Donald trump fined for his Patriotism

[stevie_d_64]

But seriously...

When I was in the Fleet...I had a C.O. who loved to fly his "Battle Ensign" when we went into liberty ports and other PR functions...(i.e.: Fleetweek San Fransisco)

It was a huge flag that we had to specially rig to fly between the fore and aft masts on a AAW modified Spruance Class Destroyer...

Of course, if we had ever went into battle for real, it would fly...Even though the bad guys would probably never see it...

It was fun, it meant a lot to us, and I'm not offended by a properly flown flag, whatever the size...

Note: The old and original "Star-Spangled Banner" flag is huge! If you've ever seen that exhibit...

[bburgi]

Maybe I'm being too realistic, but from the article it seems like the only issue is the height of the flag pole- not the size of the flag. It looks like Trump's comments are trying to turn this into an issue of how big the flag is- and being forbidden to fly it- not how high the pole stands. I don't know all the detals, but from the article it looks like there's a legal way for him to apply for a permit to built one that high... he just didn't do it.

I'm all for flying your flag as high and as big as you want... and if that's the real issue then I'm behind The Trump all the way. If it's just about the stupid pole though... get the dumb permit.

[stevie_d_64]

Maybe I'm being too realistic, but from the article it seems like the only issue is the height of the flag pole- not the size of the flag. It looks like Trump's comments are trying to turn this into an issue of how big the flag is- and being forbidden to fly it- not how high the pole stands. I don't know all the detals, but from the article it looks like there's a legal way for him to apply for a permit to built one that high... he just didn't do it.

I'm all for flying your flag as high and as big as you want... and if that's the real issue then I'm behind The Trump all the way. If it's just about the stupid pole though... get the dumb permit.

[KD5NRH]

Maybe I'm being too realistic, but from the article it seems like the only issue is the height of the flag pole- not the size of the flag.

Put a 15x25 ft flag on a 42ft pole and try that argument again.

If it's just about the stupid pole though... get the dumb permit.

If it was just about oppression from the crown, we should have paid the dumb tea tax, too, I suppose.

The burden of proof should be on the city to show that the pole endangers others or significantly reduces their property values beyond the increase provided by owning property next to Donald Trump.

Now if it's just about Trump wanting special treatment for himself, pimp slap that whiney rich boy so hard his dentist will be richer than he is, but if he's willing to fight it for all private property owners, I'll back him all the way.

[Lucky45]

I enjoy the sight of an American Flag flying as much as most.

That having been said, I don't really like government telling us what we can and can not do on our own property.

Just my opinion...

1. Nobody is complaining that we have to get a permit/chl to carry a gun then why is there a problem with getting a permit and zoning codes.

2. The main reason for codes is because some "dummy" in the past did something that affected or harmed someone in the process.
Therefore, if his flag is obstructing the view of the "POOR GUY" next door who just enjoys watching ships on the Ocean bay, cruise ships passing, planes taking off from Miami International etc, etc. That is the reason why one needs a permit first. Just looking out for the other poor guys in public.
If he wanted to build a 5 storey mansion, he would need a building permit and that would have the same effect. They are not objecting to him having a flag.

3. Image that property you bought so you can see the mountain view, and some fool installs a 100ft pole and flag to match in just the right spot. I bet you would want some zoning.

4. That is why most cities issue permits for signs, posting, poles etc, because you don't want people being distracted by all the clutter obstructing. It is hard enough trying to find the traffic signs alone.

Test, just drive down most busy roads and see all the clutter and try to find the regular traffic signs and road marker. bet you will miss your turn.

[KBCraig]

1. Nobody is complaining that we have to get a permit/chl to carry a gun then why is there a problem with getting a permit and zoning codes.

I am. I believe in Alaska-style carry laws, and that anything less is an infringement.

2. The main reason for codes is because some "dummy" in the past did something that affected or harmed someone in the process.

No, the main reason is that people want to control property they don't own.

If you want everything you see to stay "acceptable" to you, then buy it. Ownership is the ultimate zoning.

3. Image that property you bought so you can see the mountain view, and some fool installs a 100ft pole and flag to match in just the right spot. I bet you would want some zoning.

If I want an unobstructed view of a mountain, I have to buy the mountain and everything in between. If I'm unwilling or unable to do that, then I have no right to complain that "my" view is spoiled. Because I don't own that view, it's not really "mine", is it?

It doesn't matter if my neighbor installs a flag pole, a junkyard, or a chicken plant. Doesn't matter if it's a Wal Mart or highrise apartment building.

A different sense of style or taste doesn't give you the right to control someone else's property.

Freedom is sometimes unattractive, but it's always beautiful!

Kevin

[Lucky45]

KBCraig wrote:
If I want an unobstructed view of a mountain, I have to buy the mountain and everything in between. If I'm unwilling or unable to do that, then I have no right to complain that "my" view is spoiled. Because I don't own that view, it's not really "mine", is it?

I never looked at it that way. Maybe we shouldn't complain that chemical and manufacturing plants are dumping into bayous and Galveston Bay. And those air horns in Pasedena and Texas City, they should be removed because they are just a noise nuisance. Who cares that the property next to you exhausted toxic fumes into the air on their property? Who cares that fish had six eyes? he should have seen my hook coming. I should just purchase a different ointment for that rash I get when i go to the beach that I don't own. That beach isn't mine anyway, I should just be happy.

It doesn't matter if my neighbor installs a flag pole, a junkyard, or a chicken plant. Doesn't matter if it's a Wal Mart or highrise apartment building.

I wish we could build a highrise building on all sides of your property, so that:
1. it blocks out the sun all day, then you have turn on lights 24/7. $$$
2. Due to lack of sun, mold builds up on your exterior walls and shingles and becomes your problem to deal with. $$$
3. you have to buy plastic plants and gravel for your yard because nothing else will grow. $$$
4. we NEVER EVER hear a peep out of you, since you have no objections.

No harm, no foul. Right?

Since according to you,

A different sense of style or taste doesn't give you the right to control someone else's property.

[KBCraig]

KBCraig wrote:
If I want an unobstructed view of a mountain, I have to buy the mountain and everything in between. If I'm unwilling or unable to do that, then I have no right to complain that "my" view is spoiled. Because I don't own that view, it's not really "mine", is it?

I never looked at it that way. Maybe we shouldn't complain that chemical and manufacturing plants are dumping into bayous and Galveston Bay. And those air horns in Pasedena and Texas City, they should be removed because they are just a noise nuisance. Who cares that the property next to you exhausted toxic fumes into the air on their property? Who cares that fish had six eyes? he should have seen my hook coming. I should just purchase a different ointment for that rash I get when i go to the beach that I don't own. That beach isn't mine anyway, I should just be happy.

Do you really not understand the difference between what you can see from your property, versus what someone else does to you on your own property?

The air and water that crosses my property is mine. If you pollute them, you owe me for the damages. "Common" air and "common" waters and "common" beaches are all subject to the "tragedy of the commons". You're free to pollute your air and water all you wish; but the moment it crosses into someone else's air or water, you're on the hook.

It's not unlike shooting: if you want to blast your 16" .50 BMG carbine at 3 a.m., I don't care. Unless I'm sleeping 50 feet away, of course; you're responsible for the noise right up to the property boundary. Once your noise intrudes on my space, you're accountable to me.

It doesn't matter if my neighbor installs a flag pole, a junkyard, or a chicken plant. Doesn't matter if it's a Wal Mart or highrise apartment building.

I wish we could build a highrise building on all sides of your property, so that:
1. it blocks out the sun all day, then you have turn on lights 24/7. $$$
2. Due to lack of sun, mold builds up on your exterior walls and shingles and becomes your problem to deal with. $$$
3. you have to buy plastic plants and gravel for your yard because nothing else will grow. $$$
4. we NEVER EVER hear a peep out of you, since you have no objections.

No harm, no foul. Right?

Since according to you,

A different sense of style or taste doesn't give you the right to control someone else's property.

I hope I've explained "harm". Putting up a structure I don't like is not harm; doing something that actually damages me or my property (pollution, for example) is harm, and the offender will owe me for that harm. If your actions negatively affect the value of my property, we can settle that through tort suits.

"I don't want to look at it" gives me no right whatsoever to dictate what you can do on, with, or to your property. If I want to assert my preference over your property, then I have to meet your price. Conversely, if what you want to do with your property adversely affects my property, then you have to meet my price.

It's very simple.

Kevin

[Lucky45]

Kb wrote:
Do you really not understand the difference between what you can see from your property, versus what someone else does to you on your own property?
The air and water that crosses my property is mine. If you pollute them, you owe me for the damages. "Common" air and "common" waters and "common" beaches are all subject to the "tragedy of the commons". You're free to pollute your air and water all you wish; but the moment it crosses into someone else's air or water, you're on the hook.

I understand perfectly, I'm just playing devil's advocate. And since nobody lives in a glass bubble, then unless regulated, people will "pollute" common areas.
Why then do we have a City Planning Commission, City Planning Dept and numerous Architectural Control COmmittees (HOA)?

I hope I've explained "harm". Putting up a structure I don't like is not harm; doing something that actually damages me or my property (pollution, for example) is harm, and the offender will owe me for that harm. If your actions negatively affect the value of my property, we can settle that through tort suits.

Your answer is above. Since this country and people are so litigious and society can't function without rules and regulations, then we have Planning Commission for those in public that want to "go to far."

I've lived in a place where you have people that own beach front property and they built up a high wall and boulders etc, claiming that it was their private beach. The government had to go down there with bulldozer, etc to let them know there is no such thing as PRIVATE BEACHES.
So can you imagine the 200 people whereever you live blocking off access to the beach, since they property abuts the shoreline.

[stevie_d_64]

Kevin, Lucky...

I think we would all agree that the passion for this subject is that we all understand that certain homeowners associations and city/county planning departments can and will continue to cut their noses off dispite their faces...

It is also probably a good bet that whomever slings the mud first in a dispute that has to be ruled before those bodies stays the cleanest, right???

There are no absolutes in this case that I can see right off...But to have the time and energy to complain about this flag and flagpole is just a bit of a stretch in my opinion...

The complainer was probably some snivvling little weasle that wanted to fly a big Mexican, Cuban (or whatever foriegn national) flag in their yard, and Mr. Trump just kinda beat them to the punchline...But thats just my educated sarcastic opinion...

If Mr. Trump wants to fly a big flag on a tall flagpole (on his property), and I was a member of an association that had to hear a complaint about that...I probably won't be on the board for very long...And Mr. Trump and I would be pretty good friends after that...

[Lucky45]

My main issue in this discussion is the principle of having to go through proper procedures in obtaining a permit. Nobody is objecting against having a flag big or small. And we are only using this case because it was brought up. But this can be applied to many things that we take for granted daily. I work in the residential construction industry and deal with these codes and permits daily.

But procedures are in place to make sure things are safe for you and the general public. For example, if that pole is not anchored properly and becomes a missile in the next hurricane. Then what? We didn't know that being that high it would blow over?

I deal with alot of people daily that are hypocritical. They want everyone to have the right to do whatever on their property. Which i Have NO PROBLEMS with.
But when,
1. Walmart is coming to town, they raise hell.
2. Whenever, I want to put up a sex shop on my property near a school, they raise hell.
3. Whenever a sex offender wants to live in a house he pays taxes on in your neighborhood, they raise hell.
4. If i want to operate a halfway house down the block, they raise hell.

So which freedom do we want?

[stevie_d_64]

"We certainly have the freedom to raise hell, even if its based upon the principle of the issue..."

Stevie-D-64 (2006)

Not that I have anything to judge anyone by, but I have zero problem with your assessment Lucky...

[kanders]

I'm with you, too, Lucky. This post started out complaining about the right to display an American flag being challenged, maybe because of the misguided statements Trump made in reaction to the fines. But the issue is really about a guy who thinks that his money or status exempts him from some of the rules the rest of us have to live by. A permit is required for a pole higher than 42 feet, so he should have got one.