I have no problem with backyard chickens but I do dislike this issue being used by libertarians as a wedge. Property rights shouldn’t be sacrosanct over and above reasonable restrictions by the broader community.
That's true, but "neighbors have a veto over whether you can do X" is an untenable way to manage those property rights. A bigger city would codify limits on what you can do with waterfowl or whatever. Douglas doesn't even have a city attorney.
Exactly. It's nonsense to have a law that says, "you can do X on your property unless someone, anyone objects". Imagine if other laws all worked that way. Oh, you can drive whatever speed you want, unless someone else on the road with you has a problem with it!
Not if your excessive speed is exacerbating my migraines and disrupting the sleep patterns of my cats.
Also, the dust thrown up by your excessive speed by vehicle is increasing particulate matter in the air, which may contain known carcinogenic compounds.
I guess it depends. There's been a major issue in the UK for a while regarding quite a few very iconic, decades old, live music venues. Back in the day they were in less salubrious areas of town so no one really cared, but now they're prime property with very expensive flats being put up all around them.
Many of the new residents never even do so much as even visit the area before buying them, and then immediately (and sadly often successfully) put in noise complaints attempting to get the venues shut down, despite the already strict licensing laws (curfew at 10.30 at the absolute latest, no outside drinking etc).
That's the kind of situation where I think both sides are kinda right. I see what you're getting at here, but from the other side, it's reasonable for people to be bothered by loud noise where they live. If it was gonna be a problem, the real answer is that the government shouldn't have permitted housing right next to places that are gonna stay loud. Or maybe mandated stricter soundproofing requirements for flats.
In either case, people have a right to reasonable peace and quiet where they live. That this wasn't addressed when the neighborhood was more blue collar doesn't make it okay once it's not.
I can understand having restrictions against chickens in an area, but "you can do this unless a single neighbor objects" is a crazy way of handling it imo.
I don't see the issue you see here. It seems like the city fucked things up and is now penalizing the woman to cover up their own incompetence. One would think that any sensible person would object to this, not just libertarians.
She doesn’t have permission and never did. They accidentally told her she did. Now that she knows about the mistake she needs to get rid of her chickens. I’d support her being able to force the city to reimburse her for her costs but it’s ludicrous to say someone should be allowed to permanently do something illegal because at one point they were told it was legal due to a bureaucratic mistake.
Yes she did. The city explicitly granted her permission. If they fucked up their own process, that's on them, not her.
> I’d support her being able to force the city to reimburse her for her costs but it’s ludicrous to say someone should be allowed to permanently do something illegal because at one point they were told it was legal due to a bureaucratic mistake.
So if someone constructed a high rise in Manhattan and after it was already finished, and NYC tried to say, "oh sorry turns out we gave you that building permit erroneously, we screwed up how we handled the permitting process, you'll have to take it down now", you'd think that was reasonable? 99% of people would think that was absolutely crazy if they tried to do that, unless there was an actual safety issue involved.
If a board makes a procedural error over a matter it has clear jurisdiction of, it often results in a defacto variance. You usually end up with vested rights if you acted in good faith and made substantial investments.
The fact that board didn’t provide a grievance procedure and immediately moved to fine undermines their case.
Do you have pets? What if the city made you get rid of your dog because a neighbor didn't appreciate the barking? The neighbor here needs to take their lumps and fuck all the way off.
Not really? Under the city's rules, she's not allowed to have backyard chickens. She's refusing to get rid of them, and recurring fines are how cities respond to that. (I'm aware there's a claim the city mismanaged its rules).
Yes really? She got explicit permission from the city to raise the chickens, and then they tried to pull the rug out from under her later, after she'd already spent thousands on a chicken coop.
> The city claimed that it had forgotten to notify the neighbors of their right to object during the review process and had therefore done so retroactively.
Like lmao, that's not how due process works man. You can't tell someone they can build something, then go "oh whoops we fucked up, you can't build it after all" after they're already done and then punish them for it.
Imagine if NYC tried to pull this for a high-rise after it was already constructed. "Oh you already built it? Sorry man, turns out you're not allowed to put a building that tall there, you'll have to take it down. Oopsies!"
Yeah, I can see the neighbors having an issue with the city (failed to notify them) but the remedy should reasonably be between those neighbors and the city for losing an opportunity to object. Retroactively removing permission doesn't make sense.
Palestine has had many opportunities for statehood. Current President of Israel is not completely opposed to statehood, citing security concerns which are clearly valid considering Palestine has repeatedly broken cease fire agreements and Hamas entire goal is to eradicate Israel. They are not being treated as sub-human. Remember Israel warns Palestine of air strikes. There have been many reports of Hamas refusing to allow people to leave sites that are targeted for the sole purpose of of martyrdom. The only people being exterminated is the terrorist Organization Hamas.
All 4 bullet points are either completely false or misleading.
Clearly there is disagreement in Israel to some limited degree about the reality and appeal of a two state solution, but it’s hard to see that as a realistic or desired outcome when Netanyahu keeps saying things like “everyone knows that I am the one who for decades blocked the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger our existence.” https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-boasts-of-thwarting-...
Certainly it’s the stated position and goal of the current government, which is what the initial post said.
If your neighbour keeps throwing stones at you and you agree to not throw stones, they continue to throw stones. You would probably not support any of their wishes.
“Desperate and traumatised Jewish survivors refused to return to neighbours who had denounced or deported them; when some were returned to Poland anyway and met with pogroms and hatred, all prospect of Jewish repatriation evaporated. Following sharp criticism from the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, which was caring for Jewish survivors, in December 1945 Truman opened up visas in excess of the usual quotas for some 23,000 DPs in the American zone, two-thirds of them Jewish, and from January 1946 UNRRA too recognised Jews as a national group, to be housed apart from other refugees. In this case (and no other), the Soviets and Americans were on the same page, agreeing that refuge outside Europe must be found, ideally in Palestine. The British, having learned how strongly Palestine’s Arab population would resist this project, objected until, in 1948, they surrendered their mandate, leaving – as one departing official put it – the key under the mat. Of some 230,000 registered Jewish DPs, just over 130,000 would settle in the new state of Israel and about 65,000 in the United States.”
One flaw with this reasoning is that ignores the time value of money. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar a hundred years from now, if only because we’ll all be dead a hundred years from now. From that perspective and with favorable terms it can make sense to sell the future to buy the present, if someone is willing to take that trade.
Yes exactly. People who write text are not going to be excited about making saving their text such an extraordinarily complicated task, nor will they think it’s interesting in its own right.
I wasn't trying to be dismissive, only in line with the explicit call outs for simplicity from the author.
I suppose I was trying to give the perspective of someone doesn't have a problem with authoring a markdown document for example... and bringing myself back to the reality that for most people authoring a document with any sort of formal (rigid, to be interpreted by machine) syntax is unfamiliar.
