most anti-aviation city in the nation

I also want to thank a lot of the people that have voiced their
opinion
and sided against me.

Brian, there is not a soul here sided against you.

You have kids, right? You'll always love them no matter what, but
there will be times when you think they have practiced poor judgment.
When they continue to exercise the same poor judgment, you're likely to
be just a little peeved.

Listen to me son. You skirmished with your neighbor and thought you
won. You didn't. They simply brought the city into it. You
skirmished with the city repeatedly and thought you won. You didn't.
They just pulled out a bigger gun, and worse, you were asleep while
they did it. Now you want to go into a bigger gunfight, and trust me,
they have cannons loaded and ready. The problem now is that all the
homebuilders in JAX are gonna get shot with you. Actually they already
have, and it was unnecessary.

My guess is that you are unlikely to prevail in municipal court when
faced with a custom-written ordinance, so you're probably thinking
about a grand fight that includes an appeal to a higher court. If you
lose there, similar ordinances become attractive to other
municipalities.....and we have pain nationwide.

Even if you win in municipal court or get a reversal later, what
makes you think the city will retreat?

You have every right to chart your own destiny. You don't have a
right to escalate your neighbor quarrel until others lose their right
to work quietly at home. Settle it. Move if you have to. Get a place
in the country and build the shop of your dreams. Stop being an
irritant and let cooler heads work to reverse the ordinance.

Dan Horton

"Dan Horton" wrote:
[...] let cooler heads work to reverse the ordinance.

What's your plan?

"Dan Horton" wrote in message
oups.com...

You have every right to chart your own destiny. You don't have a
right to escalate your neighbor quarrel until others lose their right
to work quietly at home. Settle it. Move if you have to. Get a place

Dan, I'm sorry that you feel he must cave in and just take it on the chin
because his neighbor has some problem. I profoundly disagree. His yard and
home are at least as attractive as many of the neighbors, much better than
some. Unless there is something we are not being told it's time for that
whole community you feel he's betrayed to get behind him and fight an unjust
bylaw. It's his property, and he has a right to enjoy it as he sees fit! I
can't understand why the whole neighborhood is not behind him. If it's an
unfit place to store his project then that same area is unfit to store
building materials, ATV's, motorhomes, cars being worked on and any number
of other things.

Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_quiet_enjoyment If we
are being told the truth, I'd tend to side with Brian even if I didn't have
an interest in avivation. I'm dissappointed with you and I feel you're
blaming the victim for the unjust persecution.

"Dave" wrote

Dan, I'm sorry that you feel he must cave in and just take it on the chin
because his neighbor has some problem.

He is 100% right that there is potential for the city's position to become
even more firm by fighting the ruling. If that does happen, the
implications for homebuilders in the whole country could be dire.

The reality is that for what ever reason, the city sided with the neighbor.
It is not worth the chance of making life more difficult for homebuilders
across the whole country.

It is time to take one for the team, on this one. Build onto the house, and
continue work inside, and store unused projects at a friend's house in the
country, or in a mini storage building. Let AOPA or EAA try to reverse the
problem. For now, his goose is cooked.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Dave" wrote

Dan, I'm sorry that you feel he must cave in and just take it on the chin
because his neighbor has some problem.


He is 100% right that there is potential for the city's position to become
even more firm by fighting the ruling. If that does happen, the
implications for homebuilders in the whole country could be dire.

The reality is that for what ever reason, the city sided with the neighbor.
It is not worth the chance of making life more difficult for homebuilders
across the whole country.

It is time to take one for the team, on this one. Build onto the house, and
continue work inside, and store unused projects at a friend's house in the
country, or in a mini storage building. Let AOPA or EAA try to reverse the
problem. For now, his goose is cooked.

I cannot believe the nonsense some of you are writing. If he has the
time and money to fight this he should continue the fight. Looking
at the pictures of his neighbors he has a good chance of winning
based on what is stored in others yards.


Jerry

"Jerry Springer" wrote

I cannot believe the nonsense some of you are writing. If he has the
time and money to fight this he should continue the fight. Looking
at the pictures of his neighbors he has a good chance of winning
based on what is stored in others yards.

Jerry, you are supposing that justice will be served, because other places
look worse than his. Based on MY experience with the legal system, the
logical thing, and obvious thing, is often not what happens.

Let's just say that he appeals and loses, and continues to have the money
and willingness to fight, and it goes all of the way to the state supreme
court, or even to the US Supreme Court. How likely would _that_ decision
ever be overturned? How quickly would other cities follow with identical
laws, and THEN where would we all be?

Fine by me if he wants to try and get the law repealed, by talking with the
city, but to take it to appeals court has too much risk.

My opinion is that in this situation, better to have lost in Jacksonville,
than throughout the whole country.
--
Jim in NC

If he has the time and money to fight this he should continue the
fight.

It has not been an effective strategy so far. The fight can
continue more effectively with Brian out of sight. His presence makes
it an emotional issue for the other side; they are just as dead set on
"winning" as he is. Having no individual target eliminates a lot of
that emotion. It takes away their will to fight. That's smart.

A lot of you have said "the EAA needs to jump on this". You're
right. The situation needs third part mediation, in a quiet room with
a rational opposition. Right now it is impossible. An EAA volunteer
attorney can't get much done with Brian outside the door playing the
role of the thorn. There is no loss to being smart enough to clear the
field for a more powerful ally.

Sometimes we lose sight of the goal because we get wrapped up in
the fight. The goal here is not a "win" for Brian. It is to reverse
the ordinance. There is no way Brian's strategy will convince a city
councilman to sponsor a resolution rescinding the ordinance.

Looking at the pictures of his neighbors he has a good chance of
winning based on what is stored in others yards.

Ever try to fight a speeding ticket on the grounds that everybody
else was speeding?

Dan Horton

"Dan Horton" wrote in message
ups.com...
If he has the time and money to fight this he should continue the
fight.

It has not been an effective strategy so far. The fight can
continue more effectively with Brian out of sight. His presence
makes
it an emotional issue for the other side; they are just as dead set
on
"winning" as he is. Having no individual target eliminates a lot of
that emotion. It takes away their will to fight. That's smart.

A lot of you have said "the EAA needs to jump on this". You're
right. The situation needs third part mediation, in a quiet room
with
a rational opposition. Right now it is impossible. An EAA
volunteer
attorney can't get much done with Brian outside the door playing the
role of the thorn. There is no loss to being smart enough to clear
the
field for a more powerful ally.

Sometimes we lose sight of the goal because we get wrapped up in
the fight. The goal here is not a "win" for Brian. It is to
reverse
the ordinance. There is no way Brian's strategy will convince a
city
councilman to sponsor a resolution rescinding the ordinance.

Looking at the pictures of his neighbors he has a good chance of
winning based on what is stored in others yards.

Ever try to fight a speeding ticket on the grounds that
everybody
else was speeding?

Dan Horton


Well, it's a little different being singled out over things stored on
your acre when everybody else stores things on theirs and you're being
selected for enforcement. You can make a reasonable argument in court
against that while you can't fuss about an 80 in a 55 when everybody
else is doing it. The patrolman can't bust everybody for speeding, so
he picks out one unlucky target, and that deters the rest of them.

Well, it's a little different being singled out over things stored on
your acre when everybody else stores things on theirs and you're being
selected for enforcement. You can make a reasonable argument in court
against that...

Sure, you can make it. Can you win with it? If not a sure thing,
can you put a percentage on it?

Dan

Dan Horton wrote:
...
My guess is that you are unlikely to prevail in municipal court when
faced with a custom-written ordinance, so you're probably thinking
about a grand fight that includes an appeal to a higher court. If you
lose there, similar ordinances become attractive to other
municipalities.....and we have pain nationwide.

..

The flip side is if he wins, we all benefit as the precedent would
tend to disabuse others of the practice.

The bottom line is he has the right to, as you say, chart his own
destiny, and you have a right to avise him about what you
think of the course he is on.

I hate to use the analogy, but a lot of African Americans were
against the civil rights movement, fearing that it was just gong to
stirr up trouble and the backlash would make things worse for
them.

The people in that movement had an absolute right to do demand
equality under the law and those other folks had an absolute right
to ask them to not do so.

--

FF