Then the citizens in your county own your property, not you. Why is this so hard for people to understand. If someone other than the property owner has a say in what "behaviors" can be done on that property, then those who make the rules own the property, not the one paying the mortgage or holding the deed.
*sigh*. It is not the "private property" which I am most concerned about, but illegal activities on "shared" ("public", if you will) grounds. I do think that local governments (such as Montgomery County, here in the DC metro area, which wrote legislation essentially banning at-home smoking) are free to try and legislate issues related to private property. The local citizens can and will smack down errant legislation, as is what happened in Maryland.
I do still assert quite loudly that States and localities should have the freedom to write legislation which fits their citizens best, and I continue to assert that this provides for the greatest amount of freedom by preventing tyranny of the minority, while still giving those not in the majority the opportunity to affect change in their community. IF unable to change local legislation which they disagree with, they still have the option to move along.
(Oh, btw, until I've paid off the full mortgage on my home, the bank owns my house, not me. Seeing that this is the case, it would not be prudent for me to exercise my "freedom" to burn my house down, as the bank, being the current owner of the deed, would not agree that my behavior is "sufficient display of my liberties." Does this illustrate the problem with "unlimited individual liberties" for you well enough? In clear and concise terms, if we permit no legislation on anything deemed "personal liberties," then we can draft absolutely no legislation, as everyone has different definitions of what "liberties" consist of.)
;) ttt