January 21, 2004
Creeping Statism Watch

I have in front of me two documents. One is a letter from my apartment management and one is a notice inserted into my latest phone bill.

Each document is representative of the same bad ideas influencing society and our legislators.

The apartment manager letter is a notice that they will be coming around over the next few days to inspect our porches. It says:

Dear Resident(s),

We will be looking at patios and landings next week. To avoid a lease violation, please remember the only things that are allowed on the patios are:

*Plants
*Patio furniture (furniture made specifically for outdoor use)
*Bikes
*And children's toys stored neatly

The only things allowed on the landing are plants.
Please do not set trash outside your door.

B.Q. pits are not allowed to be stored or used on the patios.
This is a city ordinance. (See attached)


The emphasis is in the original.

The paper attached is something from the Austin Fire Department. I'm not sure if this is it's motto or not (it's written motto-style across the top), but The Mission Goes Beyond the Name is cruel irony.

Austin Residents:

In an effort to prevent fires at Apartment Communities, the Austin City Council has passed a local amendment to the UNIFORM FIRE CODE, prohibiting the STORAGE OR USE of barbecue pits, hibachis, or any other outside cooking appliance on balconies, porches, in storage closets, inside any building or closer than five feet to to any portion of combustible wall or building. This amendment includes all cooking appliances that use charcoal, wood, gas (including PROPANE) as a fuel.

While the Austin Fire Department is sympathetic to the inconveniences caused by the local amendment, it has been adopted in response to fire incident data, which have revealed an alarming number of fires in apartment communities in Austin. In fact, some of the dealiest and most destructive fires in Austin's history have occurred at apartment communities.

Fines for violating this amendment to the Fire Code start at $348.00 and can reach $548.00 for repeated incidents of non-compliance. The Austin Fire Department will be enforcing the amendment through on-site inspections.

If you have any questions, please call the Austin Fire Department's Emergency Prevention Division at 448-8310.

Thank you for help keeping our community safe!


The emphasis is in the original.

I take little issue with my apartment complex setting rules for what it doesn't want us to set out on our porches, though I do consider the restrictions quite restrictive (what about standing ash trays or cleaning equipment like mops?). What I have a problem with is the change to the Fire Code. No doubt I'd have a lot of problems with the Fire Code if I read through it, but since this has presented itself to me and is a good example of what I want to get at, it'll do fine.

The notice I recieved is from SBC, my telephone provider. In my latest bill, it sent me a notice along with a few other notices, but this one stuck out:

Notification

You may notice a new charge called the "Texas Universal Service" that pays for the Texas Universal Service Fund. This fund was created by the state of Texas to help pay for keeping local phone rates affordable for low income customers and customers in high cost rural areas and to serve customers with disabilities. If you have any questions about how this charge or how it is calculated, please call your telephone company


Looking at the bill SBC mailed me, the Texas Universal Service fee I'm being billed for is $1.01 and is on top of a few other state fees.

So, what are the bad ideas I spoke of?

  1. A dangerous problem exists. Therefore, the government should step in and regulate or ban most instances of the behavior that causes the problem.
  2. A number of people go without some services. Therefore, the government should step in and divert and redistribute wealth to those who need it.
These two notions are responsible for a titanic amount of the collectivization that faces individual rights activists.

Posted by Drizzten at January 21, 2004 05:58 PM

ATTENTION: Comments are closed. You are viewing my old blog, archived for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To find the current version of this entry, search here.

Comments

Yeh, you'd think "tax" would cover a lot of this crap.

you guys dont have income tax, hey.

Posted by: Ken on January 22, 2004 01:16 AM

The National Fire Data Center estimates that, each year, outside cooking grills cause more than 6,000 fires, over 5 fatalities, more than 170 injuries, and $35 million in property loss. This does not include the number of people left homeless because their neighbor had a fire.

You don't have the right to endanger my home and my life just so you can eat a grilled burger.

Posted by: Mike Robinson on June 10, 2004 02:41 PM

Mr. Robinson, you have a very dangerous premise at work here.

You say that if I perform an activity that "endangers" your property, I should be fined, arrested, and/or jailed for doing it. This prohibition extends to activities that don't actually cause damage to your property. Certainly you can understand the risks involved with using this as a basis for criminal laws?

Every action humans perform carries risks to the performer and those around him or her. Your "endangerment" calculus would, if consistently applied, effectively end the use of automobiles in this country. It would prohibit air travel, hunting, and fireworks. It would abolish the military and the police. It would ban flammable materials, gyms, and forklifts. It would make an untold number of everyday acts criminal in order to secure us from "endangerment."

Such an idea results in the death of personal freedom and the end of economic progress. If I cook burgers on my porch (and I do have one) and your apartment above me *doesn't* burn down, have I done anything wrong? No. If I cook burgers on my porch and your apartment *does* burn down, have I done anything wrong? Yes, and I would be liable to repay you for the damage I caused. Cause and effect: that's the key to criminal sanction. If I cause no harm, why right do you or anyone else have to sanction me with fines and jail time?

Why not, having seen me cooking on my porch one day, politely ask me to either take extra precautions or do it away from our building? If presented reasonably and nicely, I have no doubt that most people would agree and understand. Those that don't deserve what responsibility might lie ahead. If the concern you felt from the danger of a neighbor accidentally burning your house down was great enough, you have two moral choices: either ask the neighbor to change his or her behavior or move.

But you don't have the right to ask the government to ban activities that present a danger to you. You only have the right to ask for restitution should such a danger convert into actual harm.

Posted by: Drizz on June 10, 2004 04:14 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


ATTENTION: Comments are closed. You are viewing my old blog, archived for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To find the current version of this entry, search here.

HTML formatting is disabled. However, you may post a raw URL as it will show up as a clickable link.

Comments are the property and responsibilty of the commenter.

I reserve the right to delete any comment I wish as this is my property you are commenting upon, but I'm pretty laid-back so it isn't likely to happen unless you are some psycho idiot jerk. Oh, and unless you have my permission to promote your good or service, you are wasting your time: unsolicited advertisements will result in comment deletion and URL banning. This blog ain't for you spammers or the crap you want to sell.


Dislike the format, layout, color, or having a hard time reading the text? Comment here and let me know what you think.

Remember info?



Back to the top