Support GA House Bill 842 - Georgia's Right to Grow Act

Balrog

Senior Member
#41
I don't know about the chicken-keeping laws but your County and Municipal Code was probably largely written by politicians and lawyers here in Atlanta, many years ago.
I like the laws the way they are now, and see no reason to change. If my county decided to change the laws, we could do so locally. If we go with the proposed state law, then to change it would require intervention at the state level. Politicians in Atlanta really don't need to control whether or not chickens are allowed in towns across Georgia.
 
#43
We have a no barnyard animal ordinance basically in reaction to the Mexicans moving in and bringing chickens and goats with them. About three years ago in a fairly affluent neighborhood the Mexicans rented a house built a pit, brought in a goat and slaughtered it for a Saturday night party. It so happened a rich cat woman saw the whole thing, called the cops for animal cruelty and things went from there) , and when you sit in the evening trying to enjoy the quite and and all you hear are three roosters 100's of yards apart crowing at each other all night you become all supportive of it.

Last year the city counsel thought about permitting chicken coops under certain restrictions. Then it would cost the coop builder $25 to have the city inspect if and approve it, and another $25 a year for a permit to have it. After word got out and phone calls were made I don't think I ever saw a local bill hit the trash can any faster.
 

Xzuatl

Senior Member
#44
I believe the best way to handle this is to let the people locally decide what they do and don't want, rather than have it dictated to us by politicians in Atlanta.
And I have made the point that the people of Chicago and DC then should be able to decide to ban firearms without SCOTUS telling them otherwise.

Just because it is decided on a local level doesn't mean that it is in the interest of liberty. A person doesn't have a right to a high property value if it means infringing on another's right to do what they want on their own property (excluding noise/odor/light pollution issues of course).
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
#45
And I have made the point that the people of Chicago and DC then should be able to decide to ban firearms without SCOTUS telling them otherwise.

Just because it is decided on a local level doesn't mean that it is in the interest of liberty. A person doesn't have a right to a high property value if it means infringing on another's right to do what they want on their own property (excluding noise/odor/light pollution issues of course).
Not if the ordinance is un-constitutional. That is fight over banning handguns not regulating them as I am sure you know.

Goats and guns are apples and oranges. The constitution does not express the right to own a goat.

If someone wants to own goats, chickens or rabbits to raise as food, they should buy property zoned agriculture under police powers of the state.

If I don't want to live next to a neighbor with goats and chickens, I should not purchase property zoned or adjoining property zoned agriculture.

Zoning laws work when they are adhered to and enforced. This legislation is a waste of time and will only create more conflicts and confrontations.
 

Balrog

Senior Member
#46
And I have made the point that the people of Chicago and DC then should be able to decide to ban firearms without SCOTUS telling them otherwise.
Well you have made the point, but unfortunately the point is silly. Firearm ownership is constitutionally protected. Animal ownership is is not. Zoning laws have been on the books for hundreds of years, and go back to the time of the founding fathers and the Revolution.

I agree with Jimbo's previous post.
 

Money man

Senior Member
#47
And I have made the point that the people of Chicago and DC then should be able to decide to ban firearms without SCOTUS telling them otherwise.

Just because it is decided on a local level doesn't mean that it is in the interest of liberty. A person doesn't have a right to a high property value if it means infringing on another's right to do what they want on their own property (excluding noise/odor/light pollution issues of course).
XZ clarify for me, are you self described as a libertarian or an anarchists?
 

grim

Moderate Anarchist and Retired Mod
#48
If someone wants to own goats, chickens or rabbits to raise as food, they should buy property zoned agriculture under police powers of the state.

If I don't want to live next to a neighbor with goats and chickens, I should not purchase property zoned or adjoining property zoned agriculture.

Zoning laws work when they are adhered to and enforced. This legislation is a waste of time and will only create more conflicts and confrontations.
My neighborhood association goes a little further and clarifies no livestock other than horses. We had one neighbor try to defy it and raise chickens. He got rid of the chickens on the day he was to go to court and moved shortly there after. I will never understand how folks can sign their name to something like covenants, then go back on their (written) word later.
 

jimbo4116

Retired Moderator
#49
My neighborhood association goes a little further and clarifies no livestock other than horses. We had one neighbor try to defy it and raise chickens. He got rid of the chickens on the day he was to go to court and moved shortly there after. I will never understand how folks can sign their name to something like covenants, then go back on their (written) word later.
Interesting you should mention horses, in Georgia horses are not considered livestock, but pets. Leaving the barn door open so to speak.

Another thing is unless the law has recently changed, deed restrictions or deed covenants are sunsetted. 20 years I believe.
 

Xzuatl

Senior Member
#50
Not if the ordinance is un-constitutional. That is fight over banning handguns not regulating them as I am sure you know.

Goats and guns are apples and oranges. The constitution does not express the right to own a goat.

Well you have made the point, but unfortunately the point is silly. Firearm ownership is constitutionally protected. Animal ownership is is not.
My point is entirely valid, and although I used SCOTUS as the "I said so, therefore it's true" arm of the federal government, I did not mean to infer that we are discussing constitutionality. The point was that a 'higher' level of government was protecting a natural right of a local citizen.

In the gun control example, the right to bear arms is protected under the constitution. But if it were not, it still would be a natural right and it would be a good thing that a higher government protect this right from the mechanizations of a local government.

It is the same with guns, marijuana, chickens, or hunting over corn. As long as bullets, bong water, rooster crowing, or corn kernels don't enter your property there is no harm no foul, or fowl. :)

XZ clarify for me, are you self described as a libertarian or an anarchists?
Despite what others may say, I am not an anarchist. I prefer to define myself as a minarchist, i.e. minimal 'government'. I try to stay away from the libertarian label it is too often confused with the Libertarian party.
 

Paleo

Senior Member
#51
I will never understand how folks can sign their name to something like covenants, then go back on their (written) word later.
That is a talk radio staple. Some elderly guy (often a war veteran) in trouble for flying the American Flag despite having bought his house where flag display is restricted by the contract he signed. I have no issue with private covenants.
 

grim

Moderate Anarchist and Retired Mod
#53
That is a talk radio staple. Some elderly guy (often a war veteran) in trouble for flying the American Flag despite having bought his house where flag display is restricted by the contract he signed. I have no issue with private covenants.
Yep, someone can always pull on the ol' patriotic or emotional heartstrings to make an arguement for why their word means nothing. I have nothing against the american flag or veterans either. But if you dont like the covenants, dont buy in the neighborhoor.
 

Xzuatl

Senior Member
#54
That is a talk radio staple. Some elderly guy (often a war veteran) in trouble for flying the American Flag despite having bought his house where flag display is restricted by the contract he signed. I have no issue with private covenants.
My thoughts exactly.
 

Balrog

Senior Member
#55
I prefer to define myself as a minarchist, i.e. minimal 'government'.
In this case, you support replacing local zoning laws with a state-wide law determined by people living hundreds of miles away in Atlanta.
 

Paleo

Senior Member
#57
In this case, you support replacing local zoning laws with a state-wide law determined by people living hundreds of miles away in Atlanta.
The laws aren't "replaced", they are removed.There is still existing law to deal with problems that arise. As I said earlier, uniform municipal and county codes were likely drafted elsewhere and adopted locally with minimal tweaking
 

Xzuatl

Senior Member
#58
In this case, you support replacing local zoning laws with a state-wide law determined by people living hundreds of miles away in Atlanta.
To be clear, it is not "determined by people living hundreds of miles away in Atlanta", but rather my local state senator and congressman vote for or against my wishes in Atlanta. But generally speaking you are correct.

The real 'problem' is that we are ruled by multiple governments with conflicting goals who have access to the same finite resource, which is our wallets.
 

Money man

Senior Member
#59
To be clear, it is not "determined by people living hundreds of miles away in Atlanta", but rather my local state senator and congressman vote for or against my wishes in Atlanta. But generally speaking you are correct.

The real 'problem' is that we are ruled by multiple governments with conflicting goals who have access to the same finite resource, which is our wallets.
Let's clarify. On the issue of raising chickens and goats in residential areas, I don't want your cabal of state senators or congressman that live 100 miles away to over ride my local county commission who lives in my neighborhood and I would like to extend you the same courtesy. ::ke:
 

Xzuatl

Senior Member
#60
Let's clarify. On the issue of raising chickens and goats in residential areas, I don't want your cabal of state senators or congressman that live 100 miles away to over ride my local county commission who lives in my neighborhood and I would like to extend you the same courtesy. ::ke:
Sounds like secesh talk to me... :p
 
Top