The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Town shuts down Halloween maze after neighbor complains
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4532
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Town shuts down Halloween maze after neighbor complains

http://www.wfaa.com/news/Neighborhood-h ... =1&clmob=y
Quote:
ROWLETT - A maze created by a Rowlett homeowner has been a Halloween treat for hundreds of children for years.

Byran Norfolk took weeks to plan out the haunted maze for this year and a week to actually build it, but no children will actually get a chance to give it a go this Halloween weekend.

The problem, according to the homeowner, was an unhappy neighbor who has been called a "Halloween Grinch." Due to the neighbor's complaints, the maze was canceled.

Since 2001, Norfolk has spent the week before Halloween setting up the maze.

“We have kids go through here three, four, five times," Norfolk said.

The winding hallways take thrill-seekers through a series of makeshift rooms filled with clowns, monsters and a chainsaw-toting zombie.

Thursday, Norfolk began disassembling the maze after a single neighbor complained to the City of Rowlett Code Enforcement Department about sidewalks being blocked. A sign in front of Norfolk's house reads, “Due to complaining neighbor, the 9th annual haunted maze has been canceled."

Rowlett officials told Norfolk any sidewalk obstruction violates the law. In this case, children would be forced to take a detour into the street to get by the maze.

“It’s kind of sad that we live in a country where one person can shut down the fun of hundreds of kids," said Rob Morgan, a neighbor.

Morgan’s wife, Angela, agreed.

“There's going to be a lot of disappointed people this year," she said.

Norfolk said since the haunted maze tradition began almost a decade ago, this is the first time anyone has ever complained.

“Be a neighbor," he said. "Come up to the front door to say, 'Hey, you guys are blocking the sidewalk,'" he said. "Don't call the police."

Rowlett code enforcers told Norfolk the maze would be fine as long as he moved it off the sidewalk. But, the creator of the popular neighborhood attraction said he would have to redesign the entire structure, an impossible task just three days before Halloween.

WFAA tried to find the neighbor who complained, but Rowlett officials said whoever called chose to remain anonymous.


What a jerk!

Author:  Rorinthas [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Town shuts down Halloween maze after neighbor complains

Boo Hoo the evil local government is enforcing the law. What's the world coming to?

Author:  Diamondeye [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:50 pm ]
Post subject: 

Doesn't change the fact that the guy complaining is a jerk.

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Town shuts down Halloween maze after neighbor complains

Rorinthas wrote:
Boo Hoo the evil local government is enforcing the law. What's the world coming to?


Just because it's the law doesn't mean it should always be enforced. The law isn't perfect. Ever hear of warnings given instead of speeding tickets?

The neighbor didn't have to complain. And the town could have told the maze owner, "Please keep it off the sidewalk next year."

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Town shuts down Halloween maze after neighbor complains

Rorinthas wrote:
Boo Hoo the evil local government is enforcing the law. What's the world coming to?


Apparently more non-neighborly neighbors and more evil in local government and crappy laws that emphasize the problem with "public property".

Author:  Aizle [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

It's much more likely that the neighbor didn't want a crapload of screaming kids around every night and the fact that it was over the sidewalk was the leverage point he could use to get it shut down.

If it was the 9th year the guy was doing it, I'm guessing that he was tired of the noise, etc.

Author:  Hannibal [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

This is a great example of why over-regulation is bad.

Author:  Taskiss [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:27 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well, strictly speaking, some guys entertainment activity was spilling over on public property and creating a nuisance.

If it were next door to me, it would depend on the level of nuisance, and if I suffered any appreciable property damage in the past I'm not so sure I'd be OK with it either.

Like anything, the answer is "it depends".

Author:  Rorinthas [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Town shuts down Halloween maze after neighbor complains

As far as I am concerned. Children getting hit cause they had to walk in traffic is worse.

Author:  Stathol [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Town shuts down Halloween maze after neighbor complains

Elmarnieh wrote:
[..] and crappy laws that emphasize the problem with "public property".

I'm not sure why you've put "public property" in scare-quotes. In Texas, sidewalks are located fully within the street right-of-way, which is literally owned by the City, County, or State, depending on locale. It isn't "public property", it's just public property, period.

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

The quotes are for the idea that the public can own property at all Stathol.

Author:  Ladas [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

And if the guys display was extending into the road?

irrational sentiment Elmo.

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Ladas wrote:
And if the guys display was extending into the road?

irrational sentiment Elmo.


Foolish but same issue.

Author:  Ladas [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

And still an irrational sentiment on your part.

Author:  Hannibal [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Town shuts down Halloween maze after neighbor complains

Rorinthas wrote:
As far as I am concerned. Children getting hit cause they had to walk in traffic is worse.



This statement caught my eye, but just for the words, not because I'm trying to start flinging doo doo at you Ror.

Why did the children have to walk into traffic? If they are out and about then one could assume their parents (who are responsible for them) have determined that they are capable of keeping out of a cars way all on their own. If they are kids who don't have that necessary skill to survive in todays enviorment- then the parents should be with the children to keep their genes viable. Kids are in streets outside of sanctioned crosswalks at all hours of the day in all sorts of weather, in all sorts of traffic, weather and visibility conditions yet we don't have hundreds of people picking little Sally or Bobby parts out of their mudflaps. I thoroughly reject the idea of passing laws "to protect teh childrenz". Thats the gorram parents job. Maybe if some of these #()%$# parents lost a few dependants they would either A) use birth control or B) start being freaking parents.

This I type as packs of feral urchins that live around me run unsupervised and roughshod over the area. I'd welcome a few distracted drivers through the parking lots to clear some of them out I think. Maybe set up a bag limit.

Author:  Rorinthas [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

The children had to walk into traffic because some selfish individual blocked the proper lane for foot traffic with his Holloween display.

Author:  Ladas [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

Stop being such a dickins.

Author:  Hannibal [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

And I'm saying that walking into the street is the choice of the individual. If your path is blocked, you make a decision on how to proceed and deal with the concequences of your decision. Take the long way across the yard, or the immediate path which may or may not be dangerous.

(just a mental exercise to see where people sit on the personal resp fence)

Author:  Aizle [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Town shuts down Halloween maze after neighbor complains

Hannibal wrote:
This I type as packs of feral urchins that live around me run unsupervised and roughshod over the area. I'd welcome a few distracted drivers through the parking lots to clear some of them out I think. Maybe set up a bag limit.


Death Race 2000 Point System wrote:
Women: 10 points
Teenagers: 40 points
Race officials: 50 points
Children under 12: 70 points
Senior citizens: 100 points

Author:  Coren [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Rorinthas wrote:
The children had to walk into traffic because some selfish individual blocked the proper lane for foot traffic with his Holloween display.


Taking a step off the curb isn't "walking into traffic."

Especially on a night when crowds of children will be going door to door and crossing the street. Most of the street traffic that night probably *will* be kids.

Author:  Farther [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Rorinthas wrote:
The children had to walk into traffic because some selfish individual blocked the proper lane for foot traffic with his Holloween display.


Do you have a problem with kids crossing the street to trick-or-treat on the other side of the road? I think to be consistent, you'd have to have a problem with that.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Town shuts down Halloween maze after neighbor complains

Not necessarily. Children can cross the street at crosswalks, or at corners which are customarily accepted safe crossing points where crosswalks are not available.

Author:  Stathol [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Elmarnieh wrote:
The quotes are for the idea that the public can own property at all Stathol.

So, who should own the court house building (and the land it occupies)? Or a police station? Or, for that matter, the weapons and equipment used by the army?

I know you're opposed to public roads, but I don't see why it's a ridiculous idea that the government can be granted ownership of property in general. In fact, I'd say that's pretty much a necessity for a government of any meaningful size to function.

Or maybe you take issue with a less specific sense of public property which isn't government property? As I explained above, that wouldn't apply to this case because right-of-ways are actually titled to the State of Texas or one of its sub-entities (county, city, etc.). But regardless, even this less specific sense is really just an instance of corporate ownership. I'm sure you'd agree that 3 people can come together and share in the ownership of land. So could 50 people or 1,000. We also allow for Corporate (big C) ownership, which is even more nebulous corporate (small c) ownership than a simple land trust. "The public" is just another superset of citizens, and you would have to limit their individual property rights in order to prohibit them from owning land together.

Author:  Micheal [ Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Town shuts down Halloween maze after neighbor complains

Couldn't he have redesigned the maze so it wasn't on the sidewalk? He is as much responsible for the removal of the maze as the neighbor making the complaint.

And folks, Elmarnieh doesn't have viable real world solutions for the problems he brings up. He just likes to complain about what he and a few other whiners misinterpret in the Constitution. Really, why argue with him about these points.

---------------

Article 4, Section 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

---------------

The second paragraph clearly states that the congress has power over property. The law is clear. Under the Property Clause above, and under the Supremacy Clause proclaiming the constitution the Supreme law of the land, the Federal government possesses the unfettered authority to manage public lands. If the Federal government did not have the right to manage territory or other property, Elm might have a case. It does, and it cedes the right to States and their subdivisions for the public good.

'All the public lands of the nation are held in trust for the people of the whole country.' United States v. Trinidad Coal & Coking Co. 137 U.S. 160, 34 L.Ed. 640, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 57.

Public land exists, the constitution says the federal government has authority over it, the supreme court says the Congress determines the use of it, and so on and so forth. Saying it does not exist is one of Elm's fantasies.

Author:  darksiege [ Sat Oct 30, 2010 5:26 am ]
Post subject: 

If the sidewalk in front of someone's home is considered public property... why is the homeowner usually held responsible for taking care of that patch of sidewalk?

Not baiting, just a question I have always wondered.

I am firmly in the camp of... "If it is not my sidewalk... let the city shovel the snow off of it."

I also think... it is shitty that the guy had to cancel is decade old tradition, but he really should have kept it off of the sidewalk. I also agree that children getting hit by traffic is bad.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/