I think it’s interesting how many people outside the Shire think that everyone shares the same goals and ideas within the Shire. That they judge people based of a minority of individuals.
I would say it’s like saying all Republicans want prayer in church, want to nuke the Middle East, and hand out firearms to anyone who wants one. Or that all Democrats want to end private run ownership, turn over all private organizations to the government, and provide cradle to grave services paid for by the public dole.
These are of course huge exaggerations, and not all people fit squarely into one single box. There are people who believe that all Free Staters agree on everything, which by and far is not true. We agree on principles, but often disagree on actions, just as many groups do.
What I think is really telling is the fact here in the Shire people who disagree with us are allowed to post, that posts aren’t deleted their, and people aren’t shadow banned.
I of course ignore such things as hominem attacks, because people who engage in such behavior just want to bring people down because their own self esteem is so low.
Over all, this article isn’t very balanced and obviously reflects the sentiment that outsiders are bad, and that NH isn’t heading in the direction of a totalitarian State.
The idea of zoning boards goes back to the era where black people were singled out by passing zoning restrictions that black people couldn’t meet in an effort to keep them out of the white man’s part of town. It’s a form of racism. The bigger issue to me is that a zoning board is nothing more then someone telling you what you can or can’t do with your own property.
Believe it or not, many of the objections raised by people who support zoning restrictions are logical fallacies. As a proof one only needs to look to Houston, TX. While, they don’t have a zoning board, and do not have use restrictions. There are policies in place that are circumvention of zoning.
Many properties have a contractual agreement upon purchase, instead of someone later on down the road imposing a new rule or regulation upon the development of the property.
if they’re talking about us, we’re winning.
This sounds very similar to what we used to call “Planned Unit Development” (PDU). Haven’t seen this idea discussed for many many years.
I can’t speak directly to PDUs, but if I were to venture a guess “zoning boards” are an anti-liberty replacement for them.
PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) were a particular form of local development.
The designation was used by zoning boards, and zoning boards were not a
replacement for them.
When land was being developed, the PUD would designate that within a given
development would be so many residences, so many business of a given type,
so many parks and where they were situated, etc.
Once established, that plan could not be changed. If a new business wanted
to move in, it had to locate itself according to the original plan, so a gas station
could not replace a corner market, or a medical office building. No new building
could take place unless it adhered to the original plan.
The closest I have seen in NH is probably the township of Dixville, NH.
Thanks for the information. As I said, not really informed about PUDs, but now I know something. Thanks again.