Is using your land a "privilege?"

[furface]

How did the idea that governments grant you rights come into being? My view is that we should stop using the word "right" when talking about governments. People grant governments powers, not the other way around.

In this case the government does not have the power to impose additional taxes on development without the property owners agreeing to it. This city attorney should be fired for inventing a bizarre new social theory and trying to interject it into the law.

She said development is a privilege, not a right, and that the city may impose conditions on it.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20101119/ARTICLES/101119387/1350?p=1&tc=pg&tc=ar

 

[Matt Collins]

Look up the concept of "allodial title".

 

[torchbearer]

we live in a system called serfdom.
Cities are shires ruled by an elected archy of some time that holds the right, and delegates privileges to the serfs on the shire(city)
When the serfs don't pay their taxes to the kings, the elected body of rights holders sends the shire reeve(sheriff) to remove the serf.
We are not on the road to serfdom. We are living on the shire already.

 

[torchbearer]

I have to call the state and get permission before digging in my yard. and that goes for all the other serfs who live in the kingdom of louisiana.

 

[libertyjam]

How did the idea that governments grant you rights come into being? My view is that we should stop using the word "right" when talking about governments. People grant governments powers, not the other way around.

In this case the government does not have the power to impose additional taxes on development without the property owners agreeing to it. This city attorney should be fired for inventing a bizarre new social theory and trying to interject it into the law.



http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20101119/ARTICLES/101119387/1350?p=1&tc=pg&tc=ar

In addition to all the above, there is also zoning, based on the tenets laid out above. If you wish to be less encumbered by zoning laws, move to unincorporated land, where you still do not really own the land, but there are less restrictions.

 

[Philosoraptor]

Pretty ridiculous that a man has to get permission from anyone to do what he wants with his own land.

 

[furface]

Thanks for your all your replies. They are very intriguing.

This case is interesting because the city was claiming that in addition to following all the zoning laws and paying all the normal development fees, that the future owners on developed property would also have to pay a special tax in perpetuity. It was based on the Mello Roos Act in California where property owners can choose to add property taxes on their property for building infrastructure for instance sewers and water treatment plants.

It's a reasonable idea, but in this case it was just the City of Santa Rosa choosing to impose an additional tax on future houses in the city. So a person living in house A built this year would be paying $500 more in taxes than a person living in house B right next door.

The city attorney's statement that "development is a privilege" in this context is outrageous. It is actually a right once you abide by all the various zoning restrictions, which yes can be very cumbersome. She's claiming that in addition to that, the city can also arbitrarily essentially seize part of your property just for the "privilege" of developing.

It's a fine line, and perhaps not such a big deal in respect to all the other absurd zoning issues. However, what she's talking about is the absolute power of government, entitling people at its whim versus working within a system of checks and balances on government power.

 

[virgil47]

Pretty ridiculous that a man has to get permission from anyone to do what he wants with his own land.

It is not your land! If you must pay taxes on that land to the state it does not belong to you. All property taxes are is a form of rent. Don't pay the rent get removed from the property. Very simple really.

 

[Kotin]

as long as property taxes exist we don't own our land, we lease it from the government and as such are subject to their permission to alter it.


bullshit aint' it?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I have to call the state and get permission before digging in my yard. and that goes for all the other serfs who live in the kingdom of louisiana.

That requirement exists in AZ too. However, it's not as severe as some state laws. Arizonans are allowed to do minor digging, gardening, etc., but we have to pay the cost if someone hits a water or utility line. That's why the power companies will mark the lines for free with a few days notice.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

as long as property taxes exist we don't own our land, we lease it from the government and as such are subject to their permission to alter it.


bullshit aint' it?

Damn straight!

 

[libertyjam]

Thanks for your all your replies. They are very intriguing.

This case is interesting because the city was claiming that in addition to following all the zoning laws and paying all the normal development fees, that the future owners on developed property would also have to pay a special tax in perpetuity. It was based on the Mello Roos Act in California where property owners can choose to add property taxes on their property for building infrastructure for instance sewers and water treatment plants.

It's a reasonable idea, but in this case it was just the City of Santa Rosa choosing to impose an additional tax on future houses in the city. So a person living in house A built this year would be paying $500 more in taxes than a person living in house B right next door.

The city attorney's statement that "development is a privilege" in this context is outrageous. It is actually a right once you abide by all the various zoning restrictions, which yes can be very cumbersome. She's claiming that in addition to that, the city can also arbitrarily essentially seize part of your property just for the "privilege" of developing.

It's a fine line, and perhaps not such a big deal in respect to all the other absurd zoning issues. However, what she's talking about is the absolute power of government, entitling people at its whim versus working within a system of checks and balances on government power.

There is a similar fight going on in the areas around Austin, but from the other point of view. New development wanted by developers (in an overdeveloped town IMO), where existing infrastructure, mainly water, cannot handle it. Town wanted to raise property taxes on all for funds to enable developers to profit, existing homeowners protesting as rates would go up for them without any increase in service just to enable the new development and growth, which is not a benefit to them, but actually more burden.
Existing owners/tenets say, they want expanded infrastructure, let those that are going to use it pay for it, not those of us who have already paid for the existing infrastructure.

 

[Acala]

Easements

Utility lines running across your property are typically within easements. That means that the utility company actually has property rights associated with their lines. The easement was usually granted when the plat was recorded or when the developer brought in the utility service to the property. So you really can't complain about your property rights being violated by the requirement that you respect the utility lines - they usually have a property right too.

A couple years ago, Arizona voters passed a strict eminent domain law that requires government to pay compensation for any diminution in property value caused by any new regulation. It really works too! I can say from personal experience that local government is regularly thwarted by the threat of having to pay for the damage done by their hair-brained regulations.