County says no camping on your own land !!

[dmccarty]

Ben Franklin supported the idea of property taxes before there was a United States.

How such an intelligent man could be so stupid amazes me.

Later,
Dan

 

[N80]

I don't believe a judge should compromise the property rights of an individual in order to change a law that is quite obviously onerous and wrong. I think there is a crisis in this country involving the judiciary at every level. That crisis can be summarized in one word: accountability. There is virtually none. And with the current willingness of the judiciary to legislate from the bench, lack of accountability is simply dangerous to our rights. And for every judge out there abusing his position I believe that are two more who are simply gutless and unwilling to take a stand on issues that are clearly and obviously right verses wrong. This is a product of or maybe even cause of the fact that many Americans deny that any issue is or can be clearly right or wrong. And the result of that is cowardice and an inability to act.

Dan, as conservative as I am I still believe there is a role for property tax within government. But it should bestow something special on the landowner that is not accessible to those who do not perpetually pay taxes simply because they own some dirt the way the landowner does. Is this elitist? Maybe. But it puts property ownership in the proper perspective. And if it is unbearably elitist, then do away with the property tax. It is just that simple.

My advice to the OP: camp if you want to. Just call it something else. Obtuseness in the law creates obtuseness in the citizen's response to it; and the fault does not lie with the citizen.

Rant over. Sorry.

 

[3930dave]

As my brother-in-law farmer always tells me when I start ranting about intrusive government: "Its not your land, you just lease it from the government."

For you egg heads out there who would like to read one of the fundemental documents that reformed conservatism in the 20th century, take a look at Richard Weaver's little book , "Ideas Have Consequences". The basis premise is that the only fundemnetal concept that can save us (the US) is private property ownership, which he calls "the last metaphysical right." The book was written in 1948. Since that time, and before via FDR et al, liberal socialist politics have sought to erode the right or private property ownership. Think about it. Hard. Then think about this post. We're in trouble.

Thank you for posting that reference, I'll add it to my reading list.

Rgds, D.

 

[David P]

I haven't read the entire thread but can empathize with your situation. The judicial system often seems to side with local government (any government, I suppose) rather than the merits of the case. I'm not sure how the small guys like us can fight against the system with its voluminous cash registers but I do like the idea of playing their game against them. In other words, think outside the box. Here's what I mean:

It seems like I see lots of trailers parked near businesses in certain locations with the business name on the side. I believe this is done in order to get around the sign ordinance. "That's not a sign, it's a trailer."

Find out how your county defines, "camping" (or whatever they have specifically prohibited you from doing) and see if you can alter your activity enough so that you may continue what you are doing while also technically being within the confines of their ordinance. Maybe you're not camping out there at all but have one of the nicest hunting blinds in the area?

 

[Country Geek]

I think a lot of you guys who are suggesting workarounds are missing the OP's point. I know it's been a long thread so people can't have read all of it, but he is spoiling for this fight. He has a political advocacy group providing his legal counsel. He doesn't want to "get away with it" on a technicality, he wants to get the restriction thrown out.

That's admirable that he's putting himself out there and has chosen the more difficult path of taking on the whole law because that's the one of ways laws like this get changed. But that also means he can't expect to have the judge award him a victory on a technicality like the other side's counsel didn't show up, if the resulting judgement could potentially change laws and have a widespread effect.

I bet if he was just some guy who wanted to camp on his land and not a plaintiff working with an advocacy group trying to invalidate the law, the judge would have been more willing to give him a default judgement for the missed notice and the other side not showing up, to allow him to go back to camp quietly on his land. But that's not what he wants. He wants to force a change in the law.

Given that, working around the law by technically not camping while really camping is also not the victory he is looking for.

 

[David P]

I think a lot of you guys who are suggesting workarounds are missing the OP's point. I know it's been a long thread so people can't have read all of it, but he is spoiling for this fight. He has a political advocacy group providing his legal counsel. He doesn't want to "get away with it" on a technicality, he wants to get the restriction thrown out.

That's admirable that he's putting himself out there and has chosen the more difficult path of taking on the whole law because that's the one of ways laws like this get changed. But that also means he can't expect to have the judge award him a victory on a technicality like the other side's counsel didn't show up, if the resulting judgement could potentially change laws and have a widespread effect.

I bet if he was just some guy who wanted to camp on his land and not a plaintiff working with an advocacy group trying to invalidate the law, the judge would have been more willing to give him a default judgement for the missed notice and the other side not showing up, to allow him to go back to camp quietly on his land. But that's not what he wants. He wants to force a change in the law.

Given that, working around the law by technically not camping while really camping is also not the victory he is looking for.

Good point. My post was based on it being more of a last resort in the event the outcome at court isn't acceptable. I should have stated it as such.

 

[dmccarty]

...

Dan, as conservative as I am I still believe there is a role for property tax within government. But it should bestow something special on the landowner that is not accessible to those who do not perpetually pay taxes simply because they own some dirt the way the landowner does. Is this elitist? Maybe. But it puts property ownership in the proper perspective. And if it is unbearably elitist, then do away with the property tax. It is just that simple.

My advice to the OP: camp if you want to. Just call it something else. Obtuseness in the law creates obtuseness in the citizen's response to it; and the fault does not lie with the citizen.

Rant over. Sorry.

Robert Heinlein's book Starship Troopers is a brilliant discourse on government, citizenship and responsibility. The book not the movie. I don't think the movie had anything to do with the book. Anyhow, one of the ideas in the book is that to be a voting citizen you had to be in the military or work as a civilian working for society, think of the old CCC. It is an interesting idea which works in Heinlein's book, but in reality, the people who vote would eventually oppress the people who cannot vote. They would make it harder to earn the right to vote over time which is why in the US we have the right to vote at birth.

The problem with a property taxes is that if you stop paying the tax, The State takes your property. Thus you really do not own the property but are paying "rent" to The State until you die. This is what makes a property tax inherently evil. I know a person whose great grandmother lost around 1,000 acres of land when her husband died and she could not pay the property tax. This land was north of Raleigh in the country. Today, this land is at a major intersection in Raleigh and worth millions of dollars. Just a few decades back, family buildings were still standing but they have long been bulldozed down to make way for roads, shopping centers, a huge church, huge car lots and subdivisions. The family would likely be very well off today if their grandmother/great grandmother could have paid a few dollars owed to The State. The State took a widows land, land in which she had lived her life, a productive life, all because she could not pay The State for the land she owned.

Property tax is a government seizure of private property plain and simple. How Ben Franklin did not see this fact amazes me.

Later,
Dan

 

[2manyrocks]

It's also possible the judge realized that this case was likely going to be used to force a change in the law (since a non-profit advocacy group was representing the OP) and wasn't willing to let such a potentially precedent-setting ruling be determined by default.

I know it's frustrating for you but I can see the point, if that's really it.

I see your point; however, a default judgment at the trial court level doesn't set the same precedent as a full blown trial followed by an appeals court victory in which all of the appellate judges rule in your favor with the opinion being published in the official court reports. A default judgment would have meant judgment by default-not necessarily judgment on the merits.


The famous tax quote is "the power to tax is the power to destroy."

 

[chad22]

No but the seller may try to sue the alleged "eyesore" beholder. The people that care about this the most are the rich, snobby type that usually live in neighborhoods full of other like them, so I don't think it is that big of an issue. I have a few neighbors that have a lot of crap laying around, I saw it before I bought my house, and I still don't give a sh*t about it.

:thumbsup: I don't give a crap about what others have in there yards either. I'd move right next to a junkyard and that would be beautiful to me.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like to keep my yard like Sanford and Sons yard. If anyone else wants to keep their property junk free then that's what they should do. But don't force me or others to remove our junk "Treasure" just because you don't like to look at it.

Some of the people complaining about my junk in my yard are people that just moved here only a year or so ago. They moved here knowing that the junk was in the yard. If they didn't like living near a junk yard then they shouldn't have moved here.

They can pack up and leave if they want too. But I won't be cleaning up the junk in my yard just to satisfy them. I earn some money by scrapping metal so yes some metal will be removed from the yard. But you can bet there's gonna be more junk put in it's place. lol

Some of the older "non complaining" neighbors give me some of this junk.

Just like a friend gave me car body the other day.

One neighbor that moved here 2 years ago moved here behind me knowing full well that there was junk here in my yard and she don't give a Chit about what I have.

She tells the council that it's my right to have what I please in my yard.

Chad