If only I had known, I wouldn't have ordered Domino's Pizza

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Not allowing people to live in a town who don't believe a certain way

I don't think they can limit what you believe, but you won't be able to buy porn, etc. That is already the case in my town of 16,000. I don't know if it is a law, but it isn't available.

As phreezone mentioned, their 'standards' could be a problem depending on what support outside county, state governments provide in infrastructure. Besides that, their 'standards' must still comply with laws. If the state sees a need to restrict their ability to control 'standards' in their little town, it can do so.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[OATSF14 0]

Quote

the double standard is just sickening.

Agreed. Even tho I hate his pizza I'll buy one tonight. Freedom of choice goes both ways. I wish him well.

[councilman24 36]

Monaghan sold domino's some time ago, IIRC. May still own stock but think he cashed out.

New today:

Domino's Founder Backtracks On Vision

POSTED: 8:41 am EST March 3, 2006

WEST PALM BEACH -- Domino's Pizza founder Thomas S. Monaghan backtracked today from earlier comments that he'd like to see a new town he's bankrolling in southwest Florida be governed by strict Roman Catholic principles, denying access to birth control and pornography.

The town of Ave Maria, about 25 miles east of Naples, is being built around Ave Maria University, the first Catholic university to be built in the United States in four decades, which Monaghan also founded. Both are set to open next year.

"There's a lot of misconceptions about this. I don't really have a vision for the town. I have a vision for the university," Monaghan said today on ABC's "Good Morning America." "I'm not a developer. I'm not a lawyer. I'm just trying to build a world class university."

His comments were in contrast to statements he made last year to a Catholic men's group in Boston, telling the crowd that pornographic magazines won't be sold in town, pharmacies won't carry condoms or birth control pills, and cable television will carry no X-rated channels. Monaghan said this morning those comments were "out of place."

"The town is open to anybody," Monaghan said. "The university, it's different story. It will be primarily Catholic."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida promised lawsuits if the proposals were to become law.

The town is being developed through a partnership with the Barron Collier Co., an agricultural and real estate firm.

"We're going to be requesting that contraceptives not be sold in the town but we are not going to be restricting," Barron Collier CEO Paul Marinelli said on ABC. "It is not going to be a Catholic town."

Barron Collier and Monaghan will control all the commercial real estate.

"We anticipate there we be synagogues as well as Baptist churches," Marinelli said a few minutes later on NBC's "Today Show." "We do not discriminate against anyone."

He said the town would not restrict residents' access to any cable television programming.

"It's not a restrictive cable station," he said. "We're not trying to create a city with walls around it that isolates from the world."

The town, however, will not have adult bookstores or topless clubs.

Monaghan had refused to comment earlier in the week while his attorneys were reviewing the legal issues of the bans he had proposed last year.

Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist said he saw nothing that violated state law in Monaghan's proposals, saying it would be up to the courts to decide the legalities if a lawsuit was filed.

The community will be set on 5,000 acres with a European-inspired town center. It will encircle a massive church and what planners call the largest crucifix in the nation, standing nearly 65 feet tall. Monaghan has already pledged more than $250 million to the project.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I guess I wouldn't define a town where a great many things are proscribed as "letting people do what they like." It's sorta the antithesis of what a libertarian society would look like.

It's not a libertarian town, but a libertarian nation would allow individuals to voluntarily join towns like this.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If he wants to offer land for sale only to Catholics (or Jews or heterosexuals or dog fanciers) with sales contracts which limit resale to similar groups it makes sense to me. The free market would be able to work things out in the end.

Oh, dear me. Your viewpoint was pretty valid up until the 1930s, back when freedom to contract was viewed as a pretty good right. That was when you could do what you wanted on your property, so long as it wasn't a nuisance to other property owners. It was the time when individual freedoms were allowable and property was viewed as sacrosanct.

But, there are things that people just can't do anymore because it isn't right. Your viewpoint is shockingly lacking in mainstream progressive thought. My guess is that you'd even think it's allowable to let people smoke in their homes.

The truth is, you can't discriminate against anybody or anything for any reason at any time. The government doesn't like people doing their own thing. A bunch of people like-minded getting together to live together in their own community is a bad thing, unless it is based upon some secular ideology. Leisure World, while there may be problems with it discriminating against younger Americans, can't be screwed with because old people vote to much.

We saw what happened to David Koresh. Polygamists? Should be destroyed. There was a time not so long ago (the 1970's) where guys like Jim Jones were highly regarded civic leaders (but only when they can provide votes to the Bay Area elite, like Ron Brown).

It's too bad we don't have freedom of contract anymore, or freedom of association. Such freedoms may affect interstate commerce, and therefore should be regulated.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[micro 0]

Quote

I guess I wouldn't define a town where a great many things are proscribed as "letting people do what they like." It's sorta the antithesis of what a libertarian society would look like.

that's the sound of the this whole thing going right over your head, bill...

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Oh, dear me. Your viewpoint was pretty valid up until the 1930s, back when freedom to contract was viewed as a pretty good right.

I wonder how long people will keep using that amusing archaism, "It's a free country."

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Quote

Oh, dear me. Your viewpoint was pretty valid up until the 1930s, back when freedom to contract was viewed as a pretty good right.

I wonder how long people will keep using that amusing archaism, "It's a free country."

Narci also doesn't get it, whoosh....

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Narci also doesn't get it, whoosh....

It must be comforting to know you can automatically reply to anything I write with the same attitude.

It's much less effort than actually reading and thinking.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh, dear me. Your viewpoint was pretty valid up until the 1930s, back when freedom to contract was viewed as a pretty good right.

I wonder how long people will keep using that amusing archaism, "It's a free country."

Narci also doesn't get it, whoosh....

Actually, on this point, he seems to get it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,464]

>If that's what the owner and inhabitants agree to, then what is the problem?

If that remains the case, then the problem isn't a big one. (Or I should say is no more of a problem than a privately owned all-white country club, where the owner and all members agree with the policy.) The problems arise when someone lives there who does not want to be there. People tend to have kids, for example - and those kids often inherit the house but do not inherit the same desires their parents have.

>Forcing the owner / inhabitants to do something they don't wish to
>would be the libertarian antithesis...

And forcing a homeowner to follow a rule that they do not wish to is as well. In most current law, we protect the rights of the individual living on land he owns more than any others - which is why laws that apply to searching people's homes, and allowing law enforcement to enter, are among the most stringent.

I'm not against the guy buying this land, or developing it any way he wants. It's a free country; he could buy the land and build houses that had five foot ceilings and call it midgettown if he wants to. But he better not get any federal money for it, and I hope he fails. We shouldn't try to follow the example of the Taliban even in private developments.

BTW you see these problems in most places to a much lesser degree; they're called homeowner's associations.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Quote

Narci also doesn't get it, whoosh....

It must be comforting to know you can automatically reply to anything I write with the same attitude.

It's much less effort than actually reading and thinking.

So sorry, I was just adopting a style of response that is popular with a moderator. It is kinda fun.

People should be free to make communities with local 'standards' if they don't violate laws, don't you think? Is there something in particular that is objectionable?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Narci also doesn't get it, whoosh....

It must be comforting to know you can automatically reply to anything I write with the same attitude.

It's much less effort than actually reading and thinking.

I think using the "whoosh" has turned into the new "you are a dirty liberal/conservative."

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

BTW you see these problems in most places to a much lesser degree; they're called homeowner's associations.

Quite right, so what is it about this development that is so scary? Why the comparison to all white country clubs, is this comparable to what they want to do? Children inheriting a house also inherit the limitations of a homeowner's association, or deed restrictions, etc.

I don't think a comparison to the Taliban is justified given you haven't listed anything to objectionable. If they are trying to do something so bad, certainly a simple law would reign in their evil intentions.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

People tend to have kids, for example - and those kids often inherit the house but do not inherit the same desires their parents have.

And forcing a homeowner to follow a rule that they do not wish to is as well. In most current law, we protect the rights of the individual living on land he owns more than any others - which is why laws that apply to searching people's homes, and allowing law enforcement to enter, are among the most stringent.

I'm not against the guy buying this land, or developing it any way he wants. It's a free country; he could buy the land and build houses that had five foot ceilings and call it midgettown if he wants to. But he better not get any federal money for it, and I hope he fails. We shouldn't try to follow the example of the Taliban even in private developments.

BTW you see these problems in most places to a much lesser degree; they're called homeowner's associations.

Agreed, about the homeowner's associations, and that's pretty much what I had in mind when I made my reply.

And, just like kids that inherit a home or a person who's HOA changes the rules to something they don't care for, they have the option of selling the house and leaving.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,464]

>Quite right, so what is it about this development that is so scary?

Homeowner's associations are evil, because they substitute rules for common sense. "I hate it that Joe parks four broken trucks on his lawn; they leak oil everywhere and they're an eyesore. So rather than talk to that drunk loser, I'll just pass an HOA rule that says 'no vehicle maintenance on HOA property.' "

"Hey, I was just changing my oil in my Acura, and you're telling me I can't? Why not?"

"HOA rules, man. $200 fine if you do it again."

This, to me, sounds like an HOA on steroids. Basically a whole town living under HOA rules instead of just one gated community.

Now, a libertarian might argue that the people have every right to get together and do that - but that same libertarian would likely not want to live in such a place.

>Why the comparison to all white country clubs, is this comparable
>to what they want to do?

It depends. Take two extremes. One, a country club that is all-white and excludes blacks. I hope we can all agree that this is a sorta evil thing to do (although perhaps legal.) Two, a country club that allows anyone in with no restrictions at all, but they happen to be all white. I think we could agree that there's nothing wrong with this.

There's a third way to do it, though. Don't have a rule that excludes blacks, but make it more difficult for them to join. Restrict membership to a geographic area, an area that's 99.9% white. Have many social functions at restaraunts that normally exclude blacks. That way you can say you are open to everyone, but still restrict membership to 'desireables.' Is that right or wrong? (it's almost certainly legal.) Would you support such a club?

>I don't think a comparison to the Taliban is justified given you
> haven't listed anything to objectionable.

The defining characteristic of something like the Taliban is that they legislate morality. This is legislating morality on the level of a town. Which is great if that's what you want, and the phrase 'you can always leave' will make its appearance soon. But I don't think that's wise overall in the long run - because people don't always keep the morals you want them to have over generations, even if they start out that way.

>certainly a simple law would reign in their evil intentions.

I guess I figure that fewer laws/rules/HOA covenants tends to be better than more.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

People should be free to make communities with local 'standards' if they don't violate laws, don't you think? Is there something in particular that is objectionable?

Why are you asking this in response to me? Have you read anything I've written in this thread or do you just ASS-UME I'm on the opposite side of every position you hold?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Now, a libertarian might argue that the people have every right to get together and do that - but that same libertarian would likely not want to live in such a place.

That's absolutely right. A libertarian does not interfere with other people's lives just because they don't personally want to live that way.

That's what Republicans do. Oh, and Democrats.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What are your thoughts on them potentially accepting federal and state tax money to pay for services and infastructre and then excluding sectors of sociaty? Would it be acceptiable for them to accept 20 million dollars (random figures pulled out of the air) for them to get an Interstate ramp built and a sewage plant only to have the city prohibit a Synoghog or a Mosque from purchasing land if its properly zoned?

The residents would be paying property taxes for infrastructure, no? Around here, new communities often have to cough up good money for the new schools their housing will require.

under the now apparently false premise we started with, the odds of a Mosque being formed there sounds on par with the KKK opening a branch office in Harlem.

So let's stick to hypotheticals that might actually happen.

I don't know what the zoning ordinances are like for churches, which often don't pay property taxes.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The defining characteristic of something like the Taliban is that they legislate morality.

All laws do that, bill. Hence "Civil Rights Act of 1964" and the "Voting Rights Act of 1965." Those acts say, "What you are doing is wrong and immoral, and we won't allow that stuff anymore."

I wouldn't link that sort of thing to the Taliban. It's only "Taliban" when your morals and values oppose it. Obviously, some people had no problem with Jim Crow, otherwise there would have been no law preventing it. They might have screamed "Taliban" at the time had the Taliban existed. Would you agree?

Quote

This is legislating morality on the level of a town.

Sure, and I wouldn't live there. But many may. This sot of thing is the reason why we have laws at the international, federal, state, county and city levels. Cities and counties can have their own versions of morality, which is why there are Blue Laws, bannign of "Gentlemen's Clubs," etc. I really see very little difference here.

Quote

Which is great if that's what you want, and the phrase 'you can always leave' will make its appearance soon.

True. And we see stuff like this all the time in apartment complexes, etc. Apartments have the right to make many of their own rules that are stricter than local ordinances. Here's a community that looks like it's private. This may mean that under contract, the home owners may subject themselves to the waiver of many rights. Policing the community laws won't be up to the government. Instead, a quasi-governmental agency will likely do it.

Ironically, these "quasi-governments" still must provide minimum due process protections. I can imagine it being liike your mention of an HOA on steroids. But, some people want that.

Not me, but do what thou wilt.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Homeowner's associations are evil, because they substitute rules for common sense.

Our government substitutes rules for common sense.

I don't understand why people complain so much about HOA's. If you don't like them, don't live in a place that has one.

Quote

The defining characteristic of something like the Taliban is that they legislate morality. This is legislating morality on the level of a town.

And again, our government is already legislating morality on many different levels.

I would prefer to see these people living in their own town with their own rules. That way they shouldn't have any reason to worry about what I'm doing where I live.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Quote

People should be free to make communities with local 'standards' if they don't violate laws, don't you think? Is there something in particular that is objectionable?

Why are you asking this in response to me? Have you read anything I've written in this thread or do you just ASS-UME I'm on the opposite side of every position you hold?

I apologize. I realize that I misread your reply to lawrocket's post.

I know we don't always disagree.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Homeowner's associations are evil, because they substitute rules for common sense.

Our government substitutes rules for common sense.

I don't understand why people complain so much about HOA's. If you don't like them, don't live in a place that has one.

Unfortunately, that's less and less of an option as developers continue to create them on new housing developments.

It's really not so much this -particular- housing development that bothers me so much, but rather the idea that ANY group of rich guys thinks they know how other people "ought" to be living their lives.

What it means is that as time goes on, there will be few and fewer options for people of differing tastes and opinions and the only opinions that will be tolerated in a society will be the ones handed down by corporations.

I watched him and his lawyer on ABC's "Good Morning America" today and they're backpeddling hard although they didn't deny they said what they said when they said it at the breakfast.

Hilarious.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Lindsey 0]

I would prefer to see these people living in their own town with their own rules. That way they shouldn't have any reason to worry about what I'm doing where I live.


What if the next town only allows families with women who don't work live there....or doesn't allow women to live there who choose to leave abusive relationships (because divorce is not acceptable)....How about communities where gays are only allowed in....or how about no blacks...or no whites....or only people in this or that militia....could go on and on. The comparison to the Taliban isn't far off, imho.

If people want to have their little communities built on whatever ideals are important to them, I suppose that's okay. BUT they should receive NO public funds for anything except for the funds that they, themselves, generate. Doesn't mean they don't pay taxes. But taxes shouldn't support that kind of system, imho.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[RhondaLea 3]

I still don't see in either article where the plan was to restrict lot offerings to Catholics, but only to restrict sales of certain items, including cable TV.

I don't see how that compares to the example given earlier about all-white country clubs, which do, in fact, restrict membership (is that still legal? I didn't think it was).

So what I'm seeing is that a man is putting his money into creating a community where only like-minded individuals would want to live, and I still don't understand the problem.

It's not what I would want, but I don't have to buy there.

The whole HOA argument isn't one I get either. While it's true that builders draft the original set of bylaws, bylaws aren't deed restrictions, and when the community is released by the developer, the homeowners can agree to change those restrictions. Everyone has a vote.

Deed restrictions are another matter, of course, but they're generally less specific than the bylaws of an HOA, dealing largely with fencing and the number of and kinds of animals permitted per household, for example. But you can find such things in the zoning laws everywhere anyway.

The reason for such rules is that there's always a bozo somewhere who insists on infringing on his neighbor's right to quiet enjoyment. In an era when people refuse to exercise common courtesy in places where the living space is small, I'm not entirely certain there's a better solution.

And in the end, the answer remains, if you don't like the restrictions, live elsewhere. I'm as much against discrimination as the next guy, but I don't think that's what this discussion is about.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb