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.
To state that they are intelligent, would be an unitelligent observation, as they clearly aren't.
I thought you already went away.
You have a really high opinion of yourself
First you lead the masses
Then, you have qualification to pass judgement on other peoples post
Now, you feel that I should be intimitated by you and simply go away because you have the inability to muster any kind of coherant fact based reply to anything at all.
Its truly unfortunate that people like that walk the earth.
Clearly you believed at one point that it was your "job" to influence me, because you felt justified in typing out a whole post informing me that you had "given up".
To influence you, yes, to influence your thinking, yes, but your outcome???, no, none for me.
Then, you have qualification to pass judgement on other peoples post
Now, you feel that I should be intimitated by you and simply go away because you have the inability to muster any kind of coherant fact based reply to anything at all.
Its truly unfortunate that people like that walk the earth.
Geez, now you are getting downright nasty. Didn't you see my smiley face.
As far as passing judgement, we are all free to pass judgement on everything me encounter in life, and yes, I am qualified, and will reiterate.
Your posts are moronic and no better than mindless drivel. You have made no statement worthy of more of a response than that.
I have played verbal tennis with your for the amusement factor, but nothing more, for there is nothing "there" to debate.
Geez, now you are getting downright nasty. Didn't you see my smiley face.
As far as passing judgement, we are all free to pass judgement on everything me encounter in life, and yes, I am qualified, and will reiterate.
Your posts are moronic and no better than mindless drivel. You have made no statement worthy of more of a response than that.
I have played verbal tennis with your for the amusement factor, but nothing more, for there is nothing "there" to debate.
There is only nothing to "debate" because you choose to ignore facts and discount it as mindless drivel, clearly inferior to your empiric drivel supported by NO facts.
I never said they could infinitiely subdivide a piece of property to sell it by the square foot or some other unit, but when I cited a "willing seller" it is implied that the property meets the desires of the buyer, and of course, is legal.
It is NOT a matter of the rights of poor people, it is zone and other legal issues.
I do believe that a seller can sell a percentage interests in a property as owners in common. Perhaps he could sell the pauper a .00001% ownership interest in a small lot somewhere.
I thinks too many people have cavier tastes and pork-belly levels of ambition.
Of course it's about the rights of poor people. I described an example where a house could be rented but not sold independently of another house. So this example is clearly not about health and safety and class-neutral zoning.
What minimum lot sizes have in common is the exclusion of ownership access to people with fewer economic resources than the existing homeowners. In upscale communities the only difference is that the minimum lot sizes are larger (in order to raise the access bar higher).
There is only nothing to "debate" because you choose to ignore facts and discount it as mindless drivel, clearly inferior to your empiric drivel supported by NO facts.
A horse can be led to water, but you can't force him to drink.
Rational thinking, facts and history have been laid in your lap, yet you refuse to drink.
It isn't because poor people don't have rights, it is because there are zoning standards that apply to all. Go somewhere where they have no such restricitons.
Any boondocks should work.
And you are truly either an ideologue or a fool if you sincerely believe that the "zoning standards that apply to all" are solely about health and safety and not at all about class and money.
And you are truly either an ideologue or a fool if you sincerely believe that the "zoning standards that apply to all" are solely about health and safety and not at all about class and money.
You are truly either a fool or, perhaps a fool, if you sincerely believe I said that zoning lawas are about anything in particular. I made no such comment. I think they serve many purposes.
So, cut the crap and stop errecting strawmen (you can Wiki that up)
Of course it's about the rights of poor people. I described an example where a house could be rented but not sold independently of another house. So this example is clearly not about health and safety and class-neutral zoning.
What minimum lot sizes have in common is the exclusion of ownership access to people with fewer economic resources than the existing homeowners. In upscale communities the only difference is that the minimum lot sizes are larger (in order to raise the access bar higher).
Poor people have no business wanting to buy in upscale communities. That is reserved for people who have actually applied themselves and suceeded, not the pauper and peasant classes who idle their lives away lamenting how unfair competition is.
Your speciulation about the reason for minimum-sized lots is just that, and jaundiced to take your poverty into account.
There is a solution, a universal one that sooooo many people have applied, and with great success. Improve yourself by learning about your field, apply yourself, make yourself available, make yourself productive and make yourself welcome so when you boss sees you he says to himself, good, freemkt is here!!!! But again, my bad, 'cause that takes effort.
Poor people have no business wanting to buy in upscale communities. That is reserved for people who have actually applied themselves and suceeded, not the pauper and peasant classes who idle their lives away lamenting how unfair competition is.
Your speciulation about the reason for minimum-sized lots is just that, and jaundiced to take your poverty into account.
There is a solution, a universal one that sooooo many people have applied, and with great success. Improve yourself by learning about your field, apply yourself, make yourself available, make yourself productive and make yourself welcome so when you boss sees you he says to himself, good, freemkt is here!!!! But again, my bad, 'cause that takes effort.
Millions of Americans work hard and exert effort without ever becoming rich. So your "solution" obviously does not work for many.
I have offered a plausible explanation why minimum lot sizes might be used, and why a house might be lawfully rented but not lawfully sold.
Do you have a better explanation?
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.
