courtesy of Jeff Berwick - TDV (The Dollar vigilante)
You have been misled.
but the AP and the NY Times say this was not to get around a reg. Do you think the propaganda arm of the Govt would tell the truth if indeed it did work as a loophole? I'm not saying thats what actually happened and it probably is like you said...but you have to admit that its unlikely we would be given the facts if someone actually worked around the State.
They can't admit that.
...for reasons that should be obvious.
About Genocide By Assimilation
...it's really unhealthy to be looking for a boogeyman under every bed.
It's a real picture - inaccurate caption.
According to snopes - this story goes back to at least 2003.
The tables were built as a dual purpose - shelter for his horses as well as advertisement for the owner's business.
The tables were not built to skirt local ordinances.
Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
See here for more pics of the horses and large table/chairs:
Don't believe everything you read on Snopes!
Albeit a great loop-hole, I doubt the validity of this picture.
The left side of the picture, where the horse is under the chair, seems to be photoshopped. The chair's farthest left leg is missing just above the horse's back.
With Freedom Comes Responsibility
You do have to read all the ordinances, then see if they're enforced (usually, they do it selectively). It would not be the first time that a jurisdiction will have dealt with people trying to get around them, however. That's why the restrictions tend to escalate, even though the problems are still the same as they always were (e.g., noise, garbage, smells, and "unsightlyness"). The old, property-rights-based laws were best.
My former city proposed a new, much lengthier, ordinance. They had so many defined terms, it tripped them up when I started pointing out:
Besides banning "unsightly basements," they were proposing to ban plants "within five feet of the roof of any structure," plants that attract "vermin" ("vermin" includes "insects," ergo flowers were banned), "celulose debris" (e.g., mulch and compost), peeling paint and "personal property visible from the public right of way" (those were just stupid).
After several appearances before the council, I finally went to a council meeting with five signs containing each council member's name and phone number, which I said I would be required to put on each "uninhabited structure" (e.g., fence, shed, playhouse), naming "the responsible party." Then I asked which one wanted to be on the doghouse.
It has been four years, and they have yet to come back with a revised "public nuisance" ordinance.
The old one respects private property, and had an actual threshold to cross: the infraction had to "substantially" (meaning, "in reality") bring down neighboring property values (not just next-door), or endanger the public. All other disputes were private, between neighbors. The proposed new one made everything illegal, and the code enforcement officer would never lose. No privacy would remain.
What do you think? http://consequeries.com/
I saw this the other day and I almost sent it out to everyone I know. I thought it was so clever. But I'm looking at the shadows. Is that photoshop? Is there a story in the newspaper about this? I'd think it would make the local papers.
I want to send it out to the whole wide world!!! But I don't want to send a silly Photoshop whimsy.
Let me know if you find out anything!
I love it either way though!
You can see the OSB strands in the plywood and I think I can make out the grains in the planks that were used.
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: