most anti-aviation city in the nation

"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

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

"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

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

wrote in

Assuming he goes that far he is going to attract a lot of support
on the way. He is going to be joined by boatbuilders, potters,
home mechanics, woodworkers, metalworkers, sculptors,
gardeners, telecommuters, painters, seamstresses, photographers,
pretty much anyone who does anytihng as a hobby that is sometimes
also done on a commercial basis.

Why should they give him a bit of support. They have not been targeted.

If I were them, I would stay as far away from him as I could. Look what he
has done to homebuilding, by not being able or willing to mend fences with a
neighbor!


Bottom line is, he has a right to proceed, you have a fight to
ask him not to.

Did you mean fight or right?

Sure he has a right to fight it. I have a right to chop my private parts
off, if I want to. It does not make it any better of an idea, though.

I won't ask him not to. I doubt it would do any good, as he has not shown
an ability to handle the difficulties very well, so far.

I would ask him to consider carefully how he proceeds.

What happens next could carry far reaching implications, and could set
home-building back decades.

If you do not agree with that statement, you need to think a little longer
on the subject.
--
Jim in NC

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.

Yep, and MLK insisted that the movement stick to peaceful protest
only. The other side wanted a fight and certainly tried to provoke one
at every turn. That would have undermined support from very effective
allies like the Justice Department, not to mention the average citizen.

Nobody here proposes that we not work to eliminate the ordinance.
We need to be smart and not play our opponents game.

Dan

Morgans wrote:
wrote in

Assuming he goes that far he is going to attract a lot of support
on the way. He is going to be joined by boatbuilders, potters,
home mechanics, woodworkers, metalworkers, sculptors,
gardeners, telecommuters, painters, seamstresses, photographers,
pretty much anyone who does anything as a hobby that is sometimes
also done on a commercial basis.

Why should they give him a bit of support. They have not been targeted.

Ever here the one about notstanding up for the Jews, or Communists,
or Catholics, or Gypsies, or homosexuals or ...?


If I were them, I would stay as far away from him as I could. Look what he
has done to homebuilding, by not being able or willing to mend fences with a
neighbor!

The photos he posted show tha the did inded put up a privacy fence
to keep his airplane out of view of his neighbor.

It seems obvious at this ponit that the neighbor didn't want him to
have airplanes on his property notwithstanding complete absence of any
effect, inconvenience, or loss of enjoyment of the neighbor IRT his
own property.



Bottom line is, he has a right to proceed, you have a fight to
ask him not to.

Did you mean fight or right?

Right, sorry about the typo.


Sure he has a right to fight it. I have a right to chop my private parts
off, if I want to. It does not make it any better of an idea, though.

I won't ask him not to. I doubt it would do any good, as he has not shown
an ability to handle the difficulties very well, so far.

I would ask him to consider carefully how he proceeds.

What happens next could carry far reaching implications, and could set
home-building back decades.

If you do not agree with that statement, you need to think a little longer
on the subject.

Oh, I agree with it. I go further than you. The results could set back
boatbuilding, potting, home mechanics, woodworkering, metalwor-
king, sculpting, gardening, telecommuting, painting, dressmaking,
photography, and pretty much anyone who does anything as a hobby
that is sometimes also done on a commercial basis back decades,
OR protect them all for decades to come.

If you do not agree with that statement, you need to think a little
longer
on the subject.

--

FF