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

I am certain that court battles do occur. However, you fail to mention any examples, nor how those particular cases were decided. Interestingly, I'd bet the solution in many cases is to allow the homeowner to erect a 7' fence.

Because the law requires it. Would you like to see the documents to which I refer?

Why 5'? As to "basic look", WTF is that?? Again, this is not something that can be decided upon "because you don't like it," it has to pose a hazard to the public.

Yup.

Wouldn't bother me a bit.

Again, the "busted down cars" might be proven to be a hazard to the public. The mobile home would have to fit the building code, a seperate set of codes from the property codes, that I've already said I agree with.

The document I have is specific to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. However, I believe that any property owner, so long as they follow the zoning codes, should do as they see fit with their land where ever it may be.

Certainly codes and law differ a bit. However, I doubt they are so different as to be far from the case law set forth by the document I have.

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?

It would seem that a definition of these "property codes" would help.

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.

A definition of "property codes", as determined by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, are codes that determine maintenance and sundry things such as grass height, tree trimming, pavement area, parking spaces, etc.

Building codes are that set of regulations that determine how a building may be constructed, with regard to materials and standards for structure, electrical, plumbing and waste.

Zoning Codes are the set of regulations that determine what areas of land may be used for specific things such as agriculture, manufacturing, business and residential.

And it's thoughts like this that created the very laws that you hate.

Seems like in MA some of PA's property codes are covered in MA zoning law. The number and size of parking spaces are regulated by zoning. MA doesn't have separate property codes. Do PA cities utilize a "Planning Board" or "Conservation Board"?

That could be. I don't have any problem with a 7' fence in general. It depends on the neighborhood. If I lived in an area where nobody had any fences resulting in a rather open natural country look then I would be upset at someone building a large brick fence.

Where I live it would be a problem if someone didn't have a fence rather than the other way around. Just depends on the area.

You told me the laws are worthless because they are unconstitutional. I asked to state where in the constitution it mentions that and you referred me to the 10th amendement...which does not prohibit such laws.

In many neighborhoods one can't build a structure that doesn't architecturally fit in to the surrounding terrain and buildings. The building permit will be rejected. I agree with much of these codes. It would look horrible to have an anything goes policy.

Now you are talking about YOUR particular area and not policies in general. I already stated that laws do exist for particular neighborhoods and people buy there with those laws in mind as to what they can and cannot do.

It would bother many others and create a horrible neighborhood to not have any structured policies at all.

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.

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.

A city can dictate the architectural styling of a building. Here in Phoenix Walmart wants to put up one of their super box stores. The local council has told Walmart it must be built to blend in architecturally with the neighborhood and not look like a typical box store. They have laws on the books for this purpose. Are these laws zoning, building codes or are they property codes that you oppose?

Another place to look at is Mammoth Lakes, California. It is a mountain resort city. All of the buildings must look somewhat rustic, wood facades, roofs, dark colors etc. Signs must be ground mounted with limits on their lighting so as not to stand out. Homes must also be built with similar restrictions. A free for all no property code that policy you seem to be for would destroy such a town.

Some towns have a planning commission, depending on the size of the town and if there is reason to use more than just the codes enforcement officer. It seems to depend more on what is being built in town than if there should actually be a plan.

We have "Historical Architecture Review Boards". HARB can be as idiotic and as helpful as the individuals on them want to be. In a local town, HARB refused to allow vinyl siding to be installed over wood siding despite the fact that the vinyl was exactly the same in color, dimension and reveal as the original wood siding. When the public caught wind of this, they arrived at the board meeting with intent to disassemble the board.

A word on the codes officer: He is not certified to enforce the building code, and is only tasked with finding property code violations. IOW, his task is mostly to provide income via fines. His position is a duplicate; the county is required by the state to have a codes officer, who IS certified to check building, zoning, and property codes. Furthermore, the borough building codes are overseen by a private company, which is paid the same per year as the codes enforcement officer gets.

My neighbor in Maryland built an 8' fence in a neighborhood that has no fences. No one complained, and I doubt it did anything to the property value, although it may have gone up due to the fence. I wasn't consulted, but then it doesn't front on my property. Its 60' from it, since we have a

60' wide right of way between the properties. Its my opinion that he put it up because the ROW is not private property and anyone could have walked on that strip of land. I don't mind it being there at all.

It does, but one must follow the legal paperwork trail of case law to see that fact.

Again, I don't have a problem with building codes. Its the property codes which are a mess and infringe on the rights of a private owner.

In my particular state. And thats what I've said since the beginning, with documentation to back what I've said.

1) You cannot assume what others would be bothered by. 2) You cannot assume it would be a "horrible neighborhood".

Again, if building codes allowed it, no problem.

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.

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.

Say there was no public right of way between properties. Here most property boundries run right up to the neighbors. There are codes that stipulate how far back from the property line a dwelling must be but no such laws about where to place a fence. Would you have minded if the fence was built right up against your property line?

This is very true and is exactly why an anything goes policy that says I don't give a damn about whether anything bothers the neighbors is a bad idea.

Thats true but the lack of any rules allows it to happen and does nothing to prevent it. The worst looking neighborhoods around here are the ones where either there are lax property laws or they are not enforced.

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.