2003 RAM 2500 Diesel towing do's and don'ts

Page 2 of 4  

owner
a
a
property
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.

that
enforce
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.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Max Dodge wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Max Dodge wrote:

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Max Dodge wrote:

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Max Dodge wrote:

The 10th simply states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
The constitution does not prohibit a state from creating CC&R's, Deed restrictions or zoning regulations that imposes restrictions on what you can and can't do with or on your property.

True Max but you seem to have defined what your rights are and what my rights are and what entails infringement and what does not.

Show me where in the constitution it outlaws such codes. You mentioned the 10th and it certainly does not. Instead it specifically gives such powers to the states for anything not specifically prohibited by the constitution elsewhere.

So you really feel that you should be able to build any structure you want on your own property without limitation? You best become a hermit and live far away from others with that attitude! Your idea of the perfect neighborhood where people can do anything they want on their property would result in a complete disorganized mess of a dump. Our disagreement is with respect to what you consider infringement of rights.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I take it he is saying he would not put a trucking operation (a commerical business) in a area zoned single family residential.
You best become a hermit

If the permitted use is zoned single family residental, he wouldn't be converting his single family home into a 2 family house. Am I correct?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roy wrote:

Thats true. But I do not think its right to allow a mega-huge elaborate 10,000sf house in the middle of small 1200sf homes or vis-versa. I feel a neighborhood should have some uniformity to it. A free for all is not desirable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why is a "uniform" neighborhood desireable? You are aware, are you not, that many neighborhoods that were built before the "tract housing" boom are far from "uniform?"
Besides, in your example, a 10kSF house would be an improvement to the neighborhood.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Max Dodge wrote:

I'm not referring to the all look alike tract housing. I grew up in an area where single story ranch style homes were the norm. Some people lately have wanted to bull doze their home and put up a mega huge multi-story home. Some nearby neighborhoods have such houses and they basically look like small hotels! They were stopped because they disrupt the uniformity of the neighborhood and make it look like something much different than why people bought there in the first place.

Thats not true at all. A massive house in the middle of simple small homes is not always an improvement. Its a distraction and an eyesore in many areas. It looks out of place.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The way it works here is you can utilize a certain percentage of the sq. ft. of the lot for the footprint of the structure. Also povides for set back and and side distance's.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roy wrote:

They do that here too but the lots are 1 acre which allows for a lot of house. The area was developed in the 60's and 70's and every home was around 2000-3000sf ranch style 1 story. New owners are wanting to bull doze their home and put up homes 2 to 3 times the size. It seems there isn't a restriction on the sf, only the side distances etc. All of the existing homes are 1 story but there was no rule against 2 or 3 stories. The existing home owners are fighting hard to prevent the huge exotic homes from being built. They want to keep it looking like a quiet ranch style country home neighborhood.
Luckily the one major rule for the entire town is that no commercial business is allowed anywhere in the town limits. Not many towns like that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is no prohibition, but there is the direct statement that the Rights not defined by the Constitution belong to the people.

Quite the contrary, that is what the codes do. If I had "defined" our respective Rights, I would have done as the Constitution does, and left it wide open.

I'll do one better, I'll show you a document that is based on case law, which is based on Constitutional Law, thus proving that my assertions are not only true, but tested by due process of law. Let me know when you wish to see it.

Again, that is building codes, and as I stated when discussing with Roy, I agree that building codes are a necessity.

Apparently our disagreement centers on whether or not the government knows better than the individual when it comes to Rights and freedom. You prefer that the government determine that sort of thing for you, while I prefer to determine that for myself.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Max Dodge wrote:

Not so. You left out the part about the states ability to set laws whenever they are not prohibited in the constitution.

The constitution doesn't prohibit the states from making such property laws. In fact, the constitution says the states can make any laws not specifically prohibited by the constitution.

Not so at all. The problem is that people who live in close proximity to each other can't agree on what is best for the neighborhood.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Incorrect. I mentioned, many times, the documentation I have that the property codes must follow certain guidleines that do not violate the individual's Rights. This is backed by case law that was decided in Courts that use the Constitution as their foundation for interpreting law.

False. The Constitution does not allow anyone to make laws, it DOES detail where any Rights NOT specifically addressed by the Constitution are given to the State and the Individual.
Many people seem to think the Constitution is a document that sets limitations. It does not. The Constitution allows freedoms and Rights.

Most times they can... in this area, almsot all people figure that private property includes certain rights. The only time thats not the majority opinion is when the governing body can collect funding from fines.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.