Are you mad yet? You will be!

[CJ1089]

No, your original claim, which you now seem to be backing off of, was that you could not replace the home on your own property "one for one" and that you would have to build nine houses instead. That is just as false now as it was when I originally called you on it. You are doing the same thing as the people in the story, giving part of the story that makes you look like a victim without adding the options you have to do it the right way.

I'm not backing off. But everything said is meaningless to the terms of the wager. If WashCo doesn't issue a permit, how do I swap 1 for 1 Genius?

Right way! WTF are you talking about? Just because there exists a legal way don't make it the Right Way.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

nah still kinda on topic......... people are getting mad

what boggles me is that someone could ever defend the BS the government puts us thru

This post was about uncle sam forgetting that we make the rules and when we want liberty we should get it

Don't get me wrong. I am not in favor of all the hoops, but I am in favor of preventing developers from raping landscapes and overtaxing country resources while shouldering none of the costs themselves. They want to create artificial demand, not pay for infrastructure upgrades, and not pay the cost of their development. They want to create false profit at the expense of tax payers. Just like they did in the Pearl district.

 

[Bigfoot]

Have you two decided on a name for this reality show yet. It's getting good ratings.

Tune in tomorrow afternoon for the season finale.

 

[CJ1089]

Have you two decided on a name for this reality show yet. It's getting good ratings.

Tune in tomorrow afternoon for the season finale.

The $1000 pyramid?

Think we can beat out "Jersey Shore"?

 

[buick455]

Don't get me wrong. I am not in favor of all the hoops, but I am in favor of preventing developers from raping landscapes and overtaxing country resources while shouldering none of the costs themselves. They want to create artificial demand, not pay for infrastructure upgrades, and not pay the cost of their development. They want to create false profit at the expense of tax payers. Just like they did in the Pearl district.

What usually happens like in the pearl is the county makes it impossible for a person to develop their own land, so they ore only left with selling it to a developer at nice low price so the developer can grease the skids and get all the permits. its amazing how zoning can change when when a big time devloper gets a hold of the property........ I don't blame them we let the county commisoners set up the rules. you think CJ1089 can build 5-9 dwelings bet not but the commisoners golf buddy could

 

[CJ1089]

What usually happens like in the pearl is the county makes it impossible for a person to develop their own land, so they ore only left with selling it to a developer at nice low price so the developer can grease the skids and get all the permits. its amazing how zoning can change when when a big time devloper gets a hold of the property........ I don't blame them we let the county commisoners set up the rules. you think CJ1089 can build 5-9 dwelings bet not but the commisoners golf buddy could

Without disagreeing, the issue I had was that I wanted to be left out of the city. No city taxes, cops, sidewalks or Brownstone dwelling neighbors. Just sitting on the back porch feeding the chickens and being blissfully alone. The city/county have screwed me. When I bought the dirt it was undeveloped, now stuff is crowding in and legislatively squeezing me out.

Well this has been fun. Until next season, Adios!

 

[buick455]

Without disagreeing, the issue I had was that I wanted to be left out of the city. No city taxes, cops, sidewalks or Brownstone dwelling neighbors. Just sitting on the back porch feeding the chickens and being blissfully alone. The city/county have screwed me. When I bought the dirt it was undeveloped, now stuff is crowding in and legislatively squeezing me out.

Point taken. even if you have the money to build 9 dwellings you don't want to, I wouldn't either. The county commisoners should be worried more about your liberty than their tax income. and way more than what the developers want

 

[U201494]

Think we can beat out "Jersey Shore"?

I'm hooked if you can provide the same quality skanks as Jersey Shore.

 

[buick455]

hey Reggie heres one for ya

Pictures & Jokes » Yomi Kim Hunter – Half-Korean Beauty

 

[U201494]

Old news, besides they must be faux Italian women with attributes the size of casaba melons.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Without disagreeing, the issue I had was that I wanted to be left out of the city. No city taxes, cops, sidewalks or Brownstone dwelling neighbors. Just sitting on the back porch feeding the chickens and being blissfully alone. The city/county have screwed me. When I bought the dirt it was undeveloped, now stuff is crowding in and legislatively squeezing me out.

Well this has been fun. Until next season, Adios!

So, the real story is that you cannot develop the property without paying a tax rate equal to that of your neighbors next door. So you are not really saying you can't replace your home. You just can't do it without following the same rules any new landowner would have to follow and paying the same fees. That is exactly the point I made about the OP. You were leaving out big chunks of the story in order to paint yourself in a much more favorable light. Like I said in PM, you admitted that the only effort you have made is speaking to a clerk. You have no plans, you have asked for no variances, you have no representation, you have not requested a hearing, etc...and you want to act like you have exhausted the options.

 

[buick455]

Old news, besides they must be faux Italian women with attributes the size of casaba melons.

Ah you like em umpa loompa orange and top heavy

 

[CJ1089]

So, the real story is that you cannot develop the property without paying a tax rate equal to that of your neighbors next door. So you are not really saying you can't replace your home. You just can't do it without following the same rules any new landowner would have to follow and paying the same fees. That is exactly the point I made about the OP. You were leaving out big chunks of the story in order to paint yourself in a much more favorable light. Like I said in PM, you admitted that the only effort you have made is speaking to a clerk. You have no plans, you have asked for no variances, you have no representation, you have not requested a hearing, etc...and you want to act like you have exhausted the options.

Next episode:
The real story is that I bought county property under county 'rules' a decade ago. Now an adjacent city wants me and my money. I had plans and abandoned them when the 'rules' changed.
The clerk I spoke to is a Planner, he is part of the panel that reviews applications and forwards for rubber stamping by the county commission, so he has more cred than your mythical lawyer. When I spoke to a CITY Planner, the second set of hoops was added, she has more cred than your mythical lawyer.
The fact remains that you spoke out your a** without knowledge or bothering to ask questions. I challenged your statements and offered a wager, you called me out and accepted, and now you are going to claim you were misled?
OBTW, a variance is an exception to current policy. So by the terms of the wager it does not apply even if it were available. And I never claimed to have exhausted ALL my options, that was another of your assumptions.

 

[CJ1089]

The salient point for me concerning property rights is, at what point does your property become the state's property? Who decides how you spend your resources?
I exclude the strawman arguments in the vein of: You cannot let someone start up an open air toxic waste dump next to the hospital! You want to let a strip club open next to an Elementary school?! and such. My assumption for debate is that all uses comport with cultural norms. i.e. your use does not infringe on your neighbors ability to use his property or one can build a house, and live in it, on his dirt, etc. OBTW, I am not now nor ever been a developer.
The idea that the owner of a parcel cannot utilize his property as they see fit is repellent. The need to beg the state for permission to peacefully conduct your lawful business is repellent. The need pay or bribe others to leave you alone is offensive. So I have obvious libertarian values.
There are some who think that they know better than the owners, they don't want ugly cheap developments built. What arrogance! Who lives in those cheap homes? Those starting out, or doing their best but not giving Trump a run for his money. If only mansions were built where would the workers live? Shall I guess? Why in mansions of course and everybody gets their own maid too. Marvelous.
If the fees for development reflects the true cost of development then equity and balance would be acheived. I think it does not and would be willing to wager on it. Fix that and the forces of the market will curtail useless sprawl. It will mean higher prices, but you can chose not to buy. Whereas choosing not to pay taxes, used to subsidize the lifestyles of others, is not a peaceful long term option.

 

[CJ1089]

Don't get me wrong. I am not in favor of all the hoops, but I am in favor of preventing developers from raping landscapes and overtaxing country resources while shouldering none of the costs themselves..

Development fees are charged, I think them too low but using the word none is factually incorrect.

They want to create artificial demand, not pay for infrastructure upgrades, and not pay the cost of their development.

While I do not beleive they cover the full cost of development, I fail to see how this generates demand, artificial or real.

They want to create false profit at the expense of tax payers. Just like they did in the Pearl district

False profit? So the profit they made was not real? Wouldn't they go out of business soon, after all they aren't a government body.

 

[jkent26]

Your property will never be your property. Every property is taxed and if you stop paying those the Gov. takes it. If it was truly yours then why are you always paying someone else for the right to keep it? All properties are subject to some sort of government rules that stop "owners" from doing what they want with their property.

Example - I have 28 acres way out in Columbia County. By law I cannot split the property, I can't add another home unless it's under a certain size. My property is even split across the road...3 acres. I tried to split and build a home over there for my parents, not allowed. Hell I can't even cut down all the trees on my property...and don't even ask about evicting the beavers.

Not freedom as the owner of this property.

 

[Redcap]

 

[Sling Blade]

Goofy sense of humor: you haz it.

 

[Grunwald]

This last side discussion reminds me of when I lived in the Midwest a while ago. There was a city that had a rather big and upscale development outside its city limits. As a matter of fact the development was a township. The city decided to annex the township and the township wanted no part of it. The city actually drew their annexation plans to grab only the township, which was high end real estate and nothing else - there was a lot of low end real estate in the area as well. The township tried everything they could, even went as far as an attempt to incorporate themselves as a city. In the end the residents of the township lost because of the way the state constitution was written - they could not incorporate because they were within an X number of miles from the city limits.
The little Nazis in the city hall have won their battle to conquer more lands and grab their share of the spoil.
As a side note the mayor of the city by the way was a republican