John Wangsgaard
Veteran Member
Posts:1434
 |
| 23 Jun 2007 05:26 PM |
|
Tyranny of the Majority
Today I opened my Logan City utility bill and received a shock. I read the paper everyday and try and stay informed, but somehow the fact that the Logan City Council has once again declared war upon it’s less affluent citizens escaped my attention. In the name of aesthetics homeowners will no longer be allowed to park vehicles in front of their homes. This is all fine and dandy, if you have a higher income and live in neighborhoods which have two and three car garages and driveways. Those of us who have a single driveway must now constantly move cars in and out of the driveway if we want to use them.
This is just a natural conclusion with the apparent current philosophy of giving government unlimited power. As long as a policy does not directly effect someone most people seem either indifferent or worse supportive of government tyranny. Since over half of the citizens of Logan are renters this eliminates them as a possible force. More affluent homeowners also tend to be involved in city politics more than more working class citizens. The city already has incredible power via zoning and building code laws, which they are constantly tinkering with. Somehow the City Council thought it was perfectly legitimate to hire an inspector whose sole responsibility is to look for violations of city code. Not respond to complaints mind you, but look for something to hassle us about.
Last summer, a city employee took it upon himself to harass a neighbor of mine, because he was installing sprinklers on the parking strip without a permit (which cost $50). We are responsible for maintaining the parking strip, mind you, but need permission to simplify upkeep. The same neighbor who opened a new business in the downtown are (you know, the place where people are constantly lamenting its down cline) was hassled nearly every day for the first two weeks he opened by a city inspector. This inspector was rude and demanded to be dealt with before paying customers. Needless to say, after a great deal of harassment, the owners decided to close up shop and move back to Salt Lake City.
Do you really think you own your home (even if it’s paid for)? You only rent it from the city/county. Our political servants are rapidly becoming thugs, which we are forced to support. I wonder, what it will take for the average citizen to say, enough is enough.
Peace |
|
|
|
|
Eric Widdison
Basic Member
Posts:135
|
| 23 Jun 2007 06:35 PM |
|
In the name of aesthetics homeowners will no longer be allowed to park vehicles in front of their homes.
Do you have the text of the notice (or even better, of the code)? I tried to look it up and couldn't find anything regarding this on Logan's website. This may be a reference to Logan City Parking Code 10.52.170D which prohibits the parking of vehicles on the street for more than 21 consecutive hours. If so, then this is not a new law. I got a ticket for having my car parked on the street for over 21 hours about five years ago. I'm not sure if they consistently apply the law (it's probably about as well enforced as the law in my city prohibiting trailers from being parked on the street, which is a huge problem at times on my street). The only other on-street parking regulations that I found were time limits for parking on downtown streets (10.52.210) and restrictions on commuter parking near USU on residential and business streets (10.52.215).(I also found out that it is illegal to put up "No Parking" signs and to idle your car for more than 3 minutes.)
Do you really think you own your home (even if it’s paid for)? You only rent it from the city/county.
I have a difficult time with your point that we are renting our property from the city/county. From a hard-line libertarian perspective, this may be true (although not as true as the first sentence, since we are quite restricted about what we can do with our property). The key point is, what does it mean to "own" property? Does that mean that you are free, without restriction, to do as you please with it? Or does it merely mean that you, and not another person, can legally make certain claims on it, often including being able to occupy it, build on it, and receive compensation for it if it should these rights transfer to someone else? |
|
|
|
|
Eric Widdison
Basic Member
Posts:135
|
| 24 Jun 2007 03:25 AM |
|
Gunrights sent me an email with a scan of the letter sent to property owners. The main body of the letter reads as follows: Dear Logan Resident or Property Owner:
Community leaders are committed to a long-term and sustained revitalization of the neighborhoods of Logan. As neighborhoods mature, younger families need to be attracted to buy older homes. New residents must be convinced that these neighborhoods will be good places for children to grow and develop. They must be able to trust that their children can play safely in their surroundings and be able to walk to a good school. They must be able to trust that investment in older homes will make financial sense. Restored neighborhoods will not be accomplished overnight, but will require an enduring and long-term effort by citizens and city officials to restore neighborhood dignity.
Neglect and deterioration exists in certain areas of neighborhoods. Single family homes have been converted to rental housing. Some of these conversions have been accomplished illegally without permits. Homeowners find themselves surrounded by homes with minimal maintenance with no accountable owner living on the property. Community leaders are on a course to ensure that parking problems, over occupancy, and illegal conversions will be corrected.
Parking in the landscaped parkstrip and in frontyards has been the single most significant contributor to deterioration in neighborhoods. Jointly, the Municipal Council, Mayor Watts, and the Planning commission have declared that quality neighborhoods are a priority and the city will no longer allow illegal parking. At a minimum, restoring the physical condition of the streets and frontyards will require the following actions by property owners:
a. Removal of illegal parking from city rights-of-way, particularly in the parkstrip (the area between the face of the curb and the inside of the sidewalk).
b. Removal of illegal parking in frontyards.
Beginning May 1, 2008 parking in these areas will be ticketed and property owners allowing parking in these areas will be subject to enforcement action. The city staff will assist property owners to determine legal relocation of parking. Almost a year of preparation time has been allowed for property owners to make the transition. For assistance or questions in implementing these improvements contact the Community Development Department at 435-716-9036. It was accompanied by three pictures. The first was of a sidewalk with green on both sides of it. Presumably the road is out of frame on one side. The second picture shows two cars parked in the mouth of a driveway so that they are between the street and the sidewalk. It points out the cars parked in the driveway as being illegally parked on city property (maintained by the property owner), but it is silent about the car that is parked on the street. The third picture shows two cars parked on a lawn. Reading the entire letter, it is now more clear why Gunrights included the parking strip story. It also seems that Gunrights misinterpreted the letter. While city "rights-of-way" probably include the street as well, it is apparent that they do not intend to make parking on the street illegal. In fact, it appears that they do not intend to change any laws, but merely to enforce existing laws. It is not clear to me what laws they will be enforcing as the current parking code makes no reference to lawns, yards, or parking strips. It appears that they need to make their policy a little clearer, at least statutorily, than it is in the letter (perhaps it already is clearer, since informative letters like this are not statutorily binding. The current statues allow parking on public streets in most cases, so it appears that Logan residents will continue to be able to do so. Curiously, they are planning to make it illegal to park in a portion of your driveway, or in your front yard (parking in the back yard will apparently remain legal?). |
|
|
|
|
John Wangsgaard
Veteran Member
Posts:1434
|
| 24 Jun 2007 05:35 PM |
|
Parking overnight in the winter is illegal. I have a basement apartment which means suppying parking for the tenant. Since I live on a fixed income this income is necessary for my survival. I do not have access to my backyard for parking. So by some kind of fiat they have changed the rules without any notification (that I am aware of) and do not make any "grandfather" exception. I should not have to contact the city for anything. I do not know how old you are but I am guessing at most in your early thirties. You seem incapable of understanding what has been like watching our so called rights disappear. The smoking police ( I do not smoke) have pretty much outlawed that freedom. If one simply maps out the trends which have occurred during the last thiry years or so it is truly frightening. The city has adopted more and more restrictive zoning and building code regulations. Every law, every regulation or code is a loss of freedom! It is important to understand that this issue revolved around asthetics, not safety! If we allow the government to enter this area unchecked try and imagine where it will lead. |
|
|
|
|
Eric Widdison
Basic Member
Posts:135
|
| 25 Jun 2007 03:54 AM |
|
You seem incapable of understanding what has been like watching our so called rights disappear. In examining the property rights of people in rural areas, small towns, and on to big cities, it appears that there is an inverse correlation between the city size and the property rights. This is probably due to the increased interaction between people in a more densely populated area. In any case, the erosion of rights that you have been seeing are a symptom of the recent growth that Logan has been experiencing. Also, this specific initiative seems to reflect a strong desire to maintain Logan's history. If no action is taken, then some combination of two things are likely to occur. One possibility is that the relatively historic downtown areas of Logan with their older residential buildings will be destroyed for newer buildings, either in the form of commercial development or high-density housing. The other option is for the downtown area to turn into a slum. These two options reflect growth either like Provo or Ogden respectively. (Logan really could go either way, although I think that it is more likely to go the commercial/apartment direction.) I don't think that this new parking initiative is likely to make much difference at improving property values (that is the goal--even if housing prices stay the same, they want new people to perceive the older homes in town as having more value). It sounds like the problems are caused more by the high percentage of renters and the general indifference of renters when it comes to maintaining properties. (I live in a neighborhood with a high percentage of rental properties and among the home-owners in the neighborhood there is frustration with every property put up for rent, partly because we're worried about the property deteriorating and partly because we don't like having so much turnover.) In Logan, the high rental numbers are unavoidable. So, in an effort to do something, the city is doing something that probably won't make any difference. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Basic Member
Posts:134
|
| 25 Jun 2007 05:27 AM |
|
You seem incapable of understanding what has been like watching our so called rights disappear. This is not relevant. |
|
|
|
|
Jamie Forbush
New Member
Posts:66
|
| 25 Jun 2007 08:43 PM |
|
I would have to agree with Gunrights here. Logan City does not respect private property. Just look at what Doug Thompson did to the people who use to live behind the library on 1st West! The County is no better! |
|
|
|
|
Eric Widdison
Basic Member
Posts:135
|
| 26 Jun 2007 12:30 AM |
|
Logan City does not respect private property.
Most of the property-related decisions that a city makes are intended to increase the value of private property (the same can probably be said of county governments, but I'm not familiar with county property laws). This parking rule is designed to foster a long-term increase in property values. Part of this is that it makes things more difficult for landlords since rental properties are worth more in the short term but have much higher depreciation rates, not to mention the negative impact that rentals have on nearby properties.
This is a complex issue, and like I said above, the answer that Logan City came up with may not be the best one. Any decision to limit rentals in a city that is highly dependent on a large, transient renter population should be carefully questioned. In the end, the city has the right to impose standards for a wide variety of reasons. If the citizens wish to question those reasons, they may do so through letter, petition, council debate, or referendum. Short of electing new representation, none of these measures are likely to be binding.
Just look at what Doug Thompson did to the people who use to live behind the library on 1st West!
I am not familiar with the construction behind the library (I can look at it from space). It would appear that eminent domain was exercised to expand the public facilities in the downtown area. While I'm sure this was frustrating to the people who had to move out, it is a clear example of the government's right to use land for the public good. |
|
|
|
|
Daniel Widdison
New Member
Posts:47
|
| 26 Jun 2007 07:22 AM |
|
You only rent it from the city/county. As of this post, private property is still privately owned (choke on that, Karl). However, as with all property, real property (real estate) is not owned except within the bounds enforceable by law. If the law says that you have a right regarding property, then that right exists. Absent legal authority, no rights exist with regard to property. In anarchy, property is only owned insofar as you have the physical power to enforce the rights you want to have over that property. (I picture a squatter sitting in a rocking chair on the front porch of his log cabin while holding a shotgun.) Think of it this way: all property comes with a bundle of rights attached to it, like the right to exclude others from its use, the right to develop it as you will, etc. Those rights attach to the property and are enforced by the government because they serve the public good. However, if one person's use of her property infringes on the rights of another, then the public good is no longer served. The people (through their government) must then decide how far they are willing to go in enforcing property rights. This is a legitimate exercise of governmental power. It is entirely different than a landlord/tenant relationship where we are simply "renting" our property from the government. We own our property, but that ownership only extends as far as the government is willing to allow it. This is the way it has to be in a society where all people are equal. Logan appears to be trying to deal with a serious problem. Downtown deterioration is a huge problem in many cities and could easily become so in Logan. Unless the city does something about it, the public will suffer. (FieryDarts' invocation of Ogden as an example is particularly chilling.) |
|
|
|
|