Zoning, Excessive Fines and Other Hot Issues in the Law
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 09. 2024
- We talk with the director of IJ’s Center for Judicial Engagement about a few of the issues the legal community is buzzing about at the moment.
ij.org/podcast...
Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom-directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how-and why-we do what we do.
iTunes: podcasts.apple...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Google: www.google.com...
Sticher: www.stitcher.c...
If people only knew and understood their inherent natural unalienable rights codified in their State Constitutions! The “pursuit of happiness” is the exercise of applying your faculties to gain by your own labors. That gain is called “property” and James Madison wrote an essay called “Property” to give us an understanding of exactly what the Founders and Framers meant. That property which you gain by your labors and the exercise of applying your faculties is essential to your existence. When you gain property by your labors you hold dominion over that property to the exclusion of all others....even governments. However, errant opinions from SCOTUS during the Slaughterhouse cases perpetrated governments involvements into your property. They have compounded so much power into governments that you no longer own anything without governments permission! You are no longer free to exercise your Liberty...you are now a slave. Lawyers can do nothing because they are regulated by private corporate clubs called BAR associations. Not only that but lawyers themselves are egregiously ignorant of inherent natural unalienable rights. That is why Ryan Bundy won his case.
[[ their inherent natural unalienable rights codified in their State Constitutions! ]]
Such as? Can you "clearly define "any of the rights you are talking about?
--
[[ “pursuit of happiness” is the exercise of applying your faculties to gain by your own labors ]]
EXCEPT that is not a phrase codified in law. Nor is it clearly defined even if it was.
I believe you are quoting the United States Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution which is the Supreme law.
And even if that phrase WAS codified in a constitution what exactly would it encompass?
If it makes me HAPPY to kill my neighbors, covered? Dump nuclear waste right along my property line? covered?
I am not poo pooing the sentiment, just that implementation is not that easy.
--
[[ Lawyers can do nothing because they are regulated by private corporate clubs called BAR associations. ]] Ridiculous. Who do you think helped get HELLER v. D.C., MCDONALD v. CHICAGO, etc. which firmly started "clearly defining" the Second Amendment.
--
I’m currently fighting the court system over a travel trailer being on my private property. They denied me trial by jury. Judge found me guilty”big surprise right”. I put in an appeal about 6-7 months ago. Just heard from the clerk that it got thrown back to the justice court.
Case 19 CR19014 Pershing County Nevada
Dave A Can you say “UN Agenda 21 Comprehensive Plan for Sustainable Development”? If you only knew your inherent natural unalienable rights as codified in your State Constitution.
It's to establish that 1. You aren't lowering the property value, and 2. That you do not have a meth lab.
It seems that the real law starts at the appeals level.
The base level courts are very capricious, arbitrary and outright rogue in their rulings.
*Edit: replied to the wrong comment
@@Strideo1 It's amusing that you find that unreasonable when there are neighborhoods that control the color of your paint and the plants in your yard.
Zoning rights are just govt saying "you don't own that land, we own it". They should be abolished entirely, private land is private and should be allowed to be built upon with whatever, if state feels some places need to be kept the way they are, they should never sell that land.
When your next door neighbor decides that he wants to convert his home into a 8 story apartment building that dwarfs your home and contract it out as a halfway house for addicts and sexual deviants you'll start wondering where all the zoning laws went. Should they be rewritten, definitely, but to toss them out is naive.
@@EvergreenVB There should be no zoning laws, but all property throughout history has been subject to use without causing actual nuisance.
Property rights should only be limited by ACTUAL nuisance not by regulations.
It worked that way in history just fine and STILL to this day - See, for example, Houston Texas that has no zoning laws.
When someone "wants to convert his home into a 8 story apartment building that dwarfs your home and contract it out as a halfway house for addicts and sexual
deviants" knows that you can bring suit for nuisance, that someone would be likely to seek some agreement with you before building.
If no agreement and they were taken to court, the court could order the removal of the building - that's a pretty big stick to keep people from causing nuisances.
Just as property taxes are the rent you pay for the use of the property you supposedly own.
@@kennethpollard5041 More pro se mythology.
You really should study law and get to the root.
@@2Truth4Liberty I would be afraid studying law would cloud my judgement to the point of sounding like the brainwashed masses where you reside.
So government cant agree on alot of things, why am I not shocked? the principles of the constituition are easy for most people to understand. principles of property rights, freedom to contract or not, (that gets rid of invisible contracts gov imposes on people all the time with little challenges by lawyers and judges who count on those taxes and regulations that are wrong on it's face) greenlining is also a problem in the northwest, you can build to here and no furthur, housing problems is artificial. to favor one group over another keep taxes high. whatis so hard with the concept of thou shalt not steal. and thou shalt not bear false witness, I get the impression that government is divided against itself one group have to argue with anothe rpart of the same government to get this or that done, lack of unity and lack of integrity is the mian reason for the need to fight for this right or that right that shoujld be automatic. it is not a right if you have to fight for it, gov has shown itself to be a big fat failure, lets face it humans were never meant to rule over others.
Methinks the organic Constitution was suspended/superseded with the Act of 1871.
Ultimately, rights may only be limited to balance rights equidistant between people. The government never has rights, only responsibilities. Until we as a nation get that right and enforce it against all levels of government, we will never cease to have the abuses we currently have to live with.
As far as freedom to contract and other private matters, we need limitations on private power. Under no circumstances does any private entity ever have the right to wield real power over another private entity. That is called aristocracy and we banned it at the founding of our nation in order to eliminate the abuses which historically went with aristocracy. The only entities which which ever have the right to wield power are those who are duly elected of, by, and for the people. We have grown used to big corporate and religious groups among other private entities dictating to us and it is time we force this out of our nation.
In order for freedom to contract to work in a just manner, there must be limitations in place which mandate full constitutional protections to all parties involved, and limitations which mandate that all parties involved must be fully knowledgeable and have equal bargaining power. A contract made between an individual and a monopoly or a member of an oligopoly such as a utility, car company, or a phone company is not a contract but rather a private collection of regulations which only the individual is required to obey. That is because the large and unjustly powerful entity has the ability to write a standard contract chock full of clauses which allow the large entity to change the rules of the contract any time they wish to while the individual customer is bound to obey the contract without any such ability to bargain or otherwise. The individual does not have the ability to walk away to a competitor because the members of the oligopoly all place the same clauses in their contracts, since competition between them is limited. There is nothing anti-capitalist about limiting such unearned, undeserved, and never justifiable private power. To change the rules of the game to level the playing field is perfectly acceptable. A very simple blanket rule about contracts to achieve a level playing field would read as stated above- no one entity should be allowed to force terms into a contract by guile, stealth, trickery, fine print, force of any kind including physical, economic, or social force or pressure, or by any other means, which a normal person with adequate understanding and education to understand the terms of the contract, and in full knowledge of what they are getting themselves into, would not agree with. There also must be a requirement that the rights of all parties in the contract must be fully respected at all times without exception. In essence, one is never obligated to give up one's rights in order to do business.
As for housing prices, these will not stabilize and drop back down to affordable levels until the investment class is removed from housing. In particular, the construction and maintenance of single family and related homes never needs absentee investors to sit on and maintain the homes. Our current general climate in real estate is leaning towards an aristocracy of global, national, and local investors who have the cash to out compete private home buyers and price them out of the market. While this may seem like capitalism playing out, it really is the end of the middle class and the establishment of a landed aristocracy. The only way to place land back into the hands of the people is to ban all or most absentee ownership of private single family homes and even units in condominiums and co-ops. Housing is a retail product. There is no justification to allow the hoarding and scalping of housing by the rich.
If we allow the aforementioned changes in our system to be enacted to level the playing field, we will see a resurgence of our middle class. There is nothing wrong with sacrificing or limiting the rights of the rich in order to protect the rights of the majority. That is called balancing rights equidistant between all of the people, rather than looking for every method possible to favor a tiny and arrogant minority of rich people over the rest of us. Minorities never have more or better rights than the majority, and it is time we begin enforcing this.
@@AMERICANPATRIOT1945 HEAR,HERE!
It would be more efficient if juries were also given the authority to perform universal injuctions. By explicitely having them judge both the law and whether the law was violated, you get proper jury nullification.
Unworkable because different juries could say contradicting things in their injunctions.
While a jury can only act on the case before them, a nullification does tend to send a message to the people and to governments.
I learned something new
It really is time that we begin enforcing our constitution at all levels on all US territory to all people within US borders. The evil Kelo, Citizens United, and other SCOTUS decisions which were obvious misinterpretations of our Constitution to favor the rich over the rest of us must all be overturned. The rules of engagement in regards to contract law, housing law, and other interactions in our economic system must be changed to favor the majority of the people and not a tiny arrogant minority of rich entities. It is perfectly acceptable to sacrifice the rights of the few to balance their rights equidistant with the rights of the many. We are moving towards aristocracy in our nation and it is time to eliminate this trend.
All people should be equal under law, what you want sir is tyranny where a class of people are slaves to others.
Thou I'm for abolition of separation of people and companies for those reason, noone should be able to hide from responsibility by claiming it was his buisness signing the contract, not him/herself. All owners should back all of their buisnesses with all of their property (and that should include publicly traded companies, if you buy actions of any company, you're responsible for their responsibilities with all your property.)
@@Ussurin ,
Actually, I am for equality between all people, and that is why I believe that all of our rights apply, even under contract law. No entity, no matter how large and wealthy, ever has the right to use its wealth or size to force others to agree to its terms without being able to negotiate as one equal entity to another. We have the right to make our laws reflect this. There is nothing wrong with forcing a level playing field so that one can bargain one's terms when dealing with the phone company, banks, or other large corporate entities. No one should be forced to accept terms which those on equal terms, education, and knowledge would never accept. There is never a right to lie, fool, screw, and force people to accept terms that no ordinary person would ever agree to.
We all need phones, bank accounts, jobs, homes, and more. Those who provide these don't have the right to force us to accept draconian terms which bar us from exercising our right to access the courts, speak freely, and have the same terms we agreed to for the life of the contract if we choose to. It is all too common for corporate oligarchs to force normal people to accept terms which no business entity on equal bargaining terms would ever accept. So, I not only don't want a tyranny where a class of people is made into slaves, I want those who currently are a tyranny to lose all of their unearned and undeserved power over us.
Big corporate and the rich are never entitled to wield or attain power over the rest of us unless we duly elect them to do so of, by, and for the people. Money never has the right to make a tiny minority more equal than the rest of us. That is why Kelo and Citizens United were such evil SCOTUS decisions. These two decisions were absolutely handed down under intense political pressure applied by the rich to the SCOTUS justices who made them. The same applies to other illicit decisions which have enabled severe erosion of our rights and freedoms by the rich and big corporate. To force the rich and big corporate down to our level is not to enslave them but to insist on true equality where we each get our one vote and we each get to stand and be counted without fear of retribution from employers, lenders and others who currently wield way to much unearned and undeserved power over us.
@@Ussurin Yes, get rid of corporate personhood. All corporate property is shared by the shareholders/associates. Additionally employees are to be responsible for their actions, not some legal fiction of a corporation.
@@AMERICANPATRIOT1945 What you are proposing is just slavery of the succesful with extra steps as they won't be able to control what they own.
Contract negotitions are perfectly fine, it's the lack of responsibility of one party that fucks thing up. If you made them responsible for their mistakes, then it all will come back to norm, where both parties try to make good arragements, so that noone is suddenly left without things provided by the contract.
How do you remove a corrupt judge from office in McHenry County Illinois?
If Illinois is like Colorado, you can vote them out, with luck. But then, there are some red-market options if you are desparate.
Yall are soooo awesome !!!! I wish I had some money to donate to you. Maybe one day I will
Zoning and code rules seem like a shakedown on the middle class and poor. To build anything on your own land you have to pay to play and you have a time limit to finish said building or you have to pay again and usually deal with even more restrictions and expensive, next to impossible, requirements.
Yep. Often times licensing and permitting fees are egregious and the requirements to obtain them are Byzantine and some building inspector can come by and find a problem at anytime and cost you even more money in fines and shut down the whole project.
There are even local governments that keep building permit fees egregiously expensive because well connected locals are trying to keep new neighbors out of neighboring land. Even if someone wealthy enough to overcome these costs comes along if the locals decide they just don't like this newcomer then the newcomer will suddenly find their home building project caught in a sea of red tape.
Why should the courts and legislatures even be involved in the housing price issues? It's simple supply and demand. If employers want to employ and retain staff, they'd better make sure wages and salaries are high enough to cover housing. If property owners want their properties to be occupied, they'd better make sure their rents are not too high.
As long as governments have total control over zoning ordinances then they're involved and it's no longer a simple issue of supply and demand.
You misstate the counter argument. Your argument encourages judge shopping. The counter argument is that it should not go beyond the jurisdiction of the judge making the ruling.
*WTH... have the government look at whether I am POOR! NO! Any fine needs to be the same for everyone or no one!*
There are 3 branches of government, IJ, not 2, and the Constitution does not give or take away rights from the people. This video is about bickering between the branches of government over power. When are you going to start teaching people about THEIR power, THEIR rights? Oh, wait, you can't; you swore allegiance to the Crown through your law club.
[[ you swore allegiance to the Crown through your law club. ]]
pro se mythology.
It reflects your bias.
You have no proof of any such thing.
And, no, I am not an attorney, but I have researched these bogus claims like the one you make.
Tyrants should be ousted and replaced. 👎👎
IJ is fantastic and I always agree with them 100% - until now. Why would you want to challenge local zoning laws (applied equally to everyone)? You buy into a neighborhood that has a local culture that developed over decades. Maybe hoitee-toitee, maybe rowdy party, maybe a little run down, whatever. People lived there peacefully for decades. The new guy comes in and wants to "develop" his land. School taxes go up, parking is difficult, young people afford the smaller units and they live ... "differently." There goes the neighborhood because this is America? Good God Keep Zoning!
At least in New Jersey, each town has to have a percentage of units designated "low income." Rich towns pay less affluent towns to build low income housing. If you can't afford to live in a neighborhood, go to a place you can afford. And I'm from the poor side of the tracks in a lower middle class neighborhood. But I believe in the marketplace.
Funny how so many people believe liberty applies until it's in their neighborhood and then suddenly they get to start telling their neighbors what to do with their property.
Zoning laws in the US and Canada are generally terrible and have been holding us back for decades. It's pretty much illegal in most areas to build a walkable neighborhood anymore. It's illegal in most areas to build a small corner grocery that people could just walk a couple of blocks to pick stuff up in now. It's illegal in most areas to build small houses on small lots.
Funny how some of the most charming and in demand neighborhoods in many cities are old neighborhoods where there's a mix of density and sizes of residential units. I loved in an in-town neighborhood where a small 4-6 unit apartment building might be right next door to a multi-million dollar 5 bedroom house. There were trees, sidewalks, neighborhood stores and restaurants you could actually walk to. I don't know why people are so freaking scared of this.
We need zoning reform and we need more ability to appeal zoning and have the government be more willing and able to be flexible on how our property is developed.
I am very concerned that these zoning fights are forgetting the issue of rights of the current public. When you build a multi family that drops 100 cars onto our small roads it is a nuisance, that we as a community should be able to control. One persons gain damages all the rest of the public, and it is equal in the minds of the damaged to you putting up a smokestack and dispoiling our environment. It is a taking of the commons issue, and needs to be addressed that way.
I agree that property rights cannot be absolute (DO ANYTHING I WANT!)
but I also think that those rights should only be limited by ACTUAL nuisance not by regulations.
It worked that way in history just fine and STILL to this day - See, for example, Houston Texas that has no zoning laws.
When a 100 car multifamily developer knows that the existing community can bring suit for nuisance, it would be likely to seek some agreement with the community before building.
If no agreement and they were taken to court, the court could order the removal of the 100 car unit - that's a pretty big stick to keep people from causing nuisances.
That said, there is an area of "small nuisance" that has to be allowed because of differing opinion about whether or not an ACTUAL nuisance has been caused. The court in that area looks to reasonableness and equitable solutions.
For example, if additional 100 car traffic caused road problems, the developer could be required to pay for building bigger and better roads including maintaining them for some period of time.