Thanks for the ping to Ron C.’s comments Carry_Okie. Those comments were located here:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2904943/posts?page=15#15
Later on Ron appeared to back off a bit on his description of the building. That is verifiable here:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2904943/posts?page=19#19
In my original post, I tried to voice some reason regarding this issue. Not all city ordinances need to be viewed as focused on Religion. I’ve seen issues like this discussed before, when folks failed to ask normal questions about impact on neighbors and other peripheral issues, such as local ordinances.
Here, and thanks to some folks who provided links, it seems like the father and family in focus, did try to comply with the city’s ordinances. And IMO, those ordinances were extremely iffy on the surface.
For instance, how can it be illegal to invite non-family members into your home without a certificate to validate it’s use as a small meeting place? The absurdity of that is unmistakable.
For instance, no wedding receptions, graduation receptions, bar mitzvahs, garden parties, retirement celebrations, card parties, groups who want to get together and play games, Tupperware parties, Mary K Cosmetics, Amway and other things could do so without a city permit. And that means even once!
None of this would be permissible on an occasional basis as stated by the reading of the code the city is trying to enforce against this man. And as the video provided up thread via a link, many of his neighbors are doing these very things.
Initially this homeowner was trying to hold a small prayer study group in his living room. I’ve been around for 61 years, and I have never heard of someone being prevented from having a very small group attend meetings in their home.
Trying to comply with what I think was an absurd interpretation, the homeowner did build a use permit building. And then the city, which had to approve of the project every step of the way, knowing damn well what this guy was trying to achieve, none the less came in later and claimed he still wasn’t in accordance with city codes.
How did he get sign off at each step of construction, if he wasn’t meeting city codes?
If there was a problem with locating this building there for the intended purpose, the city should have denied his application at the onset of the project. To complain now after he has paid to have the building erected, complying with city codes at each step of construction, seems extremely abusive.
I do believe cities do have to have codes to protect one citizens rights from another person’s abuses. I also believe in it, when it comes to safety. Here I can’t see how the city has a leg to stand on, if it allowed the building to go through the permit process, and now isn’t happy with what exists on that property.
Without a lot of study, it’s hard to know if we actually know all the timelines, and permitting processes involved here. It does seem like overkill to send upwards of twenty people into this man’s home with a warrant in order to resolve this issue.
Unless this guy built without a permit, it looks to me like the city is the culprit here.
If he did build without a permit, it is reasoned for the city to take him to task, but it should be done in a business like manner, not a criminal like manner with what appears to be very close to an assault team.
My original post here:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2904943/posts?page=17#17