Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every free person has a right to buy any legal good or service upon acceptable tender to a willing seller. I used the word "buy" with implied financial capability. Taking something in the absence of financial capability is usually called theft.
But you're off track: the purpose of zoning laws in non-rural areas is to proactively prevent the financially capable from buying and occupying tiny houses on tiny pieces of land. So financial capability is usually not sufficient to do it.
I'm not off-track. I knew where you were headed with this. The purpose of zoning laws and homes associations is to help keep property values consistent. Zoning laws conform to urban planning theories so that commercial shipping distribution centers and strip malls are not right alongside single family homes.
There is no "right" such as you claim, period. Opportunities exist for those financially capable. No one is forced to buy land or homes in areas with zoning laws or homes associations.
Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 05-27-2012 at 03:00 PM..
Reason: typo
This tells about the 86th executive order that Obama signed, called the White House Rural Council and who is on this board.
I am happy to see that as word gets out, some cities and counties are starting to remove ICLEI and Agenda 21 from local governments. Does The New ‘White House Rural Council’ = UN’s Agenda 21? | TheBlaze.com
This tells about the 86th executive order that Obama signed, called the White House Rural Council and who is on this board.
I am happy to see that as word gets out, some cities and counties are starting to remove ICLEI and Agenda 21 from local governments. Does The New ‘White House Rural Council’ = UN’s Agenda 21? | TheBlaze.com
I would like to see the press vet Romney on where he stands on several of Obama's Executive Orders and get a commitment from him if he is willing to reverse them if he is elected as would Ron Paul.
Every free person has a right to buy any legal good or service upon acceptable tender to a willing seller. I used the word "buy" with implied financial capability. Taking something in the absence of financial capability is usually called theft.
But you're off track: the purpose of zoning laws in non-rural areas is to proactively prevent the financially capable from buying and occupying tiny houses on tiny pieces of land. So financial capability is usually not sufficient to do it.
Buying land does not mean you have anything more that the surface of the ground. Key words, "bundle of rights". When you get that deed, read it, it is going to tell you what rights you bought and what you didnt buy. They will often list the rights you don't have just after the words, "Subject to". You will be subject to laws and regulations, including zoning laws, public right of ways, licences, easements, etc. You may not have mineral or water rights. You may be subject to deed restrictions placed on the deed by the government, a homeowners association, the seller, or their predecessors.
You're free to put a tiny house anywhere you want so long as they aren't restricted by deed or the law. Be wary though, it won't take long to outgrow one of those closets.
I'm not off-track. I knew where you were headed with this. The purpose of zoning laws and homes associations is to help keep property values consistent.
Corporate welfare for the real estate industry?
Quote:
Zoning laws conform to urban planning theories so that commercial shipping distribution centers and strip malls are not right alongside single family homes.
Which is anti-capitalistic and socialistic.
The particular urban planning theories you refer to were theories from the progressive era which were espoused by people opposed to the free market.
The problem is, to most liberals, it sounds like a nice thing, filled with rainbows and hugs, because they don't look at the details. They only see smart growth, sustainable development, and stop there. They think it will be like Europe, or more like the UK.
Sounds like Agenda 21 is actually more favorable to capitalism and the free market than the tyranny created by Euclid v. Ambler.
Agenda 21, the topic of this thread, is absolute Socialism, care to address that, you know, the actual thread topic perhaps?
Agenda 21 is non-binding.
However, if Agenda 21 encourages ending a zoning system that inhibits property rights, encourages an end to corporate welfare blatantly favoring certain types of real estate developments, eand encourages efficient land use which would create a broader base of customers, it doesn't sound like "absolute Socialism"
It sounds more like what the anti-Agenda 21 people would like to preserve is anti-capitalist.
Let me ask this question - do you want to overturn Euclid v. Ambler? I don't know if you remember the "sagebrush rebels" of the '70s and '80s but they wanted to overturn that case which said that zoning was constitutional and not interfering with property rights (Interior Secretary James Watt was a "sagebrush rebel" and Reagan expressed sympathy for their cause)
Agenda 21, the topic of this thread, is absolute Socialism, care to address that, you know, the actual thread topic perhaps?
Many of these non-readers have never read a word from Agenda 21 or its step-child, ICLEI, and many of them consider all the sustainable crap put out by ICLEI to be the answer to something.
None of these people who are trying to defend and support Agenda 21 or any part of it have never seen the map that they have put out of the US of the future, but then they don't want to see that, so they protect themselves from the reading and study of what is actually going on by refusing to read links when they are given them. Progressivism is hard at work from these people and the UN.
Progressivism is hard at work from these people and the UN.
The 'single family home on a large lot" suburban model was the work of progressivism.
Note that the conservatives on the US Supreme Court in the '20s were in the minority on Euclid v. Ambler.
Why are you intent on repealing the laws of economics and promoting anti-capitalist ideas?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
