Liberty 1st Forum
Liberty 1st Forum
Home | Profile | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Liberty 1st Forums
 Three Rivers Area
 Minimum Property Maintenance Standards
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Buck
Forum Admin

USA
6602 Posts

Posted - 11/04/2011 :  12:12:20 PM  Show Profile  Visit Buck's Homepage
The Three Rivers City Commission has given the go-ahead for preparation of an ordinance regarding 'Minimum Property Maintenance Standards' to be applied to commercial and industrial properties within the City of Three Rivers.




Liberty First. Everything else second.

cuzimrite
Obsessed Poster

1007 Posts

Posted - 11/04/2011 :  3:46:18 PM  Show Profile
How long will it be before the City starts telling us when, how, and what color to paint our houses like what's been done in Frankenmuth??
Go to Top of Page

vblainev
Obsessed Poster

USA
1063 Posts

Posted - 11/06/2011 :  1:13:59 PM  Show Profile
So does this apply to the city or are they trying to hold citizens to a standard the city does not comply with, as with the snow ordinance or the grass ordinance. These people are ridiculous. This is America not Russia. !!

Maybe it's just me and I don't appreciate how extremely superior they are than us common citizens. Maybe we should thank them for taking care of us, seeing we don't have the intelligence to care for ourselves.

How quickly I forget their water bill increase that helped so many of us financially. I GUESS I JUST DON'T APPRECIATE HOW THEY ALWAYS PUT THREE RIVERS CITIZENS FIRST ABOVE THEIR OWN WANTS as demonstrated with the DDA.
Go to Top of Page

pepa
Obsessed Poster

1650 Posts

Posted - 11/08/2011 :  1:55:32 PM  Show Profile
Here is how the hierarchy in TR works Blaine.


1.)Bippuss


2.)Anything else Bippuss deems beneficial to him.



5000.)Three Rivers Taxpayers


quote:
"A worker that votes Republican is like a chicken that would vote for Col. Sanders" Bumpersticker
"Three Rivers needs an Honest Joe in City hall." Pepa

Edited by - pepa on 11/09/2011 12:16:45 PM
Go to Top of Page

lovinlife
Active Poster

USA
147 Posts

Posted - 11/08/2011 :  4:17:16 PM  Show Profile
What's in the property maintenance code book? We can go to the public hearing.
Go to Top of Page

lovinlife
Active Poster

USA
147 Posts

Posted - 11/08/2011 :  4:18:49 PM  Show Profile
Woops! I stated that too short. I meant to say what is in it that is so horrible? It seemed more basic than what the city currently has.
Go to Top of Page

Buck
Forum Admin

USA
6602 Posts

Posted - 11/09/2011 :  1:12:27 PM  Show Profile  Visit Buck's Homepage
I can't speak for others but for me I believe that we should protect every freedom that we have to our best ability all the time. And when we give our freedom away one inch at a time we will one day wake up to find that we have lost miles of it without a fight. I am also reluctant to blindly allow the prejudices of seven people decide the fate of a business when I have seen examples of one or two of seven use their power to influence the outcomes of business activities. And last of all I don't believe that these standards will be applied evenly across all businesses. It will be just another tool for bullies to get their way when they want it.


Liberty First. Everything else second.
Go to Top of Page

pepa
Obsessed Poster

1650 Posts

Posted - 11/10/2011 :  08:49:51 AM  Show Profile
Amen Buck!

quote:

"Three Rivers needs an Honest Joe in City hall." Pepa


Edited by - pepa on 11/10/2011 08:51:54 AM
Go to Top of Page

Buck
Forum Admin

USA
6602 Posts

Posted - 02/23/2012 :  12:23:16 PM  Show Profile  Visit Buck's Homepage
In action Tuesday evening (February 21st), the Three Rivers City Commission adopted an ordinance that will allow the Zoning Administrator/Building Inspector to use the code to in the words of a staff report on the subject "fairly enforce the same standards for Commercial/Industrial properties which are now enforceable for residential housing and rental housing."



Liberty First. Everything else second.
Go to Top of Page

Shutesie
Active Poster

USA
157 Posts

Posted - 02/25/2012 :  07:31:39 AM  Show Profile
quote:
And when we give our freedom away one inch at a time we will one day wake up to find that we have lost miles of it without a fight.

Do you mean that having any kind of rules by definition destroys our freedom? Where is the line drawn? The idea of rules taking away our freedom suggests to me that we should live in anarchy so that we can all be truly free.

I can't imagine playing a game that didn't have rules. How do you even play if you don't define how to play, what you can do, what you can't do, how you win, how you lose? The same idea applies to living together in a society in my view.

The idea behind building codes is to insure that buildings are built to standards that have been determined to reduce or eliminate hazards either man-made or natural. The adoption of building codes have saved thousands of lives. I don't see anything wrong with creating rules that save lives.

If there exists a situation were officials are unequally applying said rules then that is a different problem. One that is either criminal in nature or is a failure on our part as the citizens to remove from office people who are not fulfilling their oaths.
Go to Top of Page

Buck
Forum Admin

USA
6602 Posts

Posted - 02/25/2012 :  11:52:14 AM  Show Profile  Visit Buck's Homepage
quote:
Do you mean that having any kind of rules by definition destroys our freedom?

No.
quote:
Where is the line drawn?

The line is drawn where the rights of one crosses over the rights of another.
quote:
The idea of rules taking away our freedom suggests to me that we should live in anarchy so that we can all be truly free.

I don't want the absence of rules. I am, in fact, very law and order orientated. I just want the freedom to live my life the way I want without bureaucrats, hippocrates and bigots trying to impose their views on me or anyone else. Roderick Long sums it up nicely in one paragraph excerpted below.

Other people are not your property. In other words: They are not yours to boss around. Their lives are not yours to micromanage. The fruits of their labour are not yours to dispose of. It doesn't matter how wise or marvelous or useful it would be for other people to do whatever it is you'd like them to do. It is none of your business whether they wear their seatbelts, worship the right god, have sex with the wrong people, or engage in market transactions that irritate you. Their choices are not yours to direct. They are human beings like yourself, your equals under Natural Law. You possess no legitimate authority over them. As long as they do not themselves step over the line and start treating other people as their property, you have no moral basis for initiating violence against them ' nor for authorising anyone else to do so on your behalf.

Rules should be about protecting peoples lives, liberty and freedom and not about protecting people from themselves. The consequences of making bad decisions should and will take care of the rest, in time. If people want to volunteer their time and money to save the world then I have no quarrel with that. I just don't want them pointing a gun at my head and forcing me to comply with their world view.
quote:
I can't imagine playing a game that didn't have rules.

I can't either. I also can't think of a game that is mandatory for me to play. I am totally OK with those who want to voluntarily gamble away their liberty, if that is what they want to do with their lives. They should know that in the end the House will win that game. The House always wins the games it plays. The REAL winners are and will always be those who fold before they lose everything and then walk away from the table for good.
quote:
How do you even play if you don't define how to play, what you can do, what you can't do, how you win, how you lose?

You choose not to play the game. That is how. If lambs play games, establish rules to equalize what they have between them, rules to make sure no one's feelings aren't hurt are they any safer from the slaughter... So to speak?
quote:
The same idea applies to living together in a society in my view.

That is not my view. Is your view made more valid then mine because the majority agrees with you and not me?
quote:
The idea behind building codes is to insure that buildings are built to standards that have been determined to reduce or eliminate hazards either man-made or natural. The adoption of building codes have saved thousands of lives. I don't see anything wrong with creating rules that save lives.

On its face I might not either but arean't there enough laws on the books now? Why do we continue to need more? When is enough enough? If a rule truly is to save a life then it falls under my "protecting life and liberty" clause. However I don't think that is where the bulk of rules come from or the reason most are put in place. For instance take a look at the River Country Journal's news article on the Manards plans.

Both Commissioner-at-Large Daryl Griffith and Mayor Tom Lowry objected to ZBA approval of a variance to provide relief from the citys Big Box Ordinance requirement to put ten-foot-wide concrete walkways between every third row of parking spaces. They also noted a problem with the variance to allow a larger and taller pylon sign at the store entrance to address concerns about the signs visibility from M-60 and US-131 because it was approved on a 3-to-1 vote, thus falling short of providing affirmative votes from a majority of the seated members of the ZBA. The variance was for a sign with 201 square feet versus 150 square feet, 35 feet high instead of 25 feet, plus a setback of 25 feet, rather than 35 feet.

You have two politicians mucking up things for reasons that I believe have nothing to do with saving lives. I am sure Menards will eventaully comply because that is what happens when people who need to get things done come up against political bullies with the kind of power we give our politicians.
quote:
If there exists a situation were officials are unequally applying said rules then that is a different problem.

Yes it is. It has happened and it will continue to happen because when people who need to do business in a community stand up there are consequences. I have been in the middle of that before and the business owner told me that they thought what we were doing was correct but she did a lot of business with this city and was afraid it would go away if she allowed Liberty 1st a "get out the vote" booth on her property. Did I mention she received a call from a former commissioner as a warning? The good news is that when we brought it up to the mayor, at the time, we were told that he trusted all the commissioners and that the business owner must have misunderstood what the call was about. It was on that day I realized that local politicians are of the same breed of people that national politicians come from. I could give you three or four more examples that I have been personally involved with where the rules for people who support the city are applied different from the rules that get used on those that oppose the city.
quote:
One that is either criminal in nature or is a failure on our part as the citizens to remove from office people who are not fulfilling their oaths.

It wasn't criminal. Unethical. Dirty politics. Underhanded. Yes. But not criminal. The problem with relying on citizens to remove people who don't fulfill their oath is that two many of them are the bigots and hypocrites that think it is their duty to push their will on those that live around them.

My objection to the Character First program, a program that has its roots in Bill Gothard's Church teachings was my first real lesson on that subject. I saw first hand how many of those trying to enforce their idea of Character on others were some of the least people qualified to do so.



Liberty First. Everything else second.
Go to Top of Page

Shutesie
Active Poster

USA
157 Posts

Posted - 02/26/2012 :  07:42:25 AM  Show Profile
quote:
The line is drawn where the rights of one crosses over the rights of another.

The problem is that line is a very fine line often with life and death consequences. Take the seat belt issue mentioned in the paragraph. You are right forcing me to wear a seat belt does infringe on my liberty but when you are involved in an accident your choice effects others. It may even effect them in a way that can't be undone. If you killed someone because you lost control of your car because you were thrown from behind the wheel you have infringed on their rights but they have no recourse. So it's decided that we will wear seat belts to prevent the preventable.
quote:
Rules should be about protecting peoples lives, liberty and freedom and not about protecting people from themselves.

True. Very few laws are on the books that only protect the person who will break that law. Most laws are there to protect the people that are effected by the actions of the law breakers.
quote:
I also can't think of a game that is mandatory for me to play.

The game I refer to is the game of life. I suppose that you can choose not to play but that isn't nearly as much fun. I suppose that you could also choose to not live in society and move to a deserted island but even there you would be affected by the actions of others.
quote:
You choose not to play the game. That is how. If lambs play games, establish rules to equalize what they have between them, rules to make sure no one's feelings aren't hurt are they any safer from the slaughter... So to speak?

If you live in this society then you are playing the game. I say rules to establish that you shouldn't steal or kill are a good thing,that men and women are equal, that blacks and whites are equal.

Equalizing what they have between them isn't what I'm talking about here. The rules are equal the players are not necessarily and it's actually where my analogy of the game falls apart because I don't believe that in the game of life there has to be a winner and a loser. The definition of winning is up to the individual in the end. Your definition may be riches beyond your wildest dreams and mine might be having three wonderful children who live long and happy lives. They are not mutually exclusive.
quote:
That is not my view. Is your view made more valid then mine because the majority agrees with you and not me?

But you said originally
quote:
I don't want the absence of rules. I am, in fact, very law and order orientated.

So which is it?
quote:
On its face I might not either but arean't there enough laws on the books now?

Agreed. I am not necessarily concerned about the number of laws as I am whether they are actually needed. I mean if we need 1,000,000 rules then we need a 1,000,000 rules but if 100,000 are outdated they should be removed. In this case I going to guess that there is concern that the rules that apply to residential and the rules that apply to industry/business will not always be in agreement. Do you have one set of rules with exceptions depending on what you are talking about or do you have two sets of rules that apply more specifically.

quote:
You have two politicians mucking up things for reasons that I believe have nothing to do with saving lives.

The question I would put forth is why the others allowed a variance to rule. If the rule was so important to include in the first place why is okay to not follow it now. Let's take the cement walkways rule, I'm guessing it probably has to do with preventing people from driving across parking lots like you see at the old D&W parking lot. The rule does create problems during the little thing called winter and the task of snow removal however.

quote:
The problem with relying on citizens to remove people who don't fulfill their oath is that two many of them are the bigots and hypocrites that think it is their duty to push their will on those that live around them.

So what type of government are you advocating then?
Go to Top of Page

Buck
Forum Admin

USA
6602 Posts

Posted - 02/26/2012 :  1:34:33 PM  Show Profile  Visit Buck's Homepage
quote:
So which is it?

I have already clarified that laws should be used to protect life and liberty and that I don't think that there should be laws that nanny people. When there are gray areas, as there are, I would be willing to consider anything. However I will always resist the default "there outta be a law" for every problem that comes up in our lives.
quote:
So what type of government are you advocating then?

A Representative Republic that defaults to Laissez-faire economics, that limits entitlements to absolute necessity and nothing less, that makes people responsible for their actions, and that generally lets people live their life the way they see fit. When it is deemed necessary (by the majority) to infringe on the minorities right the majority better have to fight long and hard for every ounce of property and or liberty they take.

I had another couple of paragraphs responding to your suggestion that life is a game. I deleted them because I was having a hard time articulating the point I was trying to make. So instead I am just going to say this about that. I don't consider life a game. I think getting to the end of our life is a journey and it is something we have to take very seriously. I am not saying we should not have fun on the way to our final destination. I am only saying that we should prepare for detours, trials and tribulations and better be prepared to deal with them all on our own if the need ever arises. That is what I am about and why I live the lifestyle that I do now. I don't live on any deserted island but I do strive to live independent of the herd.


Liberty First. Everything else second.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Liberty 1st Forum © Liberty 1st Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000