Quote of the Day: Zoning Out Edition

Screen Shot 2013-02-25 at 9.25.49 PM

“Mr. Stevens can’t run a business of this nature out of his house. He’s got people with guns coming to his house. There are cars parking in the road. It’s not an appropriate home-based business. When you talk about a home-based business you’re talking about a tax preparer or lawyer – things that are discreet. When you have signs that read ‘Got ammo?’ next to your business, that’s not discreet.” - Olivier Sakellarios in Garage-based gun shop in Weare stirs fierce neighbor dispute [via concordmonitor.com]

59 Responses to Quote of the Day: Zoning Out Edition

  1. avatarJoe says:

    “he possesses all the necessary paperwork to operate his shop well within the law”

    Seems like he can, in fact, run a business of that nature out of his house.

  2. avatarrjason007 says:

    Because running a business is bad, taking handouts from the Government is good much more noble…what is wrong with these people.

  3. avatarPatrick says:

    *sigh* This is typical. Blow efficiency to the wind to keep prices high and products less affordable.

  4. avatarAWW says:

    Who the f&@$ do these people think they are!?

    • avatarrangered says:

      Obviously you are unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution which clearly states that everyone has the right to not be inconvenienced, upset, uncomfortable, disagreed with or to have their feelings hurt at any time.

      • avatarPascal says:

        What you stated there, that would be the Bill of Rights for the “Progressive” Constitution.

        The only other item you would need to add is the fact that “you have the right to always blame someone else for your own issues” and then it would be progressively perfect.

        • avatarrangered says:

          +1

        • avatartdiinva says:

          -1

          I think our ranger friend is being sarcastic. What is it with some people?

        • avatarrangered says:

          No Sarcasm in the fact that I was agreeing with Pascal in pointing out the whole victimhood movement. If something bad happened to me, it must be someone’s fault, not a result of choices I myself made. Most everyone has had something bad happen in their life. They can spend the rest of their lives bemoaning the fact or deal with it and move on. Society has encouraged many to spend the rest of their days hiding behind the excuse of their victim status.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Excuse me, perhaps the word should be irony.

        • avatarSpoons Make You Fat says:

          Quote from The Progressive Handbook:
          “If you can’t figure out how you’re a victim, you just haven’t thought about it long enough or hard enough.” It then lists several examples.

          Come to think of it, just like the pro-2A movement could use Rules for Radicals we could also use this.

          The tricky part is holding two opposing thoughts in your head simultaneously. Winston Smith finally managed it.

  5. avatarRuss Bixby says:

    Perhaps he needs a soundproofed room in which to test-fire his patients. Also, might not any discharge within city limits ordinance apply? That whole 300′ thing likely presumed only the occasional discharge. Generalized noise ordinances might apply as well.

    Where I live, if it ain’t nuclear then they don’t care. They’ll even give the wink if it’s under a half-kiloton yield. ;)

    Most areas, though, are a tidge more fastidious.

    One wonders how we’d all respond were his business being a fortune teller with a large neon sign, a racing garage, a brass instrument repair shop et cetera.

    While I do not know the specifics, there are certain presuppositions about home-based businesses. Also, retail means much more traffic than would a custom cake maker.

    Mayhap the city shouldve asked what his business was intended to be. ‘Course, then his burgh would’ve been anti-2A were they to tell him of traffic or signage ordinances.

    While it does look to me as though the shop is within the letter of the law, it likely stretches the spirit more than a little.

    Having run a home-ased business (cabinetry and welding) I know some of what can happen.

    This one looks pretty fifty fifty to me, and its being gun-related doesn’t change that.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      Or a soup kitchen or youth centre, for that matter. Would we then be up in arms, as ’twere?

      I can hear it now: “The right of free assembly doesnt mean fifty howling teens in his yard,” or “I have a right not to be bombarded by the smell of limabeans and the homeless.”

    • avatarWilliam says:

      “tidge”? Is that halfway between a smidge and a tad?

  6. avataranonymous says:

    I don’t recall any outrage from the gun community three years ago when this happened in Texas:

    HOA Covenant Takes Aim At Resident’s Weapons Business
    Wednesday, May 26, 2010 | Smithville Times
    by James Rincon, Pflugerville Pflag reporter

    A Pflugerville homeowners association approved an amendment that has at least one resident up in arms.

    Andrew Clements has lived in Pflugerville for seven years operating an at-home business within the structured serenity of the Falcon Pointe planned community. Earlier this month Clements took steps to start a second business from his home selling guns online, but the HOA won’t let him pull the trigger.

    “The HOA went out of their way to file an extra covenant to say I can’t have that type of business, but any other business is OK,” Clements said. “They don’t have a problem with all the Avon, Advocare, insurance people, but they’re going to be bias to a guy because they don’t like firearms.”

    The Falcon Pointe board, managed by Realmanage property management company, amended its declaration of protective covenants by adding Section 12.24.2, which states:

    “The business activity does not consist of the sale of fireworks, incendiary devices or material, firearm ammunition, or firearms, including but not limited to firearms of a size which may be concealed on the person, shotguns, rifles and semi-automatic weapons.”

    Clements said the HOA’s actions came after he filed applications with all necessary local, state and federal regulatory bodies, and was waiting on approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
    .
    .
    .

    • avatarDr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

      Hard to have much sympathy with someone who knowingly moves into a HOA, or who doesn’t read the deed restrictions on a property before buying it.. HOAs suck, and I’m glad my property doesn’t have one.

  7. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    Ah zoning, the place where you have no right to be an individual, you must conform, you must submit. Another Berlin wall that needs to be torn down, Randy

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      And you’ll say that when a “sanitary” landfill goes in across the street?

      • avatarGerard says:

        Or an ammonia producer. Or a hog farm. Or a strip club with an outdoor stage.

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          Weeelll… some of us might not mind the latter, just so long as the clientele stay on their side of the street. >;{>

          ‘Course, that’d not work out to well just now ’round here.

        • avatarMy Name Is Bob says:

          I am all for a strip club w an outdoor stage right across the street! Giggity! Best view and I’d never need to leave the house, ha!

    • avatarHenry Bowman says:

      @Russ Bixby and Gerard,
      By what authority do you presume to dictate what another person does with his own property?

      You might have a claim if the use of their property caused you or your property actual harm, but to appeal to the guns and violence of government so as to avoid being inconvenienced or annoyed flies in the face of liberty.

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        We do not presume such authority. We do, however, recognize it.

        When one purchases property in an incorporated area, one signs, among other things, documents in which they agree to abide by the rules and guidelines of such incorporated area.

        It’s not like it bas “way bach then”, when if you wanted to build a house all you had to o was shoot a few Injuns and build.

        I live in an unincorporated area, and even here there a few rules, but in any municipality sufficiently developed to have a mayor, police, council et cetera there will be more of ‘em.

        Such things as zoning, noise ordinances, parking rights et cetera are set out by such a municipality, and the purchaser/renter agrees to abide by same, and by any changes made in accordance with the community charter.

        If you want anarchy, try Somalia.

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        I cannot speak for the other bloke, but he likely agrees with the following: 

        I do not claim any such right, but I do recognize it.

        When one purchases property in an incorporated community, one agrees to abide by the laws and rules of that community, along with any changes made in accordance with the community charter.

        One signs on the dotted line, and that’s their bond.

        When a community incorporates, its charter must comply with state and federal law, but other than that there’s considerable latitude.

        The building code in Overland Park, Kansas forbids painting a building pure white, for instance.

        If you instead prefer anarchy, there are other parts of he world better able to suit your tastes.

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          And, by what authority does one presume to create a “community charter?” That very idea is to establish edicts over other people’s property (even future property owners) that must be followed under pain of death (if you resist their fines or imprisonment). Like I said, it flies in the face of liberty.

          I prefer Voluntarism… the idea that all human interaction should be free from force, fraud, and coercion, of which government is the most habitual violator.

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          Charters are created in concert, by the first people in an area – who cleared the land and staked the boundaries, so as to preserve their way of life.

          It provides the mechanism by which someone may control their surroundings.

          There’s no real difference between a community setting up a boundary and prohibiting certain activities within such boundary, and an individual prohibiting others from building on their land.

          Ones very property line is a matter of charter.

          The town or city was created by a group of people – usually all residents at the time of creation – and owns the land. The residents sub-own their parcels, but were either in on the incorporation, bought into it or were born into it.

          You might as well say “What’s all this Constitution crap?” The U.S. is just a really big town.

          Or are you a troll, attempting to make us evil gunnies show our true colours…?

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          Russ,
          I am the furthest thing from a collectivist. In my mind, there is no such thing as an “evil gunnie.” I strive for consistency of principle.

          I certainly agree that a group of people could mix their labor with natural resources in order to claim ownership over that property. I even agree that those folks could then decide on certain acceptable behaviors within that groups boundaries. I disagree that those “rules” can be enforced in perpetuity or on people who they “sell” parcels of property to.

          Now, a buyer certainly has the option to agree to the terms and they have the option to refuse the sale if he does not agree. But if the buyer does not agree, and they still sell him the parcel, it has ceased to be the groups property and they cannot exercise any authority over that parcel.

          My biggest gripe is the appeal to the institutionalization of legal violence to force other people to our whims. People are the most happy when they are interacting voluntarily and I believe we can do better by resolving disputes using free market solutions, like private arbitration or peaceful dis-inclusion, than by threatening “offenders” with theft, kidnapping, or death.

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          That’s fair.

          However, I’ve never heard of someone being permitted to buy or build in a municipality without agreeing to the rules of said municipality, or later seceding.

          When one sells, the new owner signs with the municipality. When one inherits, one inherits obligations s well as property.

          Zoning variances, on the other hand, do occur.

          “The Chateaux” in east Denver was granted a large number of variances, including no sidewalks and lanes so narrow as to make them impassable to emergency vehicles when cars were legally parked upon them, along with no street lights because each sardine-canned garage sports an inextinguishable exterior light.

          They were granted over sixty variances to building and civil engineering codes in order to provide space for nearly a hundred additional sardine-can-spaces, and thus increase tax revenue.

          Ugh! Yuck! Bleah!

          So… Let’s shake hands, yes?

          Be safe,

          Russ

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          No current municipality actually mixed labor with resources to assert a legitimate claim of ownership. In reality, a cabal of powerful people agreed to “incorporate” in order to extract “tax revenue” out of the property owners.

          But, yes, I’ll certainly shake and call it a day. Peace.

      • avatartdiinva says:

        Russ:

        Some of our more libertarian friends don’t understand the nature of private contracts. They seem to believe all the provisions of the Constitution apply equally to government and citizens alike. In this they show their ignorance of one of the most important aspects of the Constitution — the guarantee and enforcement by the government of private contracts.

        Every time I hear Libertarians babble about how we should get the government out of marriage by replacing it with a private contract system I want to barf. Who do they think is going to enforce the contract? The tooth fairy?

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          Hmmm…

          I myself would like to see the government out of the marriage business entirely. Leave that part to the couple/group and their pastor/priest/imam/priestess/lama/high druid et cetera.

          Let the government provide the contract portion – the guarantee of hospital visitation, insurance rights, inheritance et cetera – as a civil union to any and all applicants emancipated or of majority age, without prejudice.

          Or are we to imprison a visiting Saudi Prince as a polygamist just as “we” now do not recognise a handfasting?

          Let the Church and State square dance, but not intermingle.

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          tdiinva,
          I concede that contract enforcement is a legitimate role of government. However, I believe that peaceful dispute settlement is a more worthy pursuit than relying on institutionalized violence.

          As far as the Constitution goes, I agree with Lysander Spooner: “it has either authorized such a government as we have or has been powerless to restrain it. In either case, it no longer deserves to exist.”

          Hologram of Liberty by Boston T. Party is a good read on that topic.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Henry:

          I understand this position and have read a lot of recent (last ten years) Libertarian papers decrying the original Constitution. Libertarians are not defenders of the Constitution. Had they been around in 1787 they would have voted no. I thank you for validating this position.

          Of course it is preferable for private parties to settle their difference among themselves without recourse to the Courts. Judges prefer that you settle civil disputes before you show up in Court. Sometimes, however, you need a third party to intervene and that is one of the legitimate function of government.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Here is the problem. Current marriage law is simply a standardized government contract applied to all marriage secular or religious. This makes it easy for the government to adjudicate breaches of the contract in consistent way.

          If you move to a non-statutory contract then the Courts must interpret breaches in a way unique to each contract. That actually increases government involvement in marriage. You will now have different judges interrupting the contract in different ways. All decisions made by lower courts in civil cases are subject to appeal by either party to higher courts. So instead of having divorce adjudicated by a single judge it is quite possible that a private contract could appealed all the way to the SCOTUS. In fact early privatized marriage contracts would have to be appealed through the court system to establish precedents that would guide judges in future divorce cases. Sometimes a standardized government sanctioned contract is more efficient than unique contracts.
          Libertarians are very much like Progressives. Their ideas sound great on paper but fail in the real world because of the Law on Unintended Consequences. I just read an article on the re-criminalization of most forms of Prostitution in the Netherlands. Legalization seemed like a great idea until it wasn’t because of the serious second order effects on behavior. Anybody who does second order analysis becomes less enamored with either Libertarian or Progressive solutions to problems.

      • avatarJoe Grine says:

        “By what authority do you presume to dictate what another person does with his own property?”

        Henry, its called “nuisance law.” Been around for a long time. look it up.

  8. avataruncommon_sense says:

    While the attorney’s remarks were rather assinine, what is most relevant is how much traffic and activity the home based business generates. If one or two people stop by every day or two, park in the man’s driveway, and don’t generate any noise, it doesn’t matter what the business is about.

    On the other hand, if the business generates a lot of traffic and noise, then the man should operate it in an area with other businesses that generate traffic and noise and leave quiet neighborhoods to be quiet.

  9. avatarNew Chris says:

    “When you talk about a home-based business you’re talking about a tax preparer or lawyer – things that are discreet. ”

    Translation: I feel like (pathos) I should be able to impose my will on other people. Don’t ask me to explain it, and don’t think I would tolerate someone else doing it to me, but I’m not concerned with logic or consistency, I’m intellectually a six year old and consider “I waaant it,” to be a sufficient justification. I should run for office!

    Someone needs a time out.

  10. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    To everyone who agrees with zoning: Since you’ve already ceded the argument that government can dictate what you can or cannot do with your own property, don’t complain when they outlaw guns.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      We ceded certain individual rights when we built within a city. We signed paperwork to that effect.

      Rather, they did; I live in unincorporated county a quarter mile from the nearest neighbour.

      Certain liberties, such as that to walk around nude in the road while screaming abscenities, are impermissible in a polite societies.

      There’s lots of space between zoning and dictatorship

      If you prefer anarchy, the U.S. ain’t for you.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      We cede certain liberties should we choose to live within an incorporated community.

      We sign on the dotted line and Presto! After that, blaring heavy metal at 120 decibels at 0400 is a thing we may no longer do.

      Zoning isn’t dictatorship. If you don’t like zoning, live in the country, like me. ‘Course, I’m not here ’cause of zoning; I just like having cows across the street and no boom cars on it.

      The U.S. is a representative republic, not an anarchy.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      Henry,

      I believe in the notion that someone has the right to do whatever they want with their property until it affects other properties. Then some compromises are in order.

      One potential activity, shooting at a safe target on your property, makes considerable noise that travels beyond most properties and deteriorates adjoining properties. Or someone could pile garbage in their front yard which would seriously reduce value of adjoining properties. So what is the resolution for the property owner? Collaborate with the adjoining property owners for mutually beneficial results.

      People looking to purchase property can also choose to purchase a different property before engaging in their activity — or relocate to another property where they can collaborate with those adjoining property owners.

      • avatarHenry Bowman says:

        I totally agree with you. Peaceful collaboration with your neighbors to resolve disputes is respectful of both liberty and dignity. Appealing to the institutionalization of violence to steal from, kidnap, or kill your neighbor is not a moral option for dispute resolution and it degrades everyones liberty and dignity.

        • avatarSpoons Make You Fat says:

          Peaceful collaboration.

          No.

          Now what are you going to do?

          No, again.

          Now what? If you believe that all laws are ultimately enforced by the threat of incarceration and/or violence then you must also agree that at some point reasonable people can disagree. Taken to an extreme, peaceful collaboration may be impossible. Do you then let the parties act through force to “reach an agreement” or do you submit the matter to an impartial third-party?

          Similarly, when do your rights infringe on mine? And what should be the process for resolution? In the US we’ve agreed to live according to a series of contracts. This was a treasonous idea before the Magna Carta (the first time a king agreed that his will was not arbitrary).

  11. avatarMartin says:

    To tell the truth, while I would never protest based on what the guy does on *his* property, I do understand I could get angry if the effects spilled onto *my* property. So I’m not sure why so many here seem to think “Look, gun owner being prosecuted!”

    You want to run a gun shop in your garrage? Fine by me.

    You want to test-fire repaired guns? *You* have to soundproof *your* range – I’m not going to wear ear protection in my home because of your business.

    But I don’t know enought about the case to lean either way.

  12. avatarElJefe says:

    Move your business to Ohio. I need ammo.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      Ha!

    • avatarrangered says:

      Totally off subject. I was just at Wally World and found 4 Federal .223 55 grain 100 packs @34.97. Three of those boxes followed me home and my Mommy says I can keep them. I proclaim my self winner of the Internet today, but I sure would have liked to have had the fourth one too.

  13. avatarRuss Bixby says:

    To all left wingnuts: for a bit, I’ll not be here to debunk your arguments or curb your baiting of the Rest of Us.

    To all right wingnuts: for a bit, I’ll not be here to provide a centrist, Hamiltonian perspective.

    The power’s out, and I’m shutting down to conserve the batteries.

    Good luck to all o’ you also facing Stormgeddon, gun grabbers or home invaders,

    Russ, Kansan purple dog.

  14. avatarIn Memphis says:

    So I guess if he were dealing drugs it would be okay? I mean a little plastic baggie in your pocket is more descreet.

    • avatarjwm says:

      Or storing barrels of toxic waste in his garage? Or running a bar in his garage? Or he decides to put his speakers on the roof and give the whole neighberhood a free concert? I’ve actually had that last one happen. The cops actually seemed to like responding to that fellows place. I know we neighbors enjoyed the show.

      We’re not going to join hands and sing kum-ba-yah. Until that day we’ll need ordinances, laws and people willing to enforce them.

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        Yea I have a few college neighbors that like to party on the weekends. Usually they are good about shutting up if things get too loud though.

        • avatarjwm says:

          I’ve tried the reasonable neighbor approach. Go over there at 1 or 2 in the morning to ask them to cool it. My wife has to get up at 5 to go to work. I’ve tried to talk to them during the day when every one is calm. No go.

          Some people just won’t be reasonable. You know, sorta the reason a lot of us want to carry concealed.

          So now, I’ve adopted the other approach. I have the non emergency PD number on speed dial and I contact their landlord, they are renters, every time they step out of line. It’s amazing, suddenly they want to be good neighbers.

  15. avatarAharon says:

    I wish my neighbor had a home based business selling ammo. I wouldn’t have to spend as much time waiting before retail stores open on their delivery day to then run to the ammo department hoping to find 22LR which usually is not there.

  16. avatarEvil Oculus says:

    Say what you will about me, but here’s the truth: although I love guns and shooting, if I lived next to an open air range, it would have taken me a lot less that 15 years to go insane. Guns are awesome, but really, REALLY loud. And frankly subjecting your neighbors to that much noise whenever you see fit is uncool. We don’t like it when someone infringes on our rights, but we should also sometimes consider others’ rights as well.

    Who here enjoys sitting on the plane for 19 hours next to a bunch of hollering kids? Who here likes to listen to rap “music” from two houses over?

    Well, listening to a range all day sucks just as badly.

  17. Terrific perform! Right here is the style of information and facts to be embraced around the web. Shame for the seek out motors for no for a longer time placing this offered better! Think about it above along with visit my own site. Many thanks Equals)

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.