09-09-2009, 11:10 AM
LOL... yeah I already know about the newly passed at council bill, that’s why I pulled up the code that supposedly cites the Ban on Tents. I see no ban, but I see a council woman who has misinterpreted the code and made a large mistake. Unfortunately the near newly passed bill is unconstitutional as would any law that prohibited or limited basic human needs not be allowed and made a criminal act.
The bill if passed will eventually find its way into the courts and be removed as law and the ACLU will be the first to attack it.
Case in point...
Court opinions that address homeless people sleeping in public areas etc. Keep in mind this is merely public areas and sleeping, not your own private property.
Read what the opinions are and why denial of basic needs or even limiting those needs via a temporary allowance would be unconstitutional and abridge basic human rights.
http://theplazoid.wordpress.com/2009/03/...mping-ban/
Furthermore... the code already allowed for temporary buildings on construction sites without permits... it does not define their use and does not limit their time during the construction process. This left the doors wide open with regard to what the newly proposed code will now severely limit. Thus forcing the building department to enforce something they were not having to enforce prior.
This is more convincing evidence that the council doesn’t even know what the building codes already said.
They think they are being more lenient and broadening the code when in-fact they are doing just the opposite.
As per the reasons for making the bill, though the points appear compelling, under scrutiny they merit no public interest. Personal Tents don’t fall and crush people, barbeques and such are used daily by homeowners in permitted homes everyday without permits. Composting toilets are already accepted without special permit use. Ventilation in a fabric space is a mute point in itself and beyond far reaching. Setbacks are not an issue with a tent as they can be moved if necessary without great effort, unlike a site built building. Cite a valid public interest.
TO TOP IT ALL OFF... this is subject to the puna district only? WTF? Like that's going to fly... LOL
How much will the county be sued for when the first case goes to court after the first infraction is issued?
Herein lays the largest dilemma... the new county code if fully approved is now stating that if you own property in the county of Hawaii, Puna district exclusively - If you are not building a house on your land - You are not allowed to use a temporary shelter (tent) on your own property to protect yourself from the elements, you cannot make an encampment to provide for your own basic sustenance. You will be unable to use a composting toilet, tent, barbeque, etc. In essence the law abridges the most fundamental of all property rights ever known to mankind, destroying thousands of years of previously respected rights.
Now can you honestly say within your heart that the U.S. Supreme Court or any court within the state is going to allow that? Can we sit here in our homes with our internet connections and modern conveniences and state that such a code is beneficial to us. Can you in any way shape or form condone such codes enforcement on some-one who only owns their land and has no other recourse for their sustenance and protection from the elements? Would you rather them be sleeping on the street in Hilo and milling about town with nowhere to call home? I certainly hope not.
As per the council woman’s being in touch with God… I have no comment on that as the code speaks for itself about her intuitiveness with regard to Gods word.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.
The bill if passed will eventually find its way into the courts and be removed as law and the ACLU will be the first to attack it.
Case in point...
Court opinions that address homeless people sleeping in public areas etc. Keep in mind this is merely public areas and sleeping, not your own private property.
Read what the opinions are and why denial of basic needs or even limiting those needs via a temporary allowance would be unconstitutional and abridge basic human rights.
http://theplazoid.wordpress.com/2009/03/...mping-ban/
Furthermore... the code already allowed for temporary buildings on construction sites without permits... it does not define their use and does not limit their time during the construction process. This left the doors wide open with regard to what the newly proposed code will now severely limit. Thus forcing the building department to enforce something they were not having to enforce prior.
This is more convincing evidence that the council doesn’t even know what the building codes already said.
They think they are being more lenient and broadening the code when in-fact they are doing just the opposite.
As per the reasons for making the bill, though the points appear compelling, under scrutiny they merit no public interest. Personal Tents don’t fall and crush people, barbeques and such are used daily by homeowners in permitted homes everyday without permits. Composting toilets are already accepted without special permit use. Ventilation in a fabric space is a mute point in itself and beyond far reaching. Setbacks are not an issue with a tent as they can be moved if necessary without great effort, unlike a site built building. Cite a valid public interest.
TO TOP IT ALL OFF... this is subject to the puna district only? WTF? Like that's going to fly... LOL
How much will the county be sued for when the first case goes to court after the first infraction is issued?
Herein lays the largest dilemma... the new county code if fully approved is now stating that if you own property in the county of Hawaii, Puna district exclusively - If you are not building a house on your land - You are not allowed to use a temporary shelter (tent) on your own property to protect yourself from the elements, you cannot make an encampment to provide for your own basic sustenance. You will be unable to use a composting toilet, tent, barbeque, etc. In essence the law abridges the most fundamental of all property rights ever known to mankind, destroying thousands of years of previously respected rights.
Now can you honestly say within your heart that the U.S. Supreme Court or any court within the state is going to allow that? Can we sit here in our homes with our internet connections and modern conveniences and state that such a code is beneficial to us. Can you in any way shape or form condone such codes enforcement on some-one who only owns their land and has no other recourse for their sustenance and protection from the elements? Would you rather them be sleeping on the street in Hilo and milling about town with nowhere to call home? I certainly hope not.
As per the council woman’s being in touch with God… I have no comment on that as the code speaks for itself about her intuitiveness with regard to Gods word.
E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.