Illegal to have a home not connected to municipal supply grid?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Kittamaru, Oct 30, 2014.

Page 2 of 3
  1. AlexG

    AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    It violates zoning regulations, which are as capricious a set of rules as you can find anywhere.
     
    AlexG, Nov 10, 2014
    #21

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole

    joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    True, and the laws are sometimes poorly written and inconsistently enforced.
     
    joepistole, Nov 10, 2014
    #22

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Yes but if her home is self sufficient, why does she need to be hooked up for something she does not need or want to use?

    It is not as if her home is without amenities.

    I would have thought self sufficiency in a country that prides itself on demanding people not rely on the State for anything, would have been a good thing. I would assume that you need to pay a fee to remain hooked up to the service, even if you do not use it? Would they be willing to pay her money for the power she is not using and buying it off her?

    I know in Australia, power companies are pushing for restrictions on solar panels and how much they are having to pay customers back for pumping power into the grid (we generate a lot of power from our roof panels and we never have to pay electricity as we generate more than we use and what we generate, the power company is buying from us and we get money from them every three months - and they are now whining about the fact that so many houses in Queensland have made very good use of solar panels and are selling to power companies, that it is eating into their profit margin).. And in the coming years, we are looking to go completely off grid and I am not the only one.

    Many homes here are not connected to the grid - especially if you live in the country or regional areas where you have no choice but to be self-sufficient - with the use of rain water tanks, solar panels and battery storage, septic tank systems, underground water tanks and storage facilities. These are a part of life for many many Australians, even for some who live a couple of hours away from the city. And even those in the city and inner suburbs, rain water tanks are encouraged so as to not use and waste the city's water supply. Some even encourage the use of products that would make the rain water tanks provide drinking water.
     
    Bells, Nov 10, 2014
    #23

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon

    billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,646
    Right - and that's a stupid law. The INTENT of the law is good (i.e. "people should be able to have a sanitary way of disposing of wastes") but it fails by forcing to have the local government supply something that the homeowner could do themselves.
     
    billvon, Nov 10, 2014
    #24
  8. youreyes

    youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    Have you ever been to Russia? No.
    America limits freedom of their citizens to an extent you cannot fathom in, in Russia. So before dissing on Russia, go there and live there and than tell me who is more free. Gulags are a thing of the far past, plenty of people in jail in USA, in fact the most of any country. Also there is a thing called "economical prison" through debt, and the numbers in USA experiencing this "Economical Gulag" are plenty. This off the grid prohibision is just another example of the American Gulag scheme.
     
    youreyes, Nov 10, 2014
    #25
  9. Captain Kremmen

    Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Next thing they'll be building a wall round New York.
    youreyes
    Russia has improved under Putin, I agree.
    But you can see how appalling it used to be from the life expectancy table below:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    In 2003, the average person did not even reach pension age.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2014
    Captain Kremmen, Nov 10, 2014
    #26
  10. Enmos

    Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Notice that it says "Life expectancy at birth". Those people will, on average, still die before pension age. Or, at least, that's what's been predicted.
     
    Enmos, Nov 10, 2014
    #27
  11. joepistole

    joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    How can anyone take anything from Putin's government as credible?
     
    joepistole, Nov 10, 2014
    #28
  12. joepistole

    joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Stupid? In this case,that depends on your perspective. I am sure they have reasons for the law. If people don't like the laws, they shouldn't elect those lawmakers.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2014
    joepistole, Nov 10, 2014
    #29
  13. Captain Kremmen

    Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Putin, like the other US Media monsters, Chavez and Mugabe,
    have improved the life of the average citizen.
    The US media attacks anyone who does not feather the beds of billionaires.
     
    Captain Kremmen, Nov 10, 2014
    #30
  14. Enmos

    Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Enmos, Nov 10, 2014
    #31
  15. Captain Kremmen

    Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Life expectancy plummeted after the break-up of Russia, beginning with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
    Putin's tenure began in 2000 and he began his assault on the Oligarchs.
    People were dying from drugs, alcohol and cold, and all the other diseases of poverty, while predators made Billions.
    His success in taming the Oligarchs is the reason why the Russians love him.
     
    Captain Kremmen, Nov 10, 2014
    #32
  16. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Ah yes, freedom in Mother Russia...

    One year after Vladimir Putin's third inauguration as Russia's President, the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly have come under increasing attack, despite the fact that these rights are explicitly guaranteed by the Russian Constitution and international human rights treaties to which Russia is party.

    At least two new laws have been introduced and eleven (five Federal and six regional) laws have been amended including broad provisions that allow for arbitrary interference with the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly despite legally binding decisions of regional and universal human rights bodies in this regard. As a result, the space for political opposition and other forms of dissent is rapidly shrinking, as well as for operations of non-governmental organizations, in particular those reliant on overseas funding. These recent legal initiatives have the declared aim of ensuring public order and the protection of the rights of citizens. Their effect has been the opposite: prominent government critics, opposition voices, watchdogs and ordinary individual protesters (on a wide range of issues) have all seen their rights restricted over the course of the last year.

    The right to freedom of assembly has been restricted through excessively onerous approval procedures, sharply increased sentences, the imposition of additional responsibilities on organizers, and increased liability for the actions of participants. The few large scale protests that have been authorized cannot obscure the great many, both large and, mostly, very small, that have been arbitrarily banned or dispersed. New restrictions on the freedom of association and expression have had serious implications for civil society in the Russian Federation. Organizations in receipt of foreign funding are required to describe themselves as "foreign agents", if considered to be involved in undefined "political activities". This requirement is inconsistent with international human rights standards. A wave of inspections of NGOs across the country by prosecutors and tax officials in March and April 2013 appears to have set the grinding wheels of this law's application in motion.    ​

    You are only free if you agree with Putin. If you disagree with Putin or criticise his leadership or his actions.. well.. You will most likely end up in prison or dead. Journalists are especially ripe for the picking.. Sadly, that figure has gone up..

    Are those the freedoms you say that Americans cannot even fathom in Russia?

    Or did you mean the "freedoms" they have when Putin ensures that any opposition websites are virtually banned?

    The Russian government has blocked several Russian Web sites noted for their criticism of President Vladimir Putin and his government.

    Russian Internet service providers were ordered Thursday to cut off access to a handful of sites, including those of opposition leader Alexei Navalny and famed chess champion Garry Kasparov, who runs opposition information site kasparov.ru.    ​

    Those freedoms?

    And I am not even touching on how Putin has enacted laws that virtually remove the rights of anyone who happens to be LGBT and their family and friends and making blasphemy a criminal offense..

    Yes, Mother Russia.. Where freedom means imprisonment or death if one does not agree with Putin.

    Or visit and live in North Korea, where you are guaranteed to have about the same level of "freedom" as if you live in Putin's Russia.
     
    Bells, Nov 10, 2014
    #33
  17. Landau Roof

    Landau Roof Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    598
    Untrue. They haven't attacked me.
     
    Landau Roof, Nov 10, 2014
    #34
  18. joepistole

    joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Seriously? Are you that out of touch?

    Freedom House, a nongovernmental agency reports Russia is not free. On a scale of 1 to 7 it gives Russia a 5.5 overall rating and a 5.0 rating for civil rights and a 6.0 for political rights. In contrast the US has a 1.0 overall rating, a 1.0 rating for civil rights, and a 1.0 rating for political rights. You should read the report linked to below and the outlook is for Russia to become less free as Putin continues to consolidate his power.



    https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2014/russia-0#.VGDiP8J0xMs

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House
     
    joepistole, Nov 10, 2014
    #35
  19. Captain Kremmen

    Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    True. More accurately:
    The US attacks any country which does not increase the wealth of the 1%.
     
    Captain Kremmen, Nov 10, 2014
    #36
  20. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Yes. An earlier poster mentioned a requirement to destroy their septic tank system and hook to the main sewers. Where I live in the UK the local government department would undertake to empty our septic tank at lengthy, but adequate, intervals at no charge. With the cost cutting measures of the last decade or so this is now is charged. I'm happy with that; the council are happy with that; the other rate payers are happy with that - it is sensible. Rules? Good idea, but let's ensure they are practical and relevant.
     
    Ophiolite, Nov 10, 2014
    #37
  21. Kittamaru

    Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Laws generally have some sort of reason to substantiate them - my question is, what is the reason, beyond the fact that it is some arbitrary law, for having it be illegal to not be connected to central utilities? A number of years ago, the "off grid" living thing was gaining popularity, with people using manual wells and solar/wind power to live in deep-woods areas instead of communities... what's so wrong with that?

    Again, what are the REASONS for that law?
     
    Kittamaru, Nov 11, 2014
    #38
  22. joepistole

    joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    You didn't ask for reasons for the law, you asked how could it be legal. There is a big difference. I don't know the reasons why the city enacted the law, but I am sure they had a reason for it. They don't have to have a reason you or I agree with or might find reasonable. As long as they don't violate other laws, they can make any kind of crazy law they want. The city does have the authority to make those laws. And if the public doesn't like it, they can elect someone else. Laws are not illegal because you don't like them.

    If you want my opinion, why the city would enact such a law I can speculate but I don't know why the city passed the law and frankly I don't care. It could be because they want to distribute the costs of the water system infrastructure over a larger base. It could be because they might fear local water collection might pose a health or physical hazard to the community. When I had the previously mentioned home, the county said the septic tanks were putting too much nitrates into the soil. So I had to pay to connect to the county sewer system and pay a monthly flat fee for that connection. I also had a well at that home which they tested on occasion. But they never required me to connect to public water. And it really doesn't matter what there reasons are for the law, they have the legal authority to make the law. A few years ago I drilled an irrigation well on one of my properties. I had to get permits from the city and county and had to register the well with the state. Building and zoning regulation isn't new and it certainly isn't illegal. I had a neighbor in Ohio who was a land developer. He bought land and built homes on it. It took him a year to get the permits to reroute a small, and I mean small, creek on one of his properties.

    If you want to back a little further, my family once owned a farm. When my ancestors came to this country they homesteaded that farm. Government came in and wanted to build a dam. They took the farm and built the dam. My grandmother went to Washington to protest along with other women, but the government took the land and built the dam anyway. Our government has some very broad powers related to land ownership and development.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2014
    joepistole, Nov 11, 2014
    #39
  23. leopold

    leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    uh, what are you complaining about kitt?
    if you live inside the citys water supply then i don't want you dumping your waste where my kids could play in it.
    if you live outside the citys supply then no law on earth can force you to connect to a non existent source.

    added to the above:
    when sewer lines are first laid, the homeowners have a certain amount of grace time.
    this can range from months to years depending on the circumstances.
     
    leopold, Nov 11, 2014
    #40
Page 2 of 3

Share This Page