By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
* Require two trees to be planted if one is removed from your property
* Limit the “number/density of fast food outlets and drive-through windows” in the name of public health
* Discourage individual parking options to promote public transportation usage
None of those sound particularly "Freedom-Robbing" to me......they sound like good ideas. Every city should start doing that.
I am sure you do feel that way. As it is not your property they are taking away your freedom to do as you would like with. Suppose you own an acre of trees and would like to clear just enough space to build a home. Those regulations would make it very difficult. Or you own water front property that you would like to build something on to generate enough income to cover the high taxes. It is a further erosion of personal rights in the name of environmental concern. LA has already blocked fast food restaurants in the South Side because the population is obese. I am still waiting for the Phoenix mandate that requires all building to cut back on air conditioning to no lower than 85 degrees. Then we will hear some screaming.
What can you "build on" to a waterfront property to "generate income?"
Blocking MORE fast food restaurants to try and help people control themselves is not a bad idea. If another new fast food restaurant was NEVER EVER built again in LA, they would have enough as is.
I'd welcome the reduced electricity bills if Phoenix forced an 85 degree home. I already hang out at around 81-83 anyway.
The one thing everyone did that bugged me was burning leaves in the fall - this was back in '84 and even frigid Anchorage was composting them citywide by then.
When Hitler restricted where Jews could live and what occupations they could work at a lot of Germans thought that was a good idea. When Stalin came up with the idea of starving 6 million farmers because they didn't share his vision of land use some Russians though it was a good idea. When Mao started shooting drug dealers and charging their families for the cost of the bullet many Chinese thought it was a great idea.
Me? I'm not so sure that more government control over me is EVER a good idea.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Indeed Stalin and Mao had many more folks to kill!!!??
Some estimations put Stalin's killing spree (my .02cents) at 23 million Russians.
Mao's killing spree is estimated at 23 to 26 M Chinese.
I guess it is not genocide when you wipe out your own peoples' :sick: :lemon: !!???
Guvmint already "controls" you.
They force you to pay taxes, to not murder someone, to wear a seatbelt, to pay for the roads you drive on, etc etc.
Having guvmint tell you "if you kill a tree, please plant two to replace it" or "try to find smarter ways to get to work other than the "one person, one car" method" is not akin to anything you mentioned in your post.
Keep it Real, YO.
(You or) anybody can google this, about the Lake Tahoe, CA issue.
Short version :
development, population and so called tree cutting has been severely limited to banned. ANY incident of forest fire is instantly stamped out.
Short version result:
the policy over time has led to a figurative as well as literal powder keg situation. There are HUGE untold supplies of dead to rotting fuel instantly available for a conflagration (literal hell on earth fire).
Proably closer to you, you can also google about a past conflagration which enveloped a large percentage of New Mexico.
Just keeping it REAL. :shades:
Wrong again. I live within city-limits, a small city, but I have 12 acres, 11 of which are trees. The only cleared are for my leachfield, driveway and house. I will cut any or all the trees I want, as the government did not contribute $0.01 to the purchase.
I believe in the rights of the owner to do anything with their property they want, unless it is really egregious, such as turning it into a strip-mine.
What can you "build on" to a waterfront property to "generate income?"
LOL, as you live in the desert!
Blocking MORE fast food restaurants to try and help people control themselves is not a bad idea.
Sure it is. Let people decide for themselves. We let people drink alcohol, smoke, and gamble all they want - probably a lot of negatives. but it's peoples' rights.
I'd welcome the reduced electricity bills if Phoenix forced an 85 degree home.
Before the 1940's didn't everyone who lived in places like Phoenix NOT have AC at all. Why not live like people in 1900, and shut the AC off altogether?
I did not say "Impossible" I said "rare" And in most CITIES it IS RARE. No city that has a huge number of people with more than 1 acre of trees is going to put in a policy that would harm those people, because they have political power. If the people in the city that Gary mentioned who are large land owners want to stop the law, they CAN do so. Just as if it were to happen in YOUR town you could stop it if there were enough citizens who would be harmed. Last I checked, guvmint is still BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE.
kernick says, "but it's peoples' rights. "
Sorry, having a Jack in the Crack on every city block is NOT a "right."
I'd shut off my A/C if it became law. But there are enough people to block any such silliness.
Again it is whose ox is getting gored.
Here is an easy example, San Francisco used to use or have NO air conditioners or a very very small percentage. Now I do not think code allows building of a high rise structure without adequate A/C !!!! So to ask the REAL question. How is that LESS consumptive?
The new law does not stipulate the size of lot. I just used an acre as an example. Their new law just says if you remove a tree you have to plant two in its place. Makes no difference if your lot will not support it. I guess you could get around the law planting a couple Bonzai trees. Making laws based on a theory "Man made GW/CC" is scary.
Protect trees, but when they are lost in the process of development they must be replaced. (e.g., if 1 tree is removed, 2 or more must replace it).
http://www.cityofmadison.com/clerk/documents/2008/SustainabilityAg20081210.pdf
Key phrase:
"when they are lost in the process of DEVELOPMENT"
This is a commercial law, not for residents and normal home owners.
In that case, it takes no one's freedom at all and makes even more sense than if they were targeting homeowners.
So what are you in here for? Well I did A GW (George Washington chopping the cherry tree) and got hard time.
Another scary example: on so called spare the air days in a CA county, it is unlawful to use the fire place. This has not proceed down to appeals case law, (aka CA Supreme Court to my knowledge) but what do you think would happen if YOUR land got seized because your tenants (rental home property) either were unaware or didn't think the law applied to them? (They are seizing your land again not theirs???) :lemon: So keep in mind that during the "eviction process" which in CA if all goes well can take 90 plus days, AND if they continue to burn through this time....Lucy... have some XPLAINING to DO !!!!
I'm in denial of WHAT, again, exactly?
district entered into a memorandum of understanding with the TRPA that
allows the district to use its forester to designate and issue permits for home-
owner tree removal, a practice previously reserved for the TRPA forester.
If you only PARTIALLY understand the issue, then yes it looks like "Tree Police [non-permissible content removed]" actions.
But when you know the WHOLE STORY, then it 'splains itself.
"Why do you think Tahoe is still a beautiful place? Should we have allowed unrestricted development and habitat destruction so people can do whatever they want? Living up here takes a certain partnership with the environment, an obligation to limit one’s impact. TRPA is being used as a scapegoat. They have a very difficult role to play. Think about what it takes to balance all the needs in the basin without a revolt from the masses.
Jack,
Tahoe Keys
ANYWAY, this is FAR OFF TOPIC. The point is: someone has to be in charge of taking care of the Tahoe area to preserve the beauty and KEEP THE TOURISM MONEY COMING IN.
If they seem heavy-handed at times, then look at the end game, the goal. It's worth it.
Finally something you said that we agree on.
You said "very rare" also; and since there only 5 or 6 of us who post here regularly, 1 out of 6 isn't very rare.
Sorry, having a Jack in the Crack on every city block is NOT a "right."
So if any local or state government decides something is not wanted or good for the people, the government can just pass a law and individuals don't have a right to it? If I want to get a franchise for a BK or McD's going, and the city passes a law that it can't be located within 1 mile of a school, that's okay? Since schools are all over that restricts them entirely. So you think it is okay for the government to decide what sort of restaurant/store you can open, or to go to a consumer? This is interference with peoples' opportunity to make a living. I can also see where existing business owners could influence politicians to keep out competition. Do some research on how workers were once forced to use company-stores.
State and local guvmint are FOR and BY the people. If your city is proposing something that is essentially to you or your neighbors "[non-permissible content removed]-ish" then get down there and have a say.
Guvmints are banning trans-fat, which is bad for people. All kinds of things which are known "bad things" have been banned.
Why would an "excessive proliferation of fast food restaurants" not fall under the "bad" category ?
I have been a victim of State and County regulations. So I am one that would fight their liberal agenda. I basically had my property stolen from me in Oregon. I fought it five years and gave up. I bought 13 acres that was zoned 1 acre residential. When I decided to split it and sell pieces the county changed the zoning so I could not split it at all. So this piece of potential development land that I was paying higher taxes due to the POTENTIAL was no longer good for more than ONE residence with maximum 2 bathrooms and 1200 square feet. You will never understand the issue until you get screwed by a Federal, state or local government. Then you will despise them all as I do.
That falls under the category of someone getting raped and then never wanting to have sex again. Making a bad thing WORSE instead of making the best of what was left.
And remember that state and local guvmint is FOR and BY you. "They" are not out to "get" anyone.
Gary says, "When I decided to split it and sell pieces the county changed the zoning so I could not split it at all."
That's very egocentric of you to think that the zoning rules were changed just to prevent YOU from doing something. If the reason they made the change was illegal then you could have sued them. Maybe they didn't want to chance 13 rental properties bringing down property values in that area.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The chairman of a key House committee said Thursday he will move "quickly and decisively" to push legislation curbing greenhouse gases with a goal of passing climate legislation out of his committee before Memorial Day.
If you think he is scary looking, his ideas are worse.
Do you come up with these crazy ideas on your coffee break? I never intimated the zoning changes were directed at me. It was a state mandate to keep people from moving into Oregon. Are you at all familiar with the state? Do you have any understanding of the different types of property taxes in the different states. Like farm land is taxed different than residential than commercial. When land is designated potential development land it is taxed at a much higher rate than say farm land. I bought the land to develop and I paid the higher taxes for over 10 years. Then when I applied to split the land the rules had changed. After 5 years of trying to get the zoning changed back to 1 acre I gave up and sold the whole 13 acres at a loss. Oregon had successfully screwed me and thousands of other people out of money with repressive laws to keep the flood of Californians out of their state. My understanding after many years of legal battles the large land owners were able to get the laws repealed as of 2010. You should study some of the things Oregon has pulled and are being fought in court. I do not have the money to fight them. It was easier to cut my losses and give in. Some of the things states are doing to private land owners in this country under the disguise of protecting the environment is wrong. It is the rich liberals like Robert Redford & Ted Turner protecting their own personal interests. Now they got this giant Global Warming umbrella to use against the little guys like myself. It is not going unnoticed by people with some stroke. It is the typical "I got mine, screw you".
Protesters label Redford an enemy of the poor
Oil and gas drilling » Clergymen link famed moviemaker's stance to racism.
Hollywood's Sundance Kid is hurting poor people.
So say some East Coast ministers and conservative activists, who took to the streets in front of a downtown Salt Lake City theater on the eve of Robert Redford's Sundance Film Festival to accuse the actor of holding down low-income Americans with his opposition to oil and gas drilling near national parks in Utah.
The protesters, led by the Congress of Racial Equality's national spokesman Niger Innis, suggested Redford should "relinquish his wealth" and live like a poor person. They complained that the filmmaker's anti-drilling stance could lead to higher energy prices for inner-city residents, forcing them to accept a lower standard of living.
The clergymen prayed for Redford "to see the light" and linked his environmental activism with racism.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11455096
This country was founded for INDIVIDUAL freedom; "people" are individuals. This country was not founded on the basis that any individual needs to do what 51% or 99% of their neighbors think the individual should do. Read some articles from John Adams, Thomas jefferson, and Ben Franklin.
You and many other people think that because we have a democratically elected government that is selected by who gets a majority, that every other decision in life then becomes a matter of what the majority wants. That is not was ever intended in this country. The fact is that government has been grabbing power over the years and expanding (by passing laws) what they think they should be able to decide. They are infringing on what have historically been individual rights and freedoms. The government with the acquiescence of people like you, continues to gather power and control, all in the name of protecting the individual based on their view of "good", and that individuals should not be allowed to make decisions that may be detrimental to themselves.
While these fellows disagreed on many issues of their day. Individual freedom was the glue that held them together during the very difficult times following the Revolution. I have watched over the last 50 years how our state and Federal government have slowly eaten away at individual freedoms. They always get people to agree that it is good for this or good for that and justify the loss in that manner. The last major loss was eminent domain. What a tragedy for property rights in this country. 5100 people in Riviera Beach Florida tossed from their homes to build high rise condos and a Yacht club. All under the guise of the COMMON Good. Good for WHOM
Now we are facing an even larger grab for power to take individual rights. It is called "Carbon Credits" or Cap n Trade. This will allow the misguided miscreants running states like CA to run over personal rights in ways we never dreamed possible. They have already started with mandating Alternative energy by 2012. I know SDG&E have run into roadblocks at every attempt to follow the mandate. Yet if it is not in place SDG&E will be saddled with big fines. NO, SDG&E will just raise our electric rates to compensate for their loss. The very liberal Prime Minister of Australia was all gungho for cutting GHG, until he found out it would raise utility bills 25% on average. Well he does want to get re-elected.
Kernick is absolutely RIGHT! every new well meaning regulation Steals more of our personal freedom. And the libs worry about wire tapping, sheesh.... :sick:
Oh yeah?
Name a few personal freedoms you have personally lost in the last 50 years.
Harder yet, name a few that EVERY American has lost in the last 50 years.
Then name the "reason" those changes are bad for the GENERAL PUBLIC.
It's one thing to broadly declare, "WAAH WAAH WAAH "THEY" are taking my personal freedom away WAAH WAAH WAAH !!!!!!" and entirely another thing to spell out EXACTLY what those freedoms are.
Remember: the "Collective good" is greater than the "individual good."
Well I guess given the example, if you are the lawyers and the developers, et al... whom stand to gain, it is... collectively good. :shades: :lemon:
Yes that was what Stalin preached as he killed 30 million people. Collectivism is only good for those in control. The USSR was a failed system that we have moved slowly toward over the last 75 years.
You know what personal freedoms I have been deprived of. Owning a small diesel PU truck and land being manipulated causing me a loss of money. One day you will wake from your collective slumber and realize what has happened.
But the small diesel PU issue I will not grant you.
If the carmakers did not want to put the technology in the car to make it clean enough, it's not the guvmint's fault. The fault in that case lies with the automakers in part and with the fact that there was not enough market demand for such an item.
I disagree. While I used extreme examples to make my point the principle is the same. Zealots to a cause (in the original example, Global Warming) get into power and proceed to enact laws which are so single minded that they begin to infringe on individual rights. Over time more and more extreme laws are enacted "for the public good" until you are faced with a dictatorship.
Do you think Hitler just started killing people the day he came to power? No, it was a gradual thing. Just as were the early environmental laws. Over time the laws have become more and more extreme in their scope with less and less accountability for the harm they do to people.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
You really need to get out of that cubicle more often. If I had held on another 20 years I may have gotten compensation for my loss. Then again the taxes probably would have been more than the gain in value. This kind of erosion of personal freedom is going on at different levels in many states. AZ and TX are not nearly as oppressive as the Coastal states. I don't know if you have ever owned property. It is very discouraging when laws are passed that take that property from you by regulating its value.
Unnoticed amid the suspense of the Presidential race, on November 7 the voters of Oregon adopted a landmark law for the protection of the human right of private property ownership.
Ballot Measure 7, entitled "landowner compensation", was a rebellion by Oregon voters against decades of expansion of governmental power to control the use of private land. Until the environmental revolution swept over Oregon (and Vermont) in the 1970s, the state and its subdivisions regulated land largely to prevent traditional nuisances. Local governments had used zoning since the practice was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1926, but it was usually not oppressive.
The enviro-revolution changed all that. Numerous well-funded and aggressive national, state and local environmental organizations advanced the theory of "social property". This theory held that land is a valuable resource belonging to society, not a commodity to be owned, used, and exchanged by individuals. "Owners" merely "hold" land as "stewards" subject to such conditions and restrictions as "society" (that is, the government) sees fit to impose.
This "social property" theory gave rise to a tidal wave of new land use regulations. In 1973 Oregon adopted a state land use plan, prohibiting land uses not approved by a state bureaucracy. Over the years that and other regulatory laws were ever more aggressively enforced. Oregon is full of outrageous examples of land regulations confiscating the rights of property owners and the value of their property.
This year a group called Oregonians in Action petitioned Measure 7 onto the ballot.. It provides that whenever a governmental restriction "has the effect of reducing the value of a property... the property owner shall be paid just compensation equal to the reduction in the fair market value of the property." The compensation requirement does not apply to regulation that restricts "historically and commonly recognized nuisances". It does not apply to property that was already subject to regulation when acquired by new owners. A government can escape liability for payment by rolling back the offending regulation.
The basic argument for Measure 7 is fairness. If society believes that a landowner's private property rights must be restricted in the name of some common good, then all of society ought to share in any resulting economic loss, not just the hapless landowner.
The 18th century authors of our constitutions firmly believed this. In fact, Vermont's 1777 constitution is the first one in the world to explicitly declare that when property is taken for public use, the owner has a right to receive "the equivalent in money". The enviros grudgingly accept this "takings" rule when the government actually takes possession of the property, as in highway construction. They vocally oppose it when land use regulation "merely" destroys the value of someone's property, leaving the owner with what may be a huge economic loss.
The Oregon enviros and their editorial page allies mounted a full bore attack on Measure 7. Every major editorial page in the state denounced it. The anti-Measure7 groups raised over a million dollars to defeat it, outspending its advocates 8 to 1. But on election day Oregon voters approved Measure 7 by a 55-45 margin. It was approved in 34 of the state's 36 counties, and is now part of the Oregon Constitution.
http://www.ethanallen.org/commentary.php?commentary_id=122
So what's the problem?
Just like I said - if the guvmint was doing something "bad" then the citizens rose up and protested and got it changed. Just like guvmint is supposed to work.
EPA Nominee Pledges Agency Will Establish Federal Greenhouse Gas Regulations
(and if anyone thinks we have have fewer freedoms today than in Jeffersonian times, you might want to pay close attention on 1/20).
With AL (gangster) Gore the leader of the pack. Global warming. :sick:
What will they think of next, to legalize stealing from US citizens?
Of course I disagree with you on the diesel PU truck also. I do not believe a 40 MPG small 4 cylinder diesel PU, like those sold world wide, would put out as much TOTAL pollution as my legal 15 MPG Sequoia.
And how many people had their lives ruined before that happened? To steal a quote from the movie "Die Hard"---"How many people do I have to kill before I get around to some one you DO care about?" :sick:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Still the 9th warmest year on record though.
2008 was globe's coolest year of the decade
Climate reports from two separate government agencies found that 2008 was the Earth's coolest year this decade. At the same time, data from both agencies (NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NOAA's National Climatic Data Center) identified 2008 as one of the 10 warmest years on record globally.
Although cool by recent standards, NASA says 2008 was still the 9th-warmest year on record (records extend back to 1880). The Earth's 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997, which most scientists pinpoint as a sign of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels.
NOAA's data found that 2008 tied with 2001 as the 8th-warmest year on record for the Earth, based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures through December. NOAA and NASA analyses differ slightly in methodology, but both use data from NCDC - the federal government's official source for climate data.
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature from January-December was 0.88 degree above the 20th century average of 57 degrees, the 32nd consecutive year the Earth has been warmer than average. Since 1880, the Earth's temperature has increased at a rate of 0.09 degree per decade, which has increased to 0.29 degree per decade over the past 30 years.
NASA found that most of the planet was either near average or warmer than average (see NASA map, above, click to enlarge). All of Europe, most of Asia, Africa, the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm, while small parts of central North America, southeastern South America, and much of the Pacific Ocean were slightly cooler than the long-term average.
Arctic sea ice extent in 2008 reached its second-lowest melt season extent on record in September, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The minimum of 1.80 million square miles was 0.80 million square miles below the 1979-2000 average minimum extent.
The above quote is a perfect example of talk about burning less while continuing to burn more. !! Most folks just absolutely gaze over when you say that for like models, diesels burn less on the order of normally 20-40%!!!! They just try to hide the truth. The system is hell bent on burning more AND more importantly , increasing the cost per mile driven.
More regulations to steal from the little guy. Does anyone here believe that ANY automaker can get a fleet average of 42 MPG? Of course not. It is so easy to sell that kind of ignorance to the masses. They all want a Tahoe that gets 42 MPG. It just is not going to happen. They can barely do it in a smallish midsized car like the Prius. So that means big fines that get passed on to the car buyers. It will probably have the unintended result of pushing the Domestics over the cliff. Of course that will make Moonbeam happy as he has hated them for a long time.
I can't believe you said that. Of course I agree and have tried to get my affairs in such an order as to have the least impact on my lifestyle. If I could just sell my old house I would be ready to start selling Larsb my excess carbon credits.
link title
Trading in HIS gas guzzler (Chrysler 300) for a BIGGER gas guzzler!! (news.yahoo.com) Yup, he is keeping the campaign promises, its time for a change !!
- I used to ride in the bed of a pickup truck
- I didn't need to wear a seatbelt in a car
- I didn't have to have a car-seat for kids
- I didn't have to worry about tickets from automated cameras; no proof I was driving the vehicle
And do I have the most flagrant violation of our Constitution - the Patriot Act, where anyone can be picked up and never see a lawyer or the light of day for years? Oh, did you see the news the other night where the government did acknowledge that all those years of denying torture of detainees was a lie?
- I used to ride in the bed of a pickup truck
Dangerous, makes insurance rates and hospital visits go up for all of us, kills kids, increases death rates for all
- I didn't need to wear a seatbelt in a car
Dangerous, makes insurance rates and hospital visits go up for all of us, increase death rates for all
- I didn't have to have a car-seat for kids
Dangerous, makes insurance rates and hospital visits go up for all of us, kills kids.
- I didn't have to worry about tickets from automated cameras; no proof I was driving the vehicle
You were still breaking the law in the old days.