Living off the land is illegal even if it's your own land?

[TammyS]

He should have filed for a variance.  I wonder why he didn't.

 

He may be needing a septic tank.  I don't think that's such a huge burden.

 

When we bought our house 3 years ago the owner had to replace the septic and drain field.  $12k for the septic, $7k for the drain field.

 

That's kind of a burden.

[TammyS]

Which implies - give us more money for the inspections, and spend more money on the property so we can charge you higher property taxes.  Revenue is the issue.

 

And control.  I think control even more than revenue.  You can do what you want, maybe, if you bow and scrape and pay homage.

[TammyS]

 Does it even get cold enough to be life threatening without a heater?

 

It doesn't matter.  If he dies from being cold, that's his choice.  If he dies from bad water, that's his choice.

 

Having a sanitary way to deal with sewage makes sense, because that affects people off his property.  But everything that affects just him and his property needs to be titled: Nobody's Business.

 

We need to stop trying to protect people from themselves.  It's not our place.

[TammyS]

I don't know, I have a new respect for building codes and permits after my mom and stepdad came close to dying last year. They were renting a house temporarily from my mom's brother, who had thought it would be a good idea to gut it and redo everything himself without permits or inspections, including installing the furnace. The thing was leaking carbon monoxide and by the time it was discovered, another day or two and my mom and stepdad probably would have gone to bed and not woken up.

 

Without requiring permits or inspections, also keep in mind the kind of shoddy, unsafe work that would probably be done on low income rental housing on a regular basis.

 

Red tape is a huge pain, but it's also there for a reason.

 

Why didn't your parents go and buy a carbon monoxide detector themselves?  They knew they were in a house with a furnace.  Even a furnace done properly can malfunction.  Those things are like $20 at Walmart.

 

This is actually the problem with building codes.  We've all become children who don't think to look out for ourselves because we believe the government nannies are doing it for us.

 

There was a tragedy in the town nearest me two winters ago.  A man had stolen an electric meter and was using stolen electric to run his house.  Somehow the power company discovered it and disconnected it.  The man got a generator and ran it IN THE HOUSE and killed his entire family and himself.  People blamed the power company for disconnecting the stolen meter!  Not the man for stealing it or for being so stupid as to run a generator in the house (if you've ever seen a generator they have stickers all over them saying not to do that).  Then they blamed the landlord for not having CO detectors in the house, even though there was nothing in the house that could make CO.  No one ever suggested that he shouldn't have used the generator in the house or that he should have bought a CO detector.

 

[Murphy101]

It doesn't matter. If he dies from being cold, that's his choice. If he dies from bad water, that's his choice.

 

Having a sanitary way to deal with sewage makes sense, because that affects people off his property. But everything that affects just him and his property needs to be titled: Nobody's Business.

 

We need to stop trying to protect people from themselves. It's not our place.

I disagree about the bad water. Bad water is bad for everyone.

 

And property is iffy. If his home catches fire bc of crappy electric or gas hook up, I'm going to be none too happy if I'm his neighbor.

 

But otherwise, mostly yeah.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It doesn't matter.  If he dies from being cold, that's his choice.  If he dies from bad water, that's his choice.

 

Having a sanitary way to deal with sewage makes sense, because that affects people off his property.  But everything that affects just him and his property needs to be titled: Nobody's Business.

 

We need to stop trying to protect people from themselves.  It's not our place.

 

Except if he is heating the house in an unsafe manner he can cause a fire that impacts other.

 

Water? If he is using an unsafe source he can help spread disease by being patient zero.

 

When we live in groups, what we do does affect others.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Why didn't your parents go and buy a carbon monoxide detector themselves?  They knew they were in a house with a furnace.  Even a furnace done properly can malfunction.  Those things are like $20 at Walmart.

 

This is actually the problem with building codes.  We've all become children who don't think to look out for ourselves because we believe the government nannies are doing it for us.

 

There was a tragedy in the town nearest me two winters ago.  A man had stolen an electric meter and was using stolen electric to run his house.  Somehow the power company discovered it and disconnected it.  The man got a generator and ran it IN THE HOUSE and killed his entire family and himself.  People blamed the power company for disconnecting the stolen meter!  Not the man for stealing it or for being so stupid as to run a generator in the house (if you've ever seen a generator they have stickers all over them saying not to do that).  Then they blamed the landlord for not having CO detectors in the house, even though there was nothing in the house that could make CO.  No one ever suggested that he shouldn't have used the generator in the house or that he should have bought a CO detector.

 

 

Yes, we would be much better off if landlords didn't have to follow safety codes.  I, for one, can see nothing negative that could come from that.  Not at all.

 

I like how to prove make point your bring up an anecdote that isn't even sort of related.

[TammyS]

I disagree about the bad water. Bad water is bad for everyone.

 

And property is iffy. If his home catches fire bc of crappy electric or gas hook up, I'm going to be none too happy if I'm his neighbor.

 

But otherwise, mostly yeah.

 

How does him having bad water affect anyone else?

 

[creekland]

Huntsville's response from June 2015.

 

...The City of Huntsville has been working with Mr. Truitt and his alternative lifestyle choices for the past nine months. Mr. Truitt has now been issued two citations. The first citation on March 27 was for failing to meet zoning requirements – trailers are not allowed in the city limits. Zoning Administration informed Mr. Truitt that he could apply to the Board of Zoning adjustment for a variance. He chose to go to court and was found guilty on May 20. Mr. Truitt is appealing that conviction and his next court date will be July 29.

The second citation was issued May 12 by our Community Development Department for owning an unsafe structure (multiple code issues regarding safety, sanitation, sewer, utilities – Code #7-357 through 7-388).

 

As you are aware, the purpose behind these requirements is public safety. This includes ensuring that occupants of a residential dwelling have safe, potable, running water, and electricity, particularly in the wintertime. These are public safety regulations, regardless of how (they are) perceived by some members of the public. The City has posted the property as “Unsafe†for this reason. The absence of a connection to a sanitary sewer system (whether a septic system or sanitary sewer outfall line connected, ultimately, to a treatment facility, is not only a health and safety issue for the occupants, it’s a health and safety issue for others who may live around him/her. There are both benefits to be obtained, and compromises to be made, when people choose to live in an urban community.

 

Contrary to some of the public comments online, it’s not a revenue issue for Huntsville Utilities or the City. Community Development’s mission is, among other things, protection of the public health. We have had many problems in the past with landlords who have taken advantage of poor tenants by refusing to insure the availability of such basic utility services – people who have lived in houses or apartments with no running water, no heat, no electricity, no proper connection to sanitary sewer facilities. We have used this regulatory tool to force these slum lords to bring their properties up to code (when we become aware of the violations), so that their tenants can be assured of having the basic services required for survival – services most of us all take for granted.

 

There is a system and he chose not to use it.  I have no sympathy for him.

 

Codes are there for a reason (generally safety, sometimes aesthetics), but every place we've been has had a variance system to be able to go outside the code when something individually makes sense and meets needs in other ways.  Hubby is a Civil Engineer and uses that system often for clients - usually winning because he knows whether something "different" is ok or not (meeting standards).

 

To expect something to happen outside the system is pretty much crazy TBH.  We have opted for a regulated lifestyle that tries to benefit everyone en masse because we're social creatures living near each other.  The masses have to be treated equally as per our constitution.  If one wants something looked at individually, there are paths that are open to everyone for that, but one must use the path.

[TammyS]

Except if he is heating the house in an unsafe manner he can cause a fire that impacts other.

 

Water? If he is using an unsafe source he can help spread disease by being patient zero.

 

When we live in groups, what we do does affect others.

 

 

He's on  2 acres.  If his house catches fire the chances of that fire spreading off his property are extremely small.

[TammyS]

Yes, we would be much better off if landlords didn't have to follow safety codes.  I, for one, can see nothing negative that could come from that.  Not at all.

 

I like how to prove make point your bring up an anecdote that isn't even sort of related.

 

They are related.  We all act like children and don't look out for ourselves because we expect that someone else has made a rule that takes care of it. 

[Murphy101]

How does him having bad water affect anyone else?

 

😳 Ack!!! Yikes!!! Seriously?!😵😷

Mosquitos

Bacteria

Parasites

 

All of these can start in water, but all the living critters who use the water or are affected by the water runoff can spread to other creatures who didn't come into direct contact. Humans for example.

 

Bad water contributes to more illnesses than almost anything else in the world iirc.

[Murphy101]

He's on 2 acres. If his house catches fire the chances of that fire spreading off his property are extremely small.

Holy crap. See now we have the other end of the extremism.

 

No it isn't. I'd estimate that an uncontrolled fire could easily spread 2 acres in less than an hour pending the environmental conditions. And trailers? Those things are like huge matches when they catch fire. I doubt there'd be anything left even if the fire dept got there within 5 minutes.

 

If that happened near my ranching family, they'd be on high alert and very worried about it spreading dangerously.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Murphy101

[Murphy101]

Yes, we would be much better off if landlords didn't have to follow safety codes. I, for one, can see nothing negative that could come from that. Not at all.

 

I like how to prove make point your bring up an anecdote that isn't even sort of related.

I agree with both of you on this one. Yes the furnaces should have been done properly to begin with and yes there should have been CO detectors anyways, but also, as the people living there, it behooves some basic self preservation to make sure they have co detectors regardless.

 

*says me sheepishly bc about 2 months ago I could not get the smoke detector low battery thing to shut up at 3am (WHY is it always the middle of the night?!) and I couldn't reach it so I took a broom and beat the crap out of it until it died. And I've yet to replace it. However if my house burns down bc of my forgetfulness, that's on me.*

[luuknam]

He's on  2 acres.  If his house catches fire the chances of that fire spreading off his property are extremely small.

 

We only had 0.75 acres (and depending on the shape of the lot, 2 acres may be narrow and long or w/e), but with dry grass and trees, it would've been trivial to spread a fire to the next property. And something tells me a guy like this doesn't keep his lawn watered so that he doesn't have dry grass (not that he should).

 

It's not just landlord issues either. If someone installs faulty wiring or w/e in their house and doesn't have it inspected, and then sells the house, the buyer presumably won't rip out all the drywall to inspect the wiring. There's a limit a normal house inspection will catch when you buy a house. That's why the city wants to inspect the wiring before you put up drywall.

Edited April 29, 2016 by luuknam

[creekland]

😳 Ack!!! Yikes!!! Seriously?!😵😷

Mosquitos

Bacteria

Parasites

 

All of these can start in water, but all the living critters who use the water or are affected by the water runoff can spread to other creatures who didn't come into direct contact. Humans for example.

 

Bad water contributes to more illnesses than almost anything else in the world iirc.

 

:iagree:  A little study of history - or even present conditions in some areas - could go a long way.

 

The vast majority of public regulations due to health concerns show they are created for a reason.  The "Good Old Days" weren't generally so good for everyone involved.

 

Two acres is nothing for a fire to consume, esp if there's any brush around or a blowing wind.  Water/wastewater are huge concerns.

 

I can fully understand Huntsville asking for compliance or variances to show he's met standards a different way.  Pics and "I told you we did" just don't cut it when one lives in a community with others.

[Murphy101]

There's got to be a sensible medium between banning blow dryers bc some folks don't have enough sense to know not to use them in the shower or internally (actual safety stickers on a blow dryer we bought a few years ago) and saying oh to hell with it, let's make blow dryers that might spontaneously combust while you use them.

 

Sensible safety regs = good.

 

Emphasis on the sensible and the safety.

[mamaofgirls]

The Amish do not have fire detectors... They have fought for years, and just won again for the freedom to NOT have electricity. American is not the Land of the Free if we force people to do things that they do not want...

[Murphy101]

:iagree: A little study of history - or even present conditions in some areas - could go a long way.

 

The vast majority of public regulations due to health concerns show they are created for a reason. The "Good Old Days" weren't generally so good for everyone involved.

 

Two acres is nothing for a fire to consume, esp if there's any brush around or a blowing wind. Water/wastewater are huge concerns.

 

I can fully understand Huntsville asking for compliance or variances to show he's met standards a different way. Pics and "I told you we did" just don't cut it when one lives in a community with others.

I agree. I'm withholding judgement against him bc I'm just not seeing evidence yet.

 

What, exactly, about his solar power wasn't safe for example. I'm perfectly willing to believe it isn't. But I see no proof. Same for the water and sewage. I'm more than open to him not doing it safely, but I want proof.

 

The city saying, "he needs to hook up to the city utitilites!" Isn't enough for me.

[Murphy101]

The Amish do not have fire detectors... They have fought for years, and just won again for the freedom to NOT have electricity. American is not the Land of the Free if we force people to do things that they do not want...

That's so bizarre to me that an entire community has to fight to not have electricity.

 

I mean, what if I wanted to go live in some tree hugging commune? You don't need electricity to live safely and healthily usually.

 

Most Amish and... Ugh stupid pregnant brain.. What that other one we have around here??.. Men in tights? Anyways, I used to visit them with my grandma as a kid and they were very very clean and sanitary and they were very aware of having to be extra vigilant about it to avoid problems with the outside world.

[Murphy101]

Oh for. Lol Mennonites!!!! LMBO autocorrect.

[creekland]

I agree. I'm withholding judgement against him bc I'm just not seeing evidence yet.

 

What, exactly, about his solar power wasn't safe for example. I'm perfectly willing to believe it isn't. But I see no proof. Same for the water and sewage. I'm more than open to him not doing it safely, but I want proof.

 

The city saying, "he needs to hook up to the city utitilites!" Isn't enough for me.

 

Perhaps absolutely nothing.  According to what was posted that I quoted (response from Huntsville), there is a variance procedure they told him to use.  He opted not to and went to court instead.  The judge properly agreed that he was violating city regs.  City regs (like most city regs) say "Do this OR ask for a variance and to get it approved, show your system meets the needs behind the regs."

 

Since they told him to use the variance system, my guess is they knew he could get approval that way.  Perhaps some modification is needed here or there, but that's for them to figure out.

 

He's not allowed to live in a community and thumb his nose at the system figuring his word is all it takes to prove he's fine.  Our systems just don't work that way - for the safety of all.

[mamaofgirls]

:iagree:  A little study of history - or even present conditions in some areas - could go a long way.

 

The vast majority of public regulations due to health concerns show they are created for a reason.  The "Good Old Days" weren't generally so good for everyone involved.

 

Two acres is nothing for a fire to consume, esp if there's any brush around or a blowing wind.  Water/wastewater are huge concerns.

 

I can fully understand Huntsville asking for compliance or variances to show he's met standards a different way.  Pics and "I told you we did" just don't cut it when one lives in a community with others.

 

Just because something is 'not safe' in the majorities eyes does not make it right to take away the rights of others. Smoking is not safe but people still have the right to it. Taking away a persons right to live how they want on their own land is wrong. Our country still allows parents to smoke in their home with young children who have chronic infections because of it.. Why step in here and now and not then?

[mamaofgirls]

Oh for. Lol Mennonites!!!! LMBO autocorrect.

 

Most Mennonites around here have the internet, brush their teeth, drive cars, have electricity, ect... I am talking Amish - my neighbors who are storing 6 gallons of ice cream in my freezer because their icebox is not keeping it cold enough :P

[mamaofgirls]

That's so bizarre to me that an entire community has to fight to not have electricity.

 

I mean, what if I wanted to go live in some tree hugging commune? You don't need electricity to live safely and healthily usually.

 

Most Amish and... Ugh stupid pregnant brain.. What that other one we have around here??.. Men in tights? Anyways, I used to visit them with my grandma as a kid and they were very very clean and sanitary and they were very aware of having to be extra vigilant about it to avoid problems with the outside world.

 

They are very clean (well, most not all... hehe!) and very good about helping the 'land' stay healthy when it comes to farming practices. They are so sweet, kind and will do anything for you - best neighbors ever.

 

Of course when I locked my baby in the car with my cell phone on a summer day it was annoying... wish they had a phone I could have used! haha

Edited April 29, 2016 by mamaofgirls

[skimomma]

 

Trash burning in a small housing addition isn't safe bc most of the yards aren't big enough to safely assume it won't spread.

 

So again, I'll say it's extremism. It's one thing to say never. It's another to want sensible safety regulations. I'm all for sensible safety regulations.

 

Paint and Windows though are going to be a bit of a harder sell for me. Because the bigger question to me is why do I care more about my property value than that my neighbor is obviously struggling and might need my help? A plate of cookies and an offer to hold a paint brush would do more good for all parties to my mind.

 

That's kind of my point.  Even "safety" is pretty subjective from one person to the next.  I'm with you here....just pointing out that it is not always easy for individuals to know where the line is, let alone a municipality that is trying to please everyone.  At the every least, if there are ordinances, the city should be enforcing them.  If those ordinances are stupid or outdated, then they should be changed.  The city in the article is simply following their own ordinances, no matter how dumb they are.  Should they just ignore them for this one case or every case?  Or should a property owner who has issue with them do something to change them, apply for a variance, or just cry foul when they are held to ordinances that were in place before they wheeled the trailer up?

 

I also "benefit" from the lax oversight in my city.  Our house is by far the most in need of a paint job (in violation) on our block.  If we get fined I have only myself to blame....although I will definitely point out the pages of unaddressed violations also occurring on my street.  Then I will apply for a variance on the grounds that no painter will even return my phone calls because my neighborhood has become a slum.  Because my house has lost so much value, I have a hard time justifying the cost to paint.  What's the point?  And while I cannot say this is true everywhere, our owner-occupier neighbors who are mostly low income are not the ones violating the ordinances.  It is the slumlords, none of whom are in need of neighbors helping them paint.  They are looking to squeeze the last buck out of houses before essentially abandoning them.  Obviously this is a complex issue and we are not going to come up with the one true answer in this thread but I do believe ordinances have their place even if they are sometimes misguided.

[creekland]

Just because something is 'not safe' in the majorities eyes does not make it right to take away the rights of others. Smoking is not safe but people still have the right to it. Taking away a persons right to live how they want on their own land is wrong. Our country still allows parents to smoke in their home with young children who have chronic infections because of it.. Why step in here and now and not then?

 

As a community, we decide where we draw lines.  Different communities can draw different lines.  This often happens actually.  What is important in cities is less important in rural areas - even noise ordinances.

 

The people living in the community are those who decide where the lines are drawn via their elected officials and ways laws are made (with exception to federal laws, but even then, its our (larger community) who decides those lines in a similar manner).

 

"Taking away a person's right to live how they want on their own land is wrong," you said.  If this is true, are you ok with your neighbor putting in a concentrated chicken farm right next to you AND not needing to prove any sort of sanitation to do so?  It's their land, after all, and they want to raise 100,000 chickens for the meat or egg market.  They promise they'll take care of all the droppings and dead birds and flies, etc.

 

If you're not ok with that, then you also agree there needs to be some regulation for the common good.

 

All Hunstville is asking (as per what is written on here) is that he follow established laws and get variances where needed.   Those variances will show that what he's asking for is reasonable and addresses any health concerns.

 

If they were to deny variances that made sense (solar panels for electric, etc), then I'd likely take his side.  Right now he refuses to follow the law of the community.  He needs to move outside that community to somewhere that fits him rather than expecting that whole community to change for him.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

They are related.  We all act like children and don't look out for ourselves because we expect that someone else has made a rule that takes care of it. 

 

Nonsense.  Humans have done stupid things long before there were building codes.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

He's on  2 acres.  If his house catches fire the chances of that fire spreading off his property are extremely small.

 

1.) It still can spread in drought conditions.

2.) People injured in a fire have a cost for society.

3.) No need to risk the lives of firefighters for fires that can be prevented.

[luuknam]

Just because something is 'not safe' in the majorities eyes does not make it right to take away the rights of others. Smoking is not safe but people still have the right to it. Taking away a persons right to live how they want on their own land is wrong. Our country still allows parents to smoke in their home with young children who have chronic infections because of it.. Why step in here and now and not then?

 

I suspect that in many cases CPS might step in when it's demonstrable kids have chronic infections due to parental indoor smoking.

[LucyStoner]

Nonsense. Humans have done stupid things long before there were building codes.

Yup. Seriously, let's not pretend that stupidity is a new addition to the human condition.

[Murphy101]

What? No it's not hard to figure out. It's easily findable documented facts.

 

Safe water is not a new concept. And what it takes for water to be safe is also not new. Indoor city plumbing isn't what makes water safe. (Flint, MI anyone?) The standards for safe potable water have been well known for a long time. It's not some confusing thing to figure out.

 

Same goes for electricity. Even solar use.

 

Same goes for sewage management. It's not like people only learned how to poop without a near community death chain reaction this year.

 

The safe minimum standards for these things are very well documented and known. It shouldn't be difficult for a municipality to figure out whether someone is doing it right or not.

 

This thread is making me think everyone needs to go buy a basic scouting or army camp manual. Or a history book. Seriously. This is why I am for sensible safety regs. And no, it is not hard to figure out sensible or safe when it comes to basics about water and energy and sewage.

 

I'm curious to know why the guy didn't get a variance and what a variance would have required of him.

[luuknam]

Oh, and aside from 2 acres not being that large (our 0.75 acres were right near the center of town, just a few houses away from city hall), the location of a house on a lot also matters. Not all houses are smack dab in the middle of a lot, and not all adjacent lots are the same size. Our lot was adjacent to a housing project for elderly citizens, which was just feet from our property line (our house was more or less in the middle of our lot).

 

ETA: And the people on the other side of the housing project (to the north - we were to the east) had a bigger lot than we did - probably about 2 acres, all still near the center of the town, with houses all around them.

Edited April 29, 2016 by luuknam

[Mergath]

Just because something is 'not safe' in the majorities eyes does not make it right to take away the rights of others. Smoking is not safe but people still have the right to it. Taking away a persons right to live how they want on their own land is wrong. Our country still allows parents to smoke in their home with young children who have chronic infections because of it.. Why step in here and now and not then?

 

And if I had my way, smoking inside of a home with minor children would be grounds for CPS to step in and remove the kids. 

[Mergath]

Why didn't your parents go and buy a carbon monoxide detector themselves?  They knew they were in a house with a furnace.  Even a furnace done properly can malfunction.  Those things are like $20 at Walmart.

 

This is actually the problem with building codes.  We've all become children who don't think to look out for ourselves because we believe the government nannies are doing it for us.

 

There was a tragedy in the town nearest me two winters ago.  A man had stolen an electric meter and was using stolen electric to run his house.  Somehow the power company discovered it and disconnected it.  The man got a generator and ran it IN THE HOUSE and killed his entire family and himself.  People blamed the power company for disconnecting the stolen meter!  Not the man for stealing it or for being so stupid as to run a generator in the house (if you've ever seen a generator they have stickers all over them saying not to do that).  Then they blamed the landlord for not having CO detectors in the house, even though there was nothing in the house that could make CO.  No one ever suggested that he shouldn't have used the generator in the house or that he should have bought a CO detector.

 

 

Yeah, rather than require people to build safe homes in the first place, let's get rid of all those pesky regulations, contractors and landlords can do sh** work, and the tenants can just load up on smoke/CO2 detectors, cross their fingers, and hope for the best. That makes SO much more sense.

 

</sarcasm>

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The Amish do not have fire detectors... They have fought for years, and just won again for the freedom to NOT have electricity. American is not the Land of the Free if we force people to do things that they do not want...

 

Can you provide more information on the bolded?

[mamaofgirls]

As a community, we decide where we draw lines.  Different communities can draw different lines.  This often happens actually.  What is important in cities is less important in rural areas - even noise ordinances.

 

The people living in the community are those who decide where the lines are drawn via their elected officials and ways laws are made (with exception to federal laws, but even then, its our (larger community) who decides those lines in a similar manner).

 

"Taking away a person's right to live how they want on their own land is wrong," you said.  If this is true, are you ok with your neighbor putting in a concentrated chicken farm right next to you AND not needing to prove any sort of sanitation to do so?  It's their land, after all, and they want to raise 100,000 chickens for the meat or egg market.  They promise they'll take care of all the droppings and dead birds and flies, etc.

 

If you're not ok with that, then you also agree there needs to be some regulation for the common good.

 

All Hunstville is asking (as per what is written on here) is that he follow established laws and get variances where needed.   Those variances will show that what he's asking for is reasonable and addresses any health concerns.

 

If they were to deny variances that made sense (solar panels for electric, etc), then I'd likely take his side.  Right now he refuses to follow the law of the community.  He needs to move outside that community to somewhere that fits him rather than expecting that whole community to change for him.

 

Well, I would move and buy more land to stop that from happening again ;)

 

But the Amish are a Community living within a Community of English folks - so, because we are 'English' we have the right to tell another smaller community how to live?

 

 

 

[mamaofgirls]

Can you provide more information on the bolded?

 

This is the most recent win - 5 minutes from my house.

 

https://www.change.org/p/wisconsin-state-legislature-support-the-amish-in-eau-claire-county-and-the-state-of-wisconsin

 

http://www.wqow.com/story/30135089/2015/09/28/state-approves-building-code-exemption-for-eau-claire-amish-family

 

I can send more if you would like to know something specific.

 

[Mergath]

Well, I would move and buy more land to stop that from happening again ;)

 

 

 

If everyone- individuals, corporations, etc.- gets to do anything they want in the name of freedom and 'Murica!, it's not going to take long for the nation's air and groundwater to become irreversibly polluted. Where are you going to move then? 

[mamaofgirls]

If everyone- individuals, corporations, etc.- gets to do anything they want in the name of freedom and 'Murica!, it's not going to take long for the nation's air and groundwater to become irreversibly polluted. Where are you going to move then? 

 

In my world this would not be a concern, why would the government take away my freedom for more land but allow unsanitary chicken houses (like pp asked me)?

[Mergath]

In my world this would not be a concern, why would the government take away my freedom for more land but allow unsanitary chicken houses (like pp asked me)?

 

I'm so confused. What world do you live in if polluted air and water wouldn't be a concern?  :confused1:

[Murphy101]

I don't know that I agree a community necessarily makes these decisions. It's astonishing how little say a community has in their regulations and zoning and ordances. Very little comes up for vote and those making the decisions are not always elected or the choices given for who to elect are in other pockets. I'm a firm believer in vigilance of any government agency being the best way to assure freedom and justice. Sadly that often leaves one feeling it's pointless to participate too.

 

But one way to make sure an agency is acting in good faith with the community is for it to make sure it only does what is truely necessary. And for goodness sakes. There really shouldn't be any argument about potable water, sewage, and energy set up. These things are very cut and dry facts. Either it's done the proper safe way or it isn't.

[mamaofgirls]

I'm so confused. What world do you live in if polluted air and water wouldn't be a concern?  :confused1:

 

Im more confused... How does not having electricity cause air pollution? It is also reducing the electromagnetic radiation pollution too... Driving a horse and buggy causes less pollution then a car, and if I am wrong someone please show me prof!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is the most recent win - 5 minutes from my house.

 

https://www.change.org/p/wisconsin-state-legislature-support-the-amish-in-eau-claire-county-and-the-state-of-wisconsin

 

http://www.wqow.com/story/30135089/2015/09/28/state-approves-building-code-exemption-for-eau-claire-amish-family

 

I can send more if you would like to know something specific.

 

 

Oh, you made it sound like someone was trying to force Amish communities to get electricity.  In the second link, a family asked for an exemption and received it.  The county government acted reasonably (asked for building codes to be followed) and the panel found that this was a reasonable accommodation.

[Ausmumof3]

How does him having bad water affect anyone else?

 

For one thing Giardia is mostly from contaminated water but can also be spread by hand to hand Contact. Diseases that originate in bad water can sometimes have other spreading mechanisms.

[Katy]

The Amish are also who paved the way for Homeschooling.  They have a religious right not to educate their children to the same standards of others. 

 

If he started a church that worships independence and required not being tied to the grid, then he'd have a civil right to not comply.

 

Assuming he has the proper screening on his rain water collection and is using a compost toilet properly, there is no public safety issue.  There are multi million dollar homes in the Virgin Islands that use quite similar rain collection systems.

[Murphy101]

And if I had my way, smoking inside of a home with minor children would be grounds for CPS to step in and remove the kids.

As an asthmatic raised in a smoking household., Idk if I'd go that far, but yeah my sentiment about it is right there with you.

[Mergath]

Im more confused... How does not having electricity cause air pollution? It is also reducing the electromagnetic radiation pollution too... Driving a horse and buggy causes less pollution then a car, and if I am wrong someone please show me prof!

 

You want to eliminate regulations. No regulations = massive pollution. Even just removing industrial agriculture regulations- so people could have their giant chicken factory farms, for example- would destroy the environment fairly quickly. 

[Ausmumof3]

Oh for. Lol Mennonites!!!! LMBO autocorrect.

Best autocorrect ever!!! I was trying to figure out where on earth this men in tights commune was!!!

[Mergath]

As an asthmatic raised in a smoking household., Idk if I'd go that far, but yeah my sentiment about it is right there with you.

 

With what we know about the effects of secondhand smoke on children now, I don't think it's too far. Kids deserve to be able to grow up without breathing in poison on a daily basis.

 

One of my hills to die on. ;)