If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MyFoxAtlanta)   From the "Oh yeah, one more thing you can't do somewhere in Georgia this year" department: No new swimming pools in your backyard   (myfoxatlanta.com) divider line 122
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

13366 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Mar 2007 at 6:18 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



122 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-03-15 12:53:22 AM
King County in Washington State has a similar rule for properties over 1 acre in size. Right now it is in effect in limited areas, but I believe they have been trying to expand it to cover the entire county.

They give you an extra punch in the nuts by requiring native plants cover that restricted space, with all work to be certified by a licensed arborist.

Want some sugar maples in the back yard that will turn gold, orange and red in the fall? Bzzzt. You get native big-leaf maples that turn a sickly yellow and brown instead. And you'll like it, or they'll fine you $500 a day.


/King County - a little gem of Communism in the great northwest
 
2007-03-15 01:03:16 AM

I'm not as up-to-date on my Takings Clause jurisprudence as I used to be, but this screams out for litigation. The "public use" prong is clearly satisfied, especially considering Kelo, and this is not a denial of all of the economic value of all of the land, as in Lucas, but it certainly denies the owner of at least some economically beneficial or productive options for use of the other 60 to 65 percent of the property.

This portion of Lucas sums up my general feelings on this particular regulation:

On the other side of the balance, affirmatively supporting a compensation requirement, is the fact that regulations that leave the owner of land without economically beneficial or productive options for its use--typically, as here, by requiring land to be left substantially in its natural state--carry with them a heightened risk that private property is being pressed into some form of public service under the guise of mitigating serious public harm.
 
2007-03-15 06:33:45 AM
Well, waste water management is sort of important....

Too much hard surface and your rainwater does all sorts of unpleasant things.
It kinda sucks to be the landowner, but the law is not comepletely without merit.
I'd have sharp words with the developer/agent first though.

/just sayin.
//McMansions on Mini lots are teh suk.
 
2007-03-15 06:33:57 AM
Well, like I said it yesterday:

bcgdemos.com
 
2007-03-15 06:34:08 AM
Yeah, screw farking fascist city and county councils. I'm going to live in the country somewhere where people don't give a shiat. Tired of people telling me what to do with my own private property, goddammit.
 
2007-03-15 06:42:10 AM
Cobb Co. just peed in the pool?
 
2007-03-15 06:46:30 AM
well, I don't know about about the law, but at least the justifications are far more acceptable than the ones used by Liburn (sp?) to ban Karaoke.

/Glad I left that state
//Fulton Country represents !
 
2007-03-15 06:48:04 AM
Falls Church, Virginia tries to enact rules such as this but run afoul of the VA Constitution. The "Chesapeake" basin defense. Tree Commission and arborist inhibit residential development while sucking up to commercial interests. Bedo Leather's tree issue comes to mind....


/Sorry local politics is teh suxxor!!
 
2007-03-15 06:51:27 AM
Dinjiin: King County - a little gem of Communism in the great northwest

anthonybradley.worldmagblog.com

What definition of Communism are you using? Is there some new meaning to the word that I'm not familiar with?
 
2007-03-15 06:57:30 AM
stop your god damn crying. you buy 4/10th of a acre in a subdivision and then complain you can't cover up all your property with concrete. sheesh. go buy 1+ acres somewhere if you want a pool. what do you want next in the yard? a pony?
go find a community pool at the ymca. gasp, that would be like taking public transportation.
the developer already did all he could shoehorning the houses into the development after studying the local ecosystem system and there just isn't any more to give. do you really think the developer took his impact studies and said "we can build 150 houses and let the people have a bit more land if they want to have a swimming pool or rock garden or big ass utility outbuilding"? nope, they said lets build 220 houses on smaller tracts and get the most profit.
 
2007-03-15 06:59:28 AM
How dare they tell me not to build a McMansion? Flooding you say? Will never happen.

I tend to agree with this one.

Solution: Share a pool with your neighbours, *gasp* get along with others.

Where my mothers aunt lives in Long Island, she has friends who decided the best use of their backyards was to share them across four neighbours. They have a volleyball court and a pool. As well as plenty of open grass to run around in.

To bring this thread around in all sorts of directions. I find it funny that there are a [minority] of vocal americans who are all uppity about christian values, but hate their neighbours and don't want to do what is right for anyone [including themselves].

Look, rain water needs to go somewhere. You can't both have a mcmansion and a pool. Decide which is more important.
 
2007-03-15 07:01:56 AM
"complain you can't cover up all your property with concrete. "
What part of "my property" is hard to grasp? Do i own it or not?
 
2007-03-15 07:03:05 AM
Oh, no. No new private swimming pools for the poor Marietta kids. Boo farking hoo.
Most subdivisions down there have neighborhood pools, anyway. It's not like Georgia is banning swimming. They just don't want it to look like Central Florida.
/have you ever flown over that shiat? Every farking little house has a tiny little pool behind it. An hour from the ocean! Insanity!
 
2007-03-15 07:12:50 AM
Unknown_Poltroon
Often, you don't "own" property. In Canada, for instance, you can have your land seized (well bought) from you by the government without recourse if it's in the public's best interest.

I imagine the US has similar policies.

Where in the constitution does it say you have the right to own property (hint: you're allowed to own property, but that doesn't make it a right).
 
2007-03-15 07:25:25 AM
tomstdenis: Aren't property taxes (or rather what happens if you don't pay them) a much better example for your point?
 
2007-03-15 07:26:24 AM
I can agree with their logic but can somebody explain to me how runoff is affected by a swimming pool? It's full of water.
 
2007-03-15 07:27:17 AM
Okay pops [Vaylon Kenadel], we'll get off your lawn....sheesh
 
2007-03-15 07:29:35 AM
booger42: Okay pops [Vaylon Kenadel], we'll get off your lawn....sheesh

That's right. And don't you forget it.

Damn kids. Damn councilmen telling me what to do with my private property. I oughta shoot at the bastards if they trespass.
 
2007-03-15 07:39:02 AM
....because saying "no" to a developer is not in Georgia's lexicon. Business good, people bad.
 
2007-03-15 07:42:12 AM
tomstdenis:

Where my mothers aunt lives in Long Island, she has friends who decided the best use of their backyards was to share them across four neighbours.


That gets in the way of good solid American fun, like farkin in the pool when you're drunk.
 
2007-03-15 07:42:37 AM
Take the time to vote the asshats out. We only get the government we deserve.
 
2007-03-15 07:47:24 AM
Kinan

Please tell me you're joking.
 
2007-03-15 07:52:50 AM
cant believe im the first one to think of this...

img151.imageshack.us
 
2007-03-15 07:54:53 AM
Unknown_Poltroon: What part of "my property" is hard to grasp? Do i own it or not?

They only have two options:

1) Prevent the covering of the ground with hard surfaces that don't allow for rainwater drainage; or:

2) Charge you an arm and a leg to beef up the storm sewer system, which is what some developments in Northern Virginia were forced to do when they started putting town houses on lots that used to be small single family homes.

The water has to go somewhere, and if you take away the ability for nature to handle it, then you have to pay for the structure to do it artificially.

I don't like that they didn't give homeowners the option, I really think they should have. If your neighbors get together and fund a new storm sewer line, go nuts with your property.

Kinan: I can agree with their logic but can somebody explain to me how runoff is affected by a swimming pool?

It's the concrete in the ground and around the pool that worsens the runoff.
 
2007-03-15 07:55:30 AM
Phil Herup
Fair enough, well that's what a midnight swim is for I guess.

They're all fairly old people [hint: mothers aunt friends] so I don't want to think about them naked.... shudder...
 
2007-03-15 08:07:20 AM
nashBridges is on the money - the water has to go somewhere - the problem is right now it goes somewhere too fast.

We've already HAD this argument - Megacompany A builds a huge shopping/parking complex and that little creek that for 50 years never had more than 3 inches of water in it turns into a raging river everytime it rains because 20 acres of rain runs off immediatly. AND.... most of us biatched and moaned, demanded that company A fix the problem and most of them are now required to build holding ponds on site to handle runoff.

They are basically doing the same thing - except now its not Megacompany A - its homeowners A thru ZZ. The problem is exactly the same, and so is the solution - require the land owner to make reasonable accomidations for rain so it doesnt immediatly runoff.

My solution would be to require a slow drain cistern that would handle an inch or two of rain for the area to be covered by the pool/patio combination (whatever exceeds the threshold).
 
2007-03-15 08:14:22 AM
City government (1..n)== homeowner's association.

[(1..n)== being my feeble attempt at stating "increasingly equal to" mathematically]

Wanna have as close to true freedom as you'll find in BushLand, look for land in an unincorporated county area. One less layer of government over your head is not a bad thing.

/will be doing just that when the housing market cools off a bit
//if I wanna park my RV on a dirt lot AND LIVE IN IT I'm gonna do it, gawd damn it
 
2007-03-15 08:16:48 AM
Gee maybe the county should have thought of this before they started approving lot sizes and building plans for these subdivisions. Now it is the owners problem they didn't plan right?

So glad I live where there are minimal restrictions. I will quit complaining about dirt roads and my neighbors broken down truck.
 
2007-03-15 08:28:45 AM
Ya'll oughta move to Kentucky. We don't worry about piddly crap like surface water contamination and such. It's still legal to bury cows on your property - my neighbor's got about 200 of 'em buried out back. Wonder why our well water tastes funny.
 
2007-03-15 08:30:38 AM
nashBridges: Kinan: I can agree with their logic but can somebody explain to me how runoff is affected by a swimming pool?

It's the concrete in the ground and around the pool that worsens the runoff.


I don't even see how that's possible. They're saying the area where the pool is could be used for absorbing water into the earth. The less area, the more flooding. However, any water that enters the pool will stay there until it evaporates unless your pool is overflowing. There's no runoff from a pool to cause flooding. A pool will not add or detract from the flooding problem. It is neutral.

A little shed could increase flooding. An addition to your house could increase flooding. A pool should not increase flooding.

Maybe I don't understand the issue, I don't know...
 
2007-03-15 08:34:04 AM
The size of the pool shouldn't count then. That's the point.
 
2007-03-15 08:35:04 AM
GizmoToy
Back in the day we had a semi-above ground pool, about 5ft deep or so in the centre. And when it was really raining it was common for it to overflow [or come very close]. We usually were in the pool splashing around and dumping water over the sides as we made whirlpools.

I can see if you had 2-3 days of rain a pool would easily overflow. For those with inground pools there is usually a deck around the pool made of concrete. Also below the ground the pool blocks the movement of water in the soil.
 
2007-03-15 08:38:21 AM
Ok, I'd just like to say, that in the perimeter Atlanta is absolutely an amazing city. I don't ever want to leave. This place is great. East Atlanta
OTP... well our suburb officials all have sticks up their asses and are so bored they like to start drama like writing tickets for starting your car. Hail big burb brother :P
 
2007-03-15 08:38:24 AM
I have no idea if we have any similar limit on "improved" square footage here in Denver, but the city water bill includes a portion based on how much area you have built over.

That seems like the reasonable solution - you can do whatever you want, you just have to pay the full cost of it.

Pools aren't terribly popular here, but McMansions are. Most new houses are significantly larger but on significantly smaller lots than ours.
 
2007-03-15 08:40:23 AM
I guess Californee is the place you outta be!

swimmin' pools, movie stars.


/lives in Massachusetts. Doesn't have his own cement pond.
 
2007-03-15 08:41:07 AM
Subdivisions in northern California had a unique take on this. They built neighborhood pools, only the people that lived in that small subdivision could use the pool and it was centrally in the neighborhood. Probably less than maybe 20-50 houses. The one I looked in didn't have a HOA but everyone did have to pay annually into the pool fund. Not as good as one in your back yard but better than the crowded city pool five miles away.
 
2007-03-15 08:41:12 AM
tomstdenis

I imagine the US has similar policies.

Where in the constitution does it say you have the right to own property (hint: you're allowed to own property, but that doesn't make it a right).
Yes, the US has a similar provision built into its Constitution. I don't think I can do the clicky HTML thing right, so look up "Takings clause" on wiki for a nice summary.

As for the right to property, the 9th Amendment does note that the list of rights legally granted is not exhaustive (you can't be denied a right purely because it's not listed, there are other implied rights, like the right to privacy). Also, the 5th and 14th Amendments make it clear that you cannot be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law".
 
2007-03-15 08:41:43 AM
GizmoToy: They're saying the area where the pool is could be used for absorbing water into the earth. The less area, the more flooding. However, any water that enters the pool will stay there until it evaporates unless your pool is overflowing. There's no runoff from a pool to cause flooding. A pool will not add or detract from the flooding problem. It is neutral.

A pool is not neutral.

The area above the ground that is covered with concrete prevents the absorption of water into the soil, so the total absorption rate of your backyard is less whatever the surface square footage of the pool is.

But that's not all! The volume that the pool takes up underground also prevents water absorption. The dirt (until you hit a clay layer) acts like a sponge when it rains and can hold a pretty large volume of water per cubed foot. When you remove the dirt to put in a pool, what do you do?

1) You put a giant concrete box in the ground, which doesn't absorb any water.

2) You take away a volume of sponge-like dirt that used to hold water.

It's a net total loss for drainage. Couple that with the fact that the water now has to drain underground around the pool and you add even more problems.
 
2007-03-15 08:45:57 AM
"I think anybody would have an issue if county government is telling them what they can and can't do on their property,"

Um, yeah, welcome to the 50's Romero.
 
2007-03-15 08:48:41 AM
Silverstaff
Being allowed to own property, isn't a right. Just like smoking [hence the bans]. Due process of law could be an imminent domain proceeding.

Example: I could refuse to sell you something, thus interfering with your non-existant right to own property

Example: [as another pointed out] if you fail to pay taxes you can have assets seized.

As for the non-exhaustive list, I'm sure they have to be inferred from existing rights. Otherwise, you could claim anything as a right.
 
2007-03-15 08:50:52 AM
Then there is the air pollution.

Yeah...I want masses of evaporating chlorine gas floating up into the smog and staying there where I can breathe it.

Brother-in-law worked for the EPA. Helped with the California study that ended up regulating (by banning) outdoor barbeques, drive through windows and, yes, outdoor swimmingpools.

Take that you clean air hating bastids!
 
2007-03-15 08:56:38 AM
95 percent of the neighborhoods in this area have pools anyway, who needs one in their yard? Makes sense though, if you want a pool, buy more land.
 
2007-03-15 09:01:40 AM
wmack: Brother-in-law worked for the EPA. Helped with the California study that ended up regulating (by banning) outdoor barbeques, drive through windows and, yes, outdoor swimmingpools.

Do you have a link to said study? I don't see how the evaporation rate of a swimming pool outside could possibly result in a toxic level of chlorine gas in the air. I thought swimming pool bans were in areas that had to conserve water.
 
2007-03-15 09:06:31 AM
Is the HOA or the Government telling them that they can't build the pools?
 
2007-03-15 09:15:15 AM
mmm... pancake: Is the HOA or the Government telling them that they can't build the pools?

It's the local county government.
 
2007-03-15 09:20:27 AM
nashBridges: 1) You put a giant concrete box in the ground, which doesn't absorb any water.
2) You take away a volume of sponge-like dirt that used to hold water.


And you replace it with a giant tank for holding water. The area that was previously used to hold water still holds water. The water that enters the pool under normal conditions will only exit by evaporation. It collects only water falling from above, obviously, but it's not like you just stuck a big slab of concrete out there.

I could agree with tomstdenis, though. I have, on occasion, seen a pool overflow. And they do usually have a concrete ring around them, and I doubt that's angled in towards the pool to collect the water, so that'd be a problem.
 
2007-03-15 09:23:26 AM
tomstdenis: Example: I could refuse to sell you something, thus interfering with your non-existant right to own property

The right to own property is not the same as the right to obtain property. Not only that, but your refusal to sell something indicates a right to own property, does it not?

As for the non-exhaustive list, I'm sure they have to be inferred from existing rights. Otherwise, you could claim anything as a right.

Property rights are inferred from our right to life.

1) We're born free
2) We own our bodies
3) Therefore, we own our labor
4) Therefore, we own the fruit of our labor
5) Therefore, we own that with which we have purchased with the fruit of our labor

You're begging the question. Our rights are set in stone. Whether or not the Government upholds those rights or violates them is a different question.
 
2007-03-15 09:25:17 AM
Meh. If they would just have properly written storm water control ordinances this measure would not be needed. However, assuming that they don't, I can see why this would be necessary.
 
2007-03-15 09:25:25 AM
nashBridges: It's the local county government.

Oh, then that's ok. For a second there, I thought it was something to worry about. Turns out it's just another Government body telling people what they can and cannot do with their property. That's fine. If it was one of those HOAs I was gonna be pissed! I hate those guys!
 
2007-03-15 09:26:27 AM
mmm...pancake

Is the HOA or the Government telling them that they can't build the pools?

Government

wmack: Brother-in-law worked for the EPA. Helped with the California study that ended up regulating (by banning) outdoor barbeques, drive through windows and, yes, outdoor swimmingpools.

Bullshiat!

This would make sense if every single home decided to put in a swimming pool- thus turning cobb county into a farking basketball court- but that simply isn't the case and it never will be. It is only another example of government encroaching on personal property.
 
Displayed 50 of 122 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report