Trouble in Michigan

[Kirnwaffen]

I agree that the man should be allowed to do as he wishes with his property; however, I think there are probably better solutions to this dispute than calling up a bunch of gun nuts and throwing a blood bath.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Boris just cut to the only relevant point in this case:



Oh yes it does. It's his personal, private property and he's not hurting anyone.

Good, then I'll buy land surrounding yours on all sides, elevate it by at least ten feet with the drainage slopes all pointed towards the center of your land, and advertise my do-it-yourself toxic waste storage site. After all, it's my land, and I'm not hurting anyone until after the leakage on to your property. Your estate can straighten it out with me then.


It's his personal, private property, and since land title exists ONLY by means of state law, his acquisition of that property and recording of title SUBJECT TO zoning and land use laws is an agreement by him to comply with those laws.

If you don't like that system, move someplace where there is no law governing land deeds, titles, or property boundaries, and try to figure out on your own or with your neighbors how you're going to determine the boundaries and prove title. Should be pretty straightforward. Otherwise, if you buy land in states or counties with land use laws or regulations, you're pretty much stuck.

Unless he can prove that the land was inherited and was in his family prior to Michigan being a state or territory of the US.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The supposed right of a community to fashion zoninng laws as they see fit often runs contrary to other established rights. The zoning laws need to conform to the right to private property. If there has been a long train of abuses of individual liberties by way of zoning laws then someone needs to stand up against it. These laws are regularly abused to take people's property at the whim of powerful people within local governments. Calling this guy "trailer trash" because he is not rich and powerful helps his case in my opinion. On the other hand, maybe he is just a rebellious nut. Who know at this point?

In 99% of the US (I'm sure there are some NE Nevada desert counties where they just don't give a **** what you do with your land ), it's not a supposed right at all. It's built into the land use and title laws by which you buy and and record your property deeds.

If you look in all the gobbledygook fine print in all the title documents, you're essentially agreeing to buy the property subject to those regulatory conditions.

[David Floyd]

Good, then I'll buy land surrounding yours on all sides, elevate it by at least ten feet with the drainage slopes all pointed towards the center of your land, and advertise my do-it-yourself toxic waste storage site. After all, it's my land, and I'm not hurting anyone until after the leakage on to your property.

That's a silly, smartass answer, but the fact remains that no one is actually going to do this.

In fact, this doesn't even relate at all, because dumping something on my property is the same as violating my property rights. You're property rights, that is, don't extend to violate mine.

This is sorta like the comment you made before about building a road around my house and charging me tolls. Yeah, great, you could do that I suppose, but you'd be losing money on the deal so why the hell would you?

It's his personal, private property, and since land title exists ONLY by means of state law,

"Land title" is simply an efficient way of legally recognizing property rights that already exist. Taking away "land title" doesn't also take away property rights, it simply takes away the government's recognition of your property rights.

I can refuse to recognize your property rights. Then again, you can shoot me if I try to rob your house.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
I agree that the man should be allowed to do as he wishes with his property; however, I think there are probably better solutions to this dispute than calling up a bunch of gun nuts and throwing a blood bath.

Yea, but that wouldn't be the American way.

This whole thing reminds me of a friend of mine who is fighting the city of Big Bear, California over the use of her property. The city is in clear violation of both the California and US constitution and she is supported by legal precident as well. She operated her lodge for the past 40 years unmolested but recently the city passed a new zoning ordinance requiring her to only use the property for a small number of guests (the lodge accomadates groups of 30). The city only came into existence about 20 some years ago but they claim she has no grandfather rights. These people are simply thieves. They will take whatever they think they can get away with. She is fighting it legally but everyone does not have the money she has to actually use their rights.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


In 99% of the US (I'm sure there are some NE Nevada desert counties where they just don't give a **** what you do with your land ), it's not a supposed right at all. It's built into the land use and title laws by which you buy and and record your property deeds.

If you look in all the gobbledygook fine print in all the title documents, you're essentially agreeing to buy the property subject to those regulatory conditions.

That's why I live in rural Tennessee. We actually own the land here. But I agree that we are an exception now days.

[Kirnwaffen]

Yea, but that wouldn't be the American way.

This whole thing reminds me of a friend of mine who is fighting the city of Big Bear, California over the use of her property. The city is in clear violation of both the California and US constitution and she is supported by legal precident as well. She operated her lodge for the past 40 years unmolested but recently the city passed a new zoning ordinance requiring her to only use the property for a small number of guests (the lodge accomadates groups of 30). The city only came into existence about 20 some years ago but they claim she has no grandfather rights. These people are simply thieves. They will take whatever they think they can get away with. She is fighting it legally but everyone does not have the money she has to actually use their rights.

If you think city government is bad, try dealing with the county. Despite concerns over drainage (basically, there are already people across the road with flooding basements, which will be exacerbated), school overcrowding, traffic, and emergency vechicle access, the commisioners still approved the development of over 100 houses on half-acre lots right behind me 4-1. Sorry about your friend tho.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's a silly, smartass answer, but the fact remains that no one is actually going to do this.

In fact, this doesn't even relate at all, because dumping something on my property is the same as violating my property rights. You're property rights, that is, don't extend to violate mine.

Well, neighbor, I appreciate your concern, but it's my damn land, and nothin's gettin dumped on you, so shove off. I know what I'm doin' and what I'm doin' on my land ain't hurting you, so it's none of your business.

It's only "silly and smartass" because the system you ***** about prevents someone from building a toxic waste dump surrounding your land without going through permits, community review, etc. Or it just decides that in a residential neighborhood next door to an elementary school, nobody's going to build a toxic waste dump period.

How about it you build your lil' ol' dream house with a firing range and a bunker and all, and I just decide the lot next door is the perfect location for my new junkyard.

The entire purpose of zoning and land use laws is to set technically reasonable construction and use standards to prevent problems ahead of time.

This is sorta like the comment you made before about building a road around my house and charging me tolls. Yeah, great, you could do that I suppose, but you'd be losing money on the deal so why the hell would you?

Because if I have more money than you, and you can't be permanently self-sufficient on your piece of land, or you just get sick of the BS, I can (under your theoretical system) effectively harass you off your land and take it over when you sell or abandon it. It's been a historically common practice, BTW, but not exactly with roads.

"Land title" is simply an efficient way of legally recognizing property rights that already exist. Taking away "land title" doesn't also take away property rights, it simply takes away the government's recognition of your property rights.

More of this "natural rights" mumbo jumbo. If you believe in natural rights, I assume you'll promptly return any land you buy to the descendents of the rightful title holders from whom it was stolen?

Somebody can rant in the woods "this is my land, this is my land" all they want, but if nobody recognizes the validity of that claim, it's pretty meaningless.

You can't sell it and you can't prove the boundaries. "See - there's where I took a leak on this rock, this is MY land." So you can talk natural rights fantasy all you want, but it is meaningless until you have a general recognition of that right.

I can refuse to recognize your property rights. Then again, you can shoot me if I try to rob your house.

An individual refusal to recognize something doesn't negate recognition by the general populace. But if I shoot you for trespassing, and my "right" to the land I shot you for trespassing on isn't recognized as valid, I may be in a tad of trouble.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln


That's why I live in rural Tennessee. We actually own the land here. But I agree that we are an exception now days.

Wasn't that where Gore had his little trouble with the EPA and his neighbors?

[David Floyd]

Well, neighbor, I appreciate your concern, but it's my damn land, and nothin's gettin dumped on you, so shove off. I know what I'm doin' and what I'm doin' on my land ain't hurting you, so it's none of your business.

The problem is that you are intentionally draining toxic waste on my land. If you want to set up a toxic waste dump on your land, fine. Granted, I'll probably move, assuming I actually own "land" in the sense that it would be possible to set up a toxic waste dump.

But if you start dumping stuff on my land, I'll probably just sue you instead.

Because if I have more money than you, and you can't be permanently self-sufficient on your piece of land, or you just get sick of the BS, I can (under your theoretical system) effectively harass you off your land and take it over when you sell or abandon it. It's been a historically common practice, BTW, but not exactly with roads.

And not exactly on that scale, either. It would cost you millions to drive me out, plus months of construction, when I'd simply act in my own rational self interest and sell you the damn house for a tenth of the cost.

And yes, someone might not sell, but I still don't see you or anyone else spending months and millions on a road that is going to be useless later anyway.

If you believe in natural rights, I assume you'll promptly return any land you buy to the descendents of the rightful title holders from whom it was stolen?

Interesting question. Of course, I don't own any land, so it's a moot point, and in any case, I'd be surprised if you could find anyone who could legitimately claim that their descendants owned land I'm living on.

But if I shoot you for trespassing, and my "right" to the land I shot you for trespassing on isn't recognized as valid, I may be in a tad of trouble.

Sure, legally speaking, but you're missing the point.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nut cases.

Yeah. This sounds just like the anarchist nut cases that were arrested for resisting arrest in a house that had been condemned. At that time, Che, I recall you thought the police were in the wrong. Why the change in position?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Wasn't that where Gore had his little trouble with the EPA and his neighbors?

Yeah

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd


The problem is that you are intentionally draining toxic waste on my land. If you want to set up a toxic waste dump on your land, fine. Granted, I'll probably move, assuming I actually own "land" in the sense that it would be possible to set up a toxic waste dump.

But if you start dumping stuff on my land, I'll probably just sue you instead.

And if your only remedy is after the fact, and I have the resources to outlawyer you, and I deny that there's any leakage (instead you're trying to undercut my business by having people dump on your land, but you don't know what you're doing ), and on and on, you end up like those folks in Woburn getting aerosolized carcinogens into their lungs every time they take a shower.

And not exactly on that scale, either. It would cost you millions to drive me out, plus months of construction, when I'd simply act in my own rational self interest and sell you the damn house for a tenth of the cost.

I didn't say I needed to build an interstate highway. And if your system of "rights" allows someone to force you out at a loss, then it's not much of a system of rights.

And yes, someone might not sell, but I still don't see you or anyone else spending months and millions on a road that is going to be useless later anyway.

It wouldn't have to be millions, like I said, and this sort of thing has been done all the time. 30 years ago, much of the Temecula valley was abandoned or semi-abandoned ranches. Now a lot of it is yuppie housing. Land development is generally a very long term investment. And pesky holdouts in the middle of the developers property can really screw up future plans.

Interesting question. Of course, I don't own any land, so it's a moot point, and in any case, I'd be surprised if you could find anyone who could legitimately claim that their descendants owned land I'm living on.

Since you keep talking about rights that exist independent of government recognition, I was talking about the Indians who were murdered and forcibly driven off their lands. After all, if you have "natural rights" it doesn't seem natural that they'd only be available to white people.

Sure, legally speaking, but you're missing the point.

Not at all - my point is that the "ownership" doesn't exist outside the legal framework for ownership.

[OzzyKP]

Jeeze, look at all the rabid folks on this forum calling for a Waco style beat down on these people. For what, a trailer?

Is it such a terrible crime to have a trailer on one's property (their home btw) that the police should come in shooting to demand its destroyed? Despite the many crazy extrapolations, he isn't building a missle silo or a nuclear plant, its a stupid trailer. Is it really worth bloodshed so the government can tear down some poor guy's home? Aren't liberal's supposed to have sympathy for the poor instead of advocating their destruction?

Actually, on second thought you all may be right. I spotted another flagrant lawbreaker in need of criminal prosecution the other day. It seems this little girl was operating a business without a license, won't these lawbreakers ever learn. That lemonade stand is a threat to society ya know. The law is the law, no exceptions. If we allow unlicensed lemondade stands we'll have to allow unlicensed nuclear arms dealers, you don't want that do you? This 8 year old girl should be made an example of, send her to prison till she's 21. If anyone resists, shoot 'em and burn down their house. Damn rednecks all should be shot.

[Spiffor]

So, if I understand the thread:

- we have a guy who refused to obey a judge's decision, as he insisted to keep his mobile home of sorts on his land.
- The police intends to enforce the ruling
- The guy says any cop that approaches will be shot on sight
- He gets the support of a 600 people militia, who intend to kill whatever force is deployed to enforce the ruling.

So, if I understand correctly, we have 601 people having their hardon at the idea of starting a massacre over a mobile home ?

I'm tired, so maybe that's why I don't get what the police / justice did wrong...