Are you familiar with cholera, Tova? There's a reason why clean water and efficient sewage systems coincide with healthy populations.

I've lived a lot of my life in areas that didn't have public water and sewage systems. There were people like us who always had clean water and a septic tank that worked. There were people who didn't give a damn about their kids and let them drink dirty water and let their toilet empty out into the creek their kids played in.

Gideon hasn't answered questions as to what this statute entails. I don't want to assume it is just about running water, but his silence worries me. I want to believe he has more reason than that to be outraged. If that is all it is though, there's plenty of good reasons why the rest of the community has a stake in everyone having clean water.

Are you familiar with cholera, Tova? There's a reason why clean water and efficient sewage systems coincide with healthy populations.

I wasn't advocating change Baker...I was just commenting on how the state of Ohio already has some of the things Gid is complaining about in place. Therefore its not just his small town.

I've just been reading the responses to your article, and you reactions to them. It seems to me your problem with the proposals has more to do with the selective enforcement than the laws themselves.

I think you should be more public with who among the city counsel's own relatives might be affected by this law... if nothing else, it would expose the selectivity of the enforcement.

You'll forgive me for expressing my doubts considering people are asking and you aren't giving any details.

It's pretty hard since they're still working on the ordinance, Baker. When I get mind reading powers, I'll let you know. You'll know because I'll make everything I can off of it.

I've just been reading the responses to your article, and you reactions to them. It seems to me your problem with the proposals has more to do with the selective enforcement than the laws themselves.

Bingo, Para. I'm glad SOMEONE gets it.

In all probability, the law will be reasonable. This city, after all, can ill afford a lawsuit. But here's the details, in a nutshell:

They started enforcing a leash ordinance that's been on the books for years. Fine with me. I bought a chain and our dog went on the leash. They began fining certain people, while the ex-mayor's dog still makes a routine appearance at every home football game, and hangs out all day at the school, and another former councilman's dog has the run of the town. They issued a WARNING to us for "dog at large" based on unsubstantiated allegations; in fact, our dog is never off of a leash or a chain. Ever. While it kills me to do this, I will do what is reasonably expected of me.

They started enforcing a "high weeds and junk" ordinance that's been on the book for years. Again, fine with me. The law's the law, and if I don't like it, I'll work to change it. Surprise, surprise. The usual suspects got tickets, while the city council members and other prominent folks around town did not.

We have gained a reputation, because we dare to help out those less fortunate. Many around town want these people out of town, and refuse to help them. In the case of the one family, their water was shut off. While I would not make the same choices they make, I don't see anything in the Bible about loving one's neighbour that is CONDITIONAL for a believing Christian. So we allowed these friends to fill up their water off of our hose. Immediately after that, we were double billed on our water bill by the city. We took care of it, but we had to make several calls to do it. Shortly after THAT, the marshall came by with the warning for dog at large, when our dog was not at large and we were in full compliance with the law. Now Baker may believe that the city has full right to selectively enforce the law and target certain citizens to the exclusion of others, and he may parade himself as a champion of democracy, but wasn't that, in essence, what the Civil Rights Movement was about? About NOT using the tyranny of the majority to oppress the few?

While the law being considered may well be reasonable, how, in fact, will they enforce the minimum standards of living law? Am I required to allow them to search my home without a warrant? Sorry, folks, gonna stand by the 4th amendment on this one.

The truth is, this city does not have the funds to enforce the laws it has, let alone new ones. Stray dogs roam our streets (which is why I don't grouse about the leash laws, just about the fact that they don't do anything about the dogs that are out there), and they will not take them to the pound because they simply cannot afford it. As a result, the nearest sizable city uses us as a dumping ground for strays, and the problem worsens. Our roads are probably among the worst in the regoin, which is saying something, because the city can't afford the cost of running maintainers...and the city is trying to write and enforce new laws? This is not about creating a better community, it's about using the position of office as a position of control for those "under you". And it is entirely INconsistent with a democracy, actually.

Now Baker may believe that the city has full right to selectively enforce the law and target certain citizens to the exclusion of others, and he may parade himself as a champion of democracy, but wasn't that, in essence, what the Civil Rights Movement was about? About NOT using the tyranny of the majority to oppress the few?

I don't think he was, Gid. I think he was concerned that the community was proposing new laws that would only realistically affect a few and you felt they had no right to do so.

Deliberate misapplication of laws is a crime. Could you call in the state (or federal; I don't know how your system works) anti-corruption squad to have a look-see? It may be useful too to take some video/photographic evidence of the councilmen's lawbreaking and then provide a copy to the local police. It would create a paper trail and, if the police doesn't follow up your evidence despite following up on lesser evidence, could be used to smear them quite effectively.

Deliberate misapplication of laws is a crime. Could you call in the state (or federal; I don't know how your system works) anti-corruption squad to have a look-see?

We have the state AG's office. I am trying to find out what we would need to do to bring an investigation.

Honestly, I'd rather just live in peace. But the powers that be have made it clear that's not going to happen. Not HERE, at least.

"While the law being considered may well be reasonable, how, in fact, will they enforce the minimum standards of living law? "

If all it entails is electricity and water and the like, they can just check to see if you are subscribed to those services.

"Now Baker may believe that the city has full right to selectively enforce the law and target certain citizens to the exclusion of others, and he may parade himself as a champion of democracy, but wasn't that, in essence, what the Civil Rights Movement was about?"

Come on. When you're being lynched and they don't let you enter the restaurant from the front door we might say this is 'about' the same thing as the civil rights movement. This is about your incessant need to play Al Sharpton at the cost of your peace of mind and peaceful cohabitation with your community.

The reality of this situation is that there will always be something like this. You picked a town to live in where the main players don't share your values, and you think it is your job to straighten them out. Well, they think it is their job to straighten you out. You're two sides of the same coin.

You don't like the way this country works. Good for you. You keep right on voting and running for office. You need, though, to stop pretending that the founding fathers intended a nation the way you would craft it, or that your ideals are somehow objectively superior. I believe Democracy is about people being able to run their nation, state, and community the way they want to, and one disgruntled guy with a persecution complex really shouldn't be able to straighten everyone else out.

"We have the state AG's office. I am trying to find out what we would need to do to bring an investigation."

And what will happen when they get caught heinously enforcing leash laws in an unfair way? Nothing. Then you'll have to live with the people who don't like you after you've brought an investigation down on them. I feel sorry for you.

Anyone who knows me knows I hate neighborhood charters and lawn laws and bullshit like that. I think it is insipid and anal. I need more than just my opinion to impose my judgment of such on the people of my community, though.

So when they come to my door and tell me my yard is too tall, sure, I could complain that someone else's yard is also too tall, but that doesn't mean I'm not breaking the ordinance. I have to accept that they have the right to make the ordinance, and by living in the community I've submitted myself to their approval.

If I start driving around measuring other people's yards I've just become as caustic as they are. Then they hate me even more, and are more tempted to abuse their power to get at me. The root of the problem isn't the abuses, it's the fact you don't get along with your community.

I guess what annoys me the most about this is that you are here claiming they are "criminalizing poverty" yadda yadda, and then when asked what they are doing you say you don't know, you aren't a mind reader. Isn't this urge to outrage, assuming the worst before the ordinance is even lined out, not, itself, the problem?

Gideon, sounds like you need to invest in a digital camera and start taking pictures of the dogs, lawns and other things of those who are not being 'enforced'. Then start showing up at city councel meetings with them.

Nothing like holding up a mirror to show someone what they look like. ;~D

"Gideon, sounds like you need to invest in a digital camera and start taking pictures of the dogs, lawns and other things of those who are not being 'enforced'. Then start showing up at city councel meetings with them."

uh... yeah. That's what an advocate of people minding their own business and not persecuting people for what they choose to do on their own property should do. The best thing is to emulate as closely as possible that which you hate?

The Al Sharpton analogy is valid I think. Gideon doesn't even know what this ordinance is going to be, but he's sure it is going to 'criminalize poverty'. Al Sharpton thinks that antagonism and validating all the biases and fears of his opponents is a good strategy, too.

The Al Sharpton analogy is valid I think. Gideon doesn't even know what this ordinance is going to be, but he's sure it is going to 'criminalize poverty'. Al Sharpton thinks that antagonism and validating all the biases and fears of his opponents is a good strategy, too.

Just for the recoprd, Baker, they've won. I'm packing my bags and moving out. Don't know where, yet, but we can't afford to live in this town. They "democratically" drive us out.

It's not a persecution complex when they sit in front of 20 witnesses and TELL you they're going to run you out of town, Baker.

Bakerstreet:

uh... yeah. That's what an advocate of people minding their own business and not persecuting people for what they choose to do on their own property should do. The best thing is to emulate as closely as possible that which you hate?

I don't know, I'd say there is a difference between government officials abusing their position to harrass someone, and a private citizen showing them for the abusive "leaders" they are.

uh... yeah. That's what an advocate of people minding their own business and not persecuting people for what they choose to do on their own property should do. The best thing is to emulate as closely as possible that which you hate? I don't know, I'd say there is a difference between government officials abusing their position to harrass someone, and a private citizen showing them for the abusive "leaders" they are.

Baker has a point on this one, para. This whole problems came about because of escalations. Someone would get a ticket and point to someone else. The, the city council, behind closed doors (illegal, btw, but you have to prove) will pick and choose which ones they want to go after next. I'm not participating in the process. It's pretty repulsive.