Governmental control in disguise
11-16-2011, 10:14 AM
#1
Slowest Progress Ever
Thread Starter
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The coal ridden hills of Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,022
Total Cats: 304
Governmental control in disguise
What a bunch of shiesters.
To start this off, I'll explain what's going on.
I'm in the process of building a garage and I leveled out my site where I am going to build. I saw my neighbor a few weeks ago, and I asked him, "When you had your pole building built, what did you have to take care of with the township to build it?" He tells me, "I had to go to the office and pay like $35 for a permit, that was it." The next day, I go to my township office to buy a permit. They tell me that things changed since 2008 and I need a storm water management application, and that I need to give them $850. That money goes into an escrow account, and $50 of it is for the permit fee. It costs about $300 to send someone out after I build my garage to make sure that the rain coming off my roof isn't flowing in a direction that will wash out a township road. Then the remainder ($500) should be refunded to me, it's mainly for their insurance in case my water runoff needs further evaluation to pass, blah blah blah.
I'm like, ok, I gotta give them $850 so they can screw around and then I wait to get about $500 back....whatever. Then they tell me that I need to get a zoning permit from the county to build. I'm thinking, "this is that $35 permit my neighbor talked about". WRONG. Try $200. So it's gonna cost me about $550 when it's all said and done just to have the government say, "it's your property and we know you're gonna follow codes and not gonna disturb any other property or wells or roads, but give us your money anyway."
This kind of **** makes people not even want to build accessory buildings. It's uncle sam's way of saying, "I know you own your property, but actually, you don't own your property, cause it belongs to is. If you fart on said property and the wind blows said fart across the street, you need a methane gas displacement permit."
***** Frustratiing.
To start this off, I'll explain what's going on.
I'm in the process of building a garage and I leveled out my site where I am going to build. I saw my neighbor a few weeks ago, and I asked him, "When you had your pole building built, what did you have to take care of with the township to build it?" He tells me, "I had to go to the office and pay like $35 for a permit, that was it." The next day, I go to my township office to buy a permit. They tell me that things changed since 2008 and I need a storm water management application, and that I need to give them $850. That money goes into an escrow account, and $50 of it is for the permit fee. It costs about $300 to send someone out after I build my garage to make sure that the rain coming off my roof isn't flowing in a direction that will wash out a township road. Then the remainder ($500) should be refunded to me, it's mainly for their insurance in case my water runoff needs further evaluation to pass, blah blah blah.
I'm like, ok, I gotta give them $850 so they can screw around and then I wait to get about $500 back....whatever. Then they tell me that I need to get a zoning permit from the county to build. I'm thinking, "this is that $35 permit my neighbor talked about". WRONG. Try $200. So it's gonna cost me about $550 when it's all said and done just to have the government say, "it's your property and we know you're gonna follow codes and not gonna disturb any other property or wells or roads, but give us your money anyway."
This kind of **** makes people not even want to build accessory buildings. It's uncle sam's way of saying, "I know you own your property, but actually, you don't own your property, cause it belongs to is. If you fart on said property and the wind blows said fart across the street, you need a methane gas displacement permit."
***** Frustratiing.
Reply
0
0
11-16-2011, 12:18 PM
#4
Slowest Progress Ever
Thread Starter
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The coal ridden hills of Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,022
Total Cats: 304
This is true. They made me figure out how much rain water would be displaced if 1/2 an inch of rain landed on my roof. I told them that I live on a hill and when it rains, the water flows right across my driveway and goes down next to where the garage will be built, and it's been doing it for hundreds of years. Their response was, "hundreds of years ago, we didn't have ordinances in place to monitor things like this. We do now."
Reply
0
0
11-16-2011, 12:24 PM
#5
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
Local governments typically charge the H&H studies to FEMA for big spenders or large developments, they should not charge this much for permitting a small structure. The Federal requirement for this type of analysis is only pertinent if the garage lies in the "floodway" of a mapped, NFIP participating community.
Townships are crazy, I'd never live in one...hell, I'll probably never leave Texas.
Townships are crazy, I'd never live in one...hell, I'll probably never leave Texas.
Reply
0
0
11-16-2011, 12:35 PM
#6
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
it's not so much that the ordinance didn't exist 100 years ago... it's that millions of square miles of concrete and roof didn't exist 100 years ago.
why is there flooding all the time in the midwest? because 100% of it has been worked by humans.
why is there flooding all the time in the midwest? because 100% of it has been worked by humans.
Reply
0
0
11-16-2011, 12:44 PM
#7
Slowest Progress Ever
Thread Starter
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The coal ridden hills of Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,022
Total Cats: 304
Human's are the plague of the earth.
Like Hustler kind of said, I could see if I lived in a town or a development, but I live in the middle of nowhere. Put it this way, if a deer walked through my yard, I could shoot it from my bathroom window while sitting on my toilet, and nobody would notice. If I built my garage, nobody would really care either. I went about it the legal way so I don't face future fines if my neighbors decide to not like me and rat me out.
Like Hustler kind of said, I could see if I lived in a town or a development, but I live in the middle of nowhere. Put it this way, if a deer walked through my yard, I could shoot it from my bathroom window while sitting on my toilet, and nobody would notice. If I built my garage, nobody would really care either. I went about it the legal way so I don't face future fines if my neighbors decide to not like me and rat me out.
Reply
0
0
11-16-2011, 02:08 PM
#10
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
You can afford to pay a little more. Look at Hussein, he makes millions per year and doesn't need it all...but you still have to pay his $400k/year salary to be preisdent, that he doesn't need.
Reply
0
0
11-16-2011, 09:14 PM
#18
Slowest Progress Ever
Thread Starter
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The coal ridden hills of Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,022
Total Cats: 304
I had a like 8x10 storage shed there and I moved it, dumped 7 tri-axle loads of shale there, and am building a 24x32' pole building. I guess to answer your question, "yes, I am building on a site that's never had a building."
Reply
0
0
11-18-2011, 08:32 AM
#19
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
In 2008, Lisa opened Connecticut White Smile in the Crystal Mall in Waterford, Conn., where she sold an over-the-counter whitening product and provided a clean, comfortable place for customers to apply the product to their own teeth, just as they would at home.
As it turns out, teeth-whitening services are popular and increasingly available at spas, salons and shopping malls all across the country. People are so eager to use these services because they provide great results at a fraction of the cost that dentists charge.
As Lisa puts it:
My customers loved my convenient location and affordable prices. Owning my own business gave me a flexible schedule that allowed me to spend more time with my family.
Unfortunately, as happens all too often, happy customers + happy entrepreneurs = unhappy special interests.
In June, the Connecticut Dental Commission decided to clamp down on teeth whitening. The commission ruled that offering teeth-whitening services is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison or $25,000 in civil penalties for anyone but a licensed dentist.
The ruling even applies to businesses like Lisa’s Connecticut Smile White, where customers apply the product to their own teeth. Some people may be wondering: What’s the difference between whitening my teeth at home with a product I buy online and whitening my teeth at a shopping mall or salon with an identical product? Remarkably, in Connecticut the difference is that the shopping mall and salon entrepreneurs can be thrown in prison for five years.
Thankfully, economic-liberty expert Paul Sherman of the Institute for Justice has teamed up with Lisa and other Connecticut entrepreneurs to change that. This week IJ filed a federal lawsuit to end Connecticut’s government-enforced teeth-whitening cartel. Paul explains:
The Dental Commission’s new teeth-whitening law has nothing to do with public health or safety and everything to do with protecting licensed dentists from honest competition. Rather than trying to compete by lowering prices or improving their services, the dental cartel is using government power to put their competition out of business. That’s unconstitutional. And that’s why we’re taking the dental cartel to federal court.
Simply put, protecting economic liberty from government-enforced cartels requires judicial engagement. Courts must be willing to confront what is really going on when special interest groups get protectionist licensing laws passed. Unless judges are engaged—taking our rights and the facts before them seriously—such abuses are inevitable.
As it turns out, teeth-whitening services are popular and increasingly available at spas, salons and shopping malls all across the country. People are so eager to use these services because they provide great results at a fraction of the cost that dentists charge.
As Lisa puts it:
My customers loved my convenient location and affordable prices. Owning my own business gave me a flexible schedule that allowed me to spend more time with my family.
Unfortunately, as happens all too often, happy customers + happy entrepreneurs = unhappy special interests.
In June, the Connecticut Dental Commission decided to clamp down on teeth whitening. The commission ruled that offering teeth-whitening services is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison or $25,000 in civil penalties for anyone but a licensed dentist.
The ruling even applies to businesses like Lisa’s Connecticut Smile White, where customers apply the product to their own teeth. Some people may be wondering: What’s the difference between whitening my teeth at home with a product I buy online and whitening my teeth at a shopping mall or salon with an identical product? Remarkably, in Connecticut the difference is that the shopping mall and salon entrepreneurs can be thrown in prison for five years.
Thankfully, economic-liberty expert Paul Sherman of the Institute for Justice has teamed up with Lisa and other Connecticut entrepreneurs to change that. This week IJ filed a federal lawsuit to end Connecticut’s government-enforced teeth-whitening cartel. Paul explains:
The Dental Commission’s new teeth-whitening law has nothing to do with public health or safety and everything to do with protecting licensed dentists from honest competition. Rather than trying to compete by lowering prices or improving their services, the dental cartel is using government power to put their competition out of business. That’s unconstitutional. And that’s why we’re taking the dental cartel to federal court.
Simply put, protecting economic liberty from government-enforced cartels requires judicial engagement. Courts must be willing to confront what is really going on when special interest groups get protectionist licensing laws passed. Unless judges are engaged—taking our rights and the facts before them seriously—such abuses are inevitable.
Reply
0
0
11-18-2011, 08:50 AM
#20
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
GLENDALE (CBS) — The city of Glendale is imposing a ban on artificial grass. Notices are going out to homeowners whose front yards are covered in turf.
Geneva Dotson says she was forced to pay crews $3,000 to rip up her brand new front yard after receiving a notice from city hall.
“There’s enough drama in life without having the city breathing down my back,” says Dotson. “I’m very angry about it, to tell you the truth.”
So, what’s the gripe?
City officials say the concern is related to the plastic and chemicals used in the artificial turf.
When asked why the fake grass would continue to be allowed in backyards, officials had no answer.
A turf company contacted by KCAL9 said some artificial lawns contain lead, but there is no harm posed to children or adults.
City officials say they plan to press criminal charges against those who do not comply with the ban.
Geneva Dotson says she was forced to pay crews $3,000 to rip up her brand new front yard after receiving a notice from city hall.
“There’s enough drama in life without having the city breathing down my back,” says Dotson. “I’m very angry about it, to tell you the truth.”
So, what’s the gripe?
City officials say the concern is related to the plastic and chemicals used in the artificial turf.
When asked why the fake grass would continue to be allowed in backyards, officials had no answer.
A turf company contacted by KCAL9 said some artificial lawns contain lead, but there is no harm posed to children or adults.
City officials say they plan to press criminal charges against those who do not comply with the ban.
Reply
0
0
