Forums | MacLife

In defense of the city's appeal fee...

Most times there is an appeal fee charged in order to guarantee payment of the fine if the offender refuses to pay even after an appeal.  That is why most fees are equal to the amount of the fine.  it is also why the fee is generally refunded in the case of a successful appeal.

Doesnt mean you should have gotten the fine in the first place tho.  Your yard is pretty bedraggled, but at least you dont have a collection of dead cars and old appliances.

I still don't get why the neighbors should get to complain.  Its not their property, therefore they have no right to tell the owner what to do with it.  City folk just don't understand about property rights.  You are too used to being pushed and shoved by each other and the cities to know freedom.  As I said before, unless its a safety issue, keep to yourself and leave everyone else be.  Don't like the view?  Build a fence or plant some hedges.  Problem solved.

Orion wrote:

I still don't get why the neighbors should get to complain.  Its not their property, therefore they have no right to tell the owner what to do with it.  City folk just don't understand about property rights.  You are too used to being pushed and shoved by each other and the cities to know freedom.  As I said before, unless its a safety issue, keep to yourself and leave everyone else be.  Don't like the view?  Build a fence or plant some hedges.  Problem solved.

Couldn't one inversely argue that if you don't want to deal with "city folk," move out to the country where no one else is around?




I agree with you, for the most part.  But it's not difficult to see why this would bother your neighbors--it drives down property value.  Appropriate or not, most purchasers of property should be able to determine their responsibilities beforehand.

mrreet2001 wrote:

Orion wrote:

Its not their property, therefore they have no right to tell the owner what to do with it.

I does however effect OUR property value.

You have a choice whether you want to own property next to someone who uses their property in a way you don't like.

If you don't like what your neighbors do with their property, you can move.

mrreet2001 wrote:

but all be damned if I would let you come into our community and tell us how to live.

Restated: "You're violating my right to deny others their rights! "

The laws agree with "city folk."
I still think Orion is right.
I grew up in the city, but my family and our neighborhood in general had a very "live and let live" attitude. The guy across the street had a manicured lawn but he didn't complain that my mother liked to let all the spring wildflowers grow and bloom.
And so on.
It was a very pleasant way to live.

Tallgeese wrote:

The laws agree with "city folk."
I still think Orion is right.
I grew up in the city, but my family and our neighborhood in general had a very "live and let live" attitude. The guy across the street had a manicured lawn but he didn't complain that my mother liked to let all the spring wildflowers grow and bloom.
And so on.
It was a very pleasant way to live.

You mean, it was pleasant to live around people who weren't smurfs?

It's sad to think that's not such an obvious concept anymore.

matt wrote:

People don't have a right to not be offended or to not be annoyed. If you don't like what someone does with their property, you're the one with a problem, and the responsibility to solve said problem should be entirely yours.

So there are no limits, then? 

Playing loud music all hours of the night, keeping livestock in the backyard, running a business that generates lots of visitors or traffic, parking as many inoperable cars on the law and in the street as will fit...all of this should be fair game in a residential neighborhood?  The local population should have no right to institute any sort of land use restrictions?

If what someone does "on their own property" has a real, measurable effect on those outside of that property....then how could one assert that their actions are confined to their property alone? 

You could trash the inside of your house, and it probably wouldn't affect your neighbors.  But trashing the outside would lower the property values in the neighborhood.  Having band practice in the garage at midnight would disrupt others with sounds not confined to your own property.  Raising pigs in the backyard would generate odors that would reach beyond the boundaries of the land you own.

Chickenhawk wrote:

I'd say that if you want to live in a community where everybody is mandated to have upkept lawns, etc, live  somewhere with an HOA.

Exactly. Become a communist, enjoy having everyone tell you when and how and what color to paint your house, how often you should mow and maintain your yard, what sorts of additions you can and can't add, give up most of the reasons you had for buying 'your' property and leave everyone else the hell alone.

I've never quite understood HOAs. It seems to me they're usually run by people with no real estate or managerial experience who are also likely to abuse their power if they don't like one or two of their fellow members. It's also like giving up a lot of the freedoms of having your own land and home.

bratboy wrote:

matt wrote:

People don't have a right to not be offended or to not be annoyed. If you don't like what someone does with their property, you're the one with a problem, and the responsibility to solve said problem should be entirely yours.

So there are no limits, then? 

Playing loud music all hours of the night, keeping livestock in the backyard, running a business that generates lots of visitors or traffic, parking as many inoperable cars on the law and in the street as will fit...all of this should be fair game in a residential neighborhood?  The local population should have no right to institute any sort of land use restrictions?

If what someone does "on their own property" has a real, measurable effect on those outside of that property....then how could one assert that their actions are confined to their property alone? 

You could trash the inside of your house, and it probably wouldn't affect your neighbors.  But trashing the outside would lower the property values in the neighborhood.  Having band practice in the garage at midnight would disrupt others with sounds not confined to your own property.  Raising pigs in the backyard would generate odors that would reach beyond the boundaries of the land you own.

I think that is already understood.  Those things have a more intrusive impact than the subject of the discussion already at hand. And I don't think lack of lawncare and a cinderblock or two constitutes as trashing the yard. Now, if he had, say, eight cinderblocks propping up two cars surrounded by oil stains and dead car batteries, then yeah, that would be bad.

Antonio wrote:

I think that is already understood.  Those things have a more intrusive impact than the subject of the discussion already at hand. And I don't think lack of lawncare and a cinderblock or two constitutes as trashing the yard. Now, if he had, say, eight cinderblocks propping up two cars surrounded by oil stains and dead car batteries, then yeah, that would be bad.

I'm guessing that you and I hold similar opinions here, but I doubt that Matt does.  I got the impression that his comments applied to situations beyond the yard in question.

I stand corrected.

resedit wrote:

You know - I'm not mister perfect yard myself.
When I have a few weeds, the wild Turkeys come and eat the weed seeds. The rabbits come and nibble. And I get a letter saying I have to clean them up.

It's harder for me because I refuse to use poison. So it's a lot of work when the weeds come.
But in all honesty - we already encroach on wild animal habitat so much, letting some wild plants grow from the wildlife I think is a good thing.

People put out bird feeders to attract the seed eating song birds, why not let some weeds grow to attract the other wildlife?

I rebuilt my flower bed last spring. I removed the old crappy clay dirt and replaced it with good soil.
The old crappy dirt is on a blue tarp, covered with another blue tarp.

I've been asked to remove it. I told them I was attempting to, but without a valid DL, it's difficult, I was going to schedule a time for dad to come up and rent a truck to haul it off.

They've been bugging me about it for months.

Here's the real deal. After I rebuilt the flower bed, I was going to call and have it hauled off - but then I saw the native lizards using it, and knew it was an ideal nesting ground. So I figured I'd let it stay until eggs hatched.

I was right - and a plethora of baby lizards have come out of it. In a week or two, when I'm sure any eggs laid in it have hatched, THEN I'll call and have it hauled away.

The lizards provide natural bug control, and they are pretty. Given it has been an extremely dry year - reproduction levels of lizards have been lower, but I have a plethora of them running around my yard now, because I happened to have a spot that I knew would be excellent for them to lay in - covered to keep humidity in and rain out, partial sun warming it in the morning, but shade by the time it gets really hot, etc.

It's too bad I can't just leave it there long term - but I really do think I've pushed my luck.

Damn. That's almost the coolest thing I've read here.
Can you build something to hold the clay to turn it into a reusable nesting? Something similar to a worm farm, covered and contained?

I'm thinking about doing that - build something at the same spot to hold dirt inside like a flowebed, but covered - maybe put a potted plant on top pretending it is some type of stand for a decoration.

I would want easy access to it - as it may need adjustment from time to time (such as adding water in the spring, but not too much)
I might not do it though - there's a real risk of it becoming an ant farm.