Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Hysterical Historians

Last night LiberTEA Racine joined over 100 voices of citizens in the City and surrounding areas. Our voices were added to the overwhelming objections to the attempt to confiscate the property rights of those residents of the South Side Historic Area. You see SOMEONE* want's to ask the City council to create a Historic District Committee which will be responsible for "Controlling" private citizens and the alterations they make to their homes.. Including replacement Doors, windows, Porches, and Shingles and Downspouts, etc. At the moment house color is not considered, but a review of the proposals indicates that colors of trim, porches, etc. WILL be enforced. I'm sure once the door is open..the restrictions, ordinances, and other "nanny-isms" will be abundent.

So many great points were made, citing the 5th amendment (Illegal Siezure).
The 13th involuntary servitude.....And just the general issue of Liberty.

Thanks for all of the members of LiberTEA who showed up, and for their voices of Liberty.

This isn't "won yet" The next meeting is scheduled for 4:30 on July 6th...I suspect the time will be moved later before the date. If you haven't done so please call your alderman and request this idea be shredded, rather than the Constitution.

Now I (DTB) think the Great question we need to ask is WHO is the *SOMEONE, who requested this proposal? I'd really like to know..Is it Preservation Racine, Landmark Preservation, Dr. Moles; Or could it be that this is the first part of Mayor Dickerts 10 year plan we never heard about?

Thanks for joining in LiberTEA's first Call to Action!!

5 comments:

  1. I think this is just the beginning of more freedoms being taken away. What will happen when many of the residents leave this area because they simply can't afford it any longer? Drive through the proposed neighborhood. Most of these houses don't need much, except the rental properties.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In your quest for the "SOMEONE", let me ask you a question.

    Is a municipal government/entity usually inclined to acquiesce to a citizen's request (yes I did see the Pirate movies too many times) of this type without motivation, whether that motivation is via agenda or financial?

    Guess what I'm saying is think bigger and follow the money. Very seldom does this type of request see action unless 1)those taking the action agree with the agenda and want to promote it, meaning your SOMEONE is more likely a group and the SOMEONE moniker is being used as a scapegoat; 2) there's opportunity for, in the future, or has been in the past, financial gain (not necessarily of the nefarious nature) but more along the lines of a donation of money, services, etc.; 3) the municipal entity is afraid of the requestee because of political or community power/connections.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't necessarily disagree with your statements regarding the historical preservation district, but the issue of a muncipality (or private corporation) seizing property using eminent domain has been settled in the Supreme Court.

    See here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_vs._City_of_New_London

    Don't be surprised when the city seizes the property and uses this case as a justification.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon 10:11. I am aware of the Eminent Domain rulings...(Don't get me started on KELO vs. New London). But this is much different than that. If the City were to propose the forceful surrender of all of the Homes including in the proposal, and then would "Condo-ize" the property, that would be like Kelo..This situation is actually forcing Some of the people in the District to behave certain ways with one set of rules, and others to the North or South of them to have less restrictive rules. Thus Un-equal protection. Also requiring certain private property owners to obtain products for renovation that are considerably more unique, rare and expensive than their neighbors forcibly; for the purpose of raising the property values and wealth of those who live nearby, involuntary servitude (Slavery).

    Anon 8:47 Thanks for elaborating on the Someone comment. I'm sure we will know soon who that might be..I have several top reporters trying to peel back the cloak....If you attended the Public hearing on Monday you will recall it was referred to by Mr Marcus several times as "Someone". It made my Spidey senses tingle..But I had already spoken by the time the tingling started..

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with the points made and am incensed that this "district" will allow the city to restrict my rights and allow someone within the city's control to make decisions about what I can do with my property (when most others in the district have no such restrictions). However, what I don't seem to be hearing much about:

    - Who will oversee the overseers in this process? Inspectors can build their feifdoms (anyone had to deal with rogue inspectors with too much power)?
    - Who will pay for the oversight (the affected via added permits, fines, other fees?)
    - Has anyone looked at whether the alderman's home or any homes in their immediate vicinity are designated as "contributing"?
    - If this is a district why wouldn't everyone have to meet a min standard? Historic or not, based on aesthetics (that's what the historic designation is based on isn't it?).
    - As we hear from some many politicians these days, will the city take the view "just because it's what the people want, it doesn't mean that's what's best for them" and do as they please?
    Maybe i've missed some of this, and if yes, please excuse me but we're very concerned with oversight and lack of a voice and are one of the identified properties. Help!

    ReplyDelete