most anti-aviation city in the nation

[greatav8or]

some disturbing news was revealed at the last eaa mtg, when one of the
members got up and passed out a copy of the latest city ordinance,
amending what a residential dweller could do and have at their
dwelling. enclosed is a copy of the admendment. the interesting point
is how specifically the homebuilder was targeted, without ever being
mentioned in the doucument. the part about the airboats was just an
oportunity for the council members who have a problem with airboaters,
to jump on board for a free ride. the disturbing issue is how the
whole thing was put togeather with the most obscure notification
imaginable. it was published in a local financial paper that has
minimal circulation in the mainstream populace(the name escapes me at
the moment.), however, it qualifies as public notice media.

now! the ripple effect. joe flyer has been working on his $30k plus
kit for the last however many years and now finds out he has a garage
of illegal junk, that he can never finish, legally, due to the stroke
of a pen. if u read it closely, u realize it includes model planes
also.
so now all the hobby shops can no longer sell model air plane kits to
residents of the city(which btw, includes all the county, since the
city limits is the county line.(makes the police and sheriff depts, one
and the same.) the individual responsible for causing this piece of
trash ordinance, is an eaa chapt member who lives next door to a
busy-body that can't stand to see him working on his project at his
home. due to here relentless resentment of his activites next door, he
has paid numerous fines and court costs for not removing his project
from his property. this new amendment is the final straw to shut him
down. it would be curious to know as to how she found a receptive ear
on the city council, to pen and pass such discriminatory legislation.
fore warned is fore armed. don't let this happen in your town.

Introduced by Council Member Lake Ray and amended on the floor of the
council:

Ordinance 2006-543-e
An ordinance amending chapter 656 (zoning
code), part 4 (supplementary regulations),
subpart b (miscellaneous regulations),
ordinance code, establishing section 656.420
(parking, storage, construction and repair of flying craft
and airboats in residential districts, and
amending part 16 (definitions), section
656.1601 (definitions, ordinance code to
include a definition for flying craft;
providing an effective date.

Whereas, parking or storing flying craft and airboats in unenclosed
spaces, including a carport, is not an operation in keeping with the
character of a residential neighborhood, and
Whereas, repairing, testing, operating, constructing, modifying or
altering flying aircraft and airboats anywhere on a residential lot is
not an operation in keeping with the character of a residential
neighborhood, now thereof.

Be it ordained by the council of the city of Jacksonville:
Section 1. Creation of section 656.420, chapter 656 ordinance code.
Chapter 656 (zoning code), part 4 (supplementary regulations),
ordinance code is amended to create a new section 656.420 (parking,
storage, repair and operation flying craft and airboats in residential
districts) to read as follows:

Chapter 656 zoning code

***
Part 4. Supplementary Regulations

Subpart A. Performance standards and development criteria

***
Sec. 656.420. Parking, storage, repair and operation of flying craft
and airboats in residential districts.

(a) Flying craft and airboats shall not be parked or stored, other
than in completely enclosed buildings, on residentially-zoned property,
including residential PUD districts and properties with a residential
component in a mixed-use PUD district. Airboats may however, be parked
or stored in the water adjacent to, on docking facilities of, or in a
yard fronting a navigable waterbody of, a residential PUD district and
a property in the residential portion of a mixed-use PUD district.

(b) Repairing, testing, operation, constructing, modifying or altering
flying craft and airboats shall be prohibited in all residential
districts, including residential PUD districts and properties with a
residential component in a mixed-use PUD district.

Section 2. Amendment to section 656.1601, Ordinance Code.

Section 656.1601, Ordinance Code, is hereby amended as follows:

Chapter 656 zoning code

***

Part 16. definitions

Sec.656.1601. Definitions.

***

(this does not apply to the aviation issue)Floor area means, except as
specifically indicated in relation to particular districts and uses,
the sum of the gross horizontal area of several floors of a building
measured from the exterior faces of the exterior wall or from the
centerline of the walls separating two buildings, excluding attic areas
with a headroom of less than seven feet, unenclosed stairs or fire
escapes, elevator structures, cooling towers, areas devoted to air
conditioning, ventilating, heating or other building machinery and
equipment, parking structures and basements space where the ceiling is
not more than an average of 48 inches above the general finished and
grade level of the adjacent portion of the lot.

(this does apply to the aviation issue)Flying craft means any vehicle
designed for navigation in the air or through outer space, including
but not limited to airplanes, helicopters and hot air balloons.

***

Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective upon
signature by the mayor or upon becoming effective without the mayor's
signature.
Form approved:


/a/ Dylan T. Reingold

Office of General Counsel
Legislation Prepared by: Dylan Reingold

[Don W]

Sounds like someone needs to talk with their city
council to figure out what the real issues are and
try to reach a compromise such that everyone can
be happy. Getting ****ed off and ignoring your
neighbor's concerns doesn't work well.

If they were working in their closed garage and
not making a lot of noise, then no one would even
know what they were doing, and it would not be a
concern.

Now their only choice is to rent a hangar with
some buddies, or move to another town.

Like they say: "you can't fight city hall"

Don W.

greatav8or wrote:
> some disturbing news was revealed at the last eaa mtg, when one of the
> members got up and passed out a copy of the latest city ordinance,
> amending what a residential dweller could do and have at their
> dwelling. enclosed is a copy of the admendment. the interesting point
> is how specifically the homebuilder was targeted, without ever being
> mentioned in the doucument. the part about the airboats was just an
> oportunity for the council members who have a problem with airboaters,
> to jump on board for a free ride. the disturbing issue is how the
> whole thing was put togeather with the most obscure notification
> imaginable. it was published in a local financial paper that has
> minimal circulation in the mainstream populace(the name escapes me at
> the moment.), however, it qualifies as public notice media.
>
> now! the ripple effect. joe flyer has been working on his $30k plus
> kit for the last however many years and now finds out he has a garage
> of illegal junk, that he can never finish, legally, due to the stroke
> of a pen. if u read it closely, u realize it includes model planes
> also.
> so now all the hobby shops can no longer sell model air plane kits to
> residents of the city(which btw, includes all the county, since the
> city limits is the county line.(makes the police and sheriff depts, one
> and the same.) the individual responsible for causing this piece of
> trash ordinance, is an eaa chapt member who lives next door to a
> busy-body that can't stand to see him working on his project at his
> home. due to here relentless resentment of his activites next door, he
> has paid numerous fines and court costs for not removing his project
> from his property. this new amendment is the final straw to shut him
> down. it would be curious to know as to how she found a receptive ear
> on the city council, to pen and pass such discriminatory legislation.
> fore warned is fore armed. don't let this happen in your town.
>
> Introduced by Council Member Lake Ray and amended on the floor of the
> council:
>
> Ordinance 2006-543-e
> An ordinance amending chapter 656 (zoning
> code), part 4 (supplementary regulations),
> subpart b (miscellaneous regulations),
> ordinance code, establishing section 656.420
> (parking, storage, construction and repair of flying craft
> and airboats in residential districts, and
> amending part 16 (definitions), section
> 656.1601 (definitions, ordinance code to
> include a definition for flying craft;
> providing an effective date.
>
> Whereas, parking or storing flying craft and airboats in unenclosed
> spaces, including a carport, is not an operation in keeping with the
> character of a residential neighborhood, and
> Whereas, repairing, testing, operating, constructing, modifying or
> altering flying aircraft and airboats anywhere on a residential lot is
> not an operation in keeping with the character of a residential
> neighborhood, now thereof.
>
> Be it ordained by the council of the city of Jacksonville:
> Section 1. Creation of section 656.420, chapter 656 ordinance code.
> Chapter 656 (zoning code), part 4 (supplementary regulations),
> ordinance code is amended to create a new section 656.420 (parking,
> storage, repair and operation flying craft and airboats in residential
> districts) to read as follows:
>
> Chapter 656 zoning code
>
> ***
> Part 4. Supplementary Regulations
>
> Subpart A. Performance standards and development criteria
>
> ***
> Sec. 656.420. Parking, storage, repair and operation of flying craft
> and airboats in residential districts.
>
> (a) Flying craft and airboats shall not be parked or stored, other
> than in completely enclosed buildings, on residentially-zoned property,
> including residential PUD districts and properties with a residential
> component in a mixed-use PUD district. Airboats may however, be parked
> or stored in the water adjacent to, on docking facilities of, or in a
> yard fronting a navigable waterbody of, a residential PUD district and
> a property in the residential portion of a mixed-use PUD district.
>
> (b) Repairing, testing, operation, constructing, modifying or altering
> flying craft and airboats shall be prohibited in all residential
> districts, including residential PUD districts and properties with a
> residential component in a mixed-use PUD district.
>
> Section 2. Amendment to section 656.1601, Ordinance Code.
>
> Section 656.1601, Ordinance Code, is hereby amended as follows:
>
> Chapter 656 zoning code
>
> ***
>
> Part 16. definitions
>
> Sec.656.1601. Definitions.
>
> ***
>
> (this does not apply to the aviation issue)Floor area means, except as
> specifically indicated in relation to particular districts and uses,
> the sum of the gross horizontal area of several floors of a building
> measured from the exterior faces of the exterior wall or from the
> centerline of the walls separating two buildings, excluding attic areas
> with a headroom of less than seven feet, unenclosed stairs or fire
> escapes, elevator structures, cooling towers, areas devoted to air
> conditioning, ventilating, heating or other building machinery and
> equipment, parking structures and basements space where the ceiling is
> not more than an average of 48 inches above the general finished and
> grade level of the adjacent portion of the lot.
>
> (this does apply to the aviation issue)Flying craft means any vehicle
> designed for navigation in the air or through outer space, including
> but not limited to airplanes, helicopters and hot air balloons.
>
> ***
>
> Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective upon
> signature by the mayor or upon becoming effective without the mayor's
> signature.
> Form approved:
>
>
> /a/ Dylan T. Reingold
>
> Office of General Counsel
> Legislation Prepared by: Dylan Reingold
>

[greatav8or]

moving is probably the only option cause there are no hangers in this
town(duval county). everyone who has found a hanger did so in another
county. besides, homebuilt means just that. built at home. who wants
to drive 40 miles to pop a few rivets?
and btw, the individual who was the receipiant of this unneeded law
making, has spent $k or dollars on getting this resolved in court, to
no avail. initially, they tried to ticket him for zoning rules about
vehicles, junk and what ever else they could think of, and he was
doing pretty good at proving them wrong in court, using faa definitions
of what the parts and pieces really were. unfortunately, it worked
against him because after the city council amassed enough of his
information about what he was actually doing, they had the ammunition
to write the amendment to shut him down.

Don W wrote:
> Sounds like someone needs to talk with their city
> council to figure out what the real issues are and
> try to reach a compromise such that everyone can
> be happy. Getting ****ed off and ignoring your
> neighbor's concerns doesn't work well.
>
> If they were working in their closed garage and
> not making a lot of noise, then no one would even
> know what they were doing, and it would not be a
> concern.
>
> Now their only choice is to rent a hangar with
> some buddies, or move to another town.
>
> Like they say: "you can't fight city hall"
>
> Don W.
>
> greatav8or wrote:
> > some disturbing news was revealed at the last eaa mtg, when one of the
> > members got up and passed out a copy of the latest city ordinance,
> > amending what a residential dweller could do and have at their
> > dwelling. enclosed is a copy of the admendment. the interesting point
> > is how specifically the homebuilder was targeted, without ever being
> > mentioned in the doucument. the part about the airboats was just an
> > oportunity for the council members who have a problem with airboaters,
> > to jump on board for a free ride. the disturbing issue is how the
> > whole thing was put togeather with the most obscure notification
> > imaginable. it was published in a local financial paper that has
> > minimal circulation in the mainstream populace(the name escapes me at
> > the moment.), however, it qualifies as public notice media.
> >
> > now! the ripple effect. joe flyer has been working on his $30k plus
> > kit for the last however many years and now finds out he has a garage
> > of illegal junk, that he can never finish, legally, due to the stroke
> > of a pen. if u read it closely, u realize it includes model planes
> > also.
> > so now all the hobby shops can no longer sell model air plane kits to
> > residents of the city(which btw, includes all the county, since the
> > city limits is the county line.(makes the police and sheriff depts, one
> > and the same.) the individual responsible for causing this piece of
> > trash ordinance, is an eaa chapt member who lives next door to a
> > busy-body that can't stand to see him working on his project at his
> > home. due to here relentless resentment of his activites next door, he
> > has paid numerous fines and court costs for not removing his project
> > from his property. this new amendment is the final straw to shut him
> > down. it would be curious to know as to how she found a receptive ear
> > on the city council, to pen and pass such discriminatory legislation.
> > fore warned is fore armed. don't let this happen in your town.
> >
> > Introduced by Council Member Lake Ray and amended on the floor of the
> > council:
> >
> > Ordinance 2006-543-e
> > An ordinance amending chapter 656 (zoning
> > code), part 4 (supplementary regulations),
> > subpart b (miscellaneous regulations),
> > ordinance code, establishing section 656.420
> > (parking, storage, construction and repair of flying craft
> > and airboats in residential districts, and
> > amending part 16 (definitions), section
> > 656.1601 (definitions, ordinance code to
> > include a definition for flying craft;
> > providing an effective date.
> >
> > Whereas, parking or storing flying craft and airboats in unenclosed
> > spaces, including a carport, is not an operation in keeping with the
> > character of a residential neighborhood, and
> > Whereas, repairing, testing, operating, constructing, modifying or
> > altering flying aircraft and airboats anywhere on a residential lot is
> > not an operation in keeping with the character of a residential
> > neighborhood, now thereof.
> >
> > Be it ordained by the council of the city of Jacksonville:
> > Section 1. Creation of section 656.420, chapter 656 ordinance code.
> > Chapter 656 (zoning code), part 4 (supplementary regulations),
> > ordinance code is amended to create a new section 656.420 (parking,
> > storage, repair and operation flying craft and airboats in residential
> > districts) to read as follows:
> >
> > Chapter 656 zoning code
> >
> > ***
> > Part 4. Supplementary Regulations
> >
> > Subpart A. Performance standards and development criteria
> >
> > ***
> > Sec. 656.420. Parking, storage, repair and operation of flying craft
> > and airboats in residential districts.
> >
> > (a) Flying craft and airboats shall not be parked or stored, other
> > than in completely enclosed buildings, on residentially-zoned property,
> > including residential PUD districts and properties with a residential
> > component in a mixed-use PUD district. Airboats may however, be parked
> > or stored in the water adjacent to, on docking facilities of, or in a
> > yard fronting a navigable waterbody of, a residential PUD district and
> > a property in the residential portion of a mixed-use PUD district.
> >
> > (b) Repairing, testing, operation, constructing, modifying or altering
> > flying craft and airboats shall be prohibited in all residential
> > districts, including residential PUD districts and properties with a
> > residential component in a mixed-use PUD district.
> >
> > Section 2. Amendment to section 656.1601, Ordinance Code.
> >
> > Section 656.1601, Ordinance Code, is hereby amended as follows:
> >
> > Chapter 656 zoning code
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Part 16. definitions
> >
> > Sec.656.1601. Definitions.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > (this does not apply to the aviation issue)Floor area means, except as
> > specifically indicated in relation to particular districts and uses,
> > the sum of the gross horizontal area of several floors of a building
> > measured from the exterior faces of the exterior wall or from the
> > centerline of the walls separating two buildings, excluding attic areas
> > with a headroom of less than seven feet, unenclosed stairs or fire
> > escapes, elevator structures, cooling towers, areas devoted to air
> > conditioning, ventilating, heating or other building machinery and
> > equipment, parking structures and basements space where the ceiling is
> > not more than an average of 48 inches above the general finished and
> > grade level of the adjacent portion of the lot.
> >
> > (this does apply to the aviation issue)Flying craft means any vehicle
> > designed for navigation in the air or through outer space, including
> > but not limited to airplanes, helicopters and hot air balloons.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective upon
> > signature by the mayor or upon becoming effective without the mayor's
> > signature.
> > Form approved:
> >
> >
> > /a/ Dylan T. Reingold
> >
> > Office of General Counsel
> > Legislation Prepared by: Dylan Reingold
> >

[blackbird]

Hi guys,

My name is Wayne McCullough and I am a current EAA chapter president.
My homeowners insurance was cancelled because of a current Kolb project
being worked on at my home....23 acres in Effingham County
Georgia........No runway allowed, no storage of aircraft of any
kind......

And then I read this, and Duval County is Jacksonville,
Florida........Amazing what the politicians can do behind closed
doors.....

Eaa national has not responded to any of my e-mails as of yet.....All
of this I found out last Monday......


Been doing experimentals for 12 years, and I did not know I was not
living in America anymore.


> > >

[Ernest Christley]

>>> (a) Flying craft and airboats shall not be parked or stored, other
>>>than in completely enclosed buildings, on residentially-zoned property,
>>>including residential PUD districts and properties with a residential
>>>component in a mixed-use PUD district. Airboats may however, be parked
>>>or stored in the water adjacent to, on docking facilities of, or in a
>>>yard fronting a navigable waterbody of, a residential PUD district and
>>>a property in the residential portion of a mixed-use PUD district.
>>>
>>> (b) Repairing, testing, operation, constructing, modifying or altering
>>>flying craft and airboats shall be prohibited in all residential
>>>districts, including residential PUD districts and properties with a
>>>residential component in a mixed-use PUD district.

If I were a lawyer (and I'm not...don't even play one on TV), I would
push the equal protection under the law ideas. First, take issue with
their definition of just what is "keeping with the nature of a
residential neighborhood". And then bring up the issue of people
changing their own car's oil or airfilter, or even painting a lawn chair.

Personally, I see this as a continued trend in the transformation of the
American public from citizens to consumers. (You're only allowed to do
it if they sell a kit for it at Home Depot.)


--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Lou]

I read the same thing Jim, but I have the question of:
greatav8or, how do you know all this information? Are you the person in
question?
Lou

[Don W]

I wonder what the city/county concerns that are
leading to the regulations are. Also, it would be
interesting to hear about your insurance companies
concerns. Was your home insurance canceled
because working on aircraft violated the policy
terms, or because storing the aircraft violated
county zoning law?

I wholeheartedly agree that our city/county
governments are passing ordinances that interfere
with a persons right to "pursuit of happiness" all
the time. Where I live, the local codes are
fairly draconian due to the city starting as a
"retirement" community. We can not even store a
boat in our back yard legally, and the code
enforcement people issue tickets for leaving your
trash cans out at the street too long (more than
24 hours). Still, the city responds to reasonable
requests for variances from the city ordinances,
and we do elect our city councilmen and mayor
every two years.

A resolution to the restriction might start with
contacting your local city/county politician as
follows:

"Jim, it recently came to my attention that the
city has an ordinance prohibiting working on or
storing aircraft at a residential property. I
would like to work on building a small
experimental aircraft in my garage, so do you know
what the city's concerns that led to this
ordinance are?"

Once you understand their concerns, you can work
out something that will most likely get you a
variance, and let you do what you want to.

"If I were to do all of the work inside my garage,
and make sure that the noise didn't disturb my
neighbors do you think I could get a variance for
this project?"

You might even have to purchase and install some
type of acoustic absorber in the garage to bring
the noise down to where the neighbors would
tolerate it.

"I own this property and will do what I damn well
please on it" will not get you very far even in
rural areas.

It sounded like the ordinance that the first
poster was referring to got passed specifically
because a home builder got in a ****ing contest
with a neighbor, and the city sided with the neighbor.

Don W.

blackbird wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> My name is Wayne McCullough and I am a current EAA chapter president.
> My homeowners insurance was cancelled because of a current Kolb project
> being worked on at my home....23 acres in Effingham County
> Georgia........No runway allowed, no storage of aircraft of any
> kind......
>
> And then I read this, and Duval County is Jacksonville,
> Florida........Amazing what the politicians can do behind closed
> doors.....
>
> Eaa national has not responded to any of my e-mails as of yet.....All
> of this I found out last Monday......
>
>
> Been doing experimentals for 12 years, and I did not know I was not
> living in America anymore.

[Jim Carriere]

Lou wrote:
> I read the same thing Jim, but I have the question of:
> greatav8or, how do you know all this information? Are you the person in
> question?

The first paragraph (a) addresses parking and storage, and that has the
"completely closed" clause.

The second paragraph (b) addresses working on your airplane, and that is
prohibited.

I'm a little surprised that something like this could be passed in Jax
FL. I lived there up until a couple years ago, and I didn't think of
city hall as... well, there's no nice way to state what I think of this.

[greatav8or]

no! but if i had known how much the individual, that is involved, had
been spending on legal fees, i would have contributed to his cause so
that this sort of thing would have not gotten as far as it did. it all
comes back to the fact that "people get the kind of govenment they
deserve". if u do not hold elected officials to close daily scruitney,
they will screw u at the first chance.


Lou wrote:
> I read the same thing Jim, but I have the question of:
> greatav8or, how do you know all this information? Are you the person in
> question?
> Lou

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Don W" > wrote in message
. net...
> Sounds like someone needs to talk with their city
> council to figure out what the real issues are and
> try to reach a compromise such that everyone can
> be happy. Getting ****ed off and ignoring your
> neighbor's concerns doesn't work well.
>
> If they were working in their closed garage and
> not making a lot of noise, then no one would even
> know what they were doing, and it would not be a
> concern.

I read it as only prohibiting it, if the craft was an unenclosed garage.
No?
--
Jim in NC

[greatav8or]

wayne, i feel your pain, just like i do for the chapt member involved
with this episode of justice denied. while, it probably won't bring
hombuilding to a total halt in the county, it will just force some of
us to be more discrete in our activites. i work at a commercial
facilitie that could be used for assembly and construction of aircraft
components. i can't help but think that it all revolves around
property value and city taxes collected for that property value. they
want every last penny they can squeeze outta ya so they can pay for
their over zealous city expansion and national football franchise and
stadium upkeep, not to mention interstate highway expansion, while the
intercity traffic becomes longer daily grid-lock. and don't forget, as
a city, we are trying to better dc's record for cut'n and kill'n this
year. thats expensive too, u know. finally, wayne, our chapt pres
lives in a different county, not affected by this ruling, yet! but
since he has a very nice, brand new shop, with an almost completed
midget mustang still needing work, he has concerns that his local gov
might go over the stupid end, also. u just get the feeling u r being
treated like the ultra lite folks that used to operate on the fringe or
outside the legal faa guide lines. i guess i am more concerned that
eaa hd qts did not jump on this one issue immediately and do something
but instead, there has been less than zero response from them. so far,
we have had no problems from the insurance companies about vehicles of
any sort, including aircraft. maybe they too busy worrying about
hurricane damage to let something like aluminum or pop rivets concern
them for the moment. as u know, there r some of us more into the
building than the flying so it strikes a cord when u feel singled out,
for no reason. i been flying since '56 and building since '89 and as
far as i know, it has never hurt anyone.


blackbird wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> My name is Wayne McCullough and I am a current EAA chapter president.
> My homeowners insurance was cancelled because of a current Kolb project
> being worked on at my home....23 acres in Effingham County
> Georgia........No runway allowed, no storage of aircraft of any
> kind......
>
> And then I read this, and Duval County is Jacksonville,
> Florida........Amazing what the politicians can do behind closed
> doors.....
>
> Eaa national has not responded to any of my e-mails as of yet.....All
> of this I found out last Monday......
>
>
> Been doing experimentals for 12 years, and I did not know I was not
> living in America anymore.
>
>
> > > >

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Lou" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I read the same thing Jim, but I have the question of:
> greatav8or, how do you know all this information? Are you the person in
> question?

No I was not the guy in question. I was just trying to interpret the
legalese, and that is how it read to me.

I do not think that any city can regulate what you do behind CLOSED doors,
as long as it is not commercial in nature.

The other guy that had his insurance canceled has a hard lick, but there is
basis from the department of insurance and the fire marshal against
manufacturing and repair of aircraft without fire suppression. If he were
to install sprinklers and fire rated separation between his work area and
the rest of the house, he probably would not have a problem getting
insurance, but the premiums could be higher, based on the type of activity
going on in that higher risk environment.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
...
> Lou wrote:
> > I read the same thing Jim, but I have the question of:
> > greatav8or, how do you know all this information? Are you the person in
> > question?
>
> The first paragraph (a) addresses parking and storage, and that has the
> "completely closed" clause.
>
> The second paragraph (b) addresses working on your airplane, and that is
> prohibited.
>
> I'm a little surprised that something like this could be passed in Jax
> FL. I lived there up until a couple years ago, and I didn't think of
> city hall as... well, there's no nice way to state what I think of this.

The EAA had better get ahold of this case, and fight it all the way to the
SCOTUS. If they don't, they don't have a hair on their butt, and it will
likely cause me to drop my membership.

Everyone write the EAA.

Criminal. That is the only work I can come up with to describe this act.
--
Jim in NC

[Lou]

It does make you wonder. If this is as true as it reads, then it raises
much more questions then homebuilding. I can't wait to see the
homebuilder retaleate when he calls the police on granpa building a
model plane with his grandson, Dad and son's shooting off Estes
rockest, or my favorite, handcuff the kiddies fly the kites assembled
in the living room. It cost him money to defend himself, time to spend
the city's money on their own stupidity.
Lou

[Jim Carriere]

Morgans wrote:
> "Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Lou wrote:
>>> I read the same thing Jim, but I have the question of:
>>> greatav8or, how do you know all this information? Are you the person in
>>> question?
>> The first paragraph (a) addresses parking and storage, and that has the
>> "completely closed" clause.
>>
>> The second paragraph (b) addresses working on your airplane, and that is
>> prohibited.
>>
>> I'm a little surprised that something like this could be passed in Jax
>> FL. I lived there up until a couple years ago, and I didn't think of
>> city hall as... well, there's no nice way to state what I think of this.
>
> The EAA had better get ahold of this case, and fight it all the way to the
> SCOTUS. If they don't, they don't have a hair on their butt, and it will
> likely cause me to drop my membership.
>
> Everyone write the EAA.
>
> Criminal. That is the only work I can come up with to describe this act.

Boneheaded would be a better word, or maybe just ignorant.

Here are a couple links for the city council website:

http://citycirc.coj.net/coj/COJBillList.asp?Bill=2006-0543

http://www.coj.net/City+Council/default.htm

The first has information about the bill. If you read the summary link,
it talks about outdoors vs enclosed space. Somehow this got mixed up
along the way. Personally I don't see the difference between tinkering
with your regular boat, motorcycle, hotrod in your driveway vs starting
up your airboat or airplane... for a few minutes... with reasonable
precaution, courtesy, common sense... I'm preaching to the choir here.

I wonder if the city council is under the impression that homebuilt
airplane construction is like Cheech and Chong's Santa's Workshop
(pounding and hammering and pounding all night man).

On second thought, I take back "ignorant," that too generous.
"Boneheaded" is just about right.

Oh! The second webpage has contact information.

[Lou]

Your right Jim, that means you must assemble the kite inside the house
not outside. But can you fly either one?

[Jim Carriere]

Lou wrote:
> Your right Jim, that means you must assemble the kite inside the house
> not outside. But can you fly either one?

Unfortunately, you're not quite right! The original intent appears to
be what you just said. Reread paragraph (b) of the bill as it is right
now (awaiting the Mayor's signature):

"Repairing, testing, operation, constructing, modifying or altering
flying craft and airboats shall be prohibited in all residential
districts..."

They left off the indoors part.

[greatav8or]

actually, the way it reads, u can't assemble the kite, so flying it is
unimportant.
Lou wrote:
> Your right Jim, that means you must assemble the kite inside the house
> not outside. But can you fly either one?

[Ernest Christley]

Don W wrote:

> "I own this property and will do what I damn well please on it" will
> not get you very far even in rural areas.
>
> It sounded like the ordinance that the first poster was referring to got
> passed specifically because a home builder got in a ****ing contest with
> a neighbor, and the city sided with the neighbor.
>

I was just in my garage...with the door close...quietly installing taxi
and landing lights when I recalled something. 20/20 or one of those
investigative reporting shows did an expose of neighbors getting into
legal battles. It must have been a year or two ago. One of the
contestants was a guy building an airplane (amoung other things) in his
front yard. I do remember that they were somewhere in Florida, and I
believe it was Jacksonville.

In this particular case, I'm not sure I would defend the guy to much.
He had rusting CRAP piled around everywhere. The parts that weren't
rusting were corroding. The rest was being eaten by rats and other
vermin. I'm working from memory here, but he was supposedly building a
Cozy while restoring some sort of jet. I'm wanting to say an Me162, but
not sure. He had all sorts of pieces he had collected strewn about the
yard with the grass and bushes growing up through them. I mean this guy
was a basket case. When asked to clean it up, he just got
stupid...going so far as building a composite 'statue' of a man showing
his butt to the neighbors. I quote 'statue', because an artist he
ain't. Very crude and cartoonish artwork.

He had been told by the city many times to clean it up, but chose to
make an ass of himself instead. The fact that he calls himself building
an airplane just makes us look bad. Personally, I break out in hives if
I see rust on my airframe. I don't know how anyone investing the energy
to build an airplane could let it rot like he was doing.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
...
<<Snip>>
>
> "Repairing, testing, operation, constructing, modifying or altering
> flying craft and airboats shall be prohibited in all residential
> districts..."
>
> They left off the indoors part.

I'd play the technicality card. "I would never repair, test, etc. etc. etc
a *flying* craft in a residential district. As a matter of fact, I
absolutely refuse to make in-flight repairs."

Alternately, I'd call the FAA and let them take a shot at it. I'm not sure
the city government can dictate where you operate a flying craft. I think
that's governed by the FAA.

KB

[Bob Martin]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
> ...
> <<Snip>>
>> "Repairing, testing, operation, constructing, modifying or altering
>> flying craft and airboats shall be prohibited in all residential
>> districts..."
>>
>> They left off the indoors part.
>
> I'd play the technicality card. "I would never repair, test, etc. etc. etc
> a *flying* craft in a residential district. As a matter of fact, I
> absolutely refuse to make in-flight repairs."
>

"It's just a really-detailed full-scale model!"

[Bob Martin]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
> ...
> <<Snip>>
>> "Repairing, testing, operation, constructing, modifying or altering
>> flying craft and airboats shall be prohibited in all residential
>> districts..."
>>
>> They left off the indoors part.
>
> I'd play the technicality card. "I would never repair, test, etc. etc. etc
> a *flying* craft in a residential district. As a matter of fact, I
> absolutely refuse to make in-flight repairs."
>

"It's just a really-detailed full-scale model!"

[Alan Petrillo]

Don W wrote:
> Sounds like someone needs to talk with their city council to figure out
> what the real issues are and try to reach a compromise such that
> everyone can be happy. Getting ****ed off and ignoring your neighbor's
> concerns doesn't work well.
>
> If they were working in their closed garage and not making a lot of
> noise, then no one would even know what they were doing, and it would
> not be a concern.
>
> Now their only choice is to rent a hangar with some buddies, or move to
> another town.
>
> Like they say: "you can't fight city hall"

No, you _can_ fight City Hall, just be prepared to spend a LOT of money
doing it.


AP

[Alan Petrillo]

blackbird wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> My name is Wayne McCullough and I am a current EAA chapter president.
> My homeowners insurance was cancelled because of a current Kolb project
> being worked on at my home....23 acres in Effingham County
> Georgia........No runway allowed, no storage of aircraft of any
> kind......
>
> And then I read this, and Duval County is Jacksonville,
> Florida........Amazing what the politicians can do behind closed
> doors.....
>
> Eaa national has not responded to any of my e-mails as of yet.....All
> of this I found out last Monday......

I've found EAA to be fairly useless in such things. They seem to have
their hands full just trying to save airports.

> Been doing experimentals for 12 years, and I did not know I was not
> living in America anymore.

We haven't been living in America since GWB was appointed President.


AP

[Alan Petrillo]

Don W wrote:
[snip]
> Now their only choice is to rent a hangar with some buddies, or move to
> another town.

BTW: Another, probably no less expensive option, would be to rent a
workshop in an industrial area.


AP

[Alan Petrillo]

Jim Carriere wrote:
> Lou wrote:
>> Your right Jim, that means you must assemble the kite inside the house
>> not outside. But can you fly either one?
>
> Unfortunately, you're not quite right! The original intent appears to
> be what you just said. Reread paragraph (b) of the bill as it is right
> now (awaiting the Mayor's signature):
>
> "Repairing, testing, operation, constructing, modifying or altering
> flying craft and airboats shall be prohibited in all residential
> districts..."
>
> They left off the indoors part.

So if, as currently written, it makes no distinction between full size
aircraft, RC aircraft, toy aircraft, or kites, then you can point this
out to all of your local hobby shops, and get them on your side. And
don't stop there. Since the operation rule would seem to extend even to
the lowly Verti-bird you might even be able to get Toys R Us, and
Walmart on your side.


AP

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Alan Petrillo" > wrote
>
> We haven't been living in America since GWB was appointed President.

Please add "POL: to the subject line of your post, when you throw in crap
like that.

Oh, by the way, I'm "SURE" that GWB really gives a **** what someone is
doing in podunk county, building an airplane. That is local politics,
plain and simple.
--
Jim in NC

[Lou]

I've got to tell you, the more I read these post the more I think there
is something huge missing. Don't know what it is but we are not getting
the full information.
Lou

[[email protected]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Alan Petrillo" > wrote
> >
> > We haven't been living in America since GWB was appointed President.

That's a real good way to derail the discussion.

>
> Please add "POL: to the subject line of your post, when you throw in crap
> like that.
>

Better yet, post the article in a political newsgroup in the first
place.

Followups set accordingly.

--

FF

[RST Engineering]

You all are getting up in arms about a supposed slap in the face to
homebuilt aircraft. Truth be told, you could probably find a similar
statute about firearms, muscle cars, or ham radio antennas in a lot of
municipalities around the country.

Here's the blunt truth of it. The fellow that wrote that statute thought
(s)he was doing the right thing. That's right. Nobody in local elected
office does something because they are inherently evil. They saw what they
perceived as something the majority of the constituency wanted and wrote the
law accordingly.

The parallel to this is that the fellow that wrote it put his/her pants on
in the morning one leg at a time, just like you do. (S)he works and draws a
paycheck for his labor just like you do. (S)he was not born into political
office, but got there because (s)he perceived the guy that was there was not
listening to what the constituency wanted done and guess what? If (s)he got
elected, the guy was NOT doing what the constituency wanted or they would
have kept the other guy in office.

So don't bitch about "fighting city hall". If you don't like the way things
are being done, run for the office. One of two things will happen. You
will get elected and then YOU get the opportunity to listen to what your
neighbors want to have done. Or, you will lose, but that gives you the
chops for the next four years to call up the winner and remind them that you
got damn near as many votes as they did and this law they are writing is not
a good idea.

Remember Jefferson: "For democracy to fail it is only necessary that good
men do nothing."


Jim
Nevada County Supervisor (Commissioner), Retired
In 8 years rebuilt the airport, built a new jail, a new library, a new
sanitary landfill, and kept 25,000 voters reasonably happy.

[Ken Finney]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lou" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> I read the same thing Jim, but I have the question of:
>> greatav8or, how do you know all this information? Are you the person in
>> question?
>
> No I was not the guy in question. I was just trying to interpret the
> legalese, and that is how it read to me.
>
> I do not think that any city can regulate what you do behind CLOSED doors,
> as long as it is not commercial in nature.
>
> The other guy that had his insurance canceled has a hard lick, but there
> is
> basis from the department of insurance and the fire marshal against
> manufacturing and repair of aircraft without fire suppression. If he were
> to install sprinklers and fire rated separation between his work area and
> the rest of the house, he probably would not have a problem getting
> insurance, but the premiums could be higher, based on the type of activity
> going on in that higher risk environment.

Several cities (not to mention areas with covenants) have prohibited working
on cars in one's garage, even with the door closed.

[Ken Finney]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> You all are getting up in arms about a supposed slap in the face to
> homebuilt aircraft. Truth be told, you could probably find a similar
> statute about firearms, muscle cars, or ham radio antennas in a lot of
> municipalities around the country.
>
> Here's the blunt truth of it. The fellow that wrote that statute thought
> (s)he was doing the right thing. That's right. Nobody in local elected
> office does something because they are inherently evil. They saw what
> they perceived as something the majority of the constituency wanted and
> wrote the law accordingly.
>
> The parallel to this is that the fellow that wrote it put his/her pants on
> in the morning one leg at a time, just like you do. (S)he works and draws
> a paycheck for his labor just like you do. (S)he was not born into
> political office, but got there because (s)he perceived the guy that was
> there was not listening to what the constituency wanted done and guess
> what? If (s)he got elected, the guy was NOT doing what the constituency
> wanted or they would have kept the other guy in office.
>
> So don't bitch about "fighting city hall". If you don't like the way
> things are being done, run for the office. One of two things will happen.
> You will get elected and then YOU get the opportunity to listen to what
> your neighbors want to have done. Or, you will lose, but that gives you
> the chops for the next four years to call up the winner and remind them
> that you got damn near as many votes as they did and this law they are
> writing is not a good idea.
>
> Remember Jefferson: "For democracy to fail it is only necessary that good
> men do nothing."
>
>
> Jim
> Nevada County Supervisor (Commissioner), Retired
> In 8 years rebuilt the airport, built a new jail, a new library, a new
> sanitary landfill, and kept 25,000 voters reasonably happy.
>

And to add to Jim's post: Attend the city council meetings and find out
what the real problem is/was. I'm betting that someone was bucking rivets
at 1 AM. All it would take is one neighbor bucking rivets at 1 AM for me to
try to get homebuilding declared at capital offense!

[ET]

"Ken Finney" > wrote in
:

>
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You all are getting up in arms about a supposed slap in the face to
>> homebuilt aircraft. Truth be told, you could probably find a similar
>> statute about firearms, muscle cars, or ham radio antennas in a lot
>> of municipalities around the country.
>>
>> Here's the blunt truth of it. The fellow that wrote that statute
>> thought (s)he was doing the right thing. That's right. Nobody in
>> local elected office does something because they are inherently evil.
>> They saw what they perceived as something the majority of the
>> constituency wanted and wrote the law accordingly.
>>
>> The parallel to this is that the fellow that wrote it put his/her
>> pants on in the morning one leg at a time, just like you do. (S)he
>> works and draws a paycheck for his labor just like you do. (S)he was
>> not born into political office, but got there because (s)he perceived
>> the guy that was there was not listening to what the constituency
>> wanted done and guess what? If (s)he got elected, the guy was NOT
>> doing what the constituency wanted or they would have kept the other
>> guy in office.
>>
>> So don't bitch about "fighting city hall". If you don't like the way
>> things are being done, run for the office. One of two things will
>> happen. You will get elected and then YOU get the opportunity to
>> listen to what your neighbors want to have done. Or, you will lose,
>> but that gives you the chops for the next four years to call up the
>> winner and remind them that you got damn near as many votes as they
>> did and this law they are writing is not a good idea.
>>
>> Remember Jefferson: "For democracy to fail it is only necessary that
>> good men do nothing."
>>
>>
>> Jim
>> Nevada County Supervisor (Commissioner), Retired
>> In 8 years rebuilt the airport, built a new jail, a new library, a
>> new sanitary landfill, and kept 25,000 voters reasonably happy.
>>
>
> And to add to Jim's post: Attend the city council meetings and find
> out what the real problem is/was. I'm betting that someone was
> bucking rivets at 1 AM. All it would take is one neighbor bucking
> rivets at 1 AM for me to try to get homebuilding declared at capital
> offense!
>
>
>
>
>

Yeah, but there are already laws on the books in most if not all areas
about making noise over X decibles. You dont need a law about building
an aircraft in order to stop someone bucking rivets at 1am...

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[RST Engineering]

Jesus, a rational answer. What's this newsgroup coming to?

Jim



"Dan Horton" > wrote in message
ps.com...


> There are two sides to every story. Let's hear what Mr. Ray has to
> say before we wheel out the cannons.

[[email protected]]

RST Engineering wrote:
> You all are getting up in arms about a supposed slap in the face to
> homebuilt aircraft. Truth be told, you could probably find a similar
> statute about firearms, muscle cars, or ham radio antennas in a lot of
> municipalities around the country.
>
> Here's the blunt truth of it. The fellow that wrote that statute thought
> (s)he was doing the right thing. That's right. Nobody in local elected
> office does something because they are inherently evil. They saw what they
> perceived as something the majority of the constituency wanted and wrote the
> law accordingly.

The problem is that a lot of people go into poitics to satisfy a desire
(dare I say greed?) for money, power, or both. Their idea of a 'good
thing' often includes things that would be charitably described as
predatory.


>
> So don't bitch about "fighting city hall". If you don't like the way things
> are being done, run for the office.

Alternatively, speak out about those who are running.

> ...
>
> Remember Jefferson: "For democracy to fail it is only necessary that good
> men do nothing."
>

Hmm, just nitpicking here but that sounds too similar to a famous
"For the triumph of evil" saying attributed to someone else.

--

FF

[Ken Finney]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Jesus, a rational answer. What's this newsgroup coming to?
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> "Dan Horton" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>
>
>> There are two sides to every story. Let's hear what Mr. Ray has to
>> say before we wheel out the cannons.
>

"Wheel out the cannons"? This is an aviation group, we just need his GPS
coordinates! ;^)

[greatav8or]

good luck dan. as of last week, he hasn't been very interested in
talking to anyone from the local eaa chpt about the amendment, or
anything else. i truly hope u have more luck with councilman ray than
the rest of us. but thank u for your interest and initiative in trying
to help out. any assistance is greatly appreciated.


Dan Horton wrote:
> Gentlemen,
> If you follow the provided link to the Jacksonville City Council
> website (and read the actual bill at the other link), you will find the
> bill's sponsor:
>
> http://www.coj.net/City+Council/District+1/default.htm
>
> The Councilman's name is Lake Ray. I have placed a call to Mr.
> Ray's office, and I am promised that he will return the call. In due
> course I will report back here.
>
> There are two sides to every story. Let's hear what Mr. Ray has to
> say before we wheel out the cannons.
>
> My experience with local politics is that a bill can be rescinded
> as easily as it was created (more so really), IF the original sponsor
> makes the request. Sometimes a baseball bat is required, but it is
> usually better to listen, then persuade.
>
> Dan Horton

[Dan Horton]

<<i truly hope u have more luck with councilman ray than the rest of
us>>

We'll see.

Ordinance 2006-543-E was introduced at the May 9th council meeting.
At the May 23rd council meeting the proposed ordinance was read, and
the floor was opened for public comment. It was then sent to the Land
Use and Zoning Committee. They considered it at their June 6th meeting
and voted 4-0 to approve. It was read again at the June 13th city
council meeting, and again the floor was opened for public comment.
The Council voted 16-0 to approve. Councilman Ray wasn't even present.
Clearly there was no need for him to be there.

Somebody really ****ed off your city council.

Ok, Mr. Christley posted about some nut case with a trashed front
yard full of airplane junk. Do you have a local that fits the
description?

Dan Horton

[Brian[_3_]]

And you will get the full story. I am the thorn in the side of the
Jacksonville city council. I had actually planned on puting all of the
relevant facts on a web site before this hit the world so that people
could go there and get the full story. I expect to have it up sometime
tomorrow. The address will be www.jaxairplane.com. Building web sites
is not me specialty and this is a new domain name so it may take two
days to get it up and running. I will put up another post here as soon
as it is up.

To answer a few questions; no I am not the nut on 20/20, I am an
average homebuilder like most of us. I had a Sonerai with folding
wings on a trailer parked in the driveway on the side of my house the
last time I went to court. With the last ticket I got I had a Pitts
S-1 fuselage on a trailer in the same spot. I don't taxii down the
street and the last engine run I did was about 3-5 minutes during the
day on an 1835 VW six months ago at 1/4 throttle which is no louder
than most lawn mowers.

I promise to post all the relevant information on the web site. Just
be patient for a day or two.


Lou wrote:
> I've got to tell you, the more I read these post the more I think there
> is something huge missing. Don't know what it is but we are not getting
> the full information.
> Lou

[Brian[_3_]]

I called Mr. Ray the first time the city took me to court on this.
Someone suggested that I talk to my city councilman on the issue. I
could not get a return phone call. I got to speak to his assistant and
she relayed me the message that he was not going to get involved in a
dispute between two neighbors. Well, we see how that held up.

I stopped by his office at city hall a few days ago and tried to talk
to him or set up a meeting and I was not able to do so.

Dan Horton wrote:
> Gentlemen,
> If you follow the provided link to the Jacksonville City Council
> website (and read the actual bill at the other link), you will find the
> bill's sponsor:
>
> http://www.coj.net/City+Council/District+1/default.htm
>
> The Councilman's name is Lake Ray. I have placed a call to Mr.
> Ray's office, and I am promised that he will return the call. In due
> course I will report back here.
>
> There are two sides to every story. Let's hear what Mr. Ray has to
> say before we wheel out the cannons.
>
> My experience with local politics is that a bill can be rescinded
> as easily as it was created (more so really), IF the original sponsor
> makes the request. Sometimes a baseball bat is required, but it is
> usually better to listen, then persuade.
>
> Dan Horton

[UltraJohn[_1_]]

greatav8or wrote:

components. i can't help but think that it all revolves around
> property value and city taxes collected for that property value. they
> want every last penny they can squeeze outta ya so they can pay for
> their over zealous city expansion and national football franchise and
> stadium upkeep, not to mention interstate highway expansion, while the
> intercity traffic becomes longer daily grid-lock.

Yeah and tryin to take our Naval Air Station away from us!
John in Virginia Baach (Oceana NA)
;-)

"just jokin!"

[Jim Hall]

Wouldn't the appropriate header in a post mentioning Bush be "POS"?

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 05:04:52 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Alan Petrillo" > wrote
>>
>> We haven't been living in America since GWB was appointed President.
>
>Please add "POL: to the subject line of your post, when you throw in crap
>like that.
>
>Oh, by the way, I'm "SURE" that GWB really gives a **** what someone is
>doing in podunk county, building an airplane. That is local politics,
>plain and simple.

[Stella Starr]

Don W wrote:
> I wonder what the city/county concerns that are leading to the
> regulations are....
>
> I wholeheartedly agree that our city/county governments are passing
> ordinances that interfere with a persons right to "pursuit of happiness"
> all the time.

Y'know, in most places it takes two or three readings to pass an
ordinance, and the idea's supposed to be (folks on the council think
they're doing this) to inform the public and get their input.

It's harder than they think to follow the workings of local government,
but a good pro-active airport manager will go to ALL the meetings,
county and city and township or whatever governing boards control stuff,
and will make it a point to be on good terms with every member and
constantly point out the economic and social value of the airport.

I've known a good airport manager or two, and they consider that part of
their job, just like making sure realtors tell clients that their house
happens to be located next to an airport, and passing on stuff like
zoning plans and potential ordinances to the pilots and owners at the
airport so they can get involved themselves.

If your airport doesn't have a manager that good, can one be found?

[greatav8or]

duval county has an abundance of airports. all the hangers are rented
with long waiting lists to anyone who would like to get one. after
getting on the list, we will probably die, while waiting for the guy
with the hanger to die. the airport managers have a cash cow because
of the port authority controlling any building of new hangers(u can
build a hanger but the airport will own it), adding fly-in communities
or anything else that would allow the aviation community to to thrive
in this town. so, why should the airport managers do anything extra,
like attending city council meetings, as long as they have all the
business they can handle.(by default) the sad part of all this is the
fact that naval aviation was responsible for a good part of what this
city is today. my my, how quickly we forget where our roots are. i
really hate people who move out by the airport because land is cheap an
then start complaining about all the freaking airplane noise, then have
the city shut down the airport. oh! wait, that was the people that
went west because there was nothing but indians out there, then they
killed all the indians to make more room. maybe this is just a pattern
that humans have to keep repeating. u think?


Stella Starr wrote:
> Don W wrote:
> > I wonder what the city/county concerns that are leading to the
> > regulations are....
> >
> > I wholeheartedly agree that our city/county governments are passing
> > ordinances that interfere with a persons right to "pursuit of happiness"
> > all the time.
>
> Y'know, in most places it takes two or three readings to pass an
> ordinance, and the idea's supposed to be (folks on the council think
> they're doing this) to inform the public and get their input.
>
> It's harder than they think to follow the workings of local government,
> but a good pro-active airport manager will go to ALL the meetings,
> county and city and township or whatever governing boards control stuff,
> and will make it a point to be on good terms with every member and
> constantly point out the economic and social value of the airport.
>
> I've known a good airport manager or two, and they consider that part of
> their job, just like making sure realtors tell clients that their house
> happens to be located next to an airport, and passing on stuff like
> zoning plans and potential ordinances to the pilots and owners at the
> airport so they can get involved themselves.
>
> If your airport doesn't have a manager that good, can one be found?

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Jim Hall" wrote)
> Wouldn't the appropriate header in a post mentioning Bush be "POS"?


"POS" ...?

You forgot Tango Uniform.


Montblack

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Jim Hall" > wrote
....
> Wouldn't the appropriate header in a post mentioning Bush be "POS"?

Yep, and I even thought about it, and forgot, before I hit send. This
thread has mostly kept all but local politics out of it, but really,
politics is at the whole root of the problem here.

There will always be gray area.
--
Jim in NC

[Scott[_1_]]

Commie *******s!

The guy who came up with that ordinance out to be imprisoned, just like
Daly of Chicago ought to be...



greatav8or wrote:

> some disturbing news was revealed at the last eaa mtg, when one of the
> members got up and passed out a copy of the latest city ordinance,
> amending what a residential dweller could do and have at their
> dwelling. enclosed is a copy of the admendment. the interesting point
> is how specifically the homebuilder was targeted, without ever being
> mentioned in the doucument. the part about the airboats was just an
> oportunity for the council members who have a problem with airboaters,
> to jump on board for a free ride. the disturbing issue is how the
> whole thing was put togeather with the most obscure notification
> imaginable. it was published in a local financial paper that has
> minimal circulation in the mainstream populace(the name escapes me at
> the moment.), however, it qualifies as public notice media.
>
> now! the ripple effect. joe flyer has been working on his $30k plus
> kit for the last however many years and now finds out he has a garage
> of illegal junk, that he can never finish, legally, due to the stroke
> of a pen. if u read it closely, u realize it includes model planes
> also.
> so now all the hobby shops can no longer sell model air plane kits to
> residents of the city(which btw, includes all the county, since the
> city limits is the county line.(makes the police and sheriff depts, one
> and the same.) the individual responsible for causing this piece of
> trash ordinance, is an eaa chapt member who lives next door to a
> busy-body that can't stand to see him working on his project at his
> home. due to here relentless resentment of his activites next door, he
> has paid numerous fines and court costs for not removing his project
> from his property. this new amendment is the final straw to shut him
> down. it would be curious to know as to how she found a receptive ear
> on the city council, to pen and pass such discriminatory legislation.
> fore warned is fore armed. don't let this happen in your town.
>
> Introduced by Council Member Lake Ray and amended on the floor of the
> council:
>
> Ordinance 2006-543-e
> An ordinance amending chapter 656 (zoning
> code), part 4 (supplementary regulations),
> subpart b (miscellaneous regulations),
> ordinance code, establishing section 656.420
> (parking, storage, construction and repair of flying craft
> and airboats in residential districts, and
> amending part 16 (definitions), section
> 656.1601 (definitions, ordinance code to
> include a definition for flying craft;
> providing an effective date.
>
> Whereas, parking or storing flying craft and airboats in unenclosed
> spaces, including a carport, is not an operation in keeping with the
> character of a residential neighborhood, and
> Whereas, repairing, testing, operating, constructing, modifying or
> altering flying aircraft and airboats anywhere on a residential lot is
> not an operation in keeping with the character of a residential
> neighborhood, now thereof.
>
> Be it ordained by the council of the city of Jacksonville:
> Section 1. Creation of section 656.420, chapter 656 ordinance code.
> Chapter 656 (zoning code), part 4 (supplementary regulations),
> ordinance code is amended to create a new section 656.420 (parking,
> storage, repair and operation flying craft and airboats in residential
> districts) to read as follows:
>
> Chapter 656 zoning code
>
> ***
> Part 4. Supplementary Regulations
>
> Subpart A. Performance standards and development criteria
>
> ***
> Sec. 656.420. Parking, storage, repair and operation of flying craft
> and airboats in residential districts.
>
> (a) Flying craft and airboats shall not be parked or stored, other
> than in completely enclosed buildings, on residentially-zoned property,
> including residential PUD districts and properties with a residential
> component in a mixed-use PUD district. Airboats may however, be parked
> or stored in the water adjacent to, on docking facilities of, or in a
> yard fronting a navigable waterbody of, a residential PUD district and
> a property in the residential portion of a mixed-use PUD district.
>
> (b) Repairing, testing, operation, constructing, modifying or altering
> flying craft and airboats shall be prohibited in all residential
> districts, including residential PUD districts and properties with a
> residential component in a mixed-use PUD district.
>
> Section 2. Amendment to section 656.1601, Ordinance Code.
>
> Section 656.1601, Ordinance Code, is hereby amended as follows:
>
> Chapter 656 zoning code
>
> ***
>
> Part 16. definitions
>
> Sec.656.1601. Definitions.
>
> ***
>
> (this does not apply to the aviation issue)Floor area means, except as
> specifically indicated in relation to particular districts and uses,
> the sum of the gross horizontal area of several floors of a building
> measured from the exterior faces of the exterior wall or from the
> centerline of the walls separating two buildings, excluding attic areas
> with a headroom of less than seven feet, unenclosed stairs or fire
> escapes, elevator structures, cooling towers, areas devoted to air
> conditioning, ventilating, heating or other building machinery and
> equipment, parking structures and basements space where the ceiling is
> not more than an average of 48 inches above the general finished and
> grade level of the adjacent portion of the lot.
>
> (this does apply to the aviation issue)Flying craft means any vehicle
> designed for navigation in the air or through outer space, including
> but not limited to airplanes, helicopters and hot air balloons.
>
> ***
>
> Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective upon
> signature by the mayor or upon becoming effective without the mayor's
> signature.
> Form approved:
>
>
> /a/ Dylan T. Reingold
>
> Office of General Counsel
> Legislation Prepared by: Dylan Reingold
>

[Scott[_1_]]

Tha may not work either. When I lived in SW Wisconsin, I kept my plane
at Viroqua, WI. They had a policy that no aircraft could be worked on
or (or built) in the hangar...



Don W wrote:

> Sounds like someone needs to talk with their city council to figure out
> what the real issues are and try to reach a compromise such that
> everyone can be happy. Getting ****ed off and ignoring your neighbor's
> concerns doesn't work well.
>
> If they were working in their closed garage and not making a lot of
> noise, then no one would even know what they were doing, and it would
> not be a concern.
>
> Now their only choice is to rent a hangar with some buddies, or move to
> another town.
>
> Like they say: "you can't fight city hall"
>
> Don W.
>
> greatav8or wrote:
>
>> some disturbing news was revealed at the last eaa mtg, when one of the
>> members got up and passed out a copy of the latest city ordinance,
>> amending what a residential dweller could do and have at their
>> dwelling. enclosed is a copy of the admendment. the interesting point
>> is how specifically the homebuilder was targeted, without ever being
>> mentioned in the doucument. the part about the airboats was just an
>> oportunity for the council members who have a problem with airboaters,
>> to jump on board for a free ride. the disturbing issue is how the
>> whole thing was put togeather with the most obscure notification
>> imaginable. it was published in a local financial paper that has
>> minimal circulation in the mainstream populace(the name escapes me at
>> the moment.), however, it qualifies as public notice media.
>>
>> now! the ripple effect. joe flyer has been working on his $30k plus
>> kit for the last however many years and now finds out he has a garage
>> of illegal junk, that he can never finish, legally, due to the stroke
>> of a pen. if u read it closely, u realize it includes model planes
>> also.
>> so now all the hobby shops can no longer sell model air plane kits to
>> residents of the city(which btw, includes all the county, since the
>> city limits is the county line.(makes the police and sheriff depts, one
>> and the same.) the individual responsible for causing this piece of
>> trash ordinance, is an eaa chapt member who lives next door to a
>> busy-body that can't stand to see him working on his project at his
>> home. due to here relentless resentment of his activites next door, he
>> has paid numerous fines and court costs for not removing his project
>> from his property. this new amendment is the final straw to shut him
>> down. it would be curious to know as to how she found a receptive ear
>> on the city council, to pen and pass such discriminatory legislation.
>> fore warned is fore armed. don't let this happen in your town.
>>
>> Introduced by Council Member Lake Ray and amended on the floor of the
>> council:
>>
>> Ordinance 2006-543-e
>> An ordinance amending chapter 656 (zoning
>> code), part 4 (supplementary regulations),
>> subpart b (miscellaneous regulations),
>> ordinance code, establishing section 656.420
>> (parking, storage, construction and repair of flying craft
>> and airboats in residential districts, and
>> amending part 16 (definitions), section
>> 656.1601 (definitions, ordinance code to
>> include a definition for flying craft;
>> providing an effective date.
>>
>> Whereas, parking or storing flying craft and airboats in unenclosed
>> spaces, including a carport, is not an operation in keeping with the
>> character of a residential neighborhood, and
>> Whereas, repairing, testing, operating, constructing, modifying or
>> altering flying aircraft and airboats anywhere on a residential lot is
>> not an operation in keeping with the character of a residential
>> neighborhood, now thereof.
>>
>> Be it ordained by the council of the city of Jacksonville:
>> Section 1. Creation of section 656.420, chapter 656 ordinance code.
>> Chapter 656 (zoning code), part 4 (supplementary regulations),
>> ordinance code is amended to create a new section 656.420 (parking,
>> storage, repair and operation flying craft and airboats in residential
>> districts) to read as follows:
>>
>> Chapter 656 zoning code
>>
>> ***
>> Part 4. Supplementary Regulations
>>
>> Subpart A. Performance standards and development criteria
>>
>> ***
>> Sec. 656.420. Parking, storage, repair and operation of flying
>> craft
>> and airboats in residential districts.
>>
>> (a) Flying craft and airboats shall not be parked or stored, other
>> than in completely enclosed buildings, on residentially-zoned property,
>> including residential PUD districts and properties with a residential
>> component in a mixed-use PUD district. Airboats may however, be parked
>> or stored in the water adjacent to, on docking facilities of, or in a
>> yard fronting a navigable waterbody of, a residential PUD district and
>> a property in the residential portion of a mixed-use PUD district.
>>
>> (b) Repairing, testing, operation, constructing, modifying or
>> altering
>> flying craft and airboats shall be prohibited in all residential
>> districts, including residential PUD districts and properties with a
>> residential component in a mixed-use PUD district.
>>
>> Section 2. Amendment to section 656.1601, Ordinance Code.
>>
>> Section 656.1601, Ordinance Code, is hereby amended as follows:
>>
>> Chapter 656 zoning code
>>
>> ***
>>
>> Part 16. definitions
>>
>> Sec.656.1601. Definitions.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> (this does not apply to the aviation issue)Floor area means,
>> except as
>> specifically indicated in relation to particular districts and uses,
>> the sum of the gross horizontal area of several floors of a building
>> measured from the exterior faces of the exterior wall or from the
>> centerline of the walls separating two buildings, excluding attic areas
>> with a headroom of less than seven feet, unenclosed stairs or fire
>> escapes, elevator structures, cooling towers, areas devoted to air
>> conditioning, ventilating, heating or other building machinery and
>> equipment, parking structures and basements space where the ceiling is
>> not more than an average of 48 inches above the general finished and
>> grade level of the adjacent portion of the lot.
>>
>> (this does apply to the aviation issue)Flying craft means any vehicle
>> designed for navigation in the air or through outer space, including
>> but not limited to airplanes, helicopters and hot air balloons.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become
>> effective upon
>> signature by the mayor or upon becoming effective without the mayor's
>> signature.
>> Form approved:
>>
>>
>> /a/ Dylan T. Reingold
>>
>> Office of General Counsel
>> Legislation Prepared by: Dylan Reingold
>>
>

[Scott[_1_]]

That may be true, but why only target airboats and airplanes (is the
"testing" the issue because of rotating propellor blades)? What about
guys building hotrods and leaving them out in the driveway, half assembled?



Morgans wrote:

> "Don W" > wrote in message
> . net...
>
>>Sounds like someone needs to talk with their city
>>council to figure out what the real issues are and
>>try to reach a compromise such that everyone can
>>be happy. Getting ****ed off and ignoring your
>>neighbor's concerns doesn't work well.
>>
>>If they were working in their closed garage and
>>not making a lot of noise, then no one would even
>>know what they were doing, and it would not be a
>>concern.
>
>
> I read it as only prohibiting it, if the craft was an unenclosed garage.
> No?

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Scott" > wrote
> Tha may not work either. When I lived in SW Wisconsin, I kept my plane
> at Viroqua, WI. They had a policy that no aircraft could be worked on
> or (or built) in the hangar...

That would be because of insurance. If the hangar does not have fire
suppression equipment (sprinklers) it is within their right to prevent it.
--
Jim in NC

[Dan Horton]

Gentlemen,
Just got off the phone.

First call received was from Councilman Ray's executive assistant.
We had a nice conversation. As suspected, the ordinance is the result
of a protracted problem with a single individual, a Mr. Kraut of
Mayapple Rd in Jacksonville. I did not debate the wisdom of a sweeping
ordinance to address a single idiot. My goal was to gather information
and get a handle on the feelings behind the actions. My impression is
that Mr. Kraut has handed aircraft builders an uphill battle.

Second call was mine, to Randy Hansen at EAA HQ. I've passed along
all I know about the problem. Randy was already aware of the issue. A
member of EAA's Legal Advisory Council has volunteered to take up the
matter with the City Attorney, and will report, in person, at Oshkosh
next week. Any action taken will be after the Convention.

I strongly suggest that everyone be on their best behavior. Do
nothing to aggravate anyone at the City of Jacksonville, or you may
make the problem worse.

Dan Horton

[Dan Horton]

Brian wrote:
<< I am the thorn in the side of the Jacksonville city council.>>

Yeah, you really showed 'em.

<<I had actually planned on puting all of the relevant facts on a web
site before this hit the world so that people could go there and get
the full story.>>

Let me help you with reality. City Councils control almost all the
airports in this United States, not to mention all the zoning. They
respond to voters (as they should), and the huge majority of voters are
not pilots.

You just put an "no aircraft fabrication" ordinance on the books in
the 15th largest city in the US. You, not them. They didn't know we
existed until you made an ass out of yourself. As an encore to your
performance, you may as well crash in a schoolyard or buzz the state
capitol.

The best thing you could do to correct the mess in Jacksonville is
to write an abject letter of apology to each and every city councilman,
not the mention the zoning inspectors. You damn sure owe you fellow
homebuilders an apology.

Dan Horton

[Ernest Christley]

Dan Horton wrote:

> The best thing you could do to correct the mess in Jacksonville is
> to write an abject letter of apology to each and every city councilman,
> not the mention the zoning inspectors. You damn sure owe you fellow
> homebuilders an apology.
>
> Dan Horton
>

That's awful harsh, Dan. Can you relate what the Councilman's side of
the story is. Brian's side of the story seems awfully mellow, but we
haven't heard the other side.


--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[[email protected]]

Mr Horton,

I'm not quite sure how to answer your posts concerning anti aircraft
zoning in Jacksonville. You seem to infer that you can call up and talk
to councilmen at will. You must be a powerful man since no one else in
our EAA chapter can get any type of answer from anyone. I like that you
only talked to someone who was involved in the anti aircraft side, but
you somehow seem to know both sides. I hesitate to offer another
opinion since you obviously know much more than the rest of us, but
here goes anyway.
The gentleman that you have labeled an "idiot" is an extrremely cordial
and courteous man. The rest of us have been outraged at the way he has
been treated and have had many suggestions of ways to get even. He has
not contemplated any of them. I commend his civility, as I am not sure
if I would hold up under the same aggravation.
For a year and a half he tried to get along with his neighbor, but
nothing he did satisfied her. Yes, sometimes when he needed the room he
would work on things in his front yard. Oh the humanity! Can you
imagine a country where you are free to pursue the things that make you
happy? Wait, the pursuit of happiness, I've heard of that somewhere.
Maybe Brian should move to that country.
Mr Horton I can only imagine that you are one of those people that
think the government needs to be involved in the minutiae of our life,
I do not. Though we do need laws to live by, they should be underpinned
by the live and let live motto. If we all could tell each other what we
would not allow, then no one would be able to do anything.
Brian has done nothing more than excercise his right to do something he
enjoys. By the way, he actually flew a plane he built to Oshkosh and
back from Florida. I wonder what piloting expertise you possess. I
think I'll take my chances with Brian flying in the air space above the
local schools, you I might worry about.

My apologies to your obviously superior knowledge of everything,
Milford

[Dan Horton]

<<That's awful harsh, Dan.>>

Ernest, I've already apologized to the councilman's assistant on
behalf of myself and my peers (meaning you). Twice actually, once on
the phone and once in a follow-up note. In my case it is a simple case
of human relations. An unreserved apology from Brian might have real
value.

<<Can you relate what the Councilman's side of the story is.>>

I can't have the whole story and probably never will. One phone
call. The councilman's assistant was very careful with her words, as
she should be. It started as an entirely mundane case of neighbor
complaint. Brian's airplane parking spot is hard against the
neighbor's bedroom window. It also appears that he does design and
prototype manufacturing work from home, in a shed behind the house. I
don't know if that too was a city problem, but it is rarely popular
with neighbors. Brian refused to comply with the usual warnings, so
they moved to a citation under existing code and things escalated from
there. There was apparently a trip to the zoning office that included
intemporate behavior and most of the seven words, plus other exchanges,
court appearances then and upcoming, etc.

In a city the size of Jacksonville (huge), 16 councilmen don't slam
dunk new legislation just to deal with a single individual unless they
are ****ed. My point is that we (pilots and builders) are just plain
stupid if we **** off city officials. Even when wrong they hold all
the cards. The cards are called votes, and we are a tiny minority.

I've drank a lot of beer with some of the city councilmen who run my
airport. I helped a few more get elected last time around. They
return my phone calls. Maybe it is a better way?

Dan

[[email protected]]

I would challenge this regulation as in infringment on Liberty. The
concept of Liberty is recognized in the Constitution's Preamble. It
embodies the notion that men have the right to do what does not harm
the interests of others.

It would be a tough case but you might find a sympathetic judge who
would say "Noise can be regulated, unslightly messes can be regulated,
parking aircraft and airboats in a driveway can be regulated, but a man
has the right to do what he wants in his own home or in his own back
yard so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. The City
of Jacksonville has not demonstrated how a man working on an airboat or
airplane in his own home or yard infringes in any substantial way on
the rights of others. Accordingly, such acts are protected by the
Constitutional doctrine of Liberty."

If you choose to challenge the law, then go straight to federal
district court and file a simple, plain complaint alledging that the
regulation, as written, deprives you of your liberty under the
Constitution Preamble to do what you want in your own home. Stranger
cases have been won.

[Dan Horton]

Mr Horton,
<<You seem to infer that you can call up and talk to councilmen at
will.>>

I can, at least here in my town, but not because I'm "powerful". I'm
not.

<<..no one else in our EAA chapter can get any type of answer from
anyone.>>

Did you establish a prior positive relationship? Did you attend the
public meetings?

<<..and have had many suggestions of ways to get even.>>

Good for him. It doesn't works well.

<<For a year and a half he tried to get along with his neighbor..>>

By chance has that neighbor lived there quite a while? Not an
assertion, just curious.

<<Yes, sometimes when he needed the room he would work on things in his
front yard.>>

Always popular.

<<Mr Horton I can only imagine that you are one of those people that
think the government needs to be involved in the minutiae of our
life..>>

Nope.

<<Brian has done nothing more than excercise his right to do something
he enjoys.>>

And the result was?.

<< By the way, he actually flew a plane he built to Oshkosh and back
from Florida.

My compliments.

<<I wonder what piloting expertise you possess.>>

Uhhh, I only flew mine to Oshkosh AND Florida.

<<My apologies to your obviously superior knowledge of everything>>

I respect a man who defends his friends, right or wrong. I'm serious.

Dan

[Dan Horton]

<< any of the six public hearings?>>

Excuse me, five public hearings, not six.

Dan Horton

[[email protected]]

Dan Horton wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> << I am the thorn in the side of the Jacksonville city council.>>
>
> Yeah, you really showed 'em.
>
> <<I had actually planned on puting all of the relevant facts on a web
> site before this hit the world so that people could go there and get
> the full story.>>
>
> Let me help you with reality. City Councils control almost all the
> airports in this United States, not to mention all the zoning. They
> respond to voters (as they should), and the huge majority of voters are
> not pilots.
>
> You just put an "no aircraft fabrication" ordinance on the books in
> the 15th largest city in the US. You, not them. They didn't know we
> existed until you made an ass out of yourself. As an encore to your
> performance, you may as well crash in a schoolyard or buzz the state
> capitol.
>
> The best thing you could do to correct the mess in Jacksonville is
> to write an abject letter of apology to each and every city councilman,
> not the mention the zoning inspectors. You damn sure owe you fellow
> homebuilders an apology.
>
> Dan Horton


Could you please elaborate on what, exactly, he did to draw
attention to himself before the CIty began ticketing him
for things that were NOT violations of local ordinaces?

--

FF

[Ernest Christley]

Dan Horton wrote:
> <<That's awful harsh, Dan.>>
>
> Ernest, I've already apologized to the councilman's assistant on
> behalf of myself and my peers (meaning you).

I can apologize for myself when necessary, thank you very much.

> In a city the size of Jacksonville (huge), 16 councilmen don't slam
> dunk new legislation just to deal with a single individual unless they
> are ****ed. My point is that we (pilots and builders) are just plain
> stupid if we **** off city officials. Even when wrong they hold all
> the cards. The cards are called votes, and we are a tiny minority.
>
> I've drank a lot of beer with some of the city councilmen who run my
> airport. I helped a few more get elected last time around. They
> return my phone calls. Maybe it is a better way?
>
> Dan
>

Some places call that the "good ol' boy network". Councilmen passing
laws impacting the 15th largest city in America, stripping possibly
millions of their rights (even if they choose not to exercise them),
because the are '****ed' is no more excusable than the use of all seven
words. Worse actually. We elect officials and expect them to act like
adults, not spoiled children. The idea of outlawing a specific
activity, because of one incident is reprehensible.

Yes, elected officials should follow the consituents wishes, but doesn't
it seem funny that they only outlawed an activity that wouldn't be
objected to except by a small minority. If building manufacturing
prototypes was the problem, why not outlaw building manufacturing
prototypes. As such, I will reiterate my original opinions and feelings
on the issue:

If I were a lawyer (and I'm not...don't even play one on TV), I would
push the equal protection under the law ideas. First, take issue with
their definition of just what is "keeping with the nature of a
residential neighborhood". And then bring up the issue of people
changing their own car's oil or airfilter, or even painting a lawn chair.

Personally, I see this as a continued trend in the transformation of the
American public from citizens to consumers. (You're only allowed to do
it if they sell a kit for it at Home Depot.)

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Brian[_3_]]

See more info at www.jaxairplane.com

None of us knew about the public hearings. I see hearings advertized
in the Florida Times Union all the time. It is the local Jacksonville
paper with a circulation of about 169,000. This was published twice in
the Financial Times which none of us had even heard of. It has a
circulation of about 5,500 and from what I know of it is the newspaper
of the circuit court and is read by lawyers and politicians, not the
average Jacksonville citizen. What their criteria is for which paper
they publish something like this in is something I don't know.

I do have fourteen audio tapes of two of the city council meetings I am
sorting through to find the relative parts and I will be picking up two
DVDs of meetings tomorrow.

Dan Horton wrote:
> Milford or Brian,
> We do need information. First we have some information from the public
> record.
>
> Like any new ordinance, this one did not spring forth full grown. The
> ordinance started with a public reading at a City Council meeting on
> May 9th. From there it was referred to the zoning committee for their
> May 16th public hearing. It was read again at the next Council meeting
> (May 23rd), the floor was opened for public comment, and it was then
> rereferred back to zoning. The zoning committee held their next public
> hearing on June 6th. It then went back to the Council for the June 13th
> meeting, public comment was invited one last time, then the council
> members voted 16-aye.
>
> Six public hearings, plus multiple publishings in the local newspaper
> of record.
>
> It is clear that Brian's contest with the city was ongoing long before
> May. At least one source reports hearing the story from Brain at S&F,
> yet Milton infers (in the intial post of this thread) that the new
> ordinance was a surprise. He says "the whole thing was put togeather
> with the most obscure notification imaginable."
>
> Specific questions:
>
> Did Brian discuss any of his ongoing battle with his local peers,
> perhaps at chapter meetings, prior to May? (Recall that he had already
> "won" in court at least once, following a citation under older code.)
>
> If yes, did anyone pro-builder (Milford, Brian, Brian's attorney, local
> builders, EAA staff or attorney) attend any of the six public hearings?
>
>
> Dan Horton

[pbc76049]

Why go and fight it the hard way. This is CLEARLY a violation of
NAFTA as it creates an illegal/unreasonable restraint of trade in
products normally sold without restriction. NAFTA has, in one of its many
chapters, a federal mandate that all laws erected which create restraints
of trade must be abolished. File a motion in Federal court and let the feds
do it.

I'd also get the FAA involved and screw with the cities ability to get
airport
funding until it is overturned.

Have a great day

Scott


> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I would challenge this regulation as in infringment on Liberty. The
> concept of Liberty is recognized in the Constitution's Preamble. It
> embodies the notion that men have the right to do what does not harm
> the interests of others.
>
> It would be a tough case but you might find a sympathetic judge who
> would say "Noise can be regulated, unslightly messes can be regulated,
> parking aircraft and airboats in a driveway can be regulated, but a man
> has the right to do what he wants in his own home or in his own back
> yard so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. The City
> of Jacksonville has not demonstrated how a man working on an airboat or
> airplane in his own home or yard infringes in any substantial way on
> the rights of others. Accordingly, such acts are protected by the
> Constitutional doctrine of Liberty."
>
> If you choose to challenge the law, then go straight to federal
> district court and file a simple, plain complaint alledging that the
> regulation, as written, deprives you of your liberty under the
> Constitution Preamble to do what you want in your own home. Stranger
> cases have been won.
>

[Dan Horton]

<<Could you please elaborate on what, exactly, he did to draw attention
to himself before the CIty began ticketing him for things that were NOT
violations of local ordinaces?>>

Facts continue to trickle in.

A partial picture can be found in the court ruling published on Brian's
website:

http://www.jaxairplane.com/images/Final%20Order.PDF

It notes four police calls and parking an airplane project in the front
yard, all prior to the first citation.

Brian, specific question please: In addition to the police calls, how
many times were you visited by someone from the zoning enforcement
office prior to the first citation?

Dan Horton

[RST Engineering]

You clearly don't have a clue.

Jim



"pbc76049" > wrote in message
...
> Why go and fight it the hard way. This is CLEARLY a violation of
> NAFTA as it creates an illegal/unreasonable restraint of trade in
> products normally sold without restriction. NAFTA has, in one of its many
> chapters, a federal mandate that all laws erected which create restraints
> of trade must be abolished. File a motion in Federal court and let the
> feds do it.
>
> I'd also get the FAA involved and screw with the cities ability to get
> airport
> funding until it is overturned.

[Dan Horton]

<<I can apologize for myself when necessary, thank you very much.>>

Figured you would say that <g> No problem Ernest, I understand.

<<Councilmen passing laws (snip) because they are '****ed' is no more
excusable than the use of all seven words.>>

Couldn't agree more. I too find Ordinance 2006-543-E to be
reprehensible.

Dan

[Morgans[_3_]]

> <<Councilmen passing laws (snip) because they are '****ed' is no more
> excusable than the use of all seven words.>>
>
> Couldn't agree more. I too find Ordinance 2006-543-E to be
> reprehensible.

All true, but you have to know who has the power in life, and then not ****
on his tire.

The use of the "seven last words" was the straw that broke the camel's back,
I fear. I hope he enjoyed them, because I always want to leave a scr*wing
with a smile on my face.

The results are predictable.
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Logajan]

"Brian" > wrote:
> Lots of people have asked me to put up some pictures on my web site so
> they could get an idea on what my house looks like compared to the
> other houses in my neighbohood. Some people are assuming that I live
> in a beautiful neighborhood and I have an airplane junkyard on my front
> lawn. Looking at the pictres should give everyone a sense of what the
> truth really is. I have also added to the questions section. Look at
> www.jaxairplane.com.

Looks like an average neighborhood; neither a yuppie one nor a blighted
one, IMHO. Nothing about your planes looks out of the ordinary.

By the way, I plugged your address into Google maps and got the following
satellite image:

http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=7381+Mayapple+Road,+Jacksonville,+FL&ie=UTF8&ll=30.34819,-81.573843&spn=0.001724,0.00339&t=k&om=1

> I also want to thank a lot of the people that have voiced their opinion
> and sided against me. With few exceptions, those giving an opinion
> different than mine have been courteous and not started an email flame
> war.

That's pretty cool. I hope you do well in your fight against city hall.

[[email protected]]

Brian wrote:
> Lots of people have asked me to put up some pictures on my web site so
> they could get an idea on what my house looks like compared to the
> other houses in my neighbohood. Some people are assuming that I live
> in a beautiful neighborhood and I have an airplane junkyard on my front
> lawn. Looking at the pictres should give everyone a sense of what the
> truth really is. I have also added to the questions section. Look at
> www.jaxairplane.com.
>

It appears that short chain link fence was replaced by a six-foot
solid wood board privacy fence. Who owns that fence?

--

FF

[Brian[_3_]]

Me.

wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > Lots of people have asked me to put up some pictures on my web site so
> > they could get an idea on what my house looks like compared to the
> > other houses in my neighbohood. Some people are assuming that I live
> > in a beautiful neighborhood and I have an airplane junkyard on my front
> > lawn. Looking at the pictres should give everyone a sense of what the
> > truth really is. I have also added to the questions section. Look at
> > www.jaxairplane.com.
> >
>
> It appears that short chain link fence was replaced by a six-foot
> solid wood board privacy fence. Who owns that fence?
>
> --
>
> FF

[Dan Horton]

<<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

[Jim Logajan]

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

What's your plan?

[Dave[_2_]]

"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.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"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

[Jerry Springer]

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

[Dan Horton]

<<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

[Morgans[_3_]]

"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

[[email protected]]

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

[Morgans[_3_]]

> 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

[Dan Horton]

<<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

[[email protected]]

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

[Dave[_2_]]

Brian, hide the aircraft and take up making steel drums. It takes a long
time to beat one of those suckers into shape. Invite a nice carribean band
over to help you tune it, at 8. AM, on Sunday.

"Dan Horton" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> <<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
>

[Dave[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> 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!
>
>

Would you have given the same advice to the bunch that were targeted by the
Stop the noise crowd? It was only four pilots, screw 'em! As long as they
don't target you you're ready to let other flyers swing in the noose? AOPA
should be there for this guy too!
http://www.aopa.org/prez/prespos/2004/pp0404.html

[Ken Finney]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> 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.
>

There are already areas that ban working on cars in your garage, I suggest
that SEMA.org might be of some help.

[Morgans[_3_]]

> > 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.

I do agree with you, with reservation.

We shall have to see, if the fight goes on, if the other backyard ventures
you mentioned do join forces. Time will be the only judge.

I predict that there will be nary a peep from those other groups. Time will
tell.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_3_]]

> Would you have given the same advice to the bunch that were targeted by
the
> Stop the noise crowd? It was only four pilots, screw 'em! As long as they
> don't target you you're ready to let other flyers swing in the noose?
AOPA
> should be there for this guy too!
> http://www.aopa.org/prez/prespos/2004/pp0404.html

Wait a minute here. You are talking about one group of pilots supporting
another group of pilots. Yes, AOPA and the other pilots should get behind
the four pilots.

The other groups I mentioned not getting behind the anti home-building in
Jacksonville, are other things not related in any way to flying, like hot
rods, pottery, cabinet shops, boating, ect. My supposition is that they
will not get involved.

I agree that AOPA and EAA should get lined up to get this repealed. I think
that fighting it by walking it through the legal system is a mistake. They
(AOPA and EAA) should work to get it repealed at the current level.
Fighting a legal battle and losing would be bad, and set precedence for
other cities and counties to make their own laws from, and THAT would be
bad. It needs to go away, without legal precedence being formed.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Morgans wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I agree that AOPA and EAA should get lined up to get this repealed. I think
> that fighting it by walking it through the legal system is a mistake. They
> (AOPA and EAA) should work to get it repealed at the current level.
> Fighting a legal battle and losing would be bad, and set precedence for
> other cities and counties to make their own laws from, and THAT would be
> bad. It needs to go away, without legal precedence being formed.
>

Keep in mind that even if ordinances that arbitrarily and needlessly
interfere with the quiet enjoyment of one's property are upheld, that
doe prevernt the EAA and AOPA from working to repeal them or
stop them from being passed in the first place.

--

FF

[Morgans[_3_]]

> wrote
> Keep in mind that even if ordinances that arbitrarily and needlessly
> interfere with the quiet enjoyment of one's property are upheld, that
> doe prevernt the EAA and AOPA from working to repeal them or
> stop them from being passed in the first place.

I had absolutely no idea what you just tried to say.

Try again?

[Jerry Springer]

Morgans wrote:
> > wrote
>
>>Keep in mind that even if ordinances that arbitrarily and needlessly
>>interfere with the quiet enjoyment of one's property are upheld, that
>>doe prevernt the EAA and AOPA from working to repeal them or
>>stop them from being passed in the first place.
>
>
> I had absolutely no idea what you just tried to say.
>
> Try again?

My guess is he menat "dose not" prevent EAA and AOPA........

[[email protected]]

Jerry Springer wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
> > > wrote
> >
> >>Keep in mind that even if ordinances that arbitrarily and needlessly
> >>interfere with the quiet enjoyment of one's property are upheld, that
> >>doe prevernt the EAA and AOPA from working to repeal them or
> >>stop them from being passed in the first place.
> >
> >
> > I had absolutely no idea what you just tried to say.
> >
> > Try again?
>
> My guess is he menat "dose not" prevent EAA and AOPA........

Good geuss.

The older I get the harder it gets to see typos.

--

FF

[blackbird]

Just to let you know.....I have changed my homeowners insurance to a
company that will let me have ANYTHING in my yard as long as it is not
in my house.....

I have been following this thread as Jax. is close to me....I think
that our RIGHTS are being trampled on by others....

As an EAA president so far I have heard NOTHING from the National group
as I feared would happen ...not so much as an e-mail......However,

I would think that putting up a privacy fence and not making noise at
3:00 a.m. is very reasonable for a neighbor to put up with....I have
recieved e-mails concerning folks working on various HOBBIES in their
homes......

IF the polilticians are NOT stopped in their tracks with protests ....I
FEAR that it will soon be ILLEGAL for you to own anything that you
want.......

THINK I AM KIDDING>>>>>

Can you believe that old saying that I would buy a large number of
acres and build a house in the middle and only have friends
over......well I have done that....now I am going to put a gate
up.......to keep out the busy bodies..........and post the no
trespassing signs to protect me and mine.....

What falls out of the sky is not my fault......Runway in back
yard....LOL......


Just wondering where we will be in 20 years.......That's why I get
along with folks who were born pre 1960.....LOL.....

Wayne

[jls]

"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.

[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...>

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

Dan

[greatav8or]

and if the city council isn't enough of a headach, we always have the
hoa to add to the misery: copied from msn headlines today.
Wind chimes hanging from front porches, basketball hoops in driveways,
shampoo bottles on bathroom windowsills. Innocent markers of daily
life? Depends on where -- and among whom -- you live.

For the 57 million Americans living under homeowner's associations
(HOAs), these can be flagrant violations of their neighborhood
regulations, costing them hundreds in fines -- and at the worst, their
very homes.

"No one tells buyers what deep doo-doo they can get into," says George
Staropoli, who lives in an HOA in Scottsdale, Ariz., and founded
Citizens For Constitutional Local Government, a homeowner's rights
group. "It's a government outside the U.S. government."

it's really all about power, isn't it. it has nothing to do with
rights, privileges, fairness or common sense. when u realize how much
the housing market makes up, of the worth of this country, it becomes
obvious why a city would have such a knee jerk response to a perceived
problem of loss of possible revenue from the property tax base. brian
lives in one of the older residential sections of the city, that has a
well established and deeply entrenched retiree populace, that is just
looking out for number one. and can u blame em? they have nothing
else left in life to look forward to. when they croak, estate taxes on
a well manicured retirees home is certainly worth more without some
rundown junk yard next door.

at least the wright brothers had a bicycle shop to work out of so the
residential neighbors didn't have a chance to stop aviation before it
could begin.

Dave wrote:
> Brian, hide the aircraft and take up making steel drums. It takes a long
> time to beat one of those suckers into shape. Invite a nice carribean band
> over to help you tune it, at 8. AM, on Sunday.
>
> "Dan Horton" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > <<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
> >

[Dan Horton]

<<it's really all about power, isn't it. it has nothing to do with
rights, privileges, fairness or common sense.>>

Common sense is proposing a practical plan to rescind the
ordinance. So far all you've given us is useless hand-wringing Sure,
it's your right and privilege, but it's still useless.

You started this thread with a cry for help. Either show some
leadership by offering a goal-oriented plan, or supply specific
information so others can actually help you.

Dan

[rickalty]

Morgans wrote:
> I read it as only prohibiting it, if the craft was an unenclosed garage.
> No?

No... it prohibits STORING aircraft other than in a totally enclosed
garage, but prohibits working on them anywhere on the property.

Richard

[rickalty]

Morgans wrote:
> I do not think that any city can regulate what you do behind CLOSED doors,
> as long as it is not commercial in nature.

No, not so. A city can legally prohibit anything it wants. Search
warrant issues might make it hard for them to PROVE what you're doing,
but they can certainly prohibit it. Even if they don't have probable
cause to get a warrant to look in your garage and see what you're
doing, they could still cite you, and then at court you are asked "Are
you building a plane in your garage?"

If you answer "Yes" you get fined and if you answer "No" you are
risking a perjury charge. (In a criminal case, of course, you could
decline to answer - but code infraction cites are considered civil, and
you have no protection against self-incrimination)

Richard

[rickalty]

Ernest Christley wrote:
> And then bring up the issue of people
> changing their own car's oil or airfilter, or even painting a lawn chair.

In several cities auto repair is prohibited unless done at a commercial
auto repair shop or wholly inside an enclosed garage. I had a
serpentine belt break once. I was able to pull into the parking lot of
a Kragen before it overheated, and I bought a new belt. I was
installing it in the parking lot when a cop car came past, and it cost
me a $56 ticket - and that was just installing a belt, with a spring
tightener - I didn't even need to take off a single bolt to replace it.

Richard

[rickalty]

Morgans wrote:
> Why should they give him a bit of support. They have not been targeted.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller

[[email protected]]

rickalty wrote:
> Dan Horton wrote:
> > Brian's airplane parking spot is hard against the
> > neighbor's bedroom window.
>
> I guess it was easier for you to call him an idiot than it was for you
> to click on the website and look at the actual photographs of the
> houses, right?
>
> There's a six foot wooden fence between the properties. From the
> neighbours bedroom, the view is of her side of a wooden fence. "Maybe"
> if she stood on a chair in her bedroom and looked out of the top of the
> window she could see the top of the cowling of a plane parked on his
> driveway.
>

To which I add that if you build or buy a house with a bedroom window
six feet from your neighbor's driveway you have little cause to
complain
about the view.

--

FF

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 10 Aug 2006 10:57:51 -0700, "rickalty" >
wrote:

>Morgans wrote:
>> I do not think that any city can regulate what you do behind CLOSED doors,
>> as long as it is not commercial in nature.
>

Of all things the State of Michigan has a law pertaining to.... of all
things... "The Missionary Position!" and I am not joking although
they were talking about removing that one.

And you thought regulations about working on a car were bad<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>No, not so. A city can legally prohibit anything it wants. Search
>warrant issues might make it hard for them to PROVE what you're doing,
>but they can certainly prohibit it. Even if they don't have probable
>cause to get a warrant to look in your garage and see what you're
>doing, they could still cite you, and then at court you are asked "Are
>you building a plane in your garage?"
>
>If you answer "Yes" you get fined and if you answer "No" you are
>risking a perjury charge. (In a criminal case, of course, you could
>decline to answer - but code infraction cites are considered civil, and
>you have no protection against self-incrimination)
>
>Richard
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dan Horton]

<<I guess it was easier for you to call him an idiot than it was for
you to click on the website and look at the actual photographs of the
houses, right?....There's a six foot wooden fence between the
properties.>>

Richard 'ole buddy, the fence is a new addition. Go here and check
the first photo at the top of the page:

http://www.engalt.com/kr2.htm

While you're there, cruise the other available photos and note the
old concrete block shop walls and other background clues. Now go here:

http://www.engalt.com/manufact.htm

Gosh, look familiar? Seems our boy is running a prototype
manufacturing shop at home. Always popular with the neighbors.

Brian is by no means the first or only homebuilder to have a
hostile neighbor. He is the first to escalate a fenceline ****ing
contest into a ban on home aircraft construction within an entire major
city. If you think "idiot" is too strong, perhaps you can accept
"lacks good judgement"?

Dan

[Brian[_3_]]

A lot of people have asked me how they can help.

I have set up a legal defence fund at
http://www.jaxairplane.com/contribute.htm. EAA is trying to get the
ordinance changed, but they can't directly help me with my upcoming
court case. I would appreciate it if you could pass the link around to
any other homebuilders you know and contribute if you can. Thanks.

Brian Kraut

[Dan Horton]

<<EAA is trying to get the ordinance changed, but they can't directly
help me with my upcoming court case.>>

No doubt.

Recinding or amending the ordinance is a legislative matter
requiring the cooperation of the city council members, in particular
the sponsoring councilman. Nothing about defending you in court will
assist that effort. Quite the contrary. As long as you remain (to
paraphrase your own words) a thorn in the side of the city, you make
the EAA's job harder.

In our society we honor those who accept personal sacrifice for the
greater good of their peers. Please, consider clearing the field and
allowing the EAA to work for all.

Dan

[Dave[_2_]]

"Dan Horton" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> In our society we honor those who accept personal sacrifice for the
> greater good of their peers. Please, consider clearing the field and
> allowing the EAA to work for all.
>
> Dan

Dan, I don't doubt that you feel "clearing the field" is the appropriate
thing to do, but I disagree with the notion that anyone would honour a
personal sacrifice in this case. While you have likely accused him of more
than the city of Jacksonville has I have yet to see that he has done
anything wrong other than refuse to knuckle under to an oppressive city
council and a bullying neighbour. Even if he loses, I would admire him for
going down swinging, more than taking one on the chin so others might ignore
his plight and go about their business. The core here is that the gentleman
as far as I can see has not injured or inconvenienced any of his neighbours
in this case, but has been subject to harassment and hostility aided by the
city council. I would be seriously considering suing the neighbour and the
council.

[Dan Horton]

<<I disagree with the notion that anyone would honour a personal
sacrifice in this case.>>

Quietly pleading guilty to a non-criminal misdemeanor with a max
fine of $500 isn't much of a sacrifice. More than a few battles have
been won with a strategic retreat to a more advantageous position.

Throw aside your feelings and consider the reality. Brian is going
to pay the fine anyway. "Not guilty" is unlikely in the first court
appearance because he is facing a custom-written ordinance designed to
leave little wiggle room for the judge. In general you don't get to
argue constitutionality or other issues until you get into the appeals
process. That can take years and lots of money, which is why he is
asking for a legal defense fund. In the meantime the ordinance remains
hanging over everyone's head, and will become permanent if he loses an
appeal anywhere along the line.

Consider the alternative. Brian pleads guilty and promises to be a
model citizen. The city attorney gets his petty victory, and the EAA
attorney has a clear field to communicate and persuade. If the EAA is
successful, the ordinance is rescinded or modified via legislative
means. Game over, total cost $500, public relations for homebuilders
is positive. If unsuccessful, all Brian needs to do is park another
airplane in the driveway. He gets to pick the time (just prior to an
election is good) and the circumstances (a pretty airplane in the midst
of flawless housekeeping, with lots of photos), which means even if the
other side pulls out older evidence it is clear that Brian has tried to
mitigate. He also buys time to do legal research and raise money. If
the EAA has tried and failed, successful national fundraising among
homebuilders becomes a given. Hell, I'll contribute.

"Sue the *******s", "Go down fighting", and opinions about
personal freedom are expressions of emotion, not rational planning.
Please, let's talk about objectives, rational plans, and chances of
success.

Dan

[Dave[_2_]]

"Dan Horton" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> <<I disagree with the notion that anyone would honour a personal
> sacrifice in this case.>>
>
> Quietly pleading guilty to a non-criminal misdemeanor with a max
> fine of $500 isn't much of a sacrifice. More than a few battles have
> been won with a strategic retreat to a more advantageous position.
>
> Throw aside your feelings and consider the reality. Brian is going

It just doesn't and will never sit well with me, even if the fine was zero
dollars. The very notion that city council could design an ordinance
specifically to punish someone for his neighbours activities is just wrong.
I look at your argument and I can't believe you would expect anyone to
accept it. Strategic or not, it does not appear to me that Brian has done
anything wrong and I would never, ever plead guilty in his shoes. If
sentenced I would appeal, countersue, etc. Your country was founded on the
notion that gov't should never have the opportunity to oppress it's
citizens, what the hell happened?

[Dan Horton]

<< I look at your argument and I can't believe you would expect anyone
to accept it.>>

Look again.

Brian WINS if the ordinance is successfully rescinded through
negotiation. He can return to homebuilding the next day.....along with
everyone else in JAX.

If the EAA fails, for sure nobody is asking him to give up. Quite the
contrary. If the EAA is unsuccessful he re-enters the fight with an
advantage in time, money, and circumstance, which is a whole lot more
than he has now.

<<If sentenced I would appeal, countersue, etc.>>

An appeal is obvious. You do realize that even if an appeal is
successful, a municipality usually just changes the ordinance so that
it falls within or avoids the specific constraint of the court?

Damn, I wish Tony Pucillo was still with us. We would get a no-bull
court assessment right quick.

Dan

[greatav8or]

Dan Horton wrote:
> << I look at your argument and I can't believe you would expect anyone
> to accept it.>>
>
> Look again.
>
> Brian WINS if the ordinance is successfully rescinded through
> negotiation. He can return to homebuilding the next day.....along with
> everyone else in JAX.
>
> If the EAA fails, for sure nobody is asking him to give up. Quite the
> contrary. If the EAA is unsuccessful he re-enters the fight with an
> advantage in time, money, and circumstance, which is a whole lot more
> than he has now.
>
> <<If sentenced I would appeal, countersue, etc.>>
>
> An appeal is obvious. You do realize that even if an appeal is
> successful, a municipality usually just changes the ordinance so that
> it falls within or avoids the specific constraint of the court?
>
> Damn, I wish Tony Pucillo was still with us. We would get a no-bull
> court assessment right quick.
>
> Dan

[greatav8or]

from last sundays florida times union newspaper.
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/082006/met_4469159.shtml

[Jim Logajan]

"greatav8or" > wrote:
> from last sundays florida times union newspaper.
> http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/082006/met_4469159.shtml

The more publicity like this, the better.

[Jim Carriere]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "greatav8or" > wrote:
>> from last sundays florida times union newspaper.
>> http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/082006/met_4469159.shtml
>
> The more publicity like this, the better.

One question, a couple comments.

What page was it on?

Too bad the website doesn't allow reader comments (some newspapers'
websites do this).

The city council looks pretty dumb in that article (which is accurate, I
believe).

[Ernest Christley]

greatav8or wrote:
> Dan Horton wrote:
>> << I look at your argument and I can't believe you would expect anyone
>> to accept it.>>
>>
>> Look again.
>>
>> Brian WINS if the ordinance is successfully rescinded through
>> negotiation. He can return to homebuilding the next day.....along with
>> everyone else in JAX.

And everyone who loves freedom anywhere WINS if this ordinance is
smacked down in a court of law as the silly tomfoolery it is. Ya' got
to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.

Luckily, the presiding judge isn't a fool.

From http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/082006/met_4469159.shtml

At the 2005 hearing, Duval County Judge Harold Arnold sided with Kraut.

"It is in keeping with a neighborhood to work on building, sanding,
restoring items as a hobby in a garage," Arnold wrote. He added: "It is
unreasonable to assume that residents do not do repair and restoration
work in their garages."

[Dan Horton]

<<The more publicity like this, the better.>>

Yes indeed. Good work by somebody!

Brian had a court date on July 26th. Clerk of the Courts says the case
has already been disposed, but they don't release further info without
a written request. Milford or Brian, save us a stamp. What was the
result, guilty, innocent, or dismissed?

Dan