Politics: J'accuse!

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Excuse me, everyone, but I thought zoning wasn't supposed to be for the purpose of maximizing values for private persons, but to regulate land use for everyone's health, welfare, and safety.

To-may-to, to-mah-to. Having your local jurisdiction write a Penal Code is going to raise property values if it didn't have one before. It was for the purpose of health, welfare, and safety, and obviously wasn't specifically intended to raise property values. I was talking about the effect of zoning; I have no knowledge or opinion about the intent behind it. If I'm defending zoning before the Supreme Court instead of the PB, I'll be sure to use your argument and make the intent distinction.

Even more than I believe in God, I trust that rich corporations are rational actors even when they're not being particularly nice. Thus, when Kaufman & Broad tells me I can't have a washline in my backyard, I assume it's because some KB pencil-pusher has established that it raises KB's per-parcel sales price. If I can break the CC&Rs and sell free and clear, I've made a bonus I didn't expect. This is the situation of 99.9% of people affected by zoning.

I don't particularly worry about the landowners who have zoning imposed on them and lose theoretical uses; the vast majority of residential land purchasers are buying parcels in places zoning already exists, and only Birchers and Bilmore care about the theoretical wealth transfer that occurs with every government regulation --- everybody else talks about whether it's a good idea or not, not whether it's a taking. Every government action is a loss of freedom, but that's not the end of the analysis. Zoning is a pretty good way of assuring your land use had minimal impact on other landowners. We should poll the Birchers to find out of they voted with their dollars and live in jurisdictions without zoning, as a matter of principle.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
To-may-to, to-mah-to. Having your local jurisdiction write a Penal Code is going to raise property values if it didn't have one before. It was for the purpose of health, welfare, and safety, and obviously wasn't specifically intended to raise property values.

Yes, but, the basis of the SC opinion that held that having different kinds of residential zoning (as opposed to zoning residential, industrial, and commercial and letting the chips fall where they may within those zones) was based on a health, welfare and safety rationale. Which makes NO SENSE.

However, this is not my area, and that case may have gone by the wayside and there is now some other basis for that kind of zoning.

Or maybe it was about covenants. Either way. Unless there is going to be an overall minimum amount of land or square footage or whatever per person, zoning a particular area for residences that are on a certain size lot or that have a certain level of residency, while allowing smaller lots and larger numbers of people in a different area, can't be about health, welfare and safety. There are people living in both places -- if the smaller lots and larger numbers of people is unhealthy, unsafe, and not good for welfare, it is equally bad for both groups.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

However, this is not my area, and that case may have gone by the wayside and there is now some other basis for that kind of zoning.

Um, the Lochner era died about 70 years ago.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Um, the Lochner era died about 70 years ago.

You should have said that in the first place. What replaced it?

You younguns.


Wait, that can't be right, the case I am thinking of came after racial zoning/covenants were tossed, and the 30s seems rather early for that to have happened.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Woo hoo, just when I was thinking it was time for me to say my one nice thing for the year. RT looks like a playboy bunny and is an ender of wars.

Did you hear that?

You did now.

Ya'll are just being sweet cuz I'm taking over in a few days.

Flattery, though, will get you very far.

[sgtclub]

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/63342|top|05-06-2004::12:24|reuters.htm

Bodes well for my thesis.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/63342|top|05-06-2004::12:24|reuters.htm

Bodes well for my thesis.

Means nothing. The billions of disgusted ex-workers are no longer relying on money as a form of exchange.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You should have said that in the first place. What replaced it?

You younguns.


Wait, that can't be right, the case I am thinking of came after racial zoning/covenants were tossed, and the 30s seems rather early for that to have happened.

I guess I should have. Did we have this whole debate just because you didn't like the rationale for this decision you can't remember enough to name?

Anyway, if it's post-Lochner, then offering health and welfare as a justification was well more than they needed to do.

Now, let's discuss Wickard v. Filburn.

Or, in other legal news, that the law passed to keep this lively woman alive was ruled unconstitutional (I assume under the Fla. const.).

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Means nothing. The billions of disgusted ex-workers are no longer relying on money as a form of exchange.

How did you get the link to work for you? It did not work for me.

And, Bush seemed to be saying that all of the abusive behavior, not just the deaths, was un-American. So: deluded, or lying?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I guess I should have. Did we have this whole debate just because you didn't like the rationale for this decision you can't remember enough to name?

Anyway, if it's post-Lochner, then offering health and welfare as a justification was well more than they needed to do.

Now, let's discuss Wickard v. Filburn.

Or, in other legal news, that the law passed to keep this lively woman alive was ruled unconstitutional (I assume under the Fla. const.).

I never remember the names of things. I blame the stupid pills. Recall that I get you mixed up with Aloha (where is he, anyway??) and now Ty, too.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How did you get the link to work for you? It did not work for me.

I read the same article earlier.

And, Bush seemed to be saying that all of the abusive behavior, not just the deaths, was un-American. So: deluded, or lying?

Not a war crime, except for the deaths. And, so: you are being intentionally obtuse, or TM was right?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/63342|top|05-06-2004::12:24|reuters.htm

Bodes well for my thesis.

Interestingly you did not post when the first week of April saw jobless claims at a 4 year low as well. Of course, that failure proved prescient when the next week jobless claims reached their highest levels since '02.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4748744/

Just suggesting that maybe the four week average is a safer thing to look at (not knowing what it is, since the link didn't work for me either).

And of course none of this matters because the G will just zone your area for a dump anyway.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Not a war crime, except for the deaths. And, so: you are being intentionally obtuse, or TM was right?

I didn't disagree that, other than the deaths, the behavior does not sound like it rises to the level of war crimes (though, if there is rape and stuff, that could). However, you said various things such as "well, the average DWI suspect endures worse than this" blah blah blah. I interpreted that, I think validly, as saying that what was done to the people wasn't really that bad, because, hey, it happens to people all the time in the good ol' USA.

Then, Bush came out and said that the behavior that has been reported/filmed/investigated is "un-American."

I see a dichotomy.

Again, NOT SAYING that I said, or that Bush said, that making people make a naked pyramid is a war crime. There's no war crime discussion. Being un-American is not a war crime. Being mean is not a war crime. Cruel and unusual punishment is not necessarily a war crime. Violating the Geneva Conventions is not necessarily a war crime. We aren't talking about war crimes. Not war crimes. Big red circle around "war crimes" with a big red slash across the circle, like in Ghostbusters.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

Again, NOT SAYING that I said, or that Bush said, that making people make a naked pyramid is a war crime. There's no war crime discussion. Being un-American is not a war crime. Being mean is not a war crime. Cruel and unusual punishment is not necessarily a war crime. Violating the Geneva Conventions is not necessarily a war crime. We aren't talking about war crimes. Not war crimes. Big red circle around "war crimes" with a big red slash across the circle, like in Ghostbusters.

And that's the writings of Fringey that we once saw and loved.

[LessinSF]

New Photos:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object.cgi...panties_ap.jpg

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object.cgi...ubodies_ap.jpg

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object.cgi...shedman_ap.jpg

On a related note, certain California legisaltors have proposed letting our teenage morons have fractional votes - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGCR6GIIK1.DTL . We should raise the voting age and require that people pass some form of intelligence test before voting, if not a return to the requirement of property ownership, not lower it.