Man gets 30 days in jail for unfinished siding project

[IndyBeerman]

The same house in different areas will sell for different prices. A single house in disrepair will not affect that. Appraised value is based upon what other similar properties have sold for in the general area of the property being appraised.

This is different than saying one property in disrepair has lowered the property value. Unless it is sold for a much lower price. Once sold it can have an affect on the value of other properties like it in that area. This is why foreclosures hurt so much, they are often dumped for low prices, and they drag all the others with them.

Well I'm going to tell you something, all three homes are within 1.5 miles of each other, so it is in the same area. The homes around the third one have never been in foreclosure. All three homes have almost the exact same property size (1.0-1.2 acres). The homes are not in a HOA so that can not come into play the only difference is the fact that the third home has homes around it that have not been maintained to the quality that they should have been.

Anyone who believes that a properties value is not affected by what is beside it is either blind or has binders on so tight it creates tunnel vision.

If you have a pile of house sitting next to yours and people keep offering substantially less money in the range of the appraised value, then one of two things, they hate your house (but they must like it, why make an offer) or it's the next door dragging it down.


Property is affected by what is beside it, home appraised values don't mean , it's what an individual is willing to pay for it, that is what counts.

That third home built like mine, I wouldn't buy it if they gave it to me. Why, because everyday I'd have to look out the window, or when I leave and come home I would have to see that house that looks like , I don't want next to me, that's why I bought my house when I could have bought that house 6 months earlier for $30,000 less.

You yourself even said above unless it is sold for a much lower price. Any prospective buyer will not buy at asking price of near if you know you have an eyesore sitting next to you that has been in disrepair or trashed for a period of time.

 

[rambone]

All law has a gun at the end of it.

I would not shoot my neighbor because he refused to side his house.

I would also not pay mercinaries to shoot him for me.

Because of that, I find such laws immoral.

So ask yourselves: What am I willing to shoot people (or threaten to shoot people) over?

That's what it all comes down to, and it really is that simple.

So I take it that you don't make the case that ugly houses are being used as a "weapon" against you.

How so, ram?

How is it patently absurd to have laws against using property as a weapon?

The idea of property being a weapon is absurd.

Your analogy, "ugly property is like a gun shot into your house" is absurd.

Your analogy, "ugly property is like a truck driving on a public sidewalk" is absurd.

Nobody is being hurt by an eyesore. It is an absurd point to make and it shouldn't be made by a gun owner, of all people. Its like arguing that owning a "weapon" should result in arrest.

And if your neighbor's "weapon" is threatening you, why aren't you justified in responding with force? Snipe him from your roof top before that long grass kills your family.

You have made the argument in previous threads that you have a "right" to your property value behaving a certain way. This is also absurd.

Tell us all what L. Neil Smith would do.

I bet he would move to a HOA community.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Nobody is being hurt by an eyesore. It is an absurd point to make and it shouldn't be made by a gun owner, of all people. Its like arguing that owning a "weapon" should result in arrest.

Yes people are hurt financially by an eyesore. If you fail to see that, you have failed the common sense argument.

 

[steveh_131]

Yes people are hurt financially by an eyesore. If you fail to see that, you have failed the common sense argument.

Financial success is not a right.

 

[findingZzero]

Financial success is not a right.

How can I pursue happiness if the air smells like pig **** or gamma rays? Or Rambone lives next door (unless he stocks really good beer).

 

[Glock21]

So I suppose it's then justified to have my neighbors arrested if they are black, since that causes some white people to consider the value of my house zero.

Now I understand!

I can have my neighbors fat wife forced to stay indoors, as well, since some consider her an eyesore.

And don't even get me started with the Muslim family across the street - I mean, who in their right mind would live anywhere near them!

If government doesn't get in here and do something quick, I'll just have to let the bank take the place.

 

[Glock21]

Yes people are hurt financially by an eyesore. If you fail to see that, you have failed the common sense argument.

One man's eyesore is another man's church.

 

[serpicostraight]

Yes people are hurt financially by an eyesore. If you fail to see that, you have failed the common sense argument.

who gets to determine what is an eyesore? and where does it end?

 

[jsharmon7]

All law has a gun at the end of it.

I would not shoot my neighbor because he refused to side his house.

I would also not pay mercinaries to shoot him for me.

Because of that, I find such laws immoral.

So ask yourselves: What am I willing to shoot people (or threaten to shoot people) over?

That's what it all comes down to, and it really is that simple.

I disagree. Would you kill your neighbor for setting your car on fire? Would you kill him for stealing your yard gnome? If not, would such a law against him setting your car on fire or stealing your yard gnome be immoral? Sure you could sue him as I'm sure someone will suggest, but my argument remains that it does no good if he refuses to cooperate with the court system. Even if they put a lien against him or try to sell his house, they're going to have to use force to remove him from it.

My issue with this situation is that people are making it too simplistic, i.e. "he was arrested for not putting up siding." The siding issue was the catalyst that got the legal system involved, everything he did after that was the reason for the arrest. A speeding ticket could lead to an arrest if you decide to ignore the legal system, it doesn't mean that you're being thrown in jail for speeding.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I disagree. Would you kill your neighbor for setting your car on fire? Would you kill him for stealing your yard gnome? If not, would such a law against him setting your car on fire or stealing your yard gnome be immoral? Sure you could sue him as I'm sure someone will suggest, but my argument remains that it does no good if he refuses to cooperate with the court system. Even if they put a lien against him or try to sell his house, they're going to have to use force to remove him from it.

My issue with this situation is that people are making it too simplistic, i.e. "he was arrested for not putting up siding." The siding issue was the catalyst that got the legal system involved, everything he did after that was the reason for the arrest. A speeding ticket could lead to an arrest if you decide to ignore the legal system, it doesn't mean that you're being thrown in jail for speeding.

Absolutely true, but I believe that the concern hinges on the idea that the situation should never have happened in the first place, subsequent mishandling of the legal process notwithstanding.

 

[Glock19]

Liberty for the masses does not come with out limits to individual liberties.

I can dance whereever I want, so long as I am not naked, and not in the middle of a street in oncoming traffic.

There have to be limits to prevent anarchy.

ACTUALLY........Jefferson Memorial Flash Mob Arrested For Dancing, Protesting Court Ruling (VIDEO)
Lol...

 

[Kutnupe14]

So hypothetically, if your neighbor puts up a 20 foot high brick wall that denies your backyard sunlight, there's no issue you can undertake?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The idea of property being a weapon is absurd.

Your analogy, "ugly property is like a gun shot into your house" is absurd.

Your analogy, "ugly property is like a truck driving on a public sidewalk" is absurd.

No, it's not absurd. Property is used as a weapon every day in this state. Just sit through a few protective order (which many here seem to want to handle lazy neighbors) hearings.

Nobody is being hurt by an eyesore. It is an absurd point to make and it shouldn't be made by a gun owner, of all people. Its like arguing that owning a "weapon" should result in arrest.

And if your neighbor's "weapon" is threatening you, why aren't you justified in responding with force? Snipe him from your roof top before that long grass kills your family.
[\quote]

Everyone is hurt by a fetid pile of crap.

Guns is my basement hurt no one and as long as I do not misuse them. By letting your property turn into a fetid pile of crap you are misusing your property not in the Jeffersonia usufruct manner.

You cannot shoot your lazy neighbor because you are not in danger of serious bodily injury or death by your neighbor's sloth. You are in danger of being hurt financially and that is why we have ordinances, protective orders, or nuisance suits to protect the property rights of the non-slothful. Suing, not shooting, is the proper remedy.

You have made the argument in previous threads that you have a "right" to your property value behaving a certain way. This is also absurd.

It is not absurd. It is existing case law.

We have ordinances, protective orders and nuisance suits to property our right to our property values.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So hypothetically, if your neighbor puts up a 20 foot high brick wall that denies your backyard sunlight, there's no issue you can undertake?

Pfffft, like there are ever a-holes in an L. Neil Smith novel.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Financial success is not a right.

Fail again.

I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If you have that clutters your yard to the extent that rodents, trash, potential disease, ect..., affect my life and my pursuit of happiness, then you have violated my rights as an individual.

Financial success also falls under the pursuit of happiness, if your actions affect that right of property ownership to one day sell that property at a financial gain and not able to do so because of actions by an individual head that's properly is maintained in such a fashion that affects it, then you have had a direct affect on my pursuit of happiness.

So, what do you have say about the above?

 

[Glock21]

I disagree. Would you kill your neighbor for setting your car on fire? Would you kill him for stealing your yard gnome? If not, would such a law against him setting your car on fire or stealing your yard gnome be immoral? Sure you could sue him as I'm sure someone will suggest, but my argument remains that it does no good if he refuses to cooperate with the court system. Even if they put a lien against him or try to sell his house, they're going to have to use force to remove him from it.

My issue with this situation is that people are making it too simplistic, i.e. "he was arrested for not putting up siding." The siding issue was the catalyst that got the legal system involved, everything he did after that was the reason for the arrest. A speeding ticket could lead to an arrest if you decide to ignore the legal system, it doesn't mean that you're being thrown in jail for speeding.

You can disagree all you want, but laws mean nothing without enforcement, and the root word of that is FORCE.

Now what I would shoot people over and what you would shoot people over may be two different things, and that's fine. Part of this whole liberty thing is having the right to ones opinions and the right to practice them in any way they see fit, as long as they harm no innocents. I might be perfectly willing to shoot a person who has walked on my property, and is about to set my car on fire - if for no other reason than he's tresspassing and about to commit an act of violence, which I can only assume will include my home (which has living beings in it) next. What I won't do is cross over onto his property and shoot him because he MIGHT set my car on fire some day. Too much of this is about thought crime, pre-crime and what "might" happen.

I think law should only kick in when one person has deprived another person DIRECTLY of life, limb, liberty or property. Vauge things such as the height of your neighbors grass, what your house looks like, seat belt use, breastfeeding in public, carrying a gun into a Federal Building or even saying the word f**k on TV, in my opinion, are not direct violations of anyone's rights, and not the type of things courts and police (and my money) should be involved in.

I think there has to be a victim (a physical person who can prove they were physically harmed) in order for any other person to be guilty of a crime.

Of course, we do live in a nation where most people think their wives and children being looked at naked in an airport body scanner is fine while at the same time think a guy should go to jail because he refused to side his house. So I'm not sure any of this is even worth arguing about anymore since, as a nation, we have really become a bunch of dishrags who have lost sight of what the real meaning of liberty is.

Personally, I think we suffer from a mass psychosis that starts at a very young age when our parents tell us it's wrong to steal, while at the same time we're told taxation is moral and we must pay "our fair share". I mean, what do you do with an entire nation of people who claim to corner the market on honesty and justice while they (as a group) rob from one another on a daily basis? Can any of us be surprised when someone at the city council meeting suggests it's ok to tell people how and when to side their house since it's "for the common good", and the group goes along with it as if it all makes perfect sense? We've already crossed the "what's yours in mine" threshold, and we've already decided to be socialists. It should shock no one that the enforcers and supporters of such action consider anyone who disagrees deserving of jail.

The idea that a guy is on his own property minding his own business should have to devote one minute of his life or dollar of his fortune to even respond to such a thing, to me, is completely EVIL. Yet, here we are.

But again, that's just my opinion, and I'm sure that will soon be illegal, as well.

 

[hornadylnl]

No, it's not absurd. Property is used as a weapon every day in this state. Just sit through a few protective order (which many here seem to want to handle lazy neighbors) hearings.

Nobody is being hurt by an eyesore. It is an absurd point to make and it shouldn't be made by a gun owner, of all people. Its like arguing that owning a "weapon" should result in arrest.

And if your neighbor's "weapon" is threatening you, why aren't you justified in responding with force? Snipe him from your roof top before that long grass kills your family.
[\quote]

Everyone is hurt by a fetid pile of crap.

Guns is my basement hurt no one and as long as I do not misuse them. By letting your property turn into a fetid pile of crap you are misusing your property not in the Jeffersonia usufruct manner.

You cannot shoot your lazy neighbor because you are not in danger of serious bodily injury or death by your neighbor's sloth. You are in danger of being hurt financially and that is why we have ordinances, protective orders, or nuisance suits to protect the property rights of the non-slothful. Suing, not shooting, is the proper remedy.



It is not absurd. It is existing case law.

We have ordinances, protective orders and nuisance suits to property our right to our property values.

Isn't this the same argument for the Obama insurance mandate? Your lack of insurance is driving my healthcare costs up.

 

[IndyBeerman]

who gets to determine what is an eyesore? and where does it end?

Geez, how about a homeowner who for 5 years has failed to fix his house.

Or the fool that lived across the street from Horny.

Common sense man, this is not rocket science.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Pursuit of happiness=property

 

[steveh_131]

So hypothetically, if your neighbor puts up a 20 foot high brick wall that denies your backyard sunlight, there's no issue you can undertake?

How many millions of people in the city have their yards blocked by tall buildings?

Financial success also falls under the pursuit of happiness, if your actions affect that right of property ownership to one day sell that property at a financial gain and not able to do so because of actions by an individual head that's properly is maintained in such a fashion that affects it, then you have had a direct affect on my pursuit of happiness.

I've presented this analogy before.

If you're trying to sell your house, and I tell people that I think your house is ugly, I am affecting your financial gain and therefore your 'pursuit of happiness' (by your logic).

Lawsuit time?