Assault on property rights.

First it was the sign law.

sounds like Grand Island NY where I live..

Sounds like Santa Cruz County, CA.

Sounds like the year 1410AD, when the farmer went to the king and asked if he could build an addition to the residence.

We havn't advanced since the years of serfdom. The king approves all building.

Is there any way to stop them.

OMG the thought police are coming.

If Noah had lived in the United States in the year 2001, his story may have gone something like this:

And the Lord spoke to Noah, and said, "In one year, I am going to make it rain and the rain shall not stop until it submerges the entire earth and all living flesh is destroyed.

Because of this, I want you to save the righteous people and two of every living species on earth, therefore, I am commanding you to build an Ark."

In a flash of lightning, God delivered the specifications for an Ark. Daunted by this task, but respectful of God's wishes, Noah took the plans and agreed to build the ark.

"Remember," said the Lord, "you must complete the Ark and fill it in one year's time." Exactly a year later, fierce storm clouds covered the earth and all the seas of the earth went into a tumult. The Lord saw that Noah was sitting in his front yard weeping.

"Noah!" He shouted. "Where is the Ark?"

"Lord, please forgive me," cried Noah. "I did my best, but there were big problems. First, I had to get a permit for construction, and your plans did not meet the building codes.

AND THEN........

I had to hire an engineering firm and redraw the plans.
Then I got into a fight with OSHA over whether or not the Ark needed a sprinkler system and approved floatation devices.

Then, my neighbor objected, claiming I was violating zoning ordinances by building the Ark in my front yard.Then, I had problems getting enough wood for the Ark, because there was a ban on cutting trees to protect the Spotted Owl.

I finally convinced the U.S. Forest Service that I really needed the wood to save the owls. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service won't let me take the 2 owls.

The carpenters formed a union and went on strike. I had to negotiate a settlement with the National Labor Relations Board before anyone would pick up a saw or hammer. Now, I have 16 carpenters on the Ark, but still no owls.

When I started rounding up the other animals, an animal rights group sued me. They objected to me taking only two of each kind aboard. This suit is pending.

Meanwhile, the EPA notified me that I could not complete the Ark without filing an environmental impact statement on your proposed flood.

Then, the Army Corps of Engineers demanded a map of the proposed flood plain. I sent them a globe.

Right now, I am trying to resolve a complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that I am practicing discrimination by not taking atheists aboard. The IRS has seized my assets, claiming that I'm building the

Ark in preparation to flee the country to avoid paying the state, that I owe them some kind of user tax and failed to register the Ark as a 'recreational water craft'.

And, finally, the ACLU got the courts to issue an injunction against further construction of the Ark, saying that since God is flooding the earth, it's a religious event, and, therefore unconstitutional.

"I really don't think I can finish the Ark for another five or six years."

Noah waited.

The sky began to clear, the sun began to shine, and the seas began to calm. A rainbow arched across the sky.
Noah looked up hopefully. "You mean you're not going to destroy the earth, Lord?"

"No," He said sadly. "I don't have to. The government already has."

I have been fighting them for years

These are headlines I compiled and put into my campaign literature

Boulder County, CO is one of the worst for undermining property rights. The People's Republic is alive and well here!

These folks don't have authority to impose this on private property owned by private citizens. They do have the authority to impose themselves on corporate or other artificial entities. When they push this crap on private citizens relative to their private property, it's purely a presumption that they have authority. When the city hauls the private citizen into court to extract fines for non-compliance, the proper response would be a challenge to the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

Huh? That legal stuff makes my brain hurt. Who do I make the check out to again?

And another classic...

STATE OF MICHIGAN

Reply to:

GRAND RAPIDS DISTRICT OFFICE

STATE OFFICE BUILDING 6TH FLOOR

350 OTTAWA NW

GRAND RAPIDS MI 49503-2341

JOHN ENGLER, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
HOLLISTER BUILDING, PO BOX 30473, LANSING MI 48909-7973
INTERNET: http://www.deq.state.mi us
RUSSELL J. HARDING, Director

December 17, 1997

CERTIFIED

Mr. Ryan DeVries
2088 Dagget
Pierson, MI 49339

Dear Mr. DeVries:

SUBJECT: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023-1 T11N, R10W, Sec. 20, Montcalm Count-,),

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent
unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity: Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond.

A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files show that no permits have been issued. Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301,. Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated.

The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially, failed during a recent rain event, causing debris dams and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all unauthorized activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the strewn channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 1998. Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff.

Failure to comply with this request, or any further unauthorized activity on the site, may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action.

We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Is there any way to stop them.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time.

And the reply...

Reply:

Stephen and Rosalind Tvedten

2530 Hayes Street

Marne, MI 49435-9751

616-677-1261

616-677-1262 Fax

steve@getipm.com

1/6/98

David L. Price
District Representative
Land and Water Management Division
Grand Rapids District Office
State Office Bldg., 6th Floor
350 Ottawa, N.W.
Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2341

Dear Mr. Price:

Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N, R10W, Sec 20; Montcalm County

Your certified letter dated 12/17/97 has been handed to me to respond to. You sent out a great deal of carbon copies to a lot of people, but you neglected to include their addresses. You will, therefore, have to send them a copy of my response.

First of all, Mr. Ryan DeVries is not the legal landowner and/or contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan - I am the legal owner and a couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, nor authorize their dam project, I think they would be highly offended you call their skillful use of natural building materials "debris". I would like to challenge you to attempt to emulate their dam project any dam time and/or any dam place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no dam way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.

As to your dam request the beavers first must fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity, my first dam question to you is: are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers or do you require all dam beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, please send me completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated. My first concern is - aren't the dam beavers entitled to dam legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said dam representation - so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer.

The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing dam flooding is proof we should leave the dam Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling their dam names. If you want the dam stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition - contact the dam beavers - but if you are going to arrest them (they obviously did not pay any dam attention to your dam letter -- being unable to read English) - be sure you read them their dam Miranda first. As for me, I am not going to cause more dam flooding or dam debris jams by interfering with these dam builders. If you want to hurt these dam beavers - be aware I am sending a copy of your dam letter and this response to PETA. If your dam Department seriously finds all dams of this nature inherently hazardous and truly will not permit their existence in this dam State - I seriously hope you are not selectively enforcing this dam policy - or once again both I and the Spring Pond Beavers will scream prejudice!

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their dam unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam right than I to live and enjoy Spring Pond. So, as far as I and the beavers are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more dam elevated enforcement action now. Why wait until 1/31/98? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then, and there will be no dam way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then.

In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real environmental quality (health) problem; bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the dam beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!)

Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.

Sincerely,

Stephen L.Tvedten

Ordinance No. 68 requires you to pay for whatever city improvements we deem "reasonable" as a condition of granting your permit.

Since the sunroom will have such a massive negative impact on the quality of life of wild animals, you should be required to purchase 100 homes in the city, demolish them, and restore the land to its natural state. That should sound reasonable to the city.

That's a goodie..

Here's an article written about me as a moderator of a zoning meeting a couple years ago..

Concerned Citizens Discuss Regulations

By William O'Connor

A large number of taxpayer complaints regarding alleged building and zoning irregularities brought more than 35 homeowners, business owners and taxpayers to River Oaks Club House Tuesday~ December 19 following the advertisement of an Invitational filer that asked participants to "Be part of the solution'.

Contractor Rus Thompson of Love Road acted as moderator for the meeting and asked that no one single out any individual, that comments should not be of a personal nature. He Invited people to air their concerns at the meeting, speak at town board meetings, write letters to the editor, and contact him with their concerns. He criticized zoning in general, saying property restrictions are a "violation of the 9th and 14th amendments" to the Constitution. He distributed a flier entitled " Twenty reasons to Stay Zoning Free," by Carol La Grass. His main concerns were restrictive setback regulations especially in his Love Rd. neighborhood and "selective enforcement" of existing laws.

The town was represented at the meeting by Grand Island Supervisor Peter McMahon, Council Members Dick Crawford, Mike Heftka, Kevin Rustowitz and other town workers. They came to listen.

The regulations depend on "who you are and who you know" according to Contractor David Bruno of East River Rd. He claims that he had used highly expensive steel reinforced concrete pipe to complete a drainage project on his property. When his neighbor did a similar project, he was allowed to use less expensive corrugated pipe. Thompson added that the corrugated pipe was used by the town for Veterans Park.

Christian Butler expressed his frustration with the town's requirements for starting a coffee shop business on Grand Island Boulevard across from Burger King. He claims the expense for upgrades, turning his business front its former take-out pizza shop to a "place of assemblage" coffee shop, may prevent him from ever starting it.

Andy Chambers said he moved his business from Grand Island Blvd to South Buffalo in 1998 due to frequent "zoning problems." He asked that the audience "listen, respond, and deliver solutions".

Chambers started another business in partnership with auto mechanic Terry Friermuth at his Grand Island Blvd. location last year. in January 2000, he got his first letter from the town (in two years) about junk vehicles on his property. Six months later he received another letter and on December 4th, yet another letter claiming "numerous violations." Chambers feels the town is "headed in a bad direction again."

The town is "driving business out," Friermuth said. He claimed It cost him $2,500 for sight plan, then he was given a "punch list" of requirements to satisfy the town's B-2 zoning regulations. After completing the list, he claims he was given another list. "Yes, some of these cars are junk," he admitted, 'but not all are. Because a car doesn’t have plates, it doesn’t mean there's anything wrong with it, or that it cant be repaired," Friermuth said. "Some ire classic cars stored for the winter. Every business has inventory, 90% is kept outside," he said. "Cars are moved out as soon as the paperwork is finished," he continued. "A junked vehicle brings me $100 a whack... The laws have to he changed," said Friermuth.

Liz Leitner of East River Road and Joe Lukasiewicz of Revere Road both felt that the town was overbearing and restrictive; and that town requirements make home improvements unnecessarily expensive. Leitner described town's actions as being "rather dictatorial... (with) no communication or discussion.'

Greenhouse owner Leo Hopkins felt that the town is working to teach him a "lesson" because he supported the construction of s natural gas pipeline through Grand Island when Erie County legislator Chuck Swanick and (then) Town Supervisor Jim Pax were against it. Hopkins claims the town is being unfair to his business. They require his greenhouse to have a Certificate of Occupancy, while similar structures on the island are considered "temporary" and C of O's are not required for them. They keep after you until they put you out of business," said Hopkins, referring to the town.

Crawford was the only town representative to speak at the meeting. He expressed his appreciation for the meeting, noting that the town has been working diligently for the past year to revise the town codes, and to do so properly "input is very needed." If people are having problems with the town they should "write a letter and let us know," said Crawford.

One person asked who they should contact if they have a complaint about an officer of the town, concerning building or zoning regulations. Supervisor McMahon replied that they should not hesitate to contact any of the council members or him with their concerns. Thompson agreed, saying the town has an open door policy.

I got this e-mail today

Thanks for visiting our website.

We are a group of local folks that feel that are City is being taken over by outside special interest groups. I have lived and worked throughout Alaska for 32 years, raising two children - one of which has moved out-of-state for greater career opportunities.

We have seen an insidious increase by local politicians and bunglecrats to impede private development, control our private property and force the implementation of "smart growth" on all of Anchorage's citizens. These people's vision of the future is wrapped up in "smart growth" also known as "urban containment." Along with the urban containment comes the public amenities and public open spaces - all that stifles private development and drives up the cost of government.

We shall have more information on our website concerning this issue of "smart growth" and the myth that is being touted for it's implementation in Anchorage.

Today the pressing issue is the proposed AO 2003-68, mislabeled the "site condo" ordinance. This will be coming up for public testimony on September 23, 2003. Please call, e.mail or attend in opposition. The reason for opposition are as follows (comments in quotes are directly taken from the Alaska Star article of August on proposed AO 2003-68):

1) "Officials say site condo ordinance increases public safety." That can not be further from the truth. The truth of this proposed ordinance, AO 2003-68 (found at the MOA website, Assembly, under Pending Legislation, document dated June 10, 2003) is that it is nothing more than an outright grab at private property rights. Do not be fooled that this ordinance needs to be passed to increase public safety within site condo developments. A few on the Assembly led by one of Eagle Rivers finest decided that they did not like the viewscape of site condo developments the only affordable housing available in Anchorage. They in turn decided that the streets within the site condo developments were not big enough for the largest fire trucks and then they wrapped up the entire matter in a life safety issue. Good-by site condos because they are unsafe at any speed.

2. Ms. Fairclough, one of Eagle Rivers finest, said that "Šthe ordinance would apply to all developments," but "This has been cut down to a very basic ordinance that addresses issues relevant to public safety." If you read the ordinance you will find that that is also untrue and that actually it would apply to all development of every name or nature. If anyone, not just a site condo developer, were to acquire either a building permit or a land use permit they would be subject to the improvement requirements of section 21.15.150 of the Anchorage code (page 2 of proposed AO 2003-68). This would apply to everyone, even those building a single family home on a single residential lot. Section 21.15.150 requires anyone building a commercial, industrial or residential structure on any lot to provide dedications and improvements that are required for a subdivision development. Those dedication and improvement requirements are found in chapters 21.80 (street design) and 21.85 (subdivision standards) of the MOA code. All manner of subjects are covered and the costs of these requirements are steep. A city bunglecrat will determine the requirement or standard to which you shall be held. The bunglecrat could even require a traffic analysis, a drainage study, maybe even social and financial impact studies of public facilities and surrounding neighborhoods and even an analysis as to how your plans for your private property fit into the overall MOA comprehensive plan.

3. As a final insult on page five of the proposed ordinance they offer a bribe "in lieu" of making the improvements to the public facilities.

In conclusion this ordinance is nothing more than a taking of private property rights in conjunction with the tree cutting ordinance, sign ordinance and finally with the abhorrent rewrite of Title 21 that continues today. If Ms. Fairclough is so concerned about street designs in site condos for safety reasons why doesn¹t she address that issue within the permitting structure of such developments. Why not take up the issue within the Title 21 rewrite that is going on at this time?

Please write, e.mail or attend the September 23 meeting in opposition.

Please respond if you have any questions.

Thank you

-- Thomas B. Wood

Eagle River, AK 99577

Boy if you weren't so far away I would join you and go to this meeting.

It's all to typical of the intrusive government of today.

http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/3986907p-4008496c.html

"Mayor Mark Begich is calling for the mysterious group Hands-off Private Property to reveal who is behind its high-profile campaign to kill a proposed development ordinance"

Maybe the Mayor should tell us who is lobbying for this ordinance.

That info should be available thru the freedom of information act.

Go for it!