Mark is right where it concerns ANY prohibition in an enclosed structure. Brian, I have no problem with a man building for his own education, and learning, even if it is visible. But admittedly you are working on more than one project, and (not taking sides) unfortunately that puts your case into the realm of business, and not personal.
If an individual has ANY kind of enclosure, either temporary or permanent, in which to work, and prudently makes "noise" during acceptable hours, then he should be allowed to follow his pursuit. As Mark pointed out, and I am in agreement with, though my initial over generalization did not indicate, the part of the law that we should be challenging is the part quoted which DOES restrict our civil liberties. That is your platform Brian, and anyone else who wishes to take this to another level. BUT, I am sorry if I offend or contradict, but in plain sight is bad, from the City's point of view, and I have to agree with it. If I were next door, I would not want 5 planes worth of parts under a tarp, taking away from value. I have one complete fuselage, being modified. That is a far cry from their gripe about mulitples. I believe in all that we do, and support it all. BUT, we must be careful and make sure that the parts that are valid in their complaint are complied with and the parts that are, such as limiting with an enclosure be struck down. I would encourage an appeal in the Federal Court System, and base it on a civil rights violation where the wording contains the parts, "Repairing, testing, operation, constructing, modifying or altering flying craft and airboats shall be prohibited in all residential districts..." and make them change the wording of the law to only restrict the parts that agree with code violations identical to that of cars and trucks. Then you are only limited to what is out in the open. If it came down to it, and I was complained on, I am prepared to enclose my awning to become an enclosed garage. Then I should be allowed to do whatever, so long as it does not endanger human life (the only other good reason to prohibit). Please do not mis-understand: I am not saying Brian or any one else is wrong. BUT, if what you are doing, falls into the criteria of code violation, those laws have been in effect for many years and have been affirmed by courts all over the US. Instead of needless expensive court battles to prove nothing, find out what to do to comply with code, and then do it. I have been given temporary permission by my subdivision HOA committee, so I made before hand that it was okay. If that is ever recended, then I move to plan B. The only way to beat this is to amend the law to allow for the responsible repair and maintenance, and construction in an acceptable way to the city. That is why AOPA nor EAA will enter the fight. It cannot be won if your goal is to have the whole law struck down. Challenge the part I quoted from Mark Langford and you have a leg to stand on. Otherwise it falls too easily into the category of code violation, and like it or not they will win! There is too much court precedence and enforcement to support them to repeal it. I am just trying to convey to everyone how they work, how they will win, and what you can do to challenge. Fight the good fight. Don't just take on city hall for kicks or because you have a bone to pick. It is only your rights until it adversely effects someone else. Everyone is too hung up on what I want and what I want to do. Basic tort law supports that the moment your pursuits have a negative effect on another person, they have a right to seek damages. In this case it is the city and their balance of property rights. Just because you own a piece of land, you cannot do any old thing you want to with it. I know that hurts but it is true. Everyone's feelings are valid and admirable. But they must be directed to the parts of the law that are wrong and have it amended to allow freedom with an enclosure. Colin N96TA > > From: "Mark Langford" <n5...@hiwaay.net> > Date: 2006/07/18 Tue PM 09:42:51 EDT > To: "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net> > Subject: Re: KR> Anti junk/disabled anything laws > > Colin Rainey wrote: > > >> Unfortunately I have to agree with the local jurisdiction on their > >> decision to prohibit the repair and construction of cars, trucks, and now > >> light aircraft outside of a building and the storage of such items in > >> side or backyards, regardless of its intended use.<< > > Many of us probably agree with you, but the "big deal" is the part in the > legislation that prohibited: > "Repairing, testing, operation, constructing, modifying or altering flying > craft and airboats shall be prohibited in all residential districts..." > Now you can't build or even change the oil in an airplane AT ALL! This is a > big deal to all of us... > > Mark Langford, Harvest, AL > see homebuilt airplane at http://www.N56ML.com > email to N56ML "at" hiwaay.net > > > _______________________________________ > Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp > to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net > please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html >
