http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2012/04/post_67.html

Here is a lady who is opening up her property to assist the indigent, and the less fortunate. The city of Estacada, OR is fining her $10,000 if she does not cease this activity.

Is this too much intrusion? I would think so. This is exactly why I think citizens are capable of helping the indigent in our society, rather than having government take over for them.

The state acted after complaints from her neighbours. Do you have the right to do whatever you like with your property, regardless of the effect on others (and what rights do they have that may be affected?).

Zoning laws and planning limitations are hardly new, and when someone breaches those rules and loses in court, this is what happens.

Nothing stops her from helping the homeless in other, lawful ways.

In other news, I am buying your next-door neighbour's house. I don't intend to live there, I just want to help people, so it'll be turned into a place to assist the needy. I'm thinking a soup kitchen, a needle exchange, a few billets to make a hostel. I will of course be targeting one particular group of vulnerable people - recently released prisoners. I'm sure they will welcome the support, and not overly mind the smell from the brewery I plan for the back yard

I'm not sure if there's enough information there to form a judgment. The article describes them as 'renters', which implies that she's charging rent on the properties. If that's the case then she's going to fall under any laws that regulate landlord/tenant relationships. Could she effectively be described as a slum landlord ? It's difficult to say without more information.

I suspect she's also been the subject of a lot of complaints from her neighbours. Again, without knowing the background it's difficult to say whether these might be justified. That said though, how would you feel if your next door neighbour were to invite 30 homeless guys to come and live in hastily-erected hovels just over the back fence ? I suspect that most people would have a problem with that, it's only natural. Whether their complaints should be sufficient to shut the operation down is another question altogether, but I'm sure you can at least appreciate the concern.

Danivon,
I do think you have the right to do whatever you choose with your property as long as the effects do not cross borders. Not enough information to tell yet, but if the homeless were not bothering anyone why the need of the government to fine the property owner?

I appreciate the concern, but w/o evidence there is no reason to react.

bbauska wrote: I do think you have the right to do whatever you choose with your property as long as the effects do not cross borders. Not enough information to tell yet, but if the homeless were not bothering anyone why the need of the government to fine the property owner?

I appreciate the concern, but w/o evidence there is no reason to react.

[Un]fortunately the 1926 Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Even I, who tends to the more libertarian viewpoint disagree with you Brad.

Not looking for agreement, people. I do know the Supreme court stance on property rights.

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
I do think you have the right to do whatever you choose with your property as long as the effects do not cross borders.

Chances are that effects will cross borders at some point. I can't think of many things you can 'do' to property that wouldn't have the potential to have some external effect. Even leaving it be can have an effect.

Not enough information to tell yet, but if the homeless were not bothering anyone why the need of the government to fine the property owner?

I appreciate the concern, but w/o evidence there is no reason to react.

Yet the local people did:

Earlier this year, 80 Estacada residents signed a petition to force McNamee's renters off her property, complaining about noise, police presence and proximity to Clackamas River Elementary.

The bits I've bolded are pertinent to your points (the fact that it's near a school is just busybodying). The neighbours, several dozen of them, were claiming that they were getting bothered.

Furthermore, the city council was not able to do this alone - they needed the court to back them up. A very quick report in a local paper does not start to give much of the detail for the grounds of the decision, but it doesn't say that the shacks/containers with homeless people in them were not causing anyone else problems.

Which leads me to ask why you are so certain that there's over-reach here on the part of government?

danivon wrote:Which leads me to ask why you are so certain that there's over-reach here on the part of government?

There isn't. This was just Brad's knee-jerk response. Zoning laws in America are local. They are put in place, rescinded and enforced by the local gov't. The Fed's or state, for the most part, have nothing to do with them.

Upset about your zoning? Run for position on your council, or try and get appointed to the planning board. At the local level you can actually do something about zoning.

The supervisor of a small town around here was a local developer and he was pissed off at the Planning Board for personal reasons related to one of his projects and ran for supervisor and won. He forced off the planning board chair and changed how planning is done in the town and oversaw a town-wide rezoning. I have no sympathy when people bitch about local issues like this while not trying to do anything about them. Talk is cheap.

I don't know anything about this issue, the only point (aside from the one on top of my head) I have is in response to the comments re: the Supreme Court. They are not always correct as pertaining to property rights. Just take note of Kelo v New London. A horrendous decision. A case of a decision not based upon Constitutionality but rather personal preference of judges.