How CA deals with the Self-Sufficient (real estate, farmer, grain, village)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I received the link to this video today. I post it so that others here can see what can and could happen in their own "neck of the woods". Or desert. This is another reason why I think that independence, while noteworthy and praiseworthy, can get you into trouble if you don't know your rights and don't band together with like-minded people.
I generally try to treat all liberty issues as being equal, avoiding too heavily having "pet issues" (though it's somewhat unavoidable, since we all have things we feel passionate about), but this is definitely one of my consistent hot button issues. Things like this make me irate. Not politically pissed off... but irate, as in, I think these people should physically fight back.
------------
Slightly different topic... but this reminds me of something I posted on a while back. There's this place down in the southern deserts of California that's been given the nickname "Slab City." It's become somewhat of an RV Mecca which is often discussed on RV forums, blogs, and websites. RV'ers from all over the country go there and "winter out" for a few months while it is warm. People live there for free both seasonally, as well as it has year round residents.
It used to be a military base many decades ago, but the government up and abandoned the land in the 60's when the military base closed down, and because the whole thing is so far off the beaten path, out in the God forsaken desert from hell, the whole thing has basically been uncontrolled by any level of government. It's technically under the control of the BLM, to my understanding, and the BLM mostly lets them be. As a consequence, people have sort of homesteaded it, and for the most part... they've been left alone all these years. They hassle a few people here and there, but for the most part, the story is they've just left people to their own devices. They've built a little community out of it with a free library, a stage where they hold music shows, they have festivals, etc...
That story you posted makes me wonder if the many residents of Slab City will be next. While the place is a real dump..... way worse than the homes depicted in the Antelope Valley, I don't really condone the Slab folks becoming the next target.
---------
For anyone that cares, here's some links about the place:
The place is a dump for sure.... but some homesteaders/squatters have carved out a life for themselves there, nonetheless. Not to mention all the RV'ers who flock to it every year, becoming a close-knit community of people who go there year after year.)
Slab City - USA - YouTube (Decent video about it. Slab City USA - 'We take a look at the American pensioners who have chosen to spend their retirement on a decommissioned military compound.')
Location: Went around the corner & now I'm lost!!!!
1,544 posts, read 3,598,297 times
Reputation: 1243
I had a patient who has/had land in New Mexico and they were doing the same/simliar thing to the residence there too. I can't remember where because this was over a year ago. Something's amiss...
Like anything else in our capitalistic society, unfortunately, just follow the money for the motivation to harass these people off the land.
Some consortium of influential financial interests in L.A. has plans...
There hasn't been capitalism since 1933. And most people haven't owned private property since 1935, thanks to FICA.
..............
Capitalist Principles
CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit.
- - - WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY
PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
If you concatenate capitalism with private property, you can see the "inconvenient truth".
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are absolutely owned by individuals and operated for their individual profit.
Since the introduction of national socialism via "Social Security", no one has absolutely owned a thing. The government can and will tax away anything and everything. This illustrates that no one owns private property - for any taking of private property must be compensated for (5th amendment, USCON).
In case you forgot Marxism 101:
COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production, distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need', each yielding fully 'according to his ability'.
- - - Webster's Dictionary.
SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary
Socialism and communism = COLLECTIVE ownership.
From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
Since the USCON explicitly protects private property rights, it is readily apparent that collectivism and constitutional government are mutually exclusive. And since 1933, there has been no constitutional government in the USA.
Senate Report 93-549
War and Emergency Powers Acts
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
Since 1933, Americans have lived under the expediency of "emergency rules" that have abrogated the USCON.
It's over, folks. You no longer own as a "right", but as a government controlled "privilege".
While none of those places shown on the film meet my aesthetic standards, none of them were that bad, nor did they pose a safety risk to anyone. If it looks like BS, smells like BS, sounds like BS....
This kind of bureaucratic bullying makes me see red. There is no reason to clamp down on these folks without an unstated mission on the part of the county. Conspiracy theory indeed.
"Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926), more commonly Euclid v. Ambler, was a United States Supreme Court case argued in 1926. It was the first significant and landmark case regarding the relatively new practice of zoning, and served to substantially bolster zoning ordinances in towns nationwide in the United States and in other countries of the world including Canada." [snip]
I actually am okay with self protective zoning for the greater good and for self determination such as Euclid did all those years ago. I am not one of those people that think it's okay to open a garbage dump next to an existing school or homes as an example. I tend to believe that the historical uses take precedence.
There was an egregious example of a city on the east coast in the past few years trying to oust an entire subdivision of modest ocean front cottages to allow a builder to erect some swanky resort condos or some such, first using nuisance clauses (they were perfectly charming homes in most cases) and then by eminent domain. A big media and court battle ensued. I don't know if those folks were successful in fighting city hall or not. Like the former example, in the OP's CA case, the county is using their zoning regulations as an offensive (this works in several ways) weapon rather than trying to preserve a way of life from obnoxious or incompatible development. Probably quite to the contrary, they are trying to pave the way for something IMO.
I've heard of zoning bullying and eminent domain being used to condemn properties for shopping malls or business plazas all in the name of a higher tax base than they would get from Joe Farmer or Jane the homeowner. The Times Square renovation heavily utilized zoning and eminent domain and though the ends may have justified the means in many people's eyes and perhaps even mine, many property owners were ruined, after their homes and livelihoods were condemned from beneath them. These laws need to be used very carefully and not to enrich a golfing buddy that wants to build something or add to government coffers in order to continue the building of grandiose and needless empires, public or private.
As you can tell, I have strong opinions on these matters. History shows that individual property owners, in the way of "progress", will very likely be run over by the bulldozer. Having fought back a bank mining development in the early 90s, my experience has shown that there is collusion in high places. Public hearing meetings will be cancelled and re-scheduled over and over to wear the public out. Mouthpieces both hired and elected will intimidate, deride and mock opponents in the press and in meetings, making the more timid afraid to speak out. The developers and governmental entities will lawyer up with their deep pockets and out maneuver all but the most tenacious fighters.
Part of the reason that we live where we do, is after that experience, we wanted to live amongst the lawyers, politicians and old timers with influence so that there might be a chance that our hard earned real estate investment isn't washed away by greed and someone's big ideas. So far this strategy has worked. I'll never see the term NIMBY in the same light again.
Thanks for the heads up. I don't see a good end to this.
I tend to believe that the historical uses take precedence.
Took the liberty of poking around the issue, and it seems it goes back a few years. Quite a few of the affected property owners who were raided, as well as those who supported them, were posting their stories over on this site (and a few others I read through).
Not that you were disagreeing... but merely a few thoughts following along with your comment, and the link above:
If historical precedence is your criteria, then that would seem to side with the residents, in this case, according to some of the stories I've read from the residents who explained how people have lived like that for decades.
Some of the residents have been around since before the 1950's, which supposedly is years before permits were even legally required, raising the issue of whether some of the unpermitted housing and other structure charges are even valid, or whether because of that fact, they would be grandfathered in.
Likewise, because some of these residents have been there for over 60 years, and because things have likely been the same way for nearly that long in terms of this is probably how they've always lived, that alone pretty much would fulfill the historical precedence criteria. The precedence being, that's the way they've pretty much always done it... and it is the town officials who are going against the grain of the longstanding precedence.
I really hate seeing these kinds of stories. It's bad for my blood pressure. And it simply reminds me that we live under tyranny--tyranny that is just about 180 degrees out of phase with the original intent of the founding fathers of this nation. It's infuriating. But at the same time it's saddening and depressing. We all know it's simply about money and control. It certainly isn't about neighbors that live ten miles away bellyaching. That's bull.
I do think there are some counties and states that are more "liberty-friendly" than others. Sadly, those areas that tend to have the heaviest handed dictatorships also tend to export dictators to other areas (states, counties, cities). The county I live in right now is getting quite like LA County in the video. They are heavy-handed and unreasonable. Luckily, the rural counties surrounding us out in the desert tend to be more libertarian in nature--some actually go out of their way to accommodate off-grid living and alternative home construction. So the whole state hasn't gone down the sh**er yet--only the urban centers. There are so many people out there who think they have some divine calling to tell others how to live their lives. I'd give them all the finger if it didn't violate zoning regulations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
