A Question for the Lawyers

Not a chance. If he is in the US, he has to follow the first amendment and all the rest of the Constitution.

Right wing nutjobs like this goon like to make grandstanding announcements in order to appeal to their own, then quietly fade away as reality shows their plans to be nonsense.

 

Now wait a minute KTP....let's analyze this. Let's say I buy 10 sq miles of land. Now it is private property. I sell plots for homes and create "zoning" via , what is the word I want, oh, covenants. SO far this is all legal and done on a small scale all the time. No, these homes are private property and the owners can do whatever they want not prohibited by convenents.

Now, I build or lease all the land in the "business" areas and write the lease agreements to prohibit certain types of businesses.

So long as I don't accept federal or tax funding, I can do anything not illegal. Since it is NOT illegal to NOT have certain businesses, then tell me

WHERE is the standing to say this person cannot do it?

This is no different than a gated private community. And here is a little freedom for you...if you don't like it...don't live there.

 

The answer to this question is in the laws of the State of Florida. So long as all parties agree, there are no challenges. It is likely that sooner or later someone will break with the group and either the covenants will be enforced or there will be a suit to prevent the enforcement of the covenants and a Florida court will hear the question. The question is whether such a covenant is legal. It is possible that appeals could go as far as the U. S. Supreme Court but statistically unlikely.

There is lots of room for opinions on one side or the other but when push comes to shove the courts are where the issue gets resolved.

 

Don't forget, lots of communities used to have covenants that prevented homeowners from selling their properties to black families. Just because it's in a covenant doesn't make it legal. I predict this, too, will fall.

 

Zap,

Can you be more specific as to why this guy so offends you?

Is he doing something offensive to your beliefs as a Christian, or assaulting you in another way?

Are you one of those Christians that thinks (homosexuality, abortion and pornography) are just fine?

I just want to know where you're coming from on this. I'm not Catholic, but I see this guy and his big wad of cash and say.. you go dude..

I imagine anyone with enough money to do what that guy is doing also has enough lawyers to tell him that he has a shot at it, and enough lawyers to defend the suits once they start.

If the guy is the owner of all the commercial property, I can certainly see how he can choose to lease or not lease office and commercial space to any company he wants or doesn't want to have a shop in the town.

I'm not sure he could do much if Bob comes to the sales shop and buys a house and turns out to be gay and moves his gay buddy in the following week. I do see how it would be hard for planned parenthood (Abortion central) to get a lease for facilities in the town.

If someone wants to make a gay town on the adjacent 10 sq miles, they shoudl go for it. They can exclude me if they want in legaleze.. or just figure that as a Christian, I wouldn't want to live in that town. Which makes me wonder... why would an abortion doctor want to set up a shop in downtown catholicville? Seems there wouldn't be a lot of business, or hopefully not. Shouldn't be a lot of use for pornography in town, so why set up a shop for that. Go find a moral sewer somewhere and build your shops there where they will thrive.

Too many people with too many rights and no common sense enough to leave certain segments of the population to do their thing.

 

Just a couple of thoughts:
1) I'm surprised there is so much opposition to this plan. If you don't want to live there, don't. But look on the bright side . . . This plan will probably help keep “them†from living in “your†neighborhood. :lol:
2) The town can pick and chose which cable TV company(s) they would give licenses to . . . but they can't prevent the reception of satellite TV and all its ungodly programing.
3) Just like with “dry†counties in the South and Mid-West, you could always drive over the line and purchase all the booze, porn, condoms and birth control pills you want and bring them home for your swingers party.
4) The town sounds like an easy target for home robberies. Sunday mornings would be easy pickings while most everyone is attending church services. But, I feel sorry for the burglar who gets it wrong and enters an occupied house in that 'hood. Guaranteed most homeowners would be armed to the teeth.
5) If you are jealous and wish to live in a town like this – but one which is the complete opposite – BUILD YOUR OWN! . . . or easier yet, just move to San Francisco, or any other ultra-liberal area. To help you in your search, please visit this web site (and as a consequence, maybe "you" won't move into "my" neighborhood. :lol: )
http://www.epodunk.com/top10/liberal/
(One word of caution about this web site. I think it needs some serious updating if Arcata, California doesn't even make the list. For those of you who don't know, Arcata is the first, and probably the only city in America whose elected officials are predominantly from the Green Party.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcata

 

Because of the aforementioned Consitution. He might be able to buid a town with Monaghan's "vision" of how it should be and attract only the people that think and act as he does but once he starts trying to enforce it when people don't absolutely fit in he'll be spending a lot of time in court being told that he can't ignore the Constitution. Violating the Constitution is illegal. It's probable that the first Amendment would be the first one that Monaghan would attempt to violate:

"Bill of Rights
"Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The gated community that you mention cannot be so gated that it is excempt from the Constitution. Monaghan will have to find a piece of land somewhere that is not part of the U.S. and form his own country to do what he wants to do.

 

I'm not a lawyer but I think Monaghan will succeed in building his little version of "paradise" and can, through deligent law-crafting, control it for decades.

I say that because of those wacky communes of extreme Mormons out in the West, who continue to pursue polygamy and take child-brides.

A couple of references:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4629320
http://www.polygamy.com/Mormon/Polygamists...cial-Report.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4629743

 

Your statement would have considerable impact if you could show how the "wacky communes of extreme Mormons out in the West..." violate the Constitution.

 

He's really got two problems: One is whether the covenants in the leases will stand up in court when they are challenged (and eventually they will be because even though the original owners will probably be in agreement, the next generation will not be -- who ever heard of children agreeing with their parents?); and the other is expansion: as development expands beyond the original site, there will be new land he does not own and therefore cannot control. Maybe he creates a town where these activities are prohibited, but if people can drive a mile to buy their porn and their porno and get their abortions, what have the prohibitions really accomplished?

On the other hand, he may make a lot of money by selling homes at double their underlying value to people who he cons into believing his fairy tale of a "sinless" city.

 

what a bunch of crap. but i say let all the right-wing nutjobs move there. then i don't have to deal with 'em.

but that population is going to skyrocket quickly... :blink:

 

:lol:

Maybe it'll catch on, and will expand such that the libs will be forced onto reservations, and ultimately, man-made islands....
h34r:

 

Yep. Just like how all those Native Americans were rounded up. Seemed like a good idea at the time ...

Another reason to vote Libertarian

 

:lol: I'm just taking pot shots at the libs... Truthfully, I don't have a problem them, or any other political party. Just the ones who are extremist, can't be reasoned with, believe any graph they're shown, and get angry when someone else's viewpoint can shatter a long held belief, that sort of thing... Oh wait, I think I just defined "Libs".... :lol:

 

It's ironic that the cons are the ones who talk about violating the Constitution and are always so emotional.

 

Hmmm. Sounds like every Neocon I know of. Our Gov, right or wrong. Our Dubya, right or wrong. Etc.

 

Oh, like the Constitution hasn't been "violated"? Yes, the documents we hold soooo dearly have been diluted so much, I actually wonder how meaningful they are now as oppesed to when they were composed, taking into account the "world" in both eras...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

When I was still living in Utah - and already well on the way to becoming a Libertarian - I had the following bumper stickers on my 4Runner:

"U.S. Constitution: Void Where Prohibited By Law."

 

neocon, lib, green party, independents, Dubya, makes no difference....