Amendola's Neighbors Are Mad at Him

[Galeb]

I agree completely with that statement. However, my comment about ZBAs still stands. When one buys into an area, and that area has a ZBA, one is agreeing to abide by those rules. It isn't any more a "loss of freedom" or "property rights" than not being allowed to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater is a loss of freedom of speech. Yes, here, he did not technically violate the rules and as a previous poster wrote, they should bring it up at the next meeting where rules can be modified to restrict "temporary structures" to specific instances.

Your example is bad. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre can cause injury and death. Putting up a car port subjectively affects the aesthetics of a property. Such developed attachment is very unhealthy for both the individual and society as a whole.

 

[XLIX]

The explanation is obvious. No matter how hard you try to justify it, the desire to have control over how others live is a highly advanced level of attachment. In the long run, such things only lead to conflict and pain.

That's completely ridiculous. According to that silly logic, any contractual agreement any group of people sign is just a "desire to have control over how others live."

I don't care how others live or what goes on inside their homes, I just want to live in a nice, aesthetically pleasing neighborhood. As such, I moved into a neighborhood where I sacrifice some control over my property in order to gain some control over others' property.

You may not care if the view out your front window is one where your neighbor has parked a broken down '72 Camaro on cinder blocks on their front lawn that they have been "restoring"' for the past 8 years, but I just don't want that.

I said it before and you completely ignored it so I'll say it again: everyone in my neighborhood lives under the same rules and no one is forced to live here. I don't have any more control over them than they do over me.

 

[XLIX]

What happens if the owner dies and the one who inherits the property doesn't agree with said rules? Should they sell the house they grew up in because the neighbors want their mailbox a certain color?

Uh, newsflash: In the real world, if you inherit something like a business or a house that has contractual agreements attached to it, then yes, you are legally obligated to honor those contractual agreements.

Whether or not they feel like it is worth moving so they can get a mailbox of a different color is entirely up to them.

What exactly do you think should happen? They should be able to say "I didn't buy this property, I inherited it, so your rules don't apply to me."...?

 

[IllegalContact]

 

[SLGDEV]

Your example is bad. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre can cause injury and death. Putting up a car port subjectively affects the aesthetics of a property. Such developed attachment is very unhealthy for both the individual and society as a whole.

The point here is "restriction of liberty", be it in "property rights" or "speech". The rationale for restricting those rights is, well, irrelevant. We restrict freedom of speech in that instance for the common good. We restrict the property rights by contractual arrangement for the common good. That one is the avoidance of injury and the other is for protection of investment (house) value and aesthetics, is totally besides the point. The analogy is perfect.

 

[XLIX]

It seems to me that the people in this thread who live in zoned neighborhood associations are very happy that they do and the ones who are the busybodies trying to restrict others' freedoms are the ones saying: "you shouldn't have the right to group with all your neighbors and create rules that you all agree to abide by."

I consider it an attack on my freedoms when someone thinks they can tell me and my neighbors what sorts of deals we should not be allowed to make with each other. The contracts I have with my neighbors are none of your damn business so I'll thank you to butt out.

 

[Galeb]

It seems to me that the people in this thread who live in zoned neighborhood associations are very happy that they do and the ones who are the busybodies trying to restrict others' freedoms are the ones saying: "you shouldn't have the right to group with all your neighbors and create rules that you all agree to abide by."

I consider it an attack on my freedoms when someone thinks they can tell me and my neighbors what sorts of deals we should not be allowed to make with each other. The contracts I have with my neighbors are none of your damn business so I'll thank you to butt out.

Yes, we are trying to limit the rights of people by limiting laws the that limit peoples rights...

In a capitalist, democratic society, you should have sovereignty over your own property as long as you're not harming anyone (real harm, not panties in a bunch over aesthetics). If you want to enforce rules on an area, then said group should own the entire area. The truth of the idea is easy to see when not obscured by entitlement.

Indentured servitude, slavery and bounties for native scalps were once contracts honored by this government. That didn't make them right.

 

[dales804]

@IllegalContact is killing me in this thread. I'm dying here.

 

[SLGDEV]

Yes, we are trying to limit the rights of people by limiting laws the that limit peoples rights... In a capitalist, democratic society, you should have sovereignty over your own property as long as you're not harming anyone (real harm, not panties in a bunch over aesthetics). If you want to enforce rules on an area, then said group should own the entire area. The truth of the idea is easy to see when not obscured by entitlement.

Indentured servitude, slavery and bounties for native scalps were once contracts honored by this government. That didn't make them right.

Here is a question for you. Should you be allowed to have the freedom to decrease the value of my property?

If HOA (Home Owners Association) or other agreed upon group has in its rules that everyone has to maintain the appearance of their front yards (mowing, no junk, etc.), should you be allowed to have a rusted out old junker on your front lawn, which, of course, decreases the value of my property if I were your neighbor. Like it or not, your junker will drive away many potential buyers for my house and thus radically reduce its value. So, again, if there are covenants in the rules of the organization, should you be allowed to defy them in "the name of freedom"? Yes or no?

 

[PatsDeb]

@IllegalContact is killing me in this thread. I'm dying here.

I was going to ask where the picture of Fonzie and the shark is, but your're right, Illegal's pics are better. No one seems to be paying attention, however...

 

[Joker]

A lot of you understand YOUR neighborhood and zoning. You do NOT understand Providence zoning,politics or the neighborhood in question.Where Amendola lives, Benefit Street on the East Side, there reside also student populations of Brown University, R.I.S.D and Johnson & Wales. Unless you've LIVED there you shouldn't be making sweeping assertions based on YOUR neighborhood and its' zoning boards/rules.

"Providence no longer needs a Zoning Board.
Well, that’s not entirely true. But it’s a joke, Zoning Board member Scott Wolf proudly told during a taping of myRITV’s Executive Suite last year. Because the new ordinance clarifies a lot of confusion and provides predictability around zoning rules, the Zoning’s Board’s caseload is expected to see a significant reduction."

9 things to know about Providence's new zoning ordinance

 

[XLIX]

Yes, we are trying to limit the rights of people by limiting laws the that limit peoples rights... In a capitalist, democratic society, you should have sovereignty over your own property as long as you're not harming anyone (real harm, not panties in a bunch over aesthetics). If you want to enforce rules on an area, then said group should own the entire area.

Uh, newsflash: That's exactly what is happening!! The guy who originally bought all this land to develop it said "I own this property and I am going to create all these rules. If someone wants to buy some of this property from me, they must agree to abide by said rules."

Something tells me that if your next door neighbor decided to open a strip club in his home, you'd all of a sudden become a very big fan of zoning laws and not so much preach about individual liberties and property rights.

Indentured servitude, slavery and bounties for native scalps were once contracts honored by this government. That didn't make them right.

Good Lord, you just compared neighborhood associations to slavery and bounties on native scalps.

You have completely lost your mind, my friend.

 

[SLGDEV]

A lot of you understand YOUR neighborhood and zoning. You do NOT understand Providence zoning,politics or the neighborhood in question.Where Amendola lives, Benefit Street on the East Side, there reside also student populations of Brown University, R.I.S.D and Johnson & Wales. Unless you've LIVED there you shouldn't be making sweeping assertions based on YOUR neighborhood and its' zoning boards/rules.

"Providence no longer needs a Zoning Board.
Well, that’s not entirely true. But it’s a joke, Zoning Board member Scott Wolf proudly told during a taping of myRITV’s Executive Suite last year. Because the new ordinance clarifies a lot of confusion and provides predictability around zoning rules, the Zoning’s Board’s caseload is expected to see a significant reduction."

9 things to know about Providence's new zoning ordinance

You may well be right about corrupt politicians and all, but this discussion has gone well beyond that. It has entered the arena of contractual agreement vs a member's right to violate the agreement. That is the larger issue and why I asked Galeb in my prior post about his right to decrease the value of my property.

 

[Joker]

You may well be right about corrupt politicians and all, but this discussion has gone well beyond that. It has entered the arena of contractual agreement vs a member's right to violate the agreement. That is the larger issue and why I asked Galeb in my prior post about his right to decrease the value of my property.

While there MAY be an element of corruption to zoning decisions in Providence (rolling around hysterically laughing), this particular Amendola tempest just prompted me to call a close friend and attorney with an office on the East Side, up the hill and down near Wayland Square(another student/historic mix area). The real story behind this is a realty management firm that owns properties all over the East Side, besides up and down Benefit St, this firm is behind the complaint. Figures.

 

[oldrover]

This thread should be moved to the zoning board forum.

 

[Galeb]

Uh, newsflash: That's exactly what is happening!! The guy who originally bought all this land to develop it said "I own this property and I am going to create all these rules. If someone wants to buy some of this property from me, they must agree to abide by said rules."

Something tells me that if your next door neighbor decided to open a strip club in his home, you'd all of a sudden become a very big fan of zoning laws and not so much preach about individual liberties and property rights.
Good Lord, you just compared neighborhood associations to slavery and bounties on native scalps.

You have completely lost your mind, my friend.

Actually, I didn't compare the severity of the wrongness of the contracts themselves. I simply used examples so egregious, that even the most entitled would see it.

Once you sell an actual piece of property, it is no longer yours. If you really wanted to create some weird isolated "Utopia", you could achieve it by selling "stakes" to someone and allow them to live there, but the property would not be theirs. Any "stake" can't be transferred and an agreed upon amount of cash would be transferred as any settlement or inheritance. Such a thing would be an ethical means to achieve the same results without violating freedoms so fundamental to a democratic, capitalist society.

It appears that getting through to you may be beyond my abilities with written word.

Normally I wouldn't go so far in such an argument, but our government restricts our freedoms way too far. Not only do we not have sovereignty over our own property, we don't have complete sovereignty over our own bodies and consciousness. It is truly scary that so many meekly accept the tyranny of such a corrupt and immoral government that seeks profit and power over all else.

 

[Galeb]

Here is a question for you. Should you be allowed to have the freedom to decrease the value of my property?

If HOA (Home Owners Association) or other agreed upon group has in its rules that everyone has to maintain the appearance of their front yards (mowing, no junk, etc.), should you be allowed to have a rusted out old junker on your front lawn, which, of course, decreases the value of my property if I were your neighbor. Like it or not, your junker will drive away many potential buyers for my house and thus radically reduce its value. So, again, if there are covenants in the rules of the organization, should you be allowed to defy them in "the name of freedom"? Yes or no?

First of all, it was YOU championing the "spirit" of the law when condemning the beautiful, legal "loophole" "exploited" by Evil Amendola, Trasher of Neighborhoods. Your own argument completely invalidates your last entire last paragraph. I also didn't say he should break the rules of said group, rather that such rules completely violate the spirit (your words) of our entire system of laws. That said, I did support the legal, circumvention through perceived "loopholes".

In a democratic, capitalist society, I should not be allowed to physically damage your property in any way, nor should I be allowed on it without your permission. It is also reasonable that I be made to adhere to noise, or ordinances so as not to interfere with socially accepted sleep time frames as regular, good sleep is vital to our well-being. That said, my sovereignty over my land should be independent of the value of your land. I understand peoples annoyances with neighbors I was forced to put in a huge stockade fence and long row of arborvitaes because of a slob neighbor. It came at great expense at a time when I could barely afford it, but such is the price of freedom.

It doesn't look like I'll be able to get through to you either.

 

[Galeb]

This thread should be moved to the zoning board forum.

OK, I'll stop. Believe it or not, I was actually trying to help people.

 

[dales804]

OK, I'll stop. Believe it or not, I was actually trying to help people.

 

[XLIX]

Once you sell an actual piece of property, it is no longer yours.

Yes but I can choose whom to sell it to (assuming I abide by all laws against discrimination) and I may also attach terms and conditions of sale.

Not only do we not have sovereignty over our own property, we don't have complete sovereignty over our own bodies and consciousness. It is truly scary that so many meekly accept the tyranny of such a corrupt and immoral government that seeks profit and power over all else.

The only one behaving like a tyrant intent on controlling others is you.

If my neighbor and I write up a contract whereby we each state "I agree not to paint my house yellow polka dots and in return you agree not to paint your house yellow polka dots and we each also agree to sell our houses only to people willing to adopt and sign this contract" and you live 1,000 miles away and this doesn't concern you in the slightest, then who in the hell do you think you are to tell us we can't do that???