Virginia vintners have a taste of a Republican police state

[Jaskalas]

Didn't start off that way in 2004, consider my dissent the Bush legacy.

 

[PJABBER]

I hadn't realized just how oppressive government zoning enforcement is, and how anti-business so many communities, rich, poor and in the middle, are.

I have now read dozens of stories about how every form of small business is forced to toe some arbitrary line that in so many cases was drawn to prevent competition. The playing field is stacked by bureaucracy and red tape.

The story I link next is set in Chester, PA. While it is almost next door to Swarthmore, PA, a beautiful suburb of Philadelphia and home of one of the most expensive liberal arts schools in the country, Swarthmore College, Chester itself has been in decline for decades and has a number of impoverished neighborhoods.

In this case we have a Democrat government that requires a $1,000 fee to apply to give away State-paid free lunches to poor kids. Don't follow the rules? You will be fined $600 a day.

Lunch lady faces fine for feeding poor kids in Pennsylvania

By Rene Lynch
August 17, 2012, 1:10 p.m.

Lunch lady Angela Prattis thought she was just doing God's work, handing out free lunches to hungry children in a Pennsylvania neighborhood. But even acts of altruism, it seems, must bow to red tape.

National outrage has erupted after Prattis found herself running afoul of Chester Township zoning laws and threatened with a $600 fine if she continued, according to NBC10 Philadelphia.

Moreover, she faces a $1,000 fee if she wants to continue performing her good deeds, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The lunch lady, who is also a youth pastor at her church, was told that she needed a township zoning permit continue to hand out lunches outside her home. And the approval process requires an official hearing. And that hearing would cost her $1,000, the Inquirer reported.

It was enough to raise questions about whether Prattis could continue her work. She is a married mother of three and also a trained volunteer with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia's Nutritional Development Services, which supplies the food she gives out, according to the Inquirer.

The food is paid for by the state, according to the Inquirer, which also reported that program representatives had inspected and approved Prattis' operation.

The stalemate has prompted an outpouring of support. So far, several in the community offered to cover the $1,000 bill. She has received dozens of calls from others offering to do whatever is needed to keep the lunch lady on the job, and a law firm has also offered to represent her for free.

Prattis told the Inquirer that she's grateful for the offers but has not taken any money yet because she's still hoping authorities will waive the fee.

The Inquirer said it spoke to the township's acting solicitor, Murray Eckell, who acknowledged that the incident is giving local government a black eye. But he said the township is in a difficult position.

"Suppose a child gets hurt on her property," Eckell was quoted as saying. "Will the family sue the township? What if somebody gets food poisoning?
"What she is doing is commendable.... But if we don't have laws, there's chaos. It's a difficult situation for the township to be in."

NBC10 says Prattis plans to attend the next township meeting in a bid to clear up the controversy, but until then she plans to continue feeding children.

The Chester Township manager did not return a phone call seeking comment by the time this article was posted online.

 

[dank69]

I hadn't realized just how oppressive government zoning enforcement is, and how anti-business so many communities, rich, poor and in the middle, are.

I have now read dozens of stories about how every form of small business is forced to toe some arbitrary line that in so many cases was drawn to prevent competition. The playing field is stacked by bureaucracy and red tape.

The story I link next is set in Chester, PA. While it is almost next door to Swarthmore, PA, a beautiful suburb of Philadelphia and home of one of the most expensive liberal arts schools in the country, Swarthmore College, Chester itself has been in decline for decades and has a number of impoverished neighborhoods.

In this case we have a Democrat government that requires a $1,000 fee to apply to give away State-paid free lunches to poor kids. Don't follow the rules? You will be fined $600 a day.

Yeah it sucks but I'm sure after reading this reasoning you can understand why the law is the way it is:

"Suppose a child gets hurt on her property," Eckell was quoted as saying. "Will the family sue the township? What if somebody gets food poisoning?
"What she is doing is commendable.... But if we don't have laws, there's chaos. It's a difficult situation for the township to be in."

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Virginia, almost a model Republican governed State

Indeed.

http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

 

[PJABBER]

Yeah it sucks but I'm sure after reading this reasoning you can understand why the law is the way it is:

Actually, I don't. But the reason we are in the midst of our current malaise is that so many do.

I am old enough to remember the Carter years and while we don't have inflationary pressures at the moment, we have the same relative disinterest to take risk.

I am a free marketer. I find all restrictions onerous as they distort the free exchange of goods and services.

I can rationalize some regulatory framework, but the point of this thread is that the pendulum has swung so far that the burdens now far outweigh the benefits.

While the burdens imposed at the federal level are truly monstrous, most people don't see the mountains of bureaucratic red tape that affect their daily lives, they feel it in their wallets and wonder why.

At the local level, the impact is much more visceral.

You go about your oblivious daily routine and all of a sudden you decided to do something creative or entrepreneurial. You find that you can't feed the poor, you can't have a birthday party for your kids, you can't buy raw milk cheese, you can't smoke a cigarette, or have a beer after a certain hour. You can't paint your house the color you would like or plant your favorite flowers. You would like to quit your job and work at home but home offices are prohibited.

Then you find that you can ask for a pardon, an exemption, an INDULGENCE.

But it will cost you.

To feed the poor kids in your neighborhood will cost you $1,000 to make an application for an INDULGENCE.

To have a sign on your business requires a $5000 zoning variance.

If the reason for the restriction is so malleable that an exemption is possible, why have it in the first place?

No, you can't sell raw milk cheese, for example, even if you have potential customers begging you for it. Maryland, where I live at the moment, now has a test exemption for a couple of organic farms to produce raw milk products. Their cheeses are delicious. But the production is so limited that I bet you couldn't even find a sample to try out.

Why does Maryland need to test raw milk cheese?

I don't think I eat anything but raw milk cheese when I am in France.

It is delicious.

But you can't have any.

Too bad for you.

 

[Matt1970]

This law is crazy but this is nothing compared to some on the Liquor laws out there.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Actually, I don't. But the reason we are in the midst of our current malaise is that so many do.

I am old enough to remember the Carter years and while we don't have inflationary pressures at the moment, we have the same relative disinterest to take risk.

I am a free marketer. I find all restrictions onerous as they distort the free exchange of goods and services.

I can rationalize some regulatory framework, but the point of this thread is that the pendulum has swung so far that the burdens now far outweigh the benefits.

While the burdens imposed at the federal level are truly monstrous, most people don't see the mountains of bureaucratic red tape that affect their daily lives, they feel it in their wallets and wonder why.

At the local level, the impact is much more visceral.

You go about your oblivious daily routine and all of a sudden you decided to do something creative or entrepreneurial. You find that you can't feed the poor, you can't have a birthday party for your kids, you can't buy raw milk cheese, you can't smoke a cigarette, or have a beer after a certain hour. You can't paint your house the color you would like or plant your favorite flowers. You would like to quit your job and work at home but home offices are prohibited.

Then you find that you can ask for a pardon, an exemption, an INDULGENCE.

But it will cost you.

To feed the poor kids in your neighborhood will cost you $1,000 to make an application for an INDULGENCE.

To have a sign on your business requires a $5000 zoning variance.

If the reason for the restriction is so malleable that an exemption is possible, why have it in the first place?

No, you can't sell raw milk cheese, for example, even if you have potential customers begging you for it. Maryland, where I live at the moment, now has a test exemption for a couple of organic farms to produce raw milk products. Their cheeses are delicious. But the production is so limited that I bet you couldn't even find a sample to try out.

Why does Maryland need to test raw milk cheese?

I don't think I eat anything but raw milk cheese when I am in France.

It is delicious.

But you can't have any.

Too bad for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog#United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration#History

 

[Howard]

I don't live there or know much detail, but if the article is right, that's disgusting. Just goes to show you, more government power and control is always a bad thing, no matter which party it is.

When Republicans do something wrong, PokerGuy says "... no matter what party it is". When Democrats do something wrong, PokerGuy says "thanks to dimlibs".

Only interesting because PokerGuy professes to be politically disinterested.

 

[shortylickens]

BUMP!

PSA: Virginia was still fascist even when the democrats were in control. Its a no-win situation. Also, neither party has done anything to seriously get rid of illegal aliens and they make more problems that any other one group.

 

[marincounty]

Dude, you are an alcoholic. Get help soon. Driving with very small amounts of alcohol in your system is illegal in many countries.
And somehow wineries and brewpubs are flourishing in fascist California? How can that be?
Heads are exploding.

 

[Anarchist420]

Virginia, almost a model Republican governed State

Indeed.

http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

Actually, va, dc, and md get so much because they're either in d.c. or are actually d.c

 

[Smoblikat]

Wow, a thread from PJABBER that's critical of Republicans. Such a rarity.

What the hell are you talking about? You are clearly just stupid and unAmerican, after reading the article and seeing the travesty of justice thats happening in OUR country the only thing you could say was a smart ass remark about the retarded bipartisan system?

 

[PJABBER]

BUMP!

PSA: Virginia was still fascist even when the democrats were in control. Its a no-win situation. Also, neither party has done anything to seriously get rid of illegal aliens and they make more problems that any other one group.

NoVa has a lot of legal immigrants, many have been here for over 20 years, like the Peruvians, etc. They are generally hard working people, have started and built businesses, really are part of international makeup of the whole DC Metro area.

A lot of illegal migrants, however, had moved into the area because of the construction boom and crime took off as well. When the construction boom ended many moved to North Carolina, but quite a few are still in the area.

A lot of the illegals settled in Manassas in Prince William County. The county government did want to act on the problem, but the county police chief decided he wasn't going to enforce the law. Kinda like Eric Holder only enforces laws he agrees with.

The police chief retired recently and I guess time will tell if this will change things.

Gladly saying 'adios' to Chief Deane

By: Michael Shannon | Inside NoVA
Published: August 16, 2012

Prince William County police Chief Charlie T. Deane may be retiring with mixed emotions.

As Virginia’s foremost practitioner of “ignoring while Hispanic” law enforcement, he’s no doubt gratified President Barack Obama followed his lead and unilaterally declared amnesty for almost 2 million illegals.

But Charlie’s also probably a little wistful that he couldn’t simply ignore the Prince William law designed to combat the illegal alien invasion, as Obama did with federal statute.

Still, Deane’s work here is done. Time to say, “Adios, amigos,” and ride off into jubilación.

Deane received quite the sendoff from his fellow travelers at the Washington Post. Members of the morally superior caucus find it newsworthy when someone they assume is conservative and therefore morally backward turns out to share their enlightened views.

The Post’s editorial proclaimed: “When county officials wanted police to check the immigration status of residents and arrest those who were in the country illegally, he wasn’t afraid to push back at a policy he saw as bigoted and sure to cause problems for law enforcement.”

The Metro section concurred, “When the Prince William Board of County Supervisors jumped into the national immigration debate in 2007 and became one of the first places in the country to require the police department to question residents about their immigration status, Chief Charlie T. Deane thought otherwise.

“He feared cries of racial profiling and losing the trust of the county’s growing immigrant community. His stance angered his bosses on the county board and many residents who thought he was flouting the law… ‘When this was forced on us, we had no experience with it, and there were legal and moral implications,’ Deane said.”

The policy Deane refers to as being “forced on us” was in truth a law passed by an overwhelming majority of the Board of County Supervisors.

And Deane didn’t simply express his opinion regarding the policy as a law enforcement official; he used his power as chief to actively sabotage the implementa*tion of a law supported by the vast majority of citizens here legally.

Since Deane couldn’t persuade the board not to pass the law, he decided to obstruct enforcement until the 2008 election, hoping voters would elect Democrats who prefer coddling illegals.

(Note to readers, don’t try this at home, as obstruction of justice is a crime if you’re not the chief of police.) Deane accomplished this by waiting until the entire police department went through training before allowing officers to enforce the law.

This took months and is in direct opposition to the procedure in departments where the chief obeys his elected bosses.

Deane was forced to implement Plan B when stubborn voters re-elected Republicans who believe in the rule of law. Chief Sanctimony announced, “… we were going to focus on individuals who had committed crimes, and that we were going to protect crime victims and witnesses regardless of their status, and we were not going to do racial profiling, roadblocks, sweeps or employment investigations.”

This made it crystal clear to patrol officers and supervisors that they would be wise to avoid enthusiastic enforcement.

Simultaneously Deane began his apology tour. The Patron was concerned about the “climate of fear” in the Hispanic community, along with “bigotry and profiling.”

He met with “immigrant rights groups” (think aiding and abetting associations) and even had an audiencia with the Mexican consul, who represents a government that actively encourages illegal aliens and works to undermine border enforcement.

But in spite of Deane’s best efforts, some illegals were captured. The first report found, “In the majority of cases, [the arrest] was made during a call for service, second to that was traffic for stops (sic).”

So Deane works to dilute the law and restrict enforcement inquiries to individuals placed under arrest, which means illegals caught previously during “a call for service” or traffic stop, would go free in the future.

Progressives were fine with Deane’s unilateral decision that the intensity of law enforcement should vary depending on the individual’s national origin, because all the right people were in agreement.

But I wonder what progressive response would have been if Deane had decided to de-emphasize enforcement of domestic violence and homosexual bullying in the Muslim community because Islam has a different view of women’s roles and the Koran prohibits homosexual conduct?

Do you think worries about “Islamophobia” and encouraging cooperation with anti-terrorism efforts would have persuaded elite opinion to accept this type of arbitrary lack of enforcement? We all know the answer to that.

Charlie has his “Bridge Builder” award from the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and his gold watch from the Post.

Now maybe Prince William will get a chief who believes his role is to enforce the law, rather than interpret it.

 

[PJABBER]

I found this particularly funny and all too true...

IN the year 2012, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in the United States, and said: "Once again, the earth has become wicked and over populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me."

"Build another Ark and save two of every living thing along with a few good humans."

He gave Noah the blueprints, saying: "You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights."

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard - but no Ark.

"Noah!," He roared, "I'm about to start the rain! Where is the Ark?"

"Forgive me, Lord," begged Noah, "but things have changed."

"I needed a building permit and I've been arguing with the inspector about the need for a sprinkler system."

"My neighbors claim that I've violated the neighborhood zoning laws by building the Ark in my yard and exceeding the height limitations. We had to go to the Development Appeal Board for a decision."

"Then the Department of Transportation demanded a bond be posted for the future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions, to clear the passage for the Ark's move to the sea. I told them that the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it."

"Getting the wood was another problem. There's a ban on cutting local trees in order to save the spotted owl. I tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls - but no go!"

"When I started gathering the animals, an animal rights group sued me. They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will. They argued the accommodations were too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane to put so many animals in a confined space."

"Then the EPA ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until they'd conducted an environmental impact study on your proposed flood."

"I'm still trying to resolve a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on how many minorities I'm supposed to hire for my building crew."

"Immigration and Naturalization are checking the green-card status of most of the people who want to work."

"The trades unions say I can't use my sons. They insist I have to hire only Union workers with Ark-building experience."

"To make matters worse, the IRS seized all my assets, claiming I'm trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species."

"So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish this Ark."

"Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow stretched across the sky."

Noah looked up in wonder and asked, "You mean you're not going to destroy the world?"

"No," said the Lord.

"The GOVERNMENT beat me to it."

:awe:

 

[OutHouse]

Nice that while criticizing this Republican county he still shoehorns in a couple of jabs at Obama.

that is a skill most do not have.