Survivalist Forum banner

61 - 80 of 80 Posts

·
Gumpherhooberpelt
Joined
·
4,726 Posts
Discussion Starter #61
If you want to build anything better, sorry, now you need an on site engineer, environmental impact analysis etc...
Actually, not according to the law. I will spare readers of the long long correspondence I received from a man in Pennsylvania.

It was originally posted in a YAHOO GROUP (which is no longer available).
(But I downloaded the archive, heh heh)

The soundbite version resolved to:
... I then ask him to let me see the "Application For Building Permit"
form and perhaps that will shed some light as to how one become
subject to the building regulations.

I pointed out to him that the form clearly stated that it was only
the undersigned "applicant" who promises to abide and conform to the
building code, inspections and other regulations such as the EPA,
etc. I told him I was not born an "applicant".

I then asked him to bring forth a copy of the PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPALITIES PLANNING CODE (the PMPC). It reads:
"Applicant," a landowner or developer, as hereinafter defined, WHO HAS FILED an application for development including his heirs, successor and assigns.
I pointed out to him that an "applicant" is not all landowners or
developers but only the landowner or developer who HAS filed an
application for development. "Has" is past tense. One is not, by
definition an "applicant" until he HAS filed or submitted an
application.

To make a long story short, the zoning officer never got back to me
so I went directly to the Township Supervisors and asked them to
bring forth the law that requires me to submit an application for a
building permit. I did not hear from them so I called one of the
supervisors at home and he said to me:

"I asked our solicitor if there was a law or ordinance that requires
anyone to submit an application for a development or building
permit?" The supervisor then said, "You know, it is the damnedest
thing, that solicitor just stood there, looked me square in the eyes,
and said, "I am unable to answer that question." Then he walked away.

Notice he did not say he did not know the answer to that question,
only that he was UNABLE to answer it.
END OF EXCERPT

Again, I urge everyone to READ THEIR OWN LAWS.
You won't believe what you find until you read it for yourself.
 

·
Beer Truck Door Gunner
Joined
·
30,269 Posts
I think most people would be better off with a yurt for lightweight construction, at least that you could move.
Reminds me of an engineering school discussion over beers.

The final conclusion about what is the smartest building was a grass beach hut you made and abandoned at whim and that you didn't care what happened to it. The Mongols and Amerindians did much the same. Sticks and hides that were carried by hand or on ponies.

In Mongolia today the city construction is very sparse, but societies keep on functioning in a mobile status, moving from grazing and farming lands as the seasons change. Their ancient society endures without many fixed structures.

Again, we circle around back to the society being the key. Thousands of years of a functioning society without barely more than signposts, traditions, and a yurt for the family. I suspect that had the US skipped the Manifest Destiny drive that Amerindians would still be cycling north and south every year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,242 Posts
OK, no one can agree to form a cooperative and buy land, and build a DRV.

What if one already existed, and the rent was $100/month... no, correct that. $100 a month for five years ($6000) and then it's your domicile for life.

Would you jump at the chance or not?
: : : : : : :
Let's sweeten the deal. . . Add $50 a month, and you can acquire a lifetime lease on a storefront for your vocation.
: : : : : : :
Or have access to a plot of "private" land outside of the DRV?
Plant what you want.
Personally, no....because I already like where I live and its paid off.

Again, what you are trying to re-invent here is a medieval walled town. They way they worked is that a lord would beg borrow or steal enough money to build a castle for himself, his family and his workers, and then he would build a curtain wall around it and make a deal with the local peasants and merchants. They could build and farm in safety inside the walls, in exchange for some taxes. The lord would also usually build a church for them to which they considered a big deal and do other stuff like provide public wells.

It was worth it for the peasants because living outside the walls was dangerous and they where at the mercy of raiders, foreign armies, etc.

But as soon as the country became 'civilized' that system fell apart. Nobody wanted to bother to live inside walls and pay to keep the castle working, etc if their lives where not in danger. Most of the walls ended up being torn down and reused to build more houses.

The problem right now is that its going to be very hard to find people who want to live in a planned community. There just won't seem to be very much in it for them.

Right now 99% of the population thinks you deal with disaster by having good insurance. Until that chances, their priority will always be jobs, family, etc.
 

·
Gumpherhooberpelt
Joined
·
4,726 Posts
Discussion Starter #64

·
Gumpherhooberpelt
Joined
·
4,726 Posts
Discussion Starter #65
Again, what you are trying to re-invent here is a medieval walled town.
Right now 99% of the population thinks you deal with disaster by having good insurance. Until that chances, their priority will always be jobs, family, etc.
Frankly, walled towns extend back 3500 years and more.
Jerusalem, for example.
And walled family compounds are quite popular throughout history.
Romans, Chinese, Indians, etc.
(Ironically, one thing you won't find in a Roman compound is a domed room. Despite having the technology to build LARGE DOMES (ex: Pantheon), no one would live inside one. That goes back to why Monolithic Domes have a poor owner approval rating.)
. . .
I suspect that most readers here have no faith that insurance claims will be met once the SHTF.
. . .
If you know someone who lives in an apartment complex, townhouse, high rise, condominium or other high population density situation, ask them if they sought compatibility with their neighbors before moving in.


PARANOID?

Gated complexes are quite popular. Ditto, for controlled access apartments, with doormen, etc.
In the Atlanta area, many neighborhoods have quaint houses that have bars on the first floor windows and front door. Oi.

People are getting paranoid, and desperately want security. "The System" won't allow them. Shucks, they're arresting folks who defend themselves from BLM/ Antifa !
 

·
Beer Truck Door Gunner
Joined
·
30,269 Posts
Frankly, walled towns extend back 3500 years and more.
Jerusalem, for example.
And walled family compounds are quite popular throughout history.
Romans, Chinese, Indians, etc.
(Ironically, one thing you won't find in a Roman compound is a domed room. Despite having the technology to build LARGE DOMES (ex: Pantheon), no one would live inside one. That goes back to why Monolithic Domes have a poor owner approval rating.)
. . .
I suspect that most readers here have no faith that insurance claims will be met once the SHTF.
. . .
If you know someone who lives in an apartment complex, townhouse, high rise, condominium or other high population density situation, ask them if they sought compatibility with their neighbors before moving in.


PARANOID?

Gated complexes are quite popular. Ditto, for controlled access apartments, with doormen, etc.
In the Atlanta area, many neighborhoods have quaint houses that have bars on the first floor windows and front door. Oi.

People are getting paranoid, and desperately want security. "The System" won't allow them. Shucks, they're arresting folks who defend themselves from BLM/ Antifa !
But when I was trying to discuss your idea as a defensive structure you gave me this...

Again, you keep returning to the burning barn of "wrong argument."

I already stipulated that a walled city cannot defend against modern weaponry.
IT IS NOT A MILITARY FORTIFICATION.

The purpose of the barrier wall is for DISASTER RESISTANCE.
But you just shifted discussion to gated communities for security, that have no actual natural disaster protection.


If we split the debate.

Protection: A like minded society is needed.

Natural Disaster: Location is the best defense and that is sorted by personal risk tolerance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,242 Posts
If you know someone who lives in an apartment complex, townhouse, high rise, condominium or other high population density situation, ask them if they sought compatibility with their neighbors before moving in.
Nope. They look for price and location. Can they afford it? Does it seem worth the price? Is it close to where they work, schools, parks, restaurants, whatever they are into?

Provide all that and people won't care what shape the complex is.

But you kind of have a chicken and egg problem here more than a 'if you build it, they will come' situation. What draws the first shops, business, school, families etc?

Its relatively easy to build a new apartment in a city when your working with a two acre block or something and just going up. The shops, jobs, schools, etc are already all around you.

Sticking a 600 acre donut in a city....impossible. Building it outside a city....sure...but now there is nothing to draw the first tenents in.

But sure...I mean...I've fantasized before about what I would do if I was a multimillionaire and how I would buy a hundred acres somewhere, build a wall around it, set up an interview process and accept hand picked 'vassals' who I would allow to live inside for free as long as they upheld certain standards etc.

Its only when you need investors that its really a problem because for every investor, you have an opinion and get enough opinions and any project is doomed.

Interesting side story...I was actually offered a job once to build a planned village in Sierra Leone. There was an urban orphanage and they had this idea that they would just 'start from scratch', buy a bunch of land and build a self sustaining community free of the corruption that plagues the country. I ended up turning it down, mostly because it meant at least two years living in country and didn't pay anything.

What ended up happening was that in order to buy the land, they had to make a deal with the locals in the region. The idea was that the orphanage would get 100 acres of undeveloped jungle, and the locals would eventually get a town that they could shop in, get medical attention at etc. The orphanage cleared the land, built a couple buildings, and then the locals found out that the town wasn't being built free for them to move into, but was going to be built for the orphans to live in and would just be a place they could shop in, sell stuff at etc...and canceled the whole deal....and got a free well and a couple buildings out of it.

It turns out, trying to build a self sustaining community out of whole cloth is extremely difficult...aka....the earlier comments on early American settlers.

The Sierra Leone story isn't even that different than what happens all the time even here. Last year Costco wanted to re-locate their store to a location further out of town where there was more space. The town came up with a bunch of conditions, like the store had to build a park, spend so much money to improve local schools, etc....before they would be allowed to build, in other words, they expected Costco to not only build a new store (attracting customers, improving the local economy, providing jobs) but also give them a bunch of free stuff just to be allowed to build. Costco told them to shove it, and so the town got nothing and is stuck with the existing costco which is too small for the area, causes traffic problems, etc.

No matter how practical an idea is, there isn't anywhere in the world where someone isn't going to show up with their hand out and demand you provide something for them first.
 

·
A marathon not a sprint
Joined
·
4,330 Posts
In all seriousness , I nicely pointed out the numbers do not come close to realistically working with the premise you have presented and all the mansplaining you did does not change that fact, jetgraphic. You might find a bankrupted and abandoned strip mall or building under construction being flogged off for that price.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,120 Posts
OK, no one can agree to form a cooperative and buy land, and build a DRV.

What if one already existed, and the rent was $100/month... no, correct that. $100 a month for five years ($6000) and then it's your domicile for life.

Would you jump at the chance or not?
: : : : : : :
Let's sweeten the deal. . . Add $50 a month, and you can acquire a lifetime lease on a storefront for your vocation.
: : : : : : :
Or have access to a plot of "private" land outside of the DRV?
Plant what you want.
Probably not.

I have no interest in urban living and would rather spend $6k on fencing for my rural property.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,049 Posts
Mine would start with a gentle sloping hill. A hill is cheaper land cost. Further savings potentially would be inavailability of a dozer(s) or a backhoe(s). A project like this will have plenty of both.

If I understand correctly, this is an operational, sustaining cooperative? So, concentric rings then. Facilities with block walls and poured floors, tin roofs, semi-buried. Central sorerooms and workshops at the top, clusters of villages around the circumference downslope, pastures in between, agriculture between villages.

Four entrances downslope, each bracketed by villages, each village a rifle shot fro the next or the overwatch. Pastures in the outer ring with a gravel road outside each village for access and security. Communal kitchens. Storerooms and shops in each village.

Use of barbed wire and 6' metal posts. Both are normally bought in quantity at a discount. Ag taxes are much cheaper. Cement block is scalable in supply and easy to set. Dirt is free and a very good insulator and easily placed rampart that can be grazed by livestock. Livestock barns and stockyards integrated into the pasture rings and partially submerged. Each a potential strongpoint.

5 8x8x8 cubes of dirt in wire are fast and cheap to build and fortify as tower strongpoints, which are easy to disguise with jerusalem artichokes, which are useful fodder and foodstock supplements....and perinnial.

10" i-beam is common in construction and just as common as scrap, as a braced and wieghted barrier gate in front of two 16x16x8 cubes of dirt even a D4 dozer would have some work dealing with them.

No fortification is impregnible but some are much harher than others....and much more affordable and easy to construct.
 

·
Gumpherhooberpelt
Joined
·
4,726 Posts
Discussion Starter #72
In all seriousness , I nicely pointed out the numbers do not come close to realistically working with the premise you have presented and all the mansplaining you did does not change that fact [no facts were presented], jetgraphic. You might find a bankrupted and abandoned strip mall or building under construction being flogged off for that price.
As already posted:
https://www.survivalistboards.com/showpost.php?p=20567858&postcount=29
So you refute the calculations for the concrete shell are unrealistic?
Can you produce facts in support?
Math errors?
Perhaps your experience with rectilinear construction threw you off.

So too, are the numerous listings of large tracts for $100,000 +/- $50k?
Would you also refute the rule of thumb for construction that states 1/3 goes to the contractor, 1/3 to the labor, and 1/3 to buy the materials and land?
And if Ringers did do the labor, would that not save 2/3rds the price in comparison to "industrial averages"?
Back in 1970s, in reading Rodale's NEW SHELTER, there were quite a few entrepreneurs who build houses at $7 / sf price, ex: 1200 sf house for $8400. One guy built his for $5000... (A nice clerestory roof cottage).

HABITERRA
http://www.habiterrabuildingsolutions.com/about.html
40 x 40 cm grid (15.75 x 15.75 inches)
$2500 USD Affordable House
https://youtu.be/EBkv5jjjhJ0

Yup, concrete is cheap. So you have to be a "Cretan"... I can live with that.

And thanks for the kind words of support - insults are high praise, and evidence of capitulation, lacking facts in rebuttal. I blush.
 

·
Gumpherhooberpelt
Joined
·
4,726 Posts
Discussion Starter #73
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
You have a finite amount of land.
It is estimated that you can support 9 people per acre under cultivation.
But you must also deduct the human habitat from the finite amount of land.

If you have 100 acres of arable land, with the potential to feed 900 people, and decide to build a village for 450 people, thus having a surplus for trade, what form of village would have the highest population density thus preserving the maximum amount of arable land?

If you assume 3 people per house, and 150 houses on 0.5 acre, that’s 75 acres for the village... 25 acres remain - not much left for farming.
Cut the plot size in half, to 0.25 acre, and that’s 50 acres left for farming.

If you reserve 12 acres for a dual ring village, and leave 88 acres available, you now have the ability to support 792 people.
Of course, now your population density is 450/12 acres, or 37 per acre.
However, despite the relatively high density, the amenities far outweigh the disadvantages.
[] Central park [] Urban amenities [] Proximity to shopping, enterprises, and social activities [] Population large enough to support medical professionals, and other skilled professions [] Disaster resistance []

Though it may not be the best solution for everyone, it might be an optimal solution for those on fixed incomes, low incomes, trailer park denizens who want better, and so on. Unfortunately, our building culture doesn't like to make superior housing for the poor, lest they live better than their betters.
. . . .
Can you suggest a better remedy that consumes less area per occupant, preserves the most farm land, has disaster resistant qualities, and will provide opportunities for prosperity, whether or not the SHTF?
And won't leave you on your own, to die alone?


Ref:
High yield agriculture:
https://www.splendidtable.org/story...people-from-food-grown-on-3-acres-in-the-city


The average Chinese farm holding is far smaller, averaging just 0.6 hectares (1.48 acres). India, the average farm size is 1.08 hectares (2.67 acres) Both in China and India, small farm sizes inhibit mechanization.
 

·
Gumpherhooberpelt
Joined
·
4,726 Posts
Discussion Starter #74
Sticking a 600 acre donut in a city....impossible.
I do not know where you got the 600 acre donut from.
In the previous example, the drv was situated on a 16 acre parcel. . . roughly one city block, plus or minus.
https://www.survivalistboards.com/showpost.php?p=20566686&postcount=11
The outer wall had a radius of 377 feet.
Total area enclosed by that wall is (pi x r^2)
3.1415x377^2
446,511.42 sf
43560 sf/acre
10.25 acres (in the round)

No matter how practical an idea is, there isn't anywhere in the world where someone isn't going to show up with their hand out and demand you provide something for them first.
Well, that might be true in countries that do not have a republican form of government.
Thankfully, the USA does.
And private property is constitutionally protected and not subject to taxes, regulations, rules, zoning and building codes.

And there are plenty of non-sovereign scenarios that get "them" off your back.
__ Build it as a religious retreat, monastery, convent, etc. (Mortmain)
__ Build it as a "leper colony" (modern day lepers: registered sex offenders)
__ Build it as a college / institution of learning (non profit)

Of course, if you wish to consent to the socialist democracy in power, that's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
Actually, not according to the law. I will spare readers of the long long correspondence I received from a man in Pennsylvania.

It was originally posted in a YAHOO GROUP (which is no longer available).
(But I downloaded the archive, heh heh)

The soundbite version resolved to:
... I then ask him to let me see the "Application For Building Permit"
form and perhaps that will shed some light as to how one become
subject to the building regulations.

I pointed out to him that the form clearly stated that it was only
the undersigned "applicant" who promises to abide and conform to the
building code, inspections and other regulations such as the EPA,
etc. I told him I was not born an "applicant".

I then asked him to bring forth a copy of the PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPALITIES PLANNING CODE (the PMPC). It reads:
"Applicant," a landowner or developer, as hereinafter defined, WHO HAS FILED an application for development including his heirs, successor and assigns.
I pointed out to him that an "applicant" is not all landowners or
developers but only the landowner or developer who HAS filed an
application for development. "Has" is past tense. One is not, by
definition an "applicant" until he HAS filed or submitted an
application.

To make a long story short, the zoning officer never got back to me
so I went directly to the Township Supervisors and asked them to
bring forth the law that requires me to submit an application for a
building permit. I did not hear from them so I called one of the
supervisors at home and he said to me:

"I asked our solicitor if there was a law or ordinance that requires
anyone to submit an application for a development or buildings
permit?" The supervisor then said, "You know, it is the damnedest
thing, that solicitor just stood there, looked me square in the eyes,
and said, "I am unable to answer that question." Then he walked away.

Notice he did not say he did not know the answer to that question,
only that he was UNABLE to answer it.
END OF EXCERPT

Again, I urge everyone to READ THEIR OWN LAWS.
You won't believe what you find until you read it for yourself.
As smart as this seems just realize that the issue gets complex as most powers over local government actually rest at the state level and any state powers generally were those confered under common law and crown law prior to the revolutionary war. A power of the states is to regulate land improvements and other community standards. That is generally where zoning and building code requirements stem from.

It stems from the police power mandated to the states and distributed to local government by the state.
Read the whole thing

https://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/forms and premiums/fire protection handbook/codesfph.pdf

It does not stem from statute it comes from case law and common law.

Not all laws are statutory. Your view is simple but totally ignores how law functions from laws deriving from common law police powers.

This goes back to the colonial period and revolutionary adoption of English common law into continuity of government after the seperation from the British Empire.

http://changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/files/chapter5.pdf
 

·
Gumpherhooberpelt
Joined
·
4,726 Posts
Discussion Starter #76
As smart as this seems just realize that the issue gets complex [muggles should trust the lawyers!] as most powers over local government actually rest at the state level and any state powers generally were those confered under common law and crown law prior to the revolutionary war. A power of the states is to regulate land improvements and other community standards. That is generally where zoning and building code requirements stem from. [nope.]

It stems from the police power mandated to the states and distributed to local government by the state.
Read the whole thing

https://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/forms and premiums/fire protection handbook/codesfph.pdf

It does not stem from statute it comes from case law and common law.

Not all laws are statutory. Your view is simple but totally ignores how law functions from laws deriving from common law police powers.

This goes back to the colonial period and revolutionary adoption of English common law into continuity of government after the seperation from the British Empire.

http://changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/files/chapter5.pdf
With all due respect, please produce ONE LAW THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Whereas, all the statutory rules, regulations, and taxes are limited to REAL ESTATE.
And real estate is mutually exclusive with private property.

All land is NOT real estate.
..................
LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the estate in land is another thing, for an estate in land is a time in land or land for a time.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877
.................

Estate in land is "another thing". Estate is time in land or land for a time. Remember that.

................
"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted."
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
................

Ownership is qualified (not absolute) when it is shared, or time is limited, or use is restricted.

Remember, estate is land for a time.

What is estate?

...................
"ESTATE - The degree, quantity, nature and extent of interest which a person has in real and personal property. An estate in lands, tenements, and hereditaments signifies such interest as the tenant has therein."
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.547

"REAL ESTATE .... is synonymous with real property"
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1263

"REAL PROPERTY ... A general term for lands, tenements, heriditaments; which on the death of the owner intestate, passes to his heir."
Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1218
.......................
Estate is interest in "real and personal property", which boils down to qualified ownership of REAL ESTATE.


What is NOT qualified ownership?
.....................
PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels.
- - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

.....................

Land and house that is absolutely owned is private property.
Note: when "estate" is taken for public use (as in condemnation for failure to pay taxes) no just compensation is paid.
" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are NATURAL RIGHTS for the enjoyment of which an excise [tax] cannot be imposed."
Redfield vs Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819.
" Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the POWER TO TAX A RIGHT, this would enable the state to DESTROY RIGHTS guaranteed by the constitutions through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the right of travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legitimate object of state taxation. The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of the taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the High Court. The right of the states to impede or embarrass the constitutional operations of the the U.S. Government or the Rights which the citizens hold under it, has been uniformly denied."
- - - McCulloch v. Maryland 4 Wheat 316.

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."
- - - Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, at 113 (1943).
Translation: No endowed (sacred) right can be taxed by any government instituted to secure said rights.
HOWEVER, if you did consent to be governed and surrendered those rights you're S.O.L.


DO STATES RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCE?

I think so...
From the Texas Constitution:

ARTICLE 8 - TAXATION AND REVENUE
Sec. 1. EQUALITY AND UNIFORMITY; TAX IN PROPORTION TO
VALUE; TAXATION OF TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE PROPERTY;
OCCUPATION TAXES; INCOME TAX; EXEMPTION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS.

(a) Taxation shall be equal and uniform.

(b) All real property and tangible personal property in this State, unless exempt as required or permitted by this Constitution, whether owned by natural persons or corporations, other than municipal, shall be taxed in proportion to its value, which shall be ascertained as may be provided by law.
The Texas constitution states that all real and personal property is subject to their taxing power.

When I did a computer search on the words "private property", the only place private property is mentioned, is in the section dealing with water works. In Article 11- Sec.12, Texas Constitution
................
Sec. 12. EXPENDITURES FOR RELOCATION OR REPLACEMENT OF SANITATION SEWER OR WATER LATERALS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

The legislature by general law may authorize a city or town to expend public funds for the relocation or replacement of sanitation sewer laterals or water laterals on PRIVATE PROPERTY if the relocation or replacement is done in conjunction with or immediately following the replacement or relocation of sanitation sewer mains or water mains serving the property. The law must authorize the city or town to affix, with the CONSENT OF THE OWNER of the PRIVATE PROPERTY, a lien on the property for the cost of relocating or replacing the laterals on the property and must provide that the cost shall be assessed against the property with repayment by the property owner to be amortized over a period not to exceed five years at a rate of interest to be set as provided by the law. The lien may not be enforced until after five years have expired since the date the lien was affixed.
............

Without consent of the owner, the State or local government cannot affix a lien, nor assess against the property, nor compel repayment.
But you can bet that "real estate" would have a lien on it, in a New York minute.

In short, private property is still protected by government.

DO NOT BELIEVE ME - GO READ THE LAW YOURSELF.
READ YOUR OWN "TITLE DEED" RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Note the "selling price" - "For $1, or $5, or $10 dollars in hand."

Ask your friendly liar (ahem) lawyer to explain why your multi-thousand dollar bill real estate purchase is recorded at a paltry sum that is always less than $21.

(Some lawyers said it was to "save on taxes." Yeah, right.)
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
- - - Seventh Amendment, USCON
Practically every title deed registered is evidence that BARS the owner from the right to a jury trial under the rules of the common law.
Why would YOUR attorney emit a patently bogus deed that bars you?
Why do the rules of the common law SCARE THE PANTS OFF THE LEGAL SYSTEM?
DOES IT CONFLICT WITH THE "EMERGENCY RULES" OF 1933?
. . . .
Senate Report 93-549
https://archive.org/stream/senate-report-93-549/senate-report-93-549_djvu.txt
War and Emergency Powers Acts
"That since March 09, 1933 the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." Proclamation No. 2039 declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. This declared national emergency has never been revoked and has been codified into the US Code (12 U.S.C. 95a and b).
. . . .

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
FREEDOMS ... GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION ... HAVE BEEN ABRIDGED BY LAWS ... UNDER EMERGENCY RULE ...


Can you guess what triggered the emergency?
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx
". . .Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."

You might want to ask "your" Congress critter to explain how YOUR labor and property underwrite their kited bad checks.



Constitutional U.S.A. (1789 - 1933) R.I.P.

<< * You're currently living under the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of America. * No constitutional money * No endowed rights * No private property * Full compliance with the ten planks of the communist manifesto * by your consent * >>


And yet, the promised republican form is still on the books as the law of the land. All endowed rights are still protected - for those who retained them. Which means that those who DID NOT CONSENT to the PDSRA have no grounds to "ALTER OR ABOLISH" the current regime.

Until consent is withdrawn, no remedy exists.
After consent is withdrawn, no remedy is necessary.
 

·
Gumpherhooberpelt
Joined
·
4,726 Posts
Discussion Starter #77
WHY READ THE LAW?
Because only then will you discover the FACTS.
What Facts?
How you gave consent to be governed and thus waived / surrendered your sacred endowment.

And if fraud was used to induce you to consent, you can DENOUNCE THE FRAUD, and withdraw consent voiding any / every compact.

I can show you the 'excepts' but there are many 'defenders' out there who will try every trick to keep you from discovering the truth. Prove me wrong - go read the law for yourself.

The truth is that Americans are promised a republican form of government in which the people are born equal and have Creator endowed rights that government was instituted to secure. And no endowed right is subject to regulation, restriction or taxation.

Sadly, they are tricked into surrendering their birthright, by every trick in the book - so that the servant becomes the master, and the master becomes the servile mewling serf.

Soundbite :
American nationals / free inhabitants domiciled upon private property have natural rights, natural and personal liberties, absolute ownership of private property, inherent powers and other privileges and immunities that are not subject to nor object of the government's power, beyond helping secure them.

Skeptics will roll out "law" or "code" or "statutes" that will imply otherwise, but they do not apply.

No government instituted to secure endowed rights can violate them without your consent. And they are clever in crafting laws that never ever trespass your sacred endowment.
"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61S.Ct. 742 (1941)).

"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)

“A sovereign is not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192
So you might assume that 'the sovereign' is government.

[BUZZER]
WRONG.

SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/2/419#writing-USSC_CR_0002_0419_Z

[Translation: People are the sovereigns. Governments are the agents of the sovereign people; the government is not a sovereign.]

Does the government make the distinction?

Coincidentally, when government wishes a law to be applicable to everyone, it uses the phrase, "Whoever ...". When the law is not applicable to everyone, it uses the phrase, "Any person who ....".
Title 18 USC § 111. Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain
officers or employees
(a) In General.-- Whoever--
(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties;
Contrast with:
Title 18 USC § 228. Failure to pay legal child support obligations
(a) Offense.-- Any person who--
(1) willfully fails to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 1 year, or is greater than $5,000...​
The infamous NY Sullivan Act that bans unlicensed concealed carry of weapons appears to only apply to “persons”...
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0400.00_400.00.html
15. Any violation by any person of any provision of this section is a class A misdemeanor.
Not only is "person" used as a trapdoor, but private property is routinely exempted.
18 USC Sec. 922 (q)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

If you and your property are absolutely owned as private property, you are exempt from liability. Thus the gubmint gun bans have never ever trespassed upon the sovereign people's right to bear arms.

Who benefits from indoctrinating 320 million human resources to 'voluntarily' surrender their endowed rights, and sign up as socialist slaves?

When you figure that out, you'll know who your opponent is, in the coming tribulations.
 

·
Gumpherhooberpelt
Joined
·
4,726 Posts
Discussion Starter #78
Summed up, whether or not the SHTF, there is a need for frugal, resilient, and disaster resistant housing, that offers security to person and property.

And if population growth continues, once socialism collapses, then we may well see a quadrupling of population every century.

With each quadrupling of population, comes the need for an equal or greater amount of food production.

Due to the finite amount of land, that compels us to consolidate human population, and expand / recover as much arable land as possible.

Investing one's resources with others, to construct dual ring villages, are one of the optimal ways to deal with the coming changes in the 21st century.

I'd rather we plan for the seventh generation yet to come, than to impose genocide upon 94% of the world's population. [See : Georgia Guidestones]

And based on existing law, in harmony with the republican form, the "Ringers" can build their solution without concern over building codes, zoning, tax levies, or any other restrictions that prevent po'folk from living better than their 'betters'.

Dual Ring villages are not the universal solution - just one of the optimal ones. Mountains suitable for terracing are not suitable for DRVs. Likewise, electric traction rail is not suitable for all terrain, though being the most efficient form of land transport. But for any finite supply of resources, it is common sense to do the most with the least so more can benefit. To do otherwise is senseless and wasteful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,688 Posts
As others have pointed out, the ring village concept is ancient. .....
And the circle is a horrible defensive design if you have an opponent with more than 3 guys and ANY organization. EVERYWHERE is deadspace. Not possible to have interlocking fire plan or mutual supporting or covered firing positions. The design of a defensive self contained fort peaked 200yrs ago with the Bastion Fort.
 

·
Gumpherhooberpelt
Joined
·
4,726 Posts
Discussion Starter #80
And the circle is a horrible defensive design if you have an opponent with more than 3 guys and ANY organization. [and modern weaponry] EVERYWHERE is deadspace. Not possible [what about a group of DRVs?] to have interlocking fire plan or mutual supporting or covered firing positions. The design of a defensive self contained fort peaked 200yrs ago with the Bastion Fort.[Again, if you want a military bastion, do not build a DRV]
And that's why I stressed the point that the circular walls were for DISASTER RESISTANCE, economy, engineering efficiency, etc., and NOT as an impregnable military fortress.

HOWEVER, a four to five story barrier wall will discourage the opportunistic predator / mutant zombie biker gangster. . . or BLM mob. And block most natural predators and other unwanted critters. So it is not a "horrible" defensive design... just not going to block artillery, nuclear blasts, air strikes, or other such methods. (Well, maybe 6 feet of earth will screen gamma ray "sky shine")
...
And what might happen if a small group of invaders manage to scale the 50ft wall and arrive at the roof deck? What if there were [censored for op-sec] capable of rapid [censored censored censored]?


From O.P.
Height Comparisons
Five story Ring Wall - 50 ft.
Tallest Fujian Tulou - 49 ft.
Four story Ring Wall - 40 ft.
Walls of Constantinople - 39 ft.
Great Wall of China - 16 to 26 ft.
. . . . .

The point is - in reference to ancient walled enclosures, a DRV is no slouch.
And a cluster of DRVs might provide redundancy and enhanced security.

If the design specs are to build a frugal, functional, efficient, disaster resistant, secure home and business operation, within a gated / security walled design, what else would you suggest? Add the requirement to provide for a high population density and maximize arable land.

[] 1000 story skyscraper?
[] Subterranean "missile silo"?
[] Rectangular walled neighborhoods?
[] Circular walled neighborhoods?
[] High rise, multi-use skyscrapers?
Monkey wrench - without power, no elevators. Anything over five stories is unpleasant.

Let's throw in the need for an integrated rail based mass transit system, which benefits from consolidation of population, while maximizing distances between stops.
[] At the junction of any three DRVs, one could put in a roundabout / parking garage / rail station, serving 3 rings. In each ring, there could be a circular people mover / rail system, so you could have "almost" door to door convenience.

Another unexpected benefit - curved roads place a natural speed limit. Depending on DRV diameter, the exterior road network would have inherent speed limits from 25 to 45 mph. NO need for twisty roads and cul-de-sacs to prevent hot rodders racing in your city / town.

- - - -
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/tools/CalculatorESafeSpeedLessThanEqualTo50.shtm?fbclid=IwAR167UKBojjOC0rZGmMlP4v1tds0V1-6BLV5W6C5kItS9CWu6uOpEP6Mmwg

Examples:
• For an outer ring road of 150 ft radius, the safe speed is 19 mph.
• For an outer ring road of 300 ft radius, the safe speed is 27 mph.
• For an outer ring road of 600 ft radius, the safe speed is 37 mph.
• For an outer ring road of 900 ft radius, the safe speed is 44 mph.
• For an outer ring road of 1200 ft radius, the safe speed is 50 mph.

Closest packing of DRVs will necessarily follow a hexagonal grid, not a rectilinear grid. Intersections will have only 3 entry points, instead of 4. Round abouts / traffic circles can eliminate the need for stop-and-go traffic. A city composed of DRVs would have a fault tolerant mesh road network, where one blockage would not stop all traffic.

Again, the DRV is not perfect for all situations. But where it fits in, there are many many benefits.
 
61 - 80 of 80 Posts
Top