The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Government uses bullshit to bully business

Kulindahr

Kulindahr

Knox's Papa
JUB Supporter
50K Posts
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Posts
122,824
Reaction score
4,067
Points
113
Location
on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
It's amazing how easy it is for government to use their power to persecute the law-abiding in an attempt to "discourage" crime. Here's a truly horrifying example, from L.A., where a businessman's restaurant was deemed the cause of criminal activity....

http://reason.com/reasontv/2012/12/20/the-fall-of-tams-6-how-la-regulated-a-bu


How do we stop this kind of crap? It needs to be done -- after all, this is what many Tea Party types have in mind when they say they want to take their country back... and when I see this crap, I have to agree we need to, because this bludgeoning of businessmen by the power of regulation is nothing but tyranny.
 
The world and communities of 30 years ago are not the same today. If he's been there for 30 years and can't make public safety improvements, well, he should go somewhere else.
 
I don't see how a city can force a business to be fenced and have cameras?

I agree if they want a fence and cameras then they should pay. However the article list 22 improvements that are zoning issues. Now if every other business in the area has complied and he is the hold out and the warnings have spanned years for him to make the capitol investment then I say tough shit to the other 20 measures.

Not enough info to be properly outraged.
 
JayHawk said:
I don't see how a city can force a business to be fenced and have cameras?

I agree if they want a fence and cameras then they should pay. However the article list 22 improvements that are zoning issues. Now if every other business in the area has complied and he is the hold out and the warnings have spanned years for him to make the capitol investment then I say tough shit to the other 20 measures.

Not enough info to be properly outraged.
Click to expand...

Which is why I specifically said forced on a single business, if the requirements applies equally to all businesses in the market that would be different but then there is the issue of over regulation strangling the market as a whole.
 
Do we know the incidence of crime, guns, or drugs that prompted the requirements? Seems we only have the bleeding heart side of the story.
 
palbert said:
The world and communities of 30 years ago are not the same today. If he's been there for 30 years and can't make public safety improvements, well, he should go somewhere else.
Click to expand...

"Public safety improvements"? They're blaming him for all the crime for blocks!

Even if criminals happen to hang around his parking lot, he's not to blame. If the council thinks he should have a chain link fence around his business, let them pay for it!

Stardreamer said:
Really, imposing costs on a single business like that should be considered a taking and the government should have to fork up the money to pay for it.
Click to expand...

They should have had to pay him for the removed tables.

The arrogance is sickening.
 
Kulindahr said:
They threatened to use zoning to shut him down. That alone is enough to be outraged -- especially since zoning is one of the biggest contributors to crime that we have.
Click to expand...

Do you disagree with a restaurant that is shutdown because they provide tainted food that makes most people ill?
 
Mind you i have yet to agree or disagree. i just don't have enough info... if the owner is failing to do things the community and businesses as a whole have chosen to do then he is on the outside looking in... not the victim of some overbearing government. On the other hand the police and regulators both assume positions of authority that vastly overstep their bounds and should be checked.
 
I have looked around and read a few articles. It appears that there are no other businesses in that neighborhood. They have all been shutdown since the riots in 1992 like he said in his testimony to the city council.

Well once again big cities make a very strong case for not living there.

that city council should be castrated but who is going to do it? The entire area is blighted. SO without business owners to care do you think the drug dealers will stand up against them?
 
Kulindhar is right....... What is wrong with you people. It is the Police, governments responsibility to keep his community safe so he can run his business. Putting up a fence, removing his tables, and asking him to install security cameras with a direct feed to the police department, outrageous. Obviously the police didn't act on this information, arrest the drug dealers and prostitures. It's not like he picked the worst part of town to start a business, he has been there for 30 years.
Why is crime always the fault of everyone but the criminal?
If this man had hired a 24/7 private police force, the government would not like that either.
Does the police/govenment think closing him down is going to stop the drug dealers from selling or the prostitutes form peddling their wares?
This is a common sense issue, sadly common sense is a rare thing these days.

Thanks for posting this Kulindahr.
 
There are some customers who don't deserve places to go shopping because of the mayhem they leave in their wake. If this business thrives on attracting the type of client who create hassles for the neighbourhood and for the police, then any additional costs that the owner has to bear to comply with regulations specific to his preferred unruly customers, fall under the category of nice libertarian user-pay cost containment.

He picks riff-raff for customers; he pays the extra bills. Not the taxpayers. And if he can't make his business run given those costs, or if he can't attract enough non-problematic customers, oh well. The world doesn't have to guarantee him a living on his own land when he brings shit into the neighbourhood.
 
I don't have anything to add except I liked the alliteration in the Title of the thread.
 
about the video, red tape gone too far:
That black guy should be sacked !!!
If he is white, he should be sacked too.

Police should not wear nice suits to work anyway, he should wear police uniform.
 
Much more detail was needed as to the type of crimes going on in front of or on his business property. If its a constant hot spot then correction is needed for the good of the many who unfortunately live in that impoverished area. Just because people are poor and there are no other burger joints in that small area doesn't mean law abiding citizens will use it. They will go elsewhere or just not patronize another burger joint. I live in such a community and without the nuisance abatement board things would be worse. As well there are other small business such as mini marts who do manage to add what is needed for a somewhat safer environment for the customer. There are many businesses in my area which my neighbors and I would never consider going in because of the atmosphere and chances of becoming a victim of a crime are extremely high. Wish they were closed. Constant gunfire, armed robbery, vicious assaults related to drugs and poverty, the only people who frequent those business are the criminals for the most part or those that make a bad mistake stopping unfamiliar with the area.

By your logic I assume if a dangerous pertro-chemical plant such as where I work wants to discharge dangerous toxins into the air and ground water it should be allowed because government has no business telling my employer they must add costly safe guards for the protection of the surrounding area. Why should a business that caters to dangerous activity in a community with a long history of hazardous activity not have the similar regulation to benefit the surrounding community and try to make it a bit safer?

If the cost is too high sadly then you don't have the location to support the sort of income required to operate. Comparing this to a tea bagger issue I don't follow.
 
JayHawk said:
I have looked around and read a few articles. It appears that there are no other businesses in that neighborhood. They have all been shutdown since the riots in 1992 like he said in his testimony to the city council.

Well once again big cities make a very strong case for not living there.

that city council should be castrated but who is going to do it? The entire area is blighted. SO without business owners to care do you think the drug dealers will stand up against them?
Click to expand...

I was just about to point that out. The council's attitude is absolutely insane: they have one, and only one, business operating there; one, and only one example of how to make a living by acting within the law... and they shut it down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top