners associations of selective enforcement of
these rules, making a case only when it is something (or someone)
another person dislikes. Breaking a rule, even unintentionally, can
bring fines or even a lien on the home. In extreme cases, a homeowners'
association may file a lawsuit against an owner who violates the
covenants or even foreclose the property.

Illegal taking of property, perhaps.

In any event, here, the ordinance was vague, and merely required the use
of usual (common) plants. Does an autocratic, pencil pushing bureaucrat
get to be the final judge on what is usual?

Intercourse the bureaucrat.
--
- Billy
Obama is now backing a bipartisan Senate budget plan that would overhaul Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/21/headlines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLNt1IsDOT0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFymBUsoNWY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLJ2z8BSUPc&feature=youtu.be
Vote 3rd Party

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Nad R wrote:

Billy wrote:

When they get there they may or not have restrictions on the
look of there area they live in. Grass only front lawns, height of
antennas, RVs in driveways... That kind of restrictions, not who may move
in.

Right, overt race restrictive covenants are forbidden now (Shelley v.
Kraemer). Now it is all done with a wink and a nod.

But how is it discriminating to require all homes in that community to have
a manicured front lawn?

I suppose it isn't, but it is a restrictive covenant. Can a property
owner make whole their ownership of their property? It is clear that a
court can remove racial covenants (Shelley v. Kraemer). I suppose the
answer is to keep nibbling at the legally questionable edges of the
covenant until it becomes so restrictive that the homeowners association
is disbanded. Neighbor may even have to learn to talk and cooperate with
each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictive_covenant
Some have accused homeowners associations of selective enforcement of
these rules, making a case only when it is something (or someone)
another person dislikes. Breaking a rule, even unintentionally, can
bring fines or even a lien on the home. In extreme cases, a homeowners'
association may file a lawsuit against an owner who violates the
covenants or even foreclose the property.

Illegal taking of property, perhaps.

In any event, here, the ordinance was vague, and merely required the use
of usual (common) plants. Does an autocratic, pencil pushing bureaucrat
get to be the final judge on what is usual?

Intercourse the bureaucrat.

According to the local news the woman is taking her front veggie garden to
a jury trial.

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

In article ,
Nad R wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Nad R wrote:

Billy wrote:

When they get there they may or not have restrictions on the
look of there area they live in. Grass only front lawns, height of
antennas, RVs in driveways... That kind of restrictions, not who may move
in.

Right, overt race restrictive covenants are forbidden now (Shelley v.
Kraemer). Now it is all done with a wink and a nod.

But how is it discriminating to require all homes in that community to have
a manicured front lawn?

I suppose it isn't, but it is a restrictive covenant. Can a property
owner make whole their ownership of their property? It is clear that a
court can remove racial covenants (Shelley v. Kraemer). I suppose the
answer is to keep nibbling at the legally questionable edges of the
covenant until it becomes so restrictive that the homeowners association
is disbanded. Neighbor may even have to learn to talk and cooperate with
each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictive_covenant
Some have accused homeowners associations of selective enforcement of
these rules, making a case only when it is something (or someone)
another person dislikes. Breaking a rule, even unintentionally, can
bring fines or even a lien on the home. In extreme cases, a homeowners'
association may file a lawsuit against an owner who violates the
covenants or even foreclose the property.

Illegal taking of property, perhaps.

In any event, here, the ordinance was vague, and merely required the use
of usual (common) plants. Does an autocratic, pencil pushing bureaucrat
get to be the final judge on what is usual?

Intercourse the bureaucrat.

According to the local news the woman is taking her front veggie garden to
a jury trial.

I thought I read that charges were dropped?
--
- Billy
Obama is now backing a bipartisan Senate budget plan that would overhaul Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/21/headlines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLNt1IsDOT0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFymBUsoNWY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLJ2z8BSUPc&feature=youtu.be
Vote 3rd Party

Nad R wrote:
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Nad R" wrote in message
...
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Nad R" wrote in message

That is one building so TMWOT it's a bit of a stretch to call it a
'community'. It's hardly community minded to whine or have
rules about a
person having one tomato plant on their deck.

Do not bet on that one... It depends on the association. Some
condominiums have very strict rules. Such places are nice for the
elderly and those with
a busy city lifestyle.

I'm quite sure there are places which say they are a 'community' and
have extremely strict rules. That does not meant hat they have any
idea whatsoever of what 'community' means.

In the country where I live there are no such ordinances. I do
not even have to mow my lawn and I can have old rusted out cars
on my front lawn and
no one would say or do anything about it.

Well that soudns much better than living some place where anal
retentives waffle on about 'nice lawns'.

The US has different kinds of communities and I believe those that
are like
minded should have them.

Segregation and apartheid works just like that.

If I remember reading many years ago that Australia had a White Only
immigration policy. Is that true of today's Australia?


No, gone for years. Abolished about the time when colour did make a
difference to where people of different skins could live (and work and go to
school) in the US. We have huge immigration from Hong Kong, China, Vietnam
and some from the rest of Asia, Africa and the Pacific.

In the US it is illegal to prevent any person of color from living
where they want. When they get there they may or not have
restrictions on the look of there area they live in. Grass only front
lawns, height of antennas, RVs in driveways... That kind of
restrictions, not who may move in.

We never had that. Despite the so-called white Australia policy quite a lot
of non-whites made it to these shores (many Chinese in the 19th century) and
once here they went wherever they liked.


David

On Jul 22, 2:38*am, "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
"George Plimpton" wrote in message

...





On 7/20/2011 6:20 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
"Leroy N. *wrote in message
.. .
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011...faces_jail_pla....
_veggie_garden.php

It just doesn't get more ridiculous than this.

Julie Bass of Oak Park, Michigan -- a mother of 6, law-abiding citizen,
and gardener -- is facing 93 days in jail after being charged with a
misdemeanor.

Her crime? Planting a vegetable garden in the front yard.

Nothing whatsoever liberal about this.

Right - but only because contemporary "liberals" are 100% illiberal.

Can't find that word din any dictionary. *I sure hope you know what you mean
because I doubt anyone else does.



Draconian punishments for trivial
offenses is

Standard left-wing policy. *See "hate crimes".

So tying a young gay man to a fence in Wyoming in winter so he can freeze to
death (after a savage beating) is a trivial offense?

Paul-

It's manslaughter or murder. Not trivial.

You don't have to hang tinsel on it to get the legal system's
attention.

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:20:43 -0700, "Paul M. Cook"
wrote:



Nothing whatsoever liberal about this. Draconian punishments for trivial
offenses is a conservative policy. For all the bleeting about freedom, the
right would see all of us in a prison or at least very close to one.

Paul

Actually Pinhead..the Right wants you deranged and dangerous Leftwingers
dead, and with a bit of luck, you will be made so, in less than 2 yrs.

VBG

Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On Jul 22, 5:47*am, Nad R wrote:
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:









"Nad R" wrote in message
...
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Nad R" wrote in message

That is one building so TMWOT it's a bit of a stretch to call it a
'community'. * *It's hardly community minded to whine or have rules about
a
person having one tomato plant on their deck.

Do not bet on that one... It depends on the association. Some condominiums
have very strict rules. Such places are nice for the elderly and those
with
a busy city lifestyle.

I'm quite sure there are places which say they are a 'community' and have
extremely strict rules. *That does not meant hat they have any idea
whatsoever of what 'community' means.

In the country where I live there are no such ordinances. I do not even
have to mow my lawn and I can have old rusted out cars on my front lawn
and
no one would say or do anything about it.

Well that soudns much better than living some place where anal retentives
waffle on about 'nice lawns'.

The US has different kinds of communities and I believe those that are
like
minded should have them.

Segregation and apartheid works just like that.

If I remember reading many years ago that Australia had a White Only
immigration policy. Is that true of today's Australia?

No. That went out long ago. Now immigrants are enriching Australia
materially and culturally, just as they enriched the U.S. I remember
long ago Australians being ****ed w/Asian immigrants because they
worked like dogs; lived 10 to a room behind the business; ended up
rich! Meantime, the white Australians lived on welfare that didn't
even (AFAIK) have a means test like in the U.S. (we had to work
'n'months out of the year to be eligible for benefits). I met people
in Oz who had been living happily on welfare for years. Of course
this was years ago -- I spent the summer Down Under during the - was
it 1984 Olympics? Around there. So I trust things have changed.
Australia is still very cruel to asylum seekers from brutal
dictatorships.

HB

In the US it is illegal to prevent any person of color from living where
they want. When they get there they may or not have restrictions on the
look of there area they live in. Grass only front lawns, height of
antennas, RVs in driveways... That kind of restrictions, not who may move
in. *

--
Enjoy Life... Nad R *(Garden in zone 5a Michigan)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:38:51 -0700, "Paul M. Cook"
wrote:


"George Plimpton" wrote in message
m...
On 7/20/2011 6:20 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
"Leroy N. wrote in message
...
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011..._jail_planting
_veggie_garden.php

It just doesn't get more ridiculous than this.

Julie Bass of Oak Park, Michigan -- a mother of 6, law-abiding citizen,
and gardener -- is facing 93 days in jail after being charged with a
misdemeanor.

Her crime? Planting a vegetable garden in the front yard.


Nothing whatsoever liberal about this.

Right - but only because contemporary "liberals" are 100% illiberal.

Can't find that word din any dictionary. I sure hope you know what you mean
because I doubt anyone else does.


Draconian punishments for trivial
offenses is

Standard left-wing policy. See "hate crimes".

So tying a young gay man to a fence in Wyoming in winter so he can freeze to
death (after a savage beating) is a trivial offense?

Paul

So those Klanners were Conservative?

Odd..the KKK has been the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party for 150
yrs.

http://www.google.com/search?q=democ...ient=firefox-a


Seems as if widdle Pauly Pinhead is apparently gay AND stupid if that
was the best attempt he could make.

Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

"Nad R" wrote in message
...
Billy wrote:

When they get there they may or not have restrictions on the
look of there area they live in. Grass only front lawns, height of
antennas, RVs in driveways... That kind of restrictions, not who may
move
in.

Right, overt race restrictive covenants are forbidden now (Shelley v.
Kraemer). Now it is all done with a wink and a nod.

But how is it discriminating to require all homes in that community to
have
a manicured front lawn?

On the basis of race, it wouldn't be. But that is way too specific an
example. It's about making rules that tells anyone who owns a house in that
area, what is 'suitable' planting. That is about taste and style.

"Higgs Boson" wrote in message
...
On Jul 22, 5:47 am, Nad R wrote:
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:









"Nad R" wrote in message
...
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Nad R" wrote in message

That is one building so TMWOT it's a bit of a stretch to call it a
'community'. It's hardly community minded to whine or have rules about
a
person having one tomato plant on their deck.

Do not bet on that one... It depends on the association. Some
condominiums
have very strict rules. Such places are nice for the elderly and those
with
a busy city lifestyle.

I'm quite sure there are places which say they are a 'community' and
have
extremely strict rules. That does not meant hat they have any idea
whatsoever of what 'community' means.

In the country where I live there are no such ordinances. I do not
even
have to mow my lawn and I can have old rusted out cars on my front
lawn
and
no one would say or do anything about it.

Well that soudns much better than living some place where anal
retentives
waffle on about 'nice lawns'.

The US has different kinds of communities and I believe those that are
like
minded should have them.

Segregation and apartheid works just like that.

If I remember reading many years ago that Australia had a White Only
immigration policy. Is that true of today's Australia?

No. That went out long ago. Now immigrants are enriching Australia
materially and culturally, just as they enriched the U.S. I remember
long ago Australians being ****ed w/Asian immigrants because they
worked like dogs; lived 10 to a room behind the business; ended up
rich! Meantime, the white Australians lived on welfare that didn't
even (AFAIK) have a means test like in the U.S.
__________________________________________
Umemployment benefits have always been means tested.


(we had to work
'n'months out of the year to be eligible for benefits). I met people
in Oz who had been living happily on welfare for years. Of course
this was years ago -- I spent the summer Down Under during the - was
it 1984 Olympics? Around there. So I trust things have changed.
Australia is still very cruel to asylum seekers from brutal
dictatorships.
_____________________________________
Australia does the same thing with asylum seekers as does the US. The US
puts arriving asylum seekers into mandatory detention until their claim for
asylum is assessed. Australia does exactly the same thing. I agree about
that being cruel.

In article ,
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:20:43 -0700, "Paul M. Cook"
wrote:



Nothing whatsoever liberal about this. Draconian punishments for trivial
offenses is a conservative policy. For all the bleeting about freedom, the
right would see all of us in a prison or at least very close to one.

Paul

Actually Pinhead..the Right wants you deranged and dangerous Leftwingers
dead, and with a bit of luck, you will be made so, in less than 2 yrs.

VBG

Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

Let that be a lesson to you Paul. When yo get involved with these cross
posting "arschlochs", you can get sucked into a flame war. So let's say
good-bye to Herr Arschloch, and get back to gardening.
--
- Billy
Obama is now backing a bipartisan Senate budget plan that would overhaul Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/21/headlines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLNt1IsDOT0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFymBUsoNWY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLJ2z8BSUPc&feature=youtu.be
Vote 3rd Party