Chris Kemp's Response to Rules & Regs Violation
From: Lion Kuntz (lionkuntzyahoo.com)
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 02:05:55 -0700 (PDT)

--- Chris Kemp <chris [at] chriskemp.com> wrote:

> Oh dear. I seem to be the author of this storm in a teacup.
> 
> I?ve recently moved in to co-housing to live with my significant
> other (who
> has lived happily without a TV for many years, is a founding member
> of the
> community and puts a ton of effort into it) and I think that the case
> being
> presented is rather one-sided. I emailed the following to Anne
> earlier today
> before becoming aware of this thread:

A proper question is why was the orginal description so distorted? Why
weren't both sides put plainly before the group before asking how to
obtain compulsion of a rule, which on further alanalysis was grossly
misdescribed?

A visual blight flagrantly imposed on the many was described. That
appears not to be the case at all, as the dish is in a rear area and in
proximity of several dishs like it on neighboring homes. I feel an
improper manipulation of emotions when receiving a one-sided story
without even a close approximation to the truth. I feel that offense
was more visual blight than the satellite dish ever could be.

Apparantly it is trivially easy to arouse the villagers with torches
and pitchforks to march on the monster, even if the monster was only
the figment of an imagination. I'm glad to see that several people
asked for a fair hearing of a fuller version of the story, and that
indeed a fuller version did eventually arrive. Some people were
proposing liens on other people's property before both sides told their
story -- judging on too little facts, tried, convicted, sentenced on
the words of one witness.

That works in reverse also. Just as there are laws permitting people
freedom from censorship on their electronic access to global
communications, there are restrictions on harrassment. One's rights end
exactly where they infringe on another's rights to peaceable enjoy
their freedoms.

The fact that there are restrictions on Solar Panels was noted.
Presently that is a violation of law in some jurisdictions and will
become law universally as soon as rational thinking comes into vogue. I
would suggest those regs get modified before somebody slaps a lien on
your property if it already has become the law covering your propery
location, and if that is not yet the law, be proactive and change the
regs before the sluggish legislators get to it before your sluggish
committee does.

Even if explicit law does not yet prohibit you from excluding solar
panels, common law interpretations as decided by a judge or jury might
find convincing arguments from a skillful lawyer that some zones of
personal privacy and personal decision making are not in the neighbor's
domain of authority.

When people have paid good money for property they have an expectation
of recieving something. It can cost you good money to try to take away
too much of what they paid for. This is a litiguous society, and I've
found it necessary to sue people to defend my lawful rights with a fair
hearing before an impartial judge where rules of evidence were applied
and there was a perjury penalty for not telling the truth, and I have
put liens on people's property.


--- Lion Kuntz
Sonoma County, California, USA.


 
> Anne,
> 
> I?m sorry but I appear to be the unwitting cause of some friction
> here with
> regards to the satellite dish.
> 
> I wanted the dish because the cable service used by the group
> unfortunately
> doesn?t offer a chunk of programming to which I?m very partial to
> (I?m
> afraid I?m something of a soccer nut). If this hadn?t been the case I
> would
> not have opted for it.
> 
> I hope that in view of where the dish is sited (I asked for it to be
> situated in what I regarded as the least obtrusive place) and the
> fact that
> cancelling my subscription would make me liable to a substantial
> financial
> penalty, that we might perhaps let this slide without a great deal of
> fuss.
> 
> My apologies for any offense caused and I hope this incident doesn?t
> serve
> to sour any relationships that I?m hopefully beginning to build in
> the
> community.
> 
> Chris
> 
> I believe there is some history behind what?s going on here, but it?s
> not
> history that I was involved in so I don?t feel qualified to comment
> on it.
> The Rules & Regs of the thread title are nowhere close to being as
> clear-cut
> as they are presented and Leslie (significant other) was rather upset
> at
> being told peremptorily to take the dish down. The said evil dish is
> situated right at the end of the housing block in such a situation
> that it
> cannot, to the best of my knowledge, be observed from anywhere within
> the
> complex and it certainly doesn?t jar aesthetically with the 3 or 4
> dishes
> situated on the neighboring houses. Indeed, it was there for well
> over a
> month apparently before anyone noticed. Or perhaps that?s the amount
> of time
> it took to dig up a regulation that might vaguely cover such an
> abomination.
> 
> My, co-housing looks as though it may be rather more interesting than
> I'd
> expected. 
> 
> "Distrust everyone in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
> Nietzsche
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ann Zabaldo [mailto:zabaldo [at] earthlink.net] 



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.