Who here has problems with code enforcement? Seriously code enforcers are the true scum of the world, literally stealing our rights a little at a time without as much a peep from some Americans. I mean taking is prohibited by the constitution is it not. taking can be numerous things from something as simple as telling you how to use your yard or something more extreme like taking your property and selling it to a big business. We Americans really need to fight back with a heavy hand and swiftly.

 

I'm kinda glad no one in Texas enforces the noise codes on vehicles...
[sm=burnout.gif]

 

please enlighten me, wtf are you talking about????

 

the 4th admendement basically says if the govt takes something from you they must compensate you. well taking or a property right is just that taking the federal laws are a little sketchy but ga law says the state must prove something is really a that detremential to the welfare of the public like a health concern. for ex: if my 65 was just abandoned in the yard then it could be a rat infested hotel. but its not.



i got this from the city a few days ago:

iscarded,dismantled,wrecked,scrapped,ruined,or junked motor vehicles or parts thereof is unlawful to be openly stored on private property; or to permit and such vehicle or parts therof to remain on any private property with in the city for a period of more than 30 days after the receipt of a notice requiring removal of such vehicles or parts."

so apperently my 65 is one of the above? state law also allows you to cancel registration for any reason in ga and the vehicle is not on the street so there should be no problem correct?
my house is my castle plain and simple and ill do as I please! Im not dumping oil on the ground so theres no health concern and theres nor rodents in my either. and my parts are just that so unless the city is gonna compensate me for my parts nd car then they need to go screw themselves royally

 

A little background would be cool

 

Georgia has some unusual automobile laws, like they do not issue titles on 20 year or older cars (I think that's the way it reads), so, in reading rmodle65's post, someone complained about his car, him working on it and lots of car parts removed and spread out. We got similar laws in California, but they only apply to cars visible from the street so what's in your back yard or garage is none of their G**D*** business. I think the 2nd amendment has something to do with oppressive governments.
Jim

 

yeah theres nothing visible from the street except for the can and u can see nothing but the taillights and nothing from the other side ive been researching law tonight[8D] i really thinking about buy some annotated law books so i can argue anything but there around 400-650$ but i think it would be a wise investment?

 

Rmodel? As mentioned by 66GTKFB, what is the deal with registration of our classics in your fine state? I love visiting my sister in Alpharetta and could see myself there if I were to ever leave SoCal.

As for code enforcement, is this a city ordinance, HOA CC&R's, etc.? You're going to have a tough time with that, good luck.

 

yeah its a city ordinance

the thing with title anything 1985 and older dont require a title if u have one u get to keep it but if u break the chain of ownership then you cant get a title again unless u use something like broadway title to get one.


ADDENDUM. ZONING STANDARDS AND
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
FOR ZONING HEARINGS[/align] Approved by the Commission[/align] [/align] [/align] City of Brunswick, Georgia[/align] [/align] [/align] April 5, 1989[/align] [/align] [/align] Part I. Standards [/align] [/align] [/align] In a landmark zoning decision, the Supreme Court of Georgia wrote:[/align] [/align] As the individual's right to the unfettered use of his property confronts the police power under which zoning is done, the balance the law strikes is that a zoning classification may only be justified if it bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morality or general welfare. Lacking such justification, the zoning may be set aside as arbitrary or unreasonable. . . . As these critical interests are balanced, if the zoning regulation results in relatively little gain or benefit to the publicwhile inflicting serious injury or loss on the owner, such regulation is confiscatory and void. . . . Moreover, we specifically rule that for such unlawful confiscation to occur requiring that the zoning be voided, it is not necessary that the property be totally useless for the purposes classified. . . . It suffices to void it that the damage to the owner is significant and is not justified by the benefit to the public.Barrett v. Hamby , 235 Ga. 262, 265; 219 S.E.2d 399 (1975) [/align] [/align] The foregoing means that a zoning classification, to be valid, must be supported by reasons related to the public health, safety, morality or general welfare. Specific criteria for zoning decisions do not exist, but the reasons upon which such decisions are based must be identifiable and articulable, in order to avoid the fatal defect of arbitrariness.[/align] [/align] In a later decision the Court suggested a number of factors which should be considered in determining the validity of a zoning classification:[/align] [/align] The validity of each zoning ordinance must be determined on the facts applicable to the particular case, but certain general lines of inquiry have been regarded as relevant, to wit: (1) existing uses and zoning of nearby property; (2) the extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions; (3) the extent to which the destruction of property values of the plaintiffs promotes the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public; (4) the relative gain to the public, ascompared to the hardship imposed upon the individual property owner; (5) the suitability of the subject property for the zoned purposes; and (6) the length of time the property has been vacant as zoned, considered in the context of land development in the area in the vicinity of the property.Guhl v. Holcomb Bridge Road Corp. , 238 Ga. 322, 323; 232 S.E.2d 830 (1977) [/align] [/align] The current Georgia statutory law, O.C.G.A. ยง 36-66-5(b) expressly mandates that each local government exercising zoning power establish and consider such factors in the form of substantive standards for zoning decisions. That subsection provides:[/align] [/align] [E]ach local government shall adopt standards governing the exercise of the zoning power, and such standards may include any factors which the local government finds relevant in balancing the interest in promoting the public health, safety, morality, or general welfare against the right to the unrestricted use of property. Such standards shall be printed and copies thereof shall be available for distribution to the general public.[/align] [/align] In keeping with the foregoing statutory requirement, the City of Brunswick has adopted the following substantive standards to govern its zoning decisions:[/align] [/align] A. A PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING USES AND ZONING OF ADJACENT AND NEARBY PROPERTY, AND "SPOT ZONING" SHOULD ALMOST ALWAYS BE REJECTED.[/align] [/align] Relevant Questions [/align] [/align] [/align] (1) Would the proposed rezoning create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?[/align] [/align] (2) Is the proposed rezoning a logical extension of a zoning boundary which would improve the pattern of uses in the general area?[/align] [/align] B. A PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION SHOULD NOT DESTABILIZE THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.[/align] [/align] Relevant Questions [/align] [/align] [/align] (1) Is the proposed zoning classification one which would promote integrity of the neighborhood and preserve its general character?[/align] [/align] (2) Would the proposed rezoning precipitate similar rezoning requests which would generate or accelerate adverse land use changes in the neighborhood?[/align] [/align] C. A PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION SHOULD MAXIMIZE THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITHOUT DEPRECIATING THE VALUE OF ADJACENT AND NEARBY PROPERTY.[/align] [/align] Relevant Questions [/align] [/align] [/align] (1) To what extent does the existing zoning classification depress the value of the subject property?[/align] [/align] (2) To what extent would the proposed zoning classification result in appreciation of the value of the property?[/align] [/align] (3) What effect does the existing zoning classification have on the values of adjacent and nearby property?[/align] [/align] (4) What effect would the proposed zoning classification have on the values of adjacent and nearby property?[/align] [/align] D. A PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON TRAFFIC FLOW, TRAFFIC SAFETY OR POPULATION DENSITY.[/align] [/align] Relevant Questions [/align] [/align] [/align] (1) Is there adequate public or private parking for the proposed use and other uses permitted within the classification?[/align] [/align] (2) Would such uses create any problem of traffic congestion in the area?[/align] [/align] (3) Would such uses create any traffic safety problem with regard to ingress and egress, visibility or otherwise?[/align] [/align] (4) Would such uses necessitate changes in streets or sidewalks or traffic signage or signalization?[/align] [/align] (5) Would such uses contribute to an undesirable level of population density?[/align] [/align] (6) Would such uses substantially conflict with existing density patterns in the neighborhood?[/align] [/align] E. A PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.[/align] [/align] Relevant Questions [/align] [/align] [/align] (1) Would the proposed use or other uses permitted within the classification create noise, dust, smoke or odors?[/align] [/align] (2) Would such uses affect air quality or water quality and quantity?[/align] [/align] (3) Would such uses create problems with drainage or soil erosion and sedimentation?[/align] [/align] (4) Would such uses aggravate problems with flood damage control?[/align] [/align] (5) Would such uses aggravate waste disposal problems?[/align] [/align] F. A PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE ADVERSE AESTHETIC EFFECTS.[/align] [/align] Relevant Questions [/align] [/align] [/align] (1) Would the proposed rezoning lead to removal of existing vegetation?[/align] [/align] (2) Would the proposed use incorporate new planting?[/align] [/align] (3) Would the proposed use necessitate unattractive structures or result in removal or alteration of historic structures?[/align] [/align] (4) Would the proposed use be visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood?[/align] [/align] (5) Would the proposed use include machinery or work vi

 

so i dont see "car undergoing restoration" on their list...cant you send them a please explain letter?