Government Runs Amok---Yet Again

[kyheirloomer]

Check this out: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100711/ap_on_re_us/us_wooden_dinosaur

And yet, they still don't understand why the Tea Party is making such inroads. Go figure!

 

[gunnar]

this is nothing new. funny it involves another dinosaur though. Used to be a gas station near a fruit stand in Dixon,ca. The owner had a brontosauros statue (nicknamed Dixie) made that looks vaguely in size to the one in the story, it sat for what had to be at least 25 years in the same spot with a little wire mesh fence around the outside. When he closed shop and sold it , (lots of people wanted it) the winning bidder ended up with the problem of not being able to have it in his yard. Apparently the original owner had listed it as a yard ornament, the city or county got involved (jerks) and stated it was too big to be called a lawn ornament for the new owner. I forget exactly what happened but I think they got away calling it an art piece after the right money moved around.

 

[greg]

Quote:

this is nothing new. funny it involves another dinosaur though. Used to be a gas station near a fruit stand in Dixon,ca. The owner had a brontosauros statue (nicknamed Dixie) made that looks vaguely in size to the one in the story, it sat for what had to be at least 25 years in the same spot with a little wire mesh fence around the outside. When he closed shop and sold it , (lots of people wanted it) the winning bidder ended up with the problem of not being able to have it in his yard. Apparently the original owner had listed it as a yard ornament, the city or county got involved (jerks) and stated it was too big to be called a lawn ornament for the new owner. I forget exactly what happened but I think they got away calling it an art piece after the right money moved around.

I don't think he had it made, it was probably one of these:

 

[gunnar]

lol, nope. Dixie was a bit bigger. see :



more info here:

http://www.frankwu.com/dixie1.html

 

[kyheirloomer]

this is nothing new.

Didn't mean to imply it was, Gunnar. Just pointing out another instance of bureacracy gone wild.

It's probably gotten even worse, now, but I remember when I lived in New York it took 19 permits, from as many agencies, to legally dig a hole of any kind. It's a wonder anything ever got built.

but I think they got away calling it an art piece after the right money moved around.

There's no telling what art is. Especially not in a country whose National Endowment For the Arts (anyone besides me have a problem with the very idea of state-subsidized "art") was run by an over-the-hill foreign actress.

 

[gunnar]

Ever see the Maplethorpe Exhibt? our tax dollars at work. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/mad.gif   would rather have seen chimps fling feces on canvas.

 

[phatch]

They'd get nowhere in Vernal Utah, gateway city to Dinosaur National Monument. Dinosaur decorations of all shapes and sizes all over that town.

 

[greg]

lol, nope. Dixie was a bit bigger. see :



more info here:

http://www.frankwu.com/dixie1.html

Wow. Those poor little Sinclair dinosaurs are going to get complexes.
 

 

[Guest]

IDK, while I like the notion of this piece of improvised art and the other dinosaur too, I'd have a problem if it was located right next to my property. 

Something so big that is just haphazardly constructed should be temporary and disassembled after a reasonable period of time. 

To leave it up permanently, exposed to the weather, with no plan for its maintenance or any plan that assures its structural integrity is inviting disaster. It's not inconceivable that a big storm could blow pieces (imagine 2x4s with rusty nails) of this this off, endangering people, drivers and so forth. 

It's reasonable that local officials would want some kind of assurance that the thing is not going to be a hazard to the public. Imagine the liability that guy would incur if on a windy day a board flew off and hit a child and handicapped him permanently. 

While it may seem burdensome to you, KY, to have to get the necessary permits to do whatever construction you want to do, let me give you an example of why it's necessary-

Here in the NE, most towns and villages have occupied their locations for many, many generations. In the 19th century most homes were lit by gaslight-the gas having been manufactured at a local plant by burning coal and coke to produce the gas then piped to people's homes. The MGPs (manufactured gas plants) left huge deposits of coal tar- extremely poisonous and volatile-shallowly buried adjacent to their factories. This stuff sinks and migrates all over the place and into the water table. 

If you were to start digging out say, an in-ground pool on your property, which might be located near one of these deposits of coal tar, you could easily and inadvertently expose yourself and all your neighbors to a highly toxic soup of and flammable  and gaseous materials and would be liable for the cleanup  and the damage to everyone's health and property. The permit fees you must pay cover the cost of determining the safety and viability of such a project.

To me, it's reasonable to expect such due diligence from local governing agencies. It's a lot more expensive to fix a problem after the fact. 

 

[kyheirloomer]

It's reasonable that local officials would want some kind of assurance.....

Lynn, did you actually read the article? Even assuming that what you say is true (although I question the use of "reasonable" and "officials" in the same breath), we're talking about at least four different agencies, each with it's hand out. For instance, the town didn't say there was a safety issue, it said, "hey, if we classify it as a structure we can charge him a big fee for the approriate permit."

Extrapolate that out, and, there's no question, this is just another case of abusive government practices. And it's why so many people are looking for an alternative; they are tired of "government of, for, and by the people" being anything but.

I see that you're from New York. It's probably gotten even worse, but when I lived there it required 19 permits, from as many agencies, to legally dig a hole. Do you really find anything reasonable about that?

 

[Guest]

So your idea is to eliminate all regulatory agencies and let anyone do whatever the hades they want regardless of how it might affect anyone else? Does the gulf oil disaster not provide a good example of what that brings?

Yes, I did read the article. This is what scares me:

A splintered 2-by-4 here, the rotted belly of a guitar  there, half a ladder from a child's bunk bed  here, Boland and his volunteers worked under basic ground rules: No saws, no rulers and no materials other than what was in the scrap pile.

Also, anything nailed into place couldn't be removed. And nothing was to be level or plumb.

and

 

[leeniek]

Interesting article and I have to say that the "Vermontosaurus"  is one cool sculputre!

 

[phatch]

So your idea is to eliminate all regulatory agencies and let anyone do whatever the hades they want regardless of how it might affect anyone else? Does the gulf oil disaster not provide a good example of what that brings?

 

[kyheirloomer]

>We-our local government agencies, such as planning, zoning and building departments- are liable if someone digs in this spot and releases these volatile and toxic compounds into the air and groundwater damaging the public's health and property. <

Not if history is any guide. See, for instance, Love Canal as just one of thousands of examples where government, from the local level to the federal, absolves itself from responsibility for its own actions, and passes laws and regulations they are not, themselves, subject to.

ill-informed decisions made by your wing-nut neighbor.

Sounds like most members of congress to me.