Again, not the issue. Your failure to address the issue is disappointing.
What is the reason behind the law, not "because it says so."
Nuisance laws are enforcable only if written properly, and most are not. Property codes are a violation of private individuals rights, given that they have no basis in fact, but in what is "offensive", such as the last foot of a 6' fence.
Max we can dance all night. The zoning is to protect the majority of people from the actions of a few ass holes like the guy who wants to a motorcycle repair shop between two house's in a residential zoned area and have it open until 11pm. The fence bit is there to prevent people from doing just what I said. A guy placed 75 roll off dumpster's around the majority of his property and called it a fence because he was pissed at one of his neighbors. Now wtf is going to buy a house that's back yard abuts a row of
30 foot grenn, blue and black dumpster's complete with lettering. This guy maintained that it was a fence to him You can go on all night about a individuals property right if ya want but when a owner's actions have a detrimental impact with regard to other's property that is where zoning law comes in.
The example above isn't property codes, but instead is zoning codes. I agree with the intent of the zoning codes, which is to seperate manufacturing, residential, business and agriculture.
Clearly its NOT a fence. However, the fence restrictions of the property code make no sense when two people agree on a fence's construction and dimensions. Thus the fence restrictions do not address some asshole with dumpsters and a vendetta, but reasonable individuals who merely desire privacy.
Who knows. I just watched a guy offer just under the asking price on a house next to a dog kennel.
In the case you mention, it makes sense. However, it makes no sense if BOTH individuals decide that the fence is acceptable.
Because it can cause problems in the neighborhood.
This is still a society Max, which means that you cannot do whatever the hell you feel like, even in a free country.
Sure there is, it keeps peace in the neighborhood.
It really doesn't matter. Making these rules provides for the public comfort that you said were part of the rules.
Because it makes the neighborhood look like a white trash neghborhood and lowers property values. That and the noise and smell from it warming up every morning.
Really? What sort of problems? Problems that create a hazard to the safety of the public? Feel free to make a list. Remember, according to the document I have, the reasons must pose a risk to the general PUBLIC, not the guy next door, and must be a problem that infringes on the public right, not just the eyes.
Wrong. I CAN do whatever the hell I like, unless it infringes on someones rights. A 7' fence doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, as per the Constitution. This is particularly true if the two property owners which the fence seperates agree on the existance of the fence.
A 7' fence is not a disturbance of the peace. A kid squealing his tires is, as are the super bass stereos. But those infractions are covered in the crimes code and the vehicle code.
No. Making these rules provides for the governments ability to regulate that which doesn't need regulating. A fence doesn't make anyone uncomfortable, nor do most of the things regulated in the property code.
I know people whose teenagers make more noise and smells than a Kenworth. Are they against the property code?
Again, its not the object that is offensive, but how it is used. Those that argue for Second Amendment Rights should easily see that the Kenworth isn't a problem, just as the gun isn't, but the user can be.
Thus, regulating the existance of an object is against the inherent rights of the property owner. Regulating the USE of those objects is generally covered in the crimes or vehicle codes.
Because if you built a fence too high then the neighborhoods dogs can't get over it to get to to neighbors female dog thats in heat. The result is that the entire neighbors dogs will bark all night disturbing the peace and quiet.
With that logic there would be few zoning laws. If it doesn't infringe then heck, build whatever you want next door to who cares what. Doesn't work that way Max.
Max, I am a little confused here. I have been following the thread and I have read it all.
The part that confuses me is how you can make such a stretch from something being "unconstitutional" such as a few rules (cc&r's call them what ever)?
Honestly from reading the thread, it sounds more like there are some that are "unhappy" about some of the things you have done, maybe rightfully so (maybe not) but you are being to stubborn and/or pigheaded to see anything other than what you want to.
Sorry Max but I believe that public comfort was also mentioned by you. As for the public right, how things look and maintain property value is part of the public right.
LOL, and you keep thinking that.
The problem is that it usually takes more than two to come to an agreement about a fence. Now what happens if person A agrees with person B to let him build his 7 foot fence. Afterwards, person B desides he wants a fence as tall but person C (the neighbor on the other side of B) says that they are friggen ugly and he doesn't want it on his property line? Sounds like some real trouble will start then.
Sure it is if people in the neighborhood think that it's ugly and don't want them or it in their development.
In sound is usually only after a certian period of time and you can squeal those tires all day on your property according to you.
This is complete bullshit that you have no way in hell of backing up. Sorry Max, but just because a huge fence doesn't bother you doesn't mean that it bothers nobody.
It depends on the time and what the smell is comming from.
If people feel that is is a problem, then it is one, even if you don't agree. If the vehicle is huge and doesn't fit into the neighborhood, this it very much is the object itself that is offensive.
Sorry Max but you are wrong. If it is ok to park the Kenworth at his house, why not the trailer as well. Then hell, what if he has two or three of them. Why not park the entire fleet on his property. Where exactly do you draw the line Max?
Please list the specific crime or vehicle code that says you cannot warm up the Kenworth on a cold day. The public has the right to have piece in their neighborhood
Actually that is not a true statement Tom. In Cochise County of AZ, there is absolutely no time frame governing the disturbance of ones domicile. In other words (for those that have a hard time following along) this means that if you and I were neighbors (god forbid) and it is noon, you are out in your yard doing what ever, I can call the cops, and they will respond, because you are disturbing my peace.
Something that I think everyone in here is forgetting is that laws, rules, regulations, et all are subjective to the area (county, city township, state) that you reside in and really can't be thrown around in the manner they have been in this thread.
Might seem funny, but the problem is well described.... because of other people's ACTIONS, a fence is not allowed. The fence didn't do anything.
But it DOES work that way. Check out the Constitution sometime. I can excersize my Rights are much as I wish to, as long as I don't infringe on anothers Rights. Anyone who says differently isn't reading the words as they are written.
Larry, the point is this: Property codes are chock full of stuff that isn't enforced BECAUSE its an infringement of the individual rights of the Property Owner.
For instance, local PC requires that driveways be paved. None of us on the block have paved driveways. The borough attorney has a gravel driveway, etc. Enforcing that code would be unreasonable to most of those who would come under its effect.
Fact is, in any example thats been discussed so far, no one has found a reason beyond, "well, its the law" to claim something is illegal.
Further, most of these things would be termed "nuisances." In a five page paper, litttered with court citations and case law references, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through its Local Government Commission, delineates what is permissible by law to make illegal under the property code. Again, I have this document in pdf form if you'd like to read it. The most basic requirements are that the "nuisance" must affect more than just one person, putting it under the property codes, rather than civil law. Second, it has to pose a hazard to the public (more than just hte guy next door) to be something that can be made illegal. Just because a fence is 6' high doesn't mean its a hazard. Just because a Kenworth is a truck doesn't make it a hazard.
But, if the Kenworth idles all night long, thats disturbing the peace..... a criminal code misdemeanor. Not a property code violation.
Property codes are duplicate laws that generally do not follow the recommendation of the state on such codes. Furthermore, they are randomly enforced based on complaints from one person, and may not pose a hazard to the public at all.
Lets assume that property value falls under the public comfort, which it does not. (Public comfort is such things as loud noises, offensive odors and the like, NOT financial well being.)
Fine. Now, explain how a 7' fence lowers property value any more than a 5' fence. Tell me how a fence is a hazard to the public.
Its true. My Rights go as far as your Rights. As long as I do not infringe your Rights, I can do as I see fit within my Rights. Anyone who argues differently fails to read what is written.
I disagree. If A and B agree, then the fence goes up. If B and C cannot agree, THEN the codes serve as the guideline. But in the case of the agreement between A and B, why would the government step in if neither one has a problem?
Sorry, that doesn't fly. Personal taste isn't part of the law, and the document I have specifically states that:
"Municipalities do not have the authority to declare something a nuisance per se, but rather may only prohibit nuisances in fact. To constitute the kind of nuisance in fact that a municipality may prohibit, the conduct or condition must be an inconvenience or a troublesome offense that annoys the community as opposed to some particular person."
In effect then, it means that simply because one person feels a fence is ugly, or that it makes his property values drop, it is not assumed that the fence is a nuisance.
I can back it up, and have the documents to prove it. The fence has to be a public problem, not an individual problem in order to be an offense, according to PA guidelines based on case law.
Sorry, but it still must conform to the guidleines set forth, and simply being "huge" or "not fitting" isn't a legal criteria.
If all he does is park a company vehicle on his land, thats a far cry from parking a company fleet at the house. The line is drawn when it corsses the ZONING code requiements, not the PROPERTY code requirements.
You've answered your question. When it disturbs the peace, a commonly known summary violation.
I've consistantly referred to one document and cited its source and applicability. ANyone who missed that is on their own.
No Max. The constitution does not give you the right to do anything you please. You also seem to have a rather strange definition of whats considered infringement. You have certain rights but so do your neighbors. They have the right to not be bothered by the very things you claim a right to be able to do as you please.
Should we therefore not have zoning laws because they aren't constitutional? Commercial businesses intermixed in a residential neighborhood? What the heck...anything goes because you have the right to do as you please huh?
Paved driveways prevent dust. It also prevents rocks from being spread out onto the roadway.
With your views neighborhoods would go down the tubes with the "I can do anything I want" mantra. Your views are also the very reason why home owner associations have been formed. I dislike them completely but they are a necessity in areas with people that have your views.
Would you want to live next door to someones house thats basically a dump strewn with junked cars, weeds, and basic filth?
Actually in many areas it does. Often when an area bordering a residential neighborhood the resulting court battle is centered on reduction of property values. Same thing when certain businesses wish to build next to a neighborhood. They often when on the financial concerns.
Why does it have to be a hazard to be unacceptable? If it alters the basic look of the neighborhood against the CC&Rs or other restrictions then it shouldnt be allowed. Why 7'? How about a 20' brick fence? That ok? How about a monstorous 3 or 4 story mega house built in the middle of simple small 1 story homes? How about a mobile home complete with busted down cars out front being put up among high $ elaborate homes?
So are you only referring to your particular area in what you are for or against? Or should people be able to do as they please nationwide in all neighborhoods?
I know you have Max, but it appears that there have been "arduements" made about what you are citing, and the basis of said "arguements" are codes/laws from other states. That is the point I was trying to make.
Actually, it does. Try reading the Tenth Amendment.
My "strange definition" of what is in fringement is exactly what yours is, using different words. My Rights extend as far as your Rights. So long as I do not infringe on your Rights, I can do as I please.
No, we should therefore not have property codes because they are unlawful. Zoning Codes, as I've said previously, serve an important purpose.
Yes, anything goes on your own property, so long as you follow ZONING and BUILDING codes. Property Codes are a pile of malarky that should be done away with.
True. However, at thousands of dollars to do so, it would be a finacial imposition to suddenly enforce this code, which has been on the books for decades. As such, it has no business being there EXCEPT as a guideline to settle disputes. Much as I said to begin with, the borough here does EXACTLY that, and does NOT enforce this section of the property code.
Fortunately, in the areas where people have my views, there are usually more of us than those of you who feel your Rights are infringed if someone else breathes in the same room.
Homeowners Associations are different than law and government. HA's are much like country clubs.... they are for people who seem to feel more rules are better. A neighborhood with an HA can put forth rules, as long as the the property owners who are there when the rules are put in place AGREE to those rules, AND the rules are put forth to anyone buying property. In an area without an HA, the Constitution and case law are the law. Thus, if two neighbors ssay that the fence on their mutual property line is fine by them, it is merely a "rule" by which they agree to abide, much as a set of rules that an HA might put in place. So.....
If your HA can put in place rules that bind the members of the group, why can the average citizen not do the same, so long as all affected agree?
All of the above can be proven to be a hazard to the safety and health of the public. A fence, OTOH, cannot be proven such. However, if I lived next to such a place, I would simply erect a 7' fence and be done with it.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.