NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems there are some really stupid laws in both Australia and California pushed by the Eco-wackos and it has cost people their homes and in some cases their lives.

One couple in Australia defied those laws that would not allow them to clear brush from around their home and were fined A $50,000.00. Those people feel vindicated as their home did not burn down in the recent fires.

When are people going to wake up and repeal these insane laws that endanger life and property?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/11/weve-lost-two-people-in-my-family-because-you-dickheads-wont-cut-trees-down/

They were labelled law breakers, fined $50,000 and left emotionally and financially drained.

But seven years after the Sheahans bulldozed trees to make a fire break — an act that got them dragged before a magistrate and penalised — they feel vindicated. Their house is one of the few in Reedy Creek, Victoria, still standing.

The Sheahans’ 2004 court battle with the Mitchell Shire Council for illegally clearing trees to guard against fire, as well as their decision to stay at home and battle the weekend blaze, encapsulate two of the biggest issues arising from the bushfire tragedy.

Do Victoria’s native vegetation management policies need a major overhaul? And should families risk injury or death by staying home to fight the fire rather than fleeing?

Anger at government policies stopping residents from cutting down trees and clearing scrub to protect their properties is already apparent. “We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down,” Warwick Spooner told Nillumbik Mayor Bo Bendtsen at a meeting on Tuesday night.

So does the article mention a similar situation in California or are you just assuming that the same thing should apply there too?

...also, maybe people shouldn't build their homes in places that have routine forest fires.

yeah, i think i'm fine with forcing people to not completely bulldoze the land in a 100m radius around their houses.

Ridiculous.

Oddly enough, most forest fire prevention techniques make forest fires worse when they happen. People like these may be responsible for the severity of this fire.

"should families risk injury or death by staying home to fight the fire rather than fleeing?"

Probably not.

So does the article mention a similar situation in California or are you just assuming that the same thing should apply there too?

...also, maybe people shouldn't build their homes in places that have routine forest fires.

If you read the whole article you will see a similar situation in California mentioned.

Oddly enough, most forest fire prevention techniques make forest fires worse when they happen. People like these may be responsible for the severity of this fire.

well, australia is a special case. their trees burst into flames under normal conditions.

well, australia is a special case. their trees burst into flames under normal conditions.

Exciting. :)

Even hindsight isn't 20/20, so you shouldn't expect that of foresight.

If you read the whole article you will see a similar situation in California mentioned.

Did you read the article describing the Lake Tahoe fires? You know the one where the people responsible for managing the fires are pointing out that it's actually easy to get a permit to remove brush, that environmentalists are telling people that it's fine to remove the dead and dying trees on their properties, that there is an actual forest management group who is actually working on thinning the trees in a responsible way to prevent things like erosion (because going from forest fires to mudslides probably isn't a good idea)? You know, the one where your claims are bullshit? (Apparently your blogger didn't read it either)

If you read the whole article you will see a similar situation in California mentioned.

Some of the rules singled out by property owners are illusory: pine needles, for instance, can be removed anytime, so long as erosion-prone bare ground isn't left exposed. Dead or downed trees can be taken out without a permit along with any living trees less than 6 inches in diameter.

i'll just leave this here

Oddly enough, most forest fire prevention techniques make forest fires worse when they happen. People like these may be responsible for the severity of this fire.

source? My understanding was that preventing the removal of accumulating brush through normal forest fires, or some sort of logging/clearing is what increased the chances of large devastating fires.

What was the lesson I'm supposed to have learned here? X is bad, but what is X? Liberals? Environmentalists? The government? Hippies? Conservationists?

What was the lesson I'm supposed to have learned here? X is bad, but what is X? Liberals? Environmentalists? The government? Hippies? Conservationists?

australia

source? My understanding was that preventing the removal of accumulating brush through normal forest fires, or some sort of logging/clearing is what increased the chances of large devastating fires.

Exactly. Preventing periodic fires cause larger fires.

What was the lesson I'm supposed to have learned here? X is bad, but what is X? Liberals? Environmentalists? The government? Hippies? Conservationists?
People who assume that something supports their cause when it doesn't?

i'll just leave this here

"We witnessed something equally tragic in Lake Tahoe fire in 2007, owing to similar eco driven government stupidity forcing heavy handed policies there. Residents couldn’t get permits to cut down brush and trees, the result was a firestorm of catastrophic proportions."

Ditto

"We witnessed something equally tragic in Lake Tahoe fire in 2007, owing to similar eco driven government stupidity forcing heavy handed policies there. Residents couldn’t get permits to cut down brush and trees, the result was a firestorm of catastrophic proportions."

Ditto
Source?

"We witnessed something equally tragic in Lake Tahoe fire in 2007, owing to similar eco driven government stupidity forcing heavy handed policies there. Residents couldn’t get permits to cut down brush and trees, the result was a firestorm of catastrophic proportions."

Ditto
Except that the people who are actually in charge pointed out that for lots of clearing, you did not need permits. It isn't the forest management that has caused problems, it's people being lazy and not looking into what they actually can do and instead going on what they are told they can do. All one needed to get a permit to clear anything that was actually a problem was to have a fire inspection. To me, this doesn't seem like it's a hard thing to do.

And again, I should point out that if the area is sensitive to erosion, clear cutting the whole damn thing is a really stupid thing to do as well.

What was the lesson I'm supposed to have learned here? X is bad, but what is X? Liberals? Environmentalists? The government? Hippies? Conservationists?

Because of unreasonable laws passed to appease the environmentalists we have placed life and property in danger. We have also seriously eroded the rights of property owners by placing unreasonable restrictions on what they can and can not do with their property.

Source?

I think his source was the blogger who didn't read the article he linked to.

Because of unreasonable laws passed to appease the environmentalists we have placed life and property in danger. We have also seriously eroded the rights of property owners by placing unreasonable restrictions on what they can and can not do with their property.

What part of the article linked to in the article you linked to did you read? Just the title?

I think his source was the blogger who didn't read the article he linked to.
Oh right.

FACT VS. SOME BERK'S OPINION! CLASH... OF THE TITANS!

Source?

The link in the OP.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/11/weve-lost-two-people-in-my-family-because-you-dickheads-wont-cut-trees-down/

Right, the one that disproves itself -_-

"We witnessed something equally tragic in Lake Tahoe fire in 2007, owing to similar eco driven government stupidity forcing heavy handed policies there. Residents couldn’t get permits to cut down brush and trees, the result was a firestorm of catastrophic proportions."

Ditto

i have had great difficulty getting a hamster license. it seems that those fucking bureaucrats are going out of their way to prevent me from getting one, giving me a total run around, outright saying i can't get one at all. fucking assholes!

well, australia is a special case. their trees burst into flames under normal conditions.

Oooooh. I want to go there!

Because of unreasonable laws passed to appease the environmentalists we have placed life and property in danger. We have also seriously eroded the rights of property owners by placing unreasonable restrictions on what they can and can not do with their property.

Oh, right. Appeasing the environmentalists. Is that the right-wing talking-point this week? Appeasing Islamists, appeasing environmentalists - apparently anything short of nuclear detonation is painted as the vile crime of "appeasement," which of course hearkens directly back to Chamberlain and Hitler. Appeasing Hitler didn't work. Appeasing enviro-nazis won't either! They'll kill us all! :rolleyes:

It seems there are some really stupid laws in both Australia and California pushed by the Eco-wackos

Are these to be the muslims of the Obama years?

Appeasing enviro-nazis won't either! They'll kill us all! :rolleyes:

On the other hand, since they're Green they won't pollute the atmosphere with poison gas or accelerate Global Climate Change with crematoriums.

:tongue:

Okay, let me see if I've got this straight:

Some places that get major brush fires regularly had some particularly bad ones recently (gosh, thanks, arsonists), so some net-meister looking for something to do has decided to troll the blogosphere for anything that he thinks he can use to blame some group of people he doesn't like for those fires? And what he found was some anonymous loser who also only reads headlines bitching about ecological laws/restrictions that don't actually exist? And he just pounced right on that and brought it here to us to show us how stupid ecologists are? And when it is pointed out to him that his own source does not say what he thinks it says, he ignores that and just keeps repeating his opening claims over and over?

Oh, and that opening claim pretty much amounts to "ecologists kill people because this here blogger says so"?

Does that about sum it up?

On the other hand, since they're Green they won't pollute the atmosphere with poison gas or accelerate Global Climate Change with crematoriums

that's why we advocate stabbing - the ultimate in sustainable murder technology.

Okay, let me see if I've got this straight:

Some places that get major brush fires regularly had some particularly bad ones recently (gosh, thanks, arsonists), so some net-meister looking for something to do has decided to troll the blogosphere for anything that he thinks he can use to blame some group of people he doesn't like for those fires? And what he found was some anonymous loser who also only reads headlines bitching about ecological laws/restrictions that don't actually exist? And he just pounced right on that and brought it here to us to show us how stupid ecologists are? And when it is pointed out to him that his own source does not say what he thinks it says, he ignores that and just keeps repeating his opening claims over and over?

Oh, and that opening claim pretty much amounts to "ecologists kill people because this here blogger says so"?

Does that about sum it up?

Quite nicely. Have a muffin. :) *hands you a muffin*

Okay, let me see if I've got this straight:

Some places that get major brush fires regularly had some particularly bad ones recently (gosh, thanks, arsonists), so some net-meister looking for something to do has decided to troll the blogosphere for anything that he thinks he can use to blame some group of people he doesn't like for those fires? And what he found was some anonymous loser who also only reads headlines bitching about ecological laws/restrictions that don't actually exist? And he just pounced right on that and brought it here to us to show us how stupid ecologists are? And when it is pointed out to him that his own source does not say what he thinks it says, he ignores that and just keeps repeating his opening claims over and over?

Oh, and that opening claim pretty much amounts to "ecologists kill people because this here blogger says so"?

Does that about sum it up?

He also stopped responding to posts pointing out that he was wrong and then disappeared.

Oh, also his source says what he thinks it says. The problem is that is source doesn't read articles before linking them so the supporting article for "this was the problem around lake Tahoe" points out that this wasn't the problem around lake Tahoe. So it's not really the source that's contradicting the "point", it's the source within the source that's the problem.

Quite nicely. Have a muffin. :) *hands you a muffin*
Thank you. *enjoys muffin*

He also stopped responding to posts pointing out that he was wrong and then disappeared.

Oh, also his source says what he thinks it says. The problem is that is source doesn't read articles before linking them so the supporting article for "this was the problem around lake Tahoe" points out that this wasn't the problem around lake Tahoe. So it's not really the source that's contradicting the "point", it's the source within the source that's the problem.
Yeah, I figured that out, but as far as I'm concerned, a source whose sources don't say what they think they say, isn't saying what he thinks it says, because it isn't saying what it thinks it's saying.

Think about that sentence long enough and it will make sense.

Or if you're a-scared to think about it: If the source is wrong, then the guy who based his entire thread on it is also wrong.

Yeah, I figured that out, but as far as I'm concerned, a source whose sources don't say what they think they say, isn't saying what he thinks it says, because it isn't saying what it thinks it's saying.

Think about that sentence long enough and it will make sense.

It does make sense.

Or if you're a-scared to think about it: If the source is wrong, then the guy who based his entire thread on it is also wrong.

This would also be true. Not that it matters, I suspect this thread has been abandoned by its creator for this very reason.

Because of unreasonable laws passed to appease the environmentalists we have placed life and property in danger. We have also seriously eroded the rights of property owners by placing unreasonable restrictions on what they can and can not do with their property.

Funny that the laws passed may have been partly put in to stop erosion;) When we die the land is still here..more or less. So can we truly be said to "own" it. Take the long view, and maybe you won't be a victim of sensationalism.

australia

Well it IS trying to kill you http://www.badassoftheweek.com/australia.html

Oddly enough, most forest fire prevention techniques make forest fires worse when they happen. People like these may be responsible for the severity of this fire.

Thats completely untrue. Firebreaks have been a known method of stopping fire since well - forever...

That being said I'm not really for every one making their own firebreak, the should select a location for a firebreak as a community and make their stand there. I'm from BC, we have forest fires every year! I'm glad that the dickheads running our government have enough sense to build firebreaks. After having read about this I have the distinct impression that all things considered we actually have a really good fire department in BC.

The law will almost certainly shift away from tree protection and towards house protection.

This will happen in a well-discussed and balanced way, without anyone calling anyone else an "eco Nazi" or any such. Last week's fires, Australias worst natural disaster, are new evidence which needs to be considered. Both building codes, and scrub clearance codes, will change. And not just in Victoria.

The fact is that most trees around houses are there because the owners like trees. They bring birds, they shelter the house from the heat and to some extent from noise, and in the absence of fire are just plain pleasant. Portraying the trees as enforced on property owners by "greenies" is quite unhelpful, thanks Celtlund.

X is bad

X is bad! Bad! Bad X! Bad, bad X! Go sit on the corner!

Anger at government policies stopping residents from cutting down trees and clearing scrub to protect their properties is already apparent. “We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down,” Warwick Spooner told Nillumbik Mayor Bo Bendtsen at a meeting on Tuesday night.

I think this is going to result in the destruction of many politicians careers come the next elections. This is the sort of event that people aren't likely to forget anytime soon.

Just goes to prove that politicians messing around with small things to win votes creates bigger problems.

that's why we advocate stabbing - the ultimate in sustainable murder technology.
Remember kids, dispose of the body in your compost bin.

It makes great mulch!

Remember kids, dispose of the body in your compost bin.

It makes great mulch!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2hWsEN46c0w/SSDDzXnImjI/AAAAAAAAADQ/aFrhFSdiut4/s400/fargo.1165959858.jpg

<piccy snip>
You're darned tootin'!

The terms of reference for the Royal Commission have been released. More details can be found in the main thread, here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14516892&postcount=158).

It is clear that the Royal Commission will have complete freedom to examine planning laws and make recommendations. The OP's issues will obviously be addressed.

This would also be true. Not that it matters, I suspect this thread has been abandoned by its creator for this very reason.
Not to worry. I'm certain he'll post the exact same argument in a week or two when he's forgotten just how quickly and easily this attempt was mauled.

Oh, also his source says what he thinks it says. The problem is that is source doesn't read articles before linking them so the supporting article for "this was the problem around lake Tahoe" points out that this wasn't the problem around lake Tahoe. So it's not really the source that's contradicting the "point", it's the source within the source that's the problem.
The other fun bit is that it wasn't eco-wackos responsible for the laws around Lake Tahoe. Tahoe has a lot of issues, including having had been clear cut during the Comstock boom up in VC, and a need for the lake to maintain its clarity for the tourist/casino/recreation groups. A lot of the laws in place up there were written by the local homeowners who wanted to protect their property values.

But I'm sure I'll be ignored as well as you have been, Dakini.

that's why we advocate stabbing - the ultimate in sustainable murder technology.


...using locally knapped flint or obsidian, of course.

What was the lesson I'm supposed to have learned here? X is bad, but what is X? Liberals? Environmentalists? The government? Hippies? Conservationists?

"Being on fire", I think.

That's what's left after you filter out the usual crap.

The other fun bit is that it wasn't eco-wackos responsible for the laws around Lake Tahoe. Tahoe has a lot of issues, including having had been clear cut during the Comstock boom up in VC, and a need for the lake to maintain its clarity for the tourist/casino/recreation groups. A lot of the laws in place up there were written by the local homeowners who wanted to protect their property values.

But I'm sure I'll be ignored as well as you have been, Dakini.

When you look to the bedrock of those organizations (environmentalist), you usually find the same sorts who push for covenants and restrictions and dominate homeowner's groups in developments, keen to preserve their "Property values" above all other concerns, including fire dangers in wildfire prone areas. It's part of the appeal of Environmentalism to the broader (monied) side of things. The goofy stuff that Right-wing commentators rant about is just the "Fringey" side and some of the more radical leadership-the bedrock of these groups are suburbanite and urban white-collar side folks.

"Silent Spring" was so effective mainly because of such folk, and taken in moderation, (like most things) environmental protection is good. Taken to the goofy extremes you find spouted in most college campuses, it's not-so-good.

But then, that's a bit like saying fire is hot, water is wet, etc.

Exactly. Preventing periodic fires cause larger fires.
But why? The main reason is that smaller periodic fires consume the fuel that keeps the large ones going. Victoria does in fact have a policy of using controlled fires to make sure this happens in an orderly way.

However, ongoing bureaucracy caused by various lobby groups (and some of them are environmentalists) has meant that this process only happens very slowly. There have been cases of firefighters deliberately letting these controlled fires spread into other plots just to speed up the work, simply because those plots weren't going to be taken care of for years because of the way the legal processes work right now.

There needs to be a major overhaul of this, and the idea that people can be fined for removing fuel from the vicinity of their homes just seems ridiculous to me.

Sure, backburning works -- sometimes. Clearing works -- sometimes.

There's this, though: Australia's vegetation has many species that need fire to grow/spread their seed. When that vegetation is burnt, it grows back thicker, healthier, spreads wider -- and is readier to provide fuel for the next fire.

In normal times Bush Fire Brigades/County Fire Authorities do controlled burn-offs. They plan them so the scrub hasn't grown back by the time the fire season starts.

But these haven't been normal times. The country has been in a record drought. Even in the (formerly) wet season, there has been a constant risk that back-burns will get out of control -- and there hasn't been the water in rivers, creeks and dams to put them out if they do.

It's been calculated that the window of opportunity for doing safe burns is 10-12 days in the whole year.
This article (http://www.theage.com.au/national/lessons-from-the-ashes-20090215-8810.html?page=-1) that Boonytopia linked to in the main thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14516892#post14516892) explains why, and shows some of the other complications.

Celt, it's not a one-answer problem.

well, australia is a special case. their trees burst into flames under normal conditions.

True - most of the vegetation over there has EVOLVED to burn easily. Many plants' seeds can't germinate unless heated. It's just humans who think the fires are something bad that should be prevented. If the tinder-dry areas were subjected to the slash-and-burn culture of farming every now and then, there'd be a lot less build-up of flammable material.

I used to live in Whittlesea when I was a young one, and we were fortunate that the council there (atleast at the time) was more considerate of fire safety.

We had 3 exits from our property in 3 directions, we had a 5000L water tank purely for firefighting, we had a fire plan developed exactly for the outcome. We also had 50m of clear ground around our house, and then only lighter scrub for a further 100m.

Kinglake, just one council over where alot of the deaths were, did not allow this clearing. Combined with poor fire plans and poor access, you end up with a recipe for disaster (excuse the cliche).

I blame the environmentalists, as much as I blame everyone else that contributed towards the problem. If you choose to live in a bushfire area you must be prepared for bushfires.

I used to live in Whittlesea when I was a young one, and we were fortunate that the council there (atleast at the time) was more considerate of fire safety.

We had 3 exits from our property in 3 directions, we had a 5000L water tank purely for firefighting, we had a fire plan developed exactly for the outcome. We also had 50m of clear ground around our house, and then only lighter scrub for a further 100m.

Kinglake, just one council over where alot of the deaths were, did not allow this clearing. Combined with poor fire plans and poor access, you end up with a recipe for disaster (excuse the cliche).

I blame the environmentalists, as much as I blame everyone else that contributed towards the problem. If you choose to live in a bushfire area you must be prepared for bushfires.

Perhaps the real question is, should humans live in bushfire-prone areas?

You say you lived in Whittlesea when you were young. You would know, therefore, that Kinglake is almost completely surrounded by the Kinglake National Park. In itself, the town produces little of economic value. People live there because they seek a bush idyll and it's within commuting distance of Melbourne.

One of the reasons for national parks is to preserve important ecosystems. Burning off in national parks will change those ecosystems. As a society we have to choose what is important to us. Do we preserve ecosystems with the attendant risk of fires? Or do we accept that ecosystems are to be fundamentally altered so that we can live nearby safely?

The Royal Commission will address these issues and make recommendations. We, through our elected representatives, will decide what our priorities are.

Also, I lived for several years in Yarra Glen which, like Whittlesea, is at the foot of the Great Dividing Range, not all that far from Kinglake. In that time I got to know a number of people living on bush blocks. All loved living in the bush. They knew there was a risk of bushfire but felt that it was unlikely they would ever be burnt.

So does the article mention a similar situation in California or are you just assuming that the same thing should apply there too?

...also, maybe people shouldn't build their homes in places that have routine forest fires.

The same thing does happen in California. I live in Simi Valley currently (call it 50 miles north of LA proper), and we have to have a permit for every single tree we want to cut down. When we had our big fires (in our area, anyways) 4 or 5 years ago, we had a lot of problems with trees being too close to houses and such causing problems.

...using locally knapped flint or obsidian, of course.

in light of worries over peak flint, we now recommend using only sharpened sticks made from sustainably harvested native plants

It seems there are some really stupid laws in both Australia and California pushed by the Eco-wackos and it has cost people their homes and in some cases their lives.

One couple in Australia defied those laws that would not allow them to clear brush from around their home and were fined A $50,000.00. Those people feel vindicated as their home did not burn down in the recent fires.

When are people going to wake up and repeal these insane laws that endanger life and property?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/11/weve-lost-two-people-in-my-family-because-you-dickheads-wont-cut-trees-down/

They were labelled law breakers, fined $50,000 and left emotionally and financially drained.

But seven years after the Sheahans bulldozed trees to make a fire break — an act that got them dragged before a magistrate and penalised — they feel vindicated. Their house is one of the few in Reedy Creek, Victoria, still standing.

The Sheahans’ 2004 court battle with the Mitchell Shire Council for illegally clearing trees to guard against fire, as well as their decision to stay at home and battle the weekend blaze, encapsulate two of the biggest issues arising from the bushfire tragedy.

Do Victoria’s native vegetation management policies need a major overhaul? And should families risk injury or death by staying home to fight the fire rather than fleeing?

Anger at government policies stopping residents from cutting down trees and clearing scrub to protect their properties is already apparent. “We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down,” Warwick Spooner told Nillumbik Mayor Bo Bendtsen at a meeting on Tuesday night.

The couple should have built one of these (http://static.monolithic.com/gallery/homes/braswell_fire/index.html). They're pretty fire resistant (http://static.monolithic.com/domenews/2006/okfire.html), and they wouldn't have had to clear the brush from around their house. They're pretty damn tough (http://static.monolithic.com/gallery/churches/iraq/index.html), too (http://static.monolithic.com/gallery/commercial/keith/index.html).

*snip*

The fact is that most trees around houses are there because the owners like trees. They bring birds, they shelter the house from the heat and to some extent from noise, and in the absence of fire are just plain pleasant. Portraying the trees as enforced on property owners by "greenies" is quite unhelpful, thanks Celtlund.

Exactly. Many of the residents in these areas moved there because they like to live amongst the bushland. The property owners are often the ones who don't want the bush cleared.

yeah, i think i'm fine with forcing people to not completely bulldoze the land in a 100m radius around their houses.

Yay.

Exactly. Many of the residents in these areas moved there because they like to live amongst the bushland. The property owners are often the ones who don't want the bush cleared.

Good, if the residents want to live in bushland, they should buy all of it their little eyeballs can see and afford and leave other people and their trees alone to do what they want with it.

My neighbors moved to my area because they wanted to live near rich people. Do i now have to go out and buy a strech limo to make them happy? Or get a second job because im not rich enough for their tastes? If i want to clearcut my entire land, i own the trees, i bought and paid for them, who should tell me otherwise?

If i want to clearcut my entire land, i own the trees, i bought and paid for them, who should tell me otherwise?

we should, collectively. at least in particular situations.

we should, collectively. at least in particular situations.

i.e. those situations where one person could have a damaging effect on the local, shared, ecology.

i.e. those situations where one person could have a damaging effect on the local, shared, ecology.

Sure , so as soon as those other people who want to have a say about your trees are willing to help throw in for the property taxes sounds like a great idea. Ill be willing to bet neighbors would become a whole lot less interested in what their neighbors did if the solution happened to cost them anything.

Sure , so as soon as those other people who want to have a say about your trees are willing to help throw in for the property taxes sounds like a great idea. Ill be willing to bet neighbors would become a whole lot less interested in what their neighbors did if the solution happened to cost them anything.

Wait.

Are you arguing that having trees on your property increases property taxes, and this should be good enough to discount ecological drawbacks?

Why don't you provide evidence for the first, then show how it relates to the second?

If you want to know why your trees may affect my life, please look up 'erosion' and 'clean air'. Sometimes, not involving yourself in your neighbour's business costs you something. Especially in ecological terms.

Im arguing that if you want to assert rights on my property, then you should be paying part of the bills from that property that your so interested in influencing.

We had a similar fiasco in the US. It was with wetlands regulations.

Im arguing that if you want to assert rights on my property, then you should be paying part of the bills from that property that your so interested in influencing.

So if your neighbour puts a sign on his lawn that says you are a jumped-up little prick... you wouldn't complain until after you'd offered to pay part of his taxes?

So if your neighbour puts a sign on his lawn that says you are a jumped-up little prick... you wouldn't complain until after you'd offered to pay part of his taxes?

He would be legally liable for slander so he better be able to substantiate his claims or im getting a nice check but i certainly believe someone has a right to their own view on their own property.

He would be legally liable for slander so he better be able to substantiate his claims or im getting a nice check but i certainly believe someone has a right to their own view on their own property.

You seem to be asking for it to be both ways. Are you telling me you'd press the slander case, even without offering to pay his bills?

You seem to be asking for it to be both ways. Are you telling me you'd press the slander case, even without offering to pay his bills?

I have no clue what your talking about. Libel and slander applies to a person regardless if he is on his own lawn with a sign or skywriting it in a plane or publishing it in a newspaper ad etc etc. There are laws governing the behavior of people who accuse others of things that are immaterial to property laws.

However, if i was arrested and convicted of shoplifting and the guy next door put up a sign that said guy next door is a shoplifter, then that guy should have that right to do so on his own property as long as what is said is not criminally liable and untruthful.

Im arguing that if you want to assert rights on my property, then you should be paying part of the bills from that property that your so interested in influencing.

We had a similar fiasco in the US. It was with wetlands regulations.

Oh, I see. You are simply ignoring the ecological issues.

Why are you doing that? Are you unaware that your life and health are dependent on a healthy ecology?

Oh, I see. You are simply ignoring the ecological issues.

Why are you doing that? Are you unaware that your life and health are dependent on a healthy ecology?

So why is it the landowner who is paying taxes on that land and has its uses limited, the one that has to foot the bill to fufill your ecology agenda? Why arnt you paying too?

So why is it the landowner who is paying taxes on that land and has its uses limited, the one that has to foot the bill to fufill your ecology agenda? Why arnt you paying too?

Actually, we all have to practice an ecologically intelligent lifestyle. Not just landowners. And I don't have an agenda. Unless you count having a biosphere that sustains human life.

Now, why does the landowner get to ignore the ecological consequences of his or her actions?

He would be legally liable for slander

I dont think you know what slander is...

I dont think you know what slander is...

Fine. Feel free to substitute any word that you find appropriate that means monetary compensation for demonstrable damage done to business or reputation due to intentional misrepresentation or negligence. IANAL

Fine. Feel free to substitute any word that you find appropriate that means monetary compensation for demonstrable damage done to business or reputation due to intentional misrepresentation or negligence. IANAL

All they need to do is believe it at the time.

So if your neighbor does really believe youre a prick, its not really slander.

However, there are other things you can probably hit him with, Im sure its at the very least against village ordinances to have what might be deemed as "profanity" written on your front lawn.

Never mind slander, how about murder? If there really is some intrinsic right to do what you like on property you bought, how does that stack up against a visitors right not to be murdered there? It doesn't stack up at all, of course. Laws apply even on private property and if the majority want to protect the trees on your property they can.

Conversely, if the majority want to force you to cut down trees or thin flammable undergrowth, they can. It IS one person's business what is growing next door. Whether it is noxious weeds which would contaminate their own vegetation, or a dangerous fuel load which would directly endanger them in the case of fire.

The "I can do what I like on my own property" shit went out with feudalism guys. It's not coming back.

Matthew 7:26

Im arguing that if you want to assert rights on my property, then you should be paying part of the bills from that property that your so interested in influencing.

We had a similar fiasco in the US. It was with wetlands regulations.

I can't speak for the US but here in Australia, planning restrictions on properties have been in place, in one form or another, since 1788. Since the arrival of Europeans no-one has had unfettered rights over their land. This is widely accepted and rarely controversial.

Planning laws are under the jurisdiction of the state governments who routinely devolve it to local councils and shires, although often setting parameters for local government to work within.

Councils and shires are democatically elected so planning laws reflect public opinion. People in Nilumbik Shire, which covers Kinglake, have always been strong supporters of protecting trees. That is their right. Householders understand and accept that.

Many local councils in Melbourne, a thoroughly urbanised city, require householders to obtain a permit if they want to cut down any tree on their property. Again this is, for the most part, accepted and uncontroversial.

Here's another example in Australia of how your rights to your property are not unfettered. You may own your property but someone else may have the mining rights. If gold is found beneath your house, the holder of the mining rights can pull your house down to get it, although, presumably, they would have to pay you compensation.

I have no clue what your talking about. Libel and slander applies to a person regardless if he is on his own lawn with a sign or skywriting it in a plane or publishing it in a newspaper ad etc etc. There are laws governing the behavior of people who accuse others of things that are immaterial to property laws.

However, if i was arrested and convicted of shoplifting and the guy next door put up a sign that said guy next door is a shoplifter, then that guy should have that right to do so on his own property as long as what is said is not criminally liable and untruthful.

The relevence is that you apply a double-standard. Your argument that you can 'do whatever you like' on your porperty, and no one else has any right to complain without compensation... is clearly an argument for special exception, because you don't even believe it yourself.

It's hypocrisy.

The couple should have built one of these (http://static.monolithic.com/gallery/homes/braswell_fire/index.html).

Ugh. Have you ever tried to live in a dome? They suck. No kind of furniture fits anywhere, they're disorienting, sealing windows and doors is always a problem and they don't ventilate well. They're basically a cave ... and this one is made out of plastic foam.

The fire brigade trusted it enough to risk being surrounded on a steep hilltop there. I suppose that is a fair measure of how safe it is. I'm still a bid dubious about a foam which can burn at a high enough temperature.

They're pretty fire resistant (http://static.monolithic.com/domenews/2006/okfire.html), and they wouldn't have had to clear the brush from around their house. They're pretty damn tough (http://static.monolithic.com/gallery/churches/iraq/index.html), too (http://static.monolithic.com/gallery/commercial/keith/index.html).

It is a very tough shape yes. I guess the roof can't blow off, which would be quite an issue given the couple's bizarre choice of where to live.

EDIT: Why do I say "bizarre" ...? This (http://static.monolithic.com/gallery/homes/braswell_fire/pic07.html) is a picture of their road access.