OC Couple Threatened With $500-Per-Meeting Fines For Home Bible Study

[Ravi]

So it IS okay with you if one homeowner gets to dictate what goes on in the neighborhood.

No, that's not what I said.

Someone complained. The couple was told to get a permit. They did not. They got fined.

The permitting process hinges on getting the approval of the neighbors. The neighbors, as a collection, get to decide what goes on in their neighborhood.

According to the article, most of the neighbors are supportive. According to the video, one neighbor complained.

Does getting the permit hinge on getting permission from ALL neighbors, or a majority?

I've no idea. But even if only one objects then the couple should have their meetings elsewhere.

I once let a friend park his commercial vehicle on our swale for a week. Someone complained. I was told by the city that the vehicle had to be moved or I'd get fined. Guess what? Instead of whining about how unfair it was I told the owner to pick up his vehicle. My neighbors have a right to enjoy their neighborhood and I have no right to take that enjoyment away from them.

 

[daveman]

No, that's not what I said.

Someone complained. The couple was told to get a permit. They did not. They got fined.

The permitting process hinges on getting the approval of the neighbors. The neighbors, as a collection, get to decide what goes on in their neighborhood.

According to the article, most of the neighbors are supportive. According to the video, one neighbor complained.

Does getting the permit hinge on getting permission from ALL neighbors, or a majority?

I've no idea. But even if only one objects then the couple should have their meetings elsewhere.

I once let a friend park his commercial vehicle on our swale for a week. Someone complained. I was told by the city that the vehicle had to be moved or I'd get fined. Guess what? Instead of whining about how unfair it was I told the owner to pick up his vehicle. My neighbors have a right to enjoy their neighborhood and I have no right to take that enjoyment away from them.

Then I was right: So it IS okay with you if one homeowner gets to dictate what goes on in the neighborhood.

 

[Ravi]

According to the article, most of the neighbors are supportive. According to the video, one neighbor complained.

Does getting the permit hinge on getting permission from ALL neighbors, or a majority?

I've no idea. But even if only one objects then the couple should have their meetings elsewhere.

I once let a friend park his commercial vehicle on our swale for a week. Someone complained. I was told by the city that the vehicle had to be moved or I'd get fined. Guess what? Instead of whining about how unfair it was I told the owner to pick up his vehicle. My neighbors have a right to enjoy their neighborhood and I have no right to take that enjoyment away from them.

Then I was right: So it IS okay with you if one homeowner gets to dictate what goes on in the neighborhood.

In this case, yes it does. Neighborhood peace is more important than one couples biweekly meetings.

 

[daveman]

I've no idea. But even if only one objects then the couple should have their meetings elsewhere.

I once let a friend park his commercial vehicle on our swale for a week. Someone complained. I was told by the city that the vehicle had to be moved or I'd get fined. Guess what? Instead of whining about how unfair it was I told the owner to pick up his vehicle. My neighbors have a right to enjoy their neighborhood and I have no right to take that enjoyment away from them.

Then I was right: So it IS okay with you if one homeowner gets to dictate what goes on in the neighborhood.

In this case, yes it does. Neighborhood peace is more important than one couples biweekly meetings.

Thanks for clarifying.

I believe Obama should step down. Since I, one person, want it, he should resign immediately.

 

[Ravi]

Then I was right: So it IS okay with you if one homeowner gets to dictate what goes on in the neighborhood.

In this case, yes it does. Neighborhood peace is more important than one couples biweekly meetings.

Thanks for clarifying.

I believe Obama should step down. Since I, one person, want it, he should resign immediately.

I'll email him and let him know.

 

[daveman]

In this case, yes it does. Neighborhood peace is more important than one couples biweekly meetings.

Thanks for clarifying.

I believe Obama should step down. Since I, one person, want it, he should resign immediately.

I'll email him and let him know.

[email protected]

So you're saying it's okay if one person makes a decision for the neighborhood, as long as it's the decision you agree with.

Okey-dokey.

 

[Ravi]

Thanks for clarifying.

I believe Obama should step down. Since I, one person, want it, he should resign immediately.

I'll email him and let him know.

[email protected]

So you're saying it's okay if one person makes a decision for the neighborhood, as long as it's the decision you agree with.

Okey-dokey.

Um, that's your position. You think this couple can do whatever they please even if someone in the neighborhood objects.

 

[daveman]

I'll email him and let him know.

[email protected]

So you're saying it's okay if one person makes a decision for the neighborhood, as long as it's the decision you agree with.

Okey-dokey.

Um, that's your position. You think this couple can do whatever they please even if someone in the neighborhood objects.

No, that's YOUR position. You stated it clearly: You think it's okay for one homeowner to dictate to the neighborhood what goes on.

 

[AmericanFirst]

“The Fromm case further involves regular meetings on Sunday mornings and Thursday afternoons with up to 50 people, with impacts on the residential neighborhood on street access and parking,” City Attorney Omar Sandoval said.

I was right

No, you were wrong, the neighbors have no problem with it.

Not only do they not have a problem, they're taking time to write the city to voice their support for the Fromm's.

I hope you make sure to bring gov't officials to your home the next time you want to have people over, to make sure you're parked correctly, and make sure you poll every person up to 5 blocks from your home to make sure they're all ok with it before you invite anyone over.

She won't do that, she hates honesty.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's their choice. I'd be afraid of the witch hunt, seeing the response of the rightwingloons.

I know you are a mindless partisan hack, short bus: BUT, Syrenn is right wing, I am right wing, yet we are on opposite sides of this issue.

How do explain that in your little "party over reality" world?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I was just pointing out to Skull that neighborhoods are already zoned for residential parking.

You were pwned short bus.

I've no idea what I said to make you think I claimed they were running a business.

Moving the goal posts works better when you don't trip over your lies in the process, short bus.

 

[Immanuel]

If the problem is parking how will a permit fix it? Since the problem has just been demonstrated not to be parking, why should they get a permit?

Where was it demonstrated not to be a parking issue? I think you made that claim, but I don't recall having read a post or a link that stated that this was not a parking issue.

The permit would not stop the parking problems. I would not be surprised to find out that the permit would be denied because of the parking issue.

Immie

It is actually a prima facie case that the issue is not parking. The city is not asking anyone to move their cars, they are trying to require a permit to hold the meetings in the house. Once they get a permit the guests will still be parking in the same place.

They have to get the permit first. There is no guarantee that a permit will be issued. That was what I was saying. Remember they are dealing with bureaucrats. The code enforcement dude tells them they have to get a permit. They go to get the permit and the woman at the permit department tells them they have been denied because of the fire hazard because if there is a fire the department would not be able to get its vehicles down that street.

You know bureaucrats won't do anything not in their job description such as inform the citizen that despite the fact that they need a permit for such meetings, such permit will not be granted because of this or that reason.

Immie

 

[Dr.Drock]

Because the permit hinges on getting the approval of the neighbors.

Busy streets are disturbing in quiet neighborhoods even if all other factors are solved.

You keep making things up. First you argued that it was traffic and parking issues, which made no sense at all because nobody in a car got a ticket. Then you argued that it was an illegal business, even though no one is making money, now you are saying they need their neighbors permission to get a permit.

Lets get wildly hypothetical here and say that everyone that goes to these Bible studies parks at a near by parking lot and walks to the house. they do this in small groups, and are very quiet and inconspicuous. They do this because they actually care about the neighborhood, and do not want to upset the neighbors. That eliminates the parking and traffic problems entirely, but they, under the unconstitutional law, need a permit. Explain to me why, if they do everything I outlined above, they need a permit, or anyone's permission to do anything.

For a permit that impacts the neighbors ....it goes through an approval process where the neighbors are allowed to have a say in letting the city give or refuse said permit.

If you want to put a second story on your house.... you need to have the approval of the neighbors...right along with the city approval.

For me... the cars it would being in parking up my block would be an issue. I would fight their permit tooth and nail. I really don't care of the cars are parked legally or not..... the congestion on a regular basis would be the issue.

What congestion if everyone is in a parking lot? The 2 times that 10-20 cars are pulling in and out of the parking lot? Or the 2 times that 20 couples are walking down the sidewalk?

 

[Ravi]

Where was it demonstrated not to be a parking issue? I think you made that claim, but I don't recall having read a post or a link that stated that this was not a parking issue.

The permit would not stop the parking problems. I would not be surprised to find out that the permit would be denied because of the parking issue.

Immie

It is actually a prima facie case that the issue is not parking. The city is not asking anyone to move their cars, they are trying to require a permit to hold the meetings in the house. Once they get a permit the guests will still be parking in the same place.

They have to get the permit first. There is no guarantee that a permit will be issued. That was what I was saying. Remember they are dealing with bureaucrats. The code enforcement dude tells them they have to get a permit. They go to get the permit and the woman at the permit department tells them they have been denied because of the fire hazard because if there is a fire the department would not be able to get its vehicles down that street.

You know bureaucrats won't do anything not in their job description such as inform the citizen that despite the fact that they need a permit for such meetings, such permit will not be granted because of this or that reason.

Immie

Boloney. Another broad-brusher.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where was it demonstrated not to be a parking issue? I think you made that claim, but I don't recall having read a post or a link that stated that this was not a parking issue.

The permit would not stop the parking problems. I would not be surprised to find out that the permit would be denied because of the parking issue.

Immie

It is actually a prima facie case that the issue is not parking. The city is not asking anyone to move their cars, they are trying to require a permit to hold the meetings in the house. Once they get a permit the guests will still be parking in the same place.

They have to get the permit first. There is no guarantee that a permit will be issued. That was what I was saying. Remember they are dealing with bureaucrats. The code enforcement dude tells them they have to get a permit. They go to get the permit and the woman at the permit department tells them they have been denied because of the fire hazard because if there is a fire the department would not be able to get its vehicles down that street.

You know bureaucrats won't do anything not in their job description such as inform the citizen that despite the fact that they need a permit for such meetings, such permit will not be granted because of this or that reason.

Immie

I know there is no guarantee that they will issue the permit. I am just pointing out that if the issue was actually parking they could easily address the parking issue separately. The fact that they are actually trying to require a permit, and basing the need for a permit on the type of gathering at the house, proves the issue is not actually parking.

 

[Immanuel]

It is actually a prima facie case that the issue is not parking. The city is not asking anyone to move their cars, they are trying to require a permit to hold the meetings in the house. Once they get a permit the guests will still be parking in the same place.

They have to get the permit first. There is no guarantee that a permit will be issued. That was what I was saying. Remember they are dealing with bureaucrats. The code enforcement dude tells them they have to get a permit. They go to get the permit and the woman at the permit department tells them they have been denied because of the fire hazard because if there is a fire the department would not be able to get its vehicles down that street.

You know bureaucrats won't do anything not in their job description such as inform the citizen that despite the fact that they need a permit for such meetings, such permit will not be granted because of this or that reason.

Immie

I know there is no guarantee that they will issue the permit. I am just pointing out that if the issue was actually parking they could easily address the parking issue separately. The fact that they are actually trying to require a permit, and basing the need for a permit on the type of gathering at the house, proves the issue is not actually parking.

I just have to disagree with you on this.

You have mentioned a couple of times, that no tickets have been issued. I'm not sure they can just go ticketing vehicles that are technically legally parked. Those vehicles may not be illegally parked. I don't think the police can just go through the street and start ticketing all cars parked on the street if there are not any "No Parking" signs, but that does not mean that 30 extra cars on the street do not pose some kind of fire hazard or emergency response hazard. Therefore, the counties only option is to enforce the law regarding permitting.

Can you imagine living on the street and parking in front of your own home on the night of one of these bible studies and coming out the next morning to find out that you have received a ticket for parking legally in front of your home? Now, just to fight the ticket you have to take a day off work too?

I think the law is a bit too strict. I mean, from the info presented in this thread it says three people? That is ridiculous, but then 50 people twice a week is a bit intrusive as well.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They have to get the permit first. There is no guarantee that a permit will be issued. That was what I was saying. Remember they are dealing with bureaucrats. The code enforcement dude tells them they have to get a permit. They go to get the permit and the woman at the permit department tells them they have been denied because of the fire hazard because if there is a fire the department would not be able to get its vehicles down that street.

You know bureaucrats won't do anything not in their job description such as inform the citizen that despite the fact that they need a permit for such meetings, such permit will not be granted because of this or that reason.

Immie

I know there is no guarantee that they will issue the permit. I am just pointing out that if the issue was actually parking they could easily address the parking issue separately. The fact that they are actually trying to require a permit, and basing the need for a permit on the type of gathering at the house, proves the issue is not actually parking.

I just have to disagree with you on this.

You have mentioned a couple of times, that no tickets have been issued. I'm not sure they can just go ticketing vehicles that are technically legally parked. Those vehicles may not be illegally parked. I don't think the police can just go through the street and start ticketing all cars parked on the street if there are not any "No Parking" signs, but that does not mean that 30 extra cars on the street do not pose some kind of fire hazard or emergency response hazard. Therefore, the counties only option is to enforce the law regarding permitting.

Can you imagine living on the street and parking in front of your own home on the night of one of these bible studies and coming out the next morning to find out that you have received a ticket for parking legally in front of your home? Now, just to fight the ticket you have to take a day off work too?

I think the law is a bit too strict. I mean, from the info presented in this thread it says three people? That is ridiculous, but then 50 people twice a week is a bit intrusive as well.

Immie

I lived in a city where there was no parking for an area that was full of bars for the local college, so everyone parked in the residential area that was one block over. This obviously caused problems, so the city set up residential parking, and ticketed every single vehicle without a permit. Parking problem solved. It also solved the traffic congestion problem because no one was driving through there looking for parking. The bars then got together and leased an old dealership for parking, and set up a shuttle service.

If the parking the city has ways to deal with it. The fact that they are, instead of dealing with what they claim the problem is in the interviews, chose to go after the people holding the meeting, proves the issue is not parking.

 

[syrenn]

I know there is no guarantee that they will issue the permit. I am just pointing out that if the issue was actually parking they could easily address the parking issue separately. The fact that they are actually trying to require a permit, and basing the need for a permit on the type of gathering at the house, proves the issue is not actually parking.

I just have to disagree with you on this.

You have mentioned a couple of times, that no tickets have been issued. I'm not sure they can just go ticketing vehicles that are technically legally parked. Those vehicles may not be illegally parked. I don't think the police can just go through the street and start ticketing all cars parked on the street if there are not any "No Parking" signs, but that does not mean that 30 extra cars on the street do not pose some kind of fire hazard or emergency response hazard. Therefore, the counties only option is to enforce the law regarding permitting.

Can you imagine living on the street and parking in front of your own home on the night of one of these bible studies and coming out the next morning to find out that you have received a ticket for parking legally in front of your home? Now, just to fight the ticket you have to take a day off work too?

I think the law is a bit too strict. I mean, from the info presented in this thread it says three people? That is ridiculous, but then 50 people twice a week is a bit intrusive as well.

Immie

I lived in a city where there was no parking for an area that was full of bars for the local college, so everyone parked in the residential area that was one block over. This obviously caused problems, so the city set up residential parking, and ticketed every single vehicle without a permit. Parking problem solved. It also solved the traffic congestion problem because no one was driving through there looking for parking. The bars then got together and leased an old dealership for parking, and set up a shuttle service.

If the parking the city has ways to deal with it. The fact that they are, instead of dealing with what they claim the problem is in the interviews, chose to go after the people holding the meeting, proves the issue is not parking.

Most permit parking is enforced after 2 hours. College classes usually are an all day thing.... sunday go to meetings are usually...less then 2 hours. They would skate in and out of the 2 hours window.

The idiot across the street tried that bullshit too.... we turned him in for not having a permit for running a business out of his garage.

Residential zoning ya know.

 

[Intense]

I know I'd be upset if 30+ cars were parked all around my house two or more times a week.

Ha! Don't move to Queens.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I know I'd be upset if 30+ cars were parked all around my house two or more times a week.

Ha! Don't move to Queens.

Wouldn't dream of it.

But the dynamic there is a tad different, no?