Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Conservatives run amuck, Michigan Woman Faces 93 Days in Jail for Planting a Vegetable Garden
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) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Conservatives run amuck, Michigan Woman Faces 93 Days in Jail for Planting a Vegetable Garden
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Conservatives run amuck, Michigan Woman Faces 93 Days in Jail for Planting a Vegetable Garden
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) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Conservatives run amuck, Michigan Woman Faces 93 Days in Jail for Planting a Vegetable Garden
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Conservatives run amuck, Michigan Woman Faces 93 Days in Jail for Planting a Vegetable Garden
"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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Run, Rabbit, Run | Gardening | |||
Run, Rabbit, Run | Edible Gardening | |||
The two faces of Carol Gulley was the two faces of rec.ponds | Ponds | |||
careful surfers! sgt billko could haul your ass to jail! | Lawns | |||
Garden mess leads to jail | United Kingdom |