I found this gem.
According to Tex Golfing and Shawna Goldhammer, they want your NEIGHBORS to decide whether or not you can have chickens. Here’s the deal, love my neighbors, but once they start paying my property taxes and mortgage they can go to Hell with what I want to do in my yard. Tex also goes on to say that the recession hasn’t really hit SF.
LMFAO!
I guess all of the people standing in line at food banks just got tired of paying for food because it is more convenient and less shameful standing in line for free food in church parking lots.
Um… property rights?
Unemployment in Sioux Falls is somewhere around 3.4%. Anything under 3% is considered below normal… so yea – I’d say we avoided the recession (or at the very least the brunt of it).
There are certain sectors that have been hit such as construction, but on the whole we are very, very isolated and there have been jobs available for the past several years.
I know not everyone wants to work for a “big evil bank”, but Citibank, HSBC, First Premier, Great Western, and Wells Fargo are all hiring and there are several hundred open positions available if people want them. No call center work isn’t glamorous, but if it is the difference between food on the table or not – it gets the job done.
When will Karsky host one of these shows? I want his recipe for Wood-Fired Goat Wellington!
These guys are SOOOOO inconsistent on property rights and understanding codes in general. Tex says this, yet on Monday night he, Karsky and Anderson all wanted to give the Blue Nile Auto guy his umpteenth chance to clean up his act. I can’t figure them out.
Speaking of last Monday, Diamond Jim was at the 4pm but absent at 7pm. Did he have a better offer that night – like Sanford hosting its annual holiday party for the Foundation board?!?
I’ve got a genmius just like Mr. Rolfing on my commission. he has stated publiucly that he thinks that if two neighbors agree to build a joint use garage or shed that straddles both their property lines – that should be up to them. When asked – what about the rights of the next owner(s) – you know, the people that might buy that property in the future to be free of the encumberanbces of the porevious owners? He says – “Tough. Property is purchased as is. They just have to deal with it.” When asked how having a building that straddles the two properties and then is abutted by additional structures – prohibiting entry by fire or ambulance or police personnel engaged in ensuring public safety. He just GLARES!
Frikkin’ idiot libertarians.
While I certainly don’t think that laissez-faire zoning is the way to go, a simpler form-based (rather than use-based) code could improve the cityscape a lot, and make the whole zoning process a lot simpler.
Shawna HouseShouldLandOnHer should return to her coven. City administration needs real leaders, not wicked marxists.
rufusx, why shouldn’t two neighbors be allowed to build a joint-use garage or shed? The future owners will know what they are getting themselves into before they commit to buying the property – so the onus is on them. If they don’t like the idea of sharing… then don’t buy the property. Same goes for the sellers. If they find it harder to sell property because of a joint structure that is their issue.
I just don’t see how a future owner could complain. This is like *cough* an owner *cough* complaining about the trees in their boulevard and what a hassle it is to trim them… it isn’t like they didn’t know about them before they moved in, and if you don’t like them don’t buy the house!
It is no different than someone who has an easement to allow a driveway to pass over the land of another homeowner. As long as it is disclosed up front – who cares? That type of thing happens all the time in the country where two neighbors share one driveway up until it splits. Only one person owns the actual land, but they can’t put up a gate because the other homeowner has a legal easement. We see this type of thing in town too when people have a shared driveway between two homes that splits to two garages in the back.
The access argument for fire and rescue workers is valid, but that needs to be taken into account before such a permit is approved. If there is no clear access, then there should be no permit – it is a non-issue.
Why would we want to limit what people can do with their property any more than necessary? If there is no harm to neighbors and no code violations… let them be.
Okay Costner – let’s say owner of the “A” half of the garage sells his property. New owner,upon taking possession comes out with chain saw and sledge hammer and saws off and demolishes “his half” of said garage? NOW what happens to the value and usefulness of owner “B”‘s “half a garage with three walls and a collapsing roof? He can’t do a damned thing about it. He’s screwed.
Or, how about there is NO restriction on setbacks from ANY property lines – you’ve got wall to wall houses, garages, all crissing over all kinds ofproperty lines(and going with Tom H’s aversion to use based zoning) a SMELTER operating right in the whole danged mess – with NO access to any part of it by the fire department once that smelter has a – uh – little overheating accident and starts the Great Chicago Fire II – locsalized version. There are GOOD REASONS for both setback and use controls of properties – and they have to do with protecting the health and safety ofthe community as a whole (not just any two adjacent land-owners) and the VALUE of THOSE TWO citizens property.
Yeah TOM – I know, the whole form-based zoning thing is the current planning FAD/buzz – but……. I am skeptical.
And you know what Costner -THAT above all else – PROTECTING CITIZENS LIVES and LIBERTY (being free from encumberances imposed on someone other to themselves -mincliuding HISTORIC encumberances) is the PRIMARY function of government. It is why people organize/incorporate themselves into governmental entities.
Mutual benefit and protection.
ruf you spelt jenious rong
dork – I have fat clumsy fingers.
Group hug please.
I would guess ruf, that a shared structure would be like a shared fence… one owner cannot just go in and tear it down or modify it without permission of the other neighbor.
Things really shouldn’t be that hard. We should be able to live next to our neighbors and get along. Codes should be a guideline, but should not be so restrictive as to prevent people from using their own property they way they wish provided it doesn’t have negative impact upon others.
There are exceptions that can be made… that’s all I’m saying.
Hey, I’m thinking about sharing garbage service with my neighbor, bad thing or good thing?
My neighbor doesn’t even have home garbage service. Legal or illegal?
Funny you bring this up. I’m sure it is not monitored. Heck, I could take my trash to work and drop it in and they would never know because the cans are outside. It is probably safe to say that burying or burning your own garbage is probably illegal, but as long as you are taking it ‘somewhere’ how is that breaking laws?
If you bring your garbage from home and put it in the dumpster at work without the permission of your employer you are stealing from your employer.
Just because it was asked, Section 18-19 of the Sioux Falls City ordinance:
“Garbage Service Required”
Every dwelling unit and every other occupied building within the city shall have commercial garbage service. The occupant, owner, or manager of such dwelling or other occupied building shall each be responsible for securing such service at least once each week for each occupied building within the city.
Now how it would be/is monitored I have no idea. Probably like most things by complaint.
Oliver, kinda like eating french fries stealing? Or skimming the till stealing? 🙂
Greg – would love to hear that complaint, “I see garbage go in, but no garbage go out.” I heard a horror story from someone the other day who owned a house in Pettigrew Heights and moved to Aberdeen before selling it so they just rented it out. The renters didn’t have garbage service and literally filled the unfinished basement with their garbage. How would you like to clean that up?
Costner – no, the person I’m dealing with is literally proposing allowing BUILDINGS that are constructed half and half on each property – as in stating explicitly “a shared garage that is half on each property”. He seesmit as soemthoing that could e cobvered by ptrivate covenants – but is “none of the city’s business”. And yes – those are direct quotes.
I see many issues with what both or you are saying about the joint garage issue. Aint’ nothing that a chainsaw can’t fix if one decides to sell.