Comments on: Basil Pennington’s suits and other Items

By: Jonathan Curtis

Jonathan Curtis — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 02:24:14 +0000

I love reading what others think of Worcester. Nicely done!

By: paxton

paxton — Sun, 20 Nov 2005 03:29:52 +0000

This is by far the best summary of Worcester media I’ve read in some time.
And dowdy is definitely my new favorite word.

By: Adam (Southern California)

Adam (Southern California) — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 01:58:18 +0000

Just to elaborate on the political point, a local government could decide to pull all sorts of restrictions on land use, and that would be the law of the land. But the major obstacle to this is less the threat of legal consequences and more the threat of political consequences. If the restrictions are unpopular, the populace will vote out the lawmakers who set the restrictions. The converse works, too; if the law is too lax, people can get angry about that, too. The point here is that it’s easier to take care of things through skilful politics than through lawyers.

By: Adam (Southern California)

Adam (Southern California) — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 01:52:30 +0000

Hermis Yanis sounds like a moron, at least on that issue. The real answer to that question, or at least the start of the real answer to that question, is that the rights of tenants and property owners to be protected against incompatible uses needs to be balanced against the rights of tenants and property owners to conduct activity on their property. The difficult part is in setting that line of balance.

The legal standard, at least nationally, is set pretty far in favor of the ability of local governments to restrict uses. The big difference, then, is in the local decisions on land use. Certain small municipalities put major restrictions on uses to preserve things like “rural character” and such, while Houston, Texas, actually has no zoning whatsoever. So the key, then, is in convincing local city councils and the like to get on your side.

One thing working in your favor is the first amendment issues. There’s a higher standard for restricting religious institutions (and, on the flip side, strip clubs and other adult businesses). Unfortunately, while it’s difficult to restrict an actual place of worship, I don’t believe there’s much of a precedent set for the protection of uses that are doing the Lord’s work. Maybe this is the residue of this country’s history of Protestant domination or something.