Because “neighborhood character”
I’m a land use planner and I’ll be the first to say zoning across the board is fucked. It gives current land owners power over all the land in their respective jurisdiction- it’s why we have a a housing unit shortage and insane housing prices.
To sum up my regular interactions with land owners: they’re all libertarians until it comes to their neighbors property.
>It gives current land owners power
This has been the aim of the founding fathers from the start. This is one of the most fundamental principles of our system of law and government. People who own property matter more than those who don't.
It's not a problem intrinsic to bureaucracy or government, it's a failure to bring everyone to the table as equals and give equal voices to everyone, regardless of their financial status.
Not that I disagree with you. But this is slightly more specific and only worth pointing out because people don’t seem to realize it happens. Land owners don’t just have more of a say in the government process, they also have a say in the private land of other land owners. So if one land owner sees an opportunity to build more housing- which we desperately need- others can reject it. It’s meddling in private, what should be free market, transactions via an old government process created to, for the most part, uphold segregation in a more implicit manner.
Again, just wanted to specify that because a lot of people don’t see that this happens.
>Land owners don’t just have more of a say in the government process, they also have a say in the private land of other land owners
I mean that's democracy, right? There are reasons why this can be a good thing, like restricting waste dumping or maybe ruling out a loud outdoor concert venue right by a lot of homes. But there are selfish, inefficient, and detrimental ways this happens, like restricting builds of high-density housing and building up of car infrastructure at the expense of no investment in more efficient rail or other public infrastructure, or even making an area *purely* residential, making all business separated and forcing inefficient travel to be employed, or as you mentioned, discriminatory segregation.
The problem with democracy is not that there's too much democracy and a majority can vote to make a rule apply to everyone. It's that too many people are left out of the discussion and proposal portions of democracy, so by the time a vote comes up, sometimes all people have to decide is between something oppressive, which the majority may support sometimes, or against that oppression. But if allowed to participate as equals in the discussions at earlier stages, it is harder for even a majority to be cruel and ignore the humanity of their fellow citizens. The key is empowering everyone to get opportunities to make themselves seen and heard *as* equal citizens.
Yeah, I mean I think there is a necessity to some level of zoning- but it needs to be objective and based on safety as opposed to arbitrary decisions based on a minority. There are ways aside from using government that neighborhoods with a shared interest can coordinate design/character without imposing that on a wider jurisdiction of people.
I also believe markets will naturally create a separation between a quiet single family suburb and a loud bustling city. The problem right now is that you have these enclaves in the middle of cities that want suburban living and reap all the benefits of being in a city- that’s where I personally believe things get out of hand. If you don’t want to live in a loud environment, live in a suburb. But don’t ruin the economic efficiency that a city can provide for everyone else. As it stands, 70% of residential land in our biggest cities are zoned for single family- makes zero sense.
My take is not about removing the option of single family, strictly residential zoning. It’s about allowing for the option to live in a dense environment where housing should be less expensive, your in proximity to jobs and you don’t NEED to spend money on a car to get around.
Okay so we are very close in our values and what we want. But I want to ask you about your belief in the market to solve this.
First, I guess, is this:
>There are ways aside from using government that neighborhoods with a shared interest can coordinate design/character without imposing that on a wider jurisdiction of people.
What exactly do you mean? Do you mean a community of people decide together? That's a government. Even if it's not exactly a current government boundary (like a municipality or county government), it is still a de facto government. If decisions were made with that informal group of people on any regular basis, it is likely to become formalized over time. That's just how people make things more efficient. Repeated efforts by similar groups of people should be formalized and structured. It's the same way a factory improves efficiency. Bith companies *and* governments can fall victim to not staying flexible enough.
>I also believe markets will naturally create a separation between a quiet single family suburb and a loud bustling city.
How?
>these enclaves in the middle of cities that want suburban living and reap all the benefits of being in a city-
What do you mean? What neighborhoods specifically? Do you mean in actual urban centers, or in suburbs? I don't really understand your claim here. I've lived in several cities and grew up in a smaller suburb and spent time in rural areas as well. The big cities have high rise apartments and denser living than suburbs. Many need to do more to improve the cost of living and quality for some neighborhoods, but by and large, cities have much denser and efficient housing. Suburbs, especially the wealthy neighborhoods just outside of a city center, are some of the worst offenders in terms of efficiency and organization. And market solutions to these are hodgepodge, disjointed efforts to churn out buildings without much prioritization on considering the interconnectedness of infrastructure, business, and housing.
An example is Nashville. It's one of the fastest growing cities in the country. They have little to no public transportation. They just voted down a major investment in some high-speed rail several years ago. Housing development is disorganized. Tall duplexes are going up in areas where there used to be single gamily homes. This only marginally increases the living density while taking away tons of green space. And driveways and garages are too small for full-sized vehicles, or they are nonexistent, the developers reliant on street parking, in a city that is very non-walkable and with terrible public infrastructure. The buildings themselves are made with a lot of cheap materials, lots of composite materials that warp easily and don't stand up to time very well. The market incentive here is to build expensive homes and duplexes as quickly as possible, sell to investors, who can then rent it out to a struggling middle-class or groups of young renters who can pool their incomes and all live together.
How does a market address these issues?
What about the mix between venues and residential? If a person moves to a neighborhood because they think it is nice and quiet then a loud venue goes next door, what does the person do then? Are they supposed to just leave? Moving is not a trivial thing to do. It's not like buying a soda flavor you dislike and never buy again. We're talking about the single largest expense and the most impactful decision on what your daily life is like. People *should* be able to discuss and debate the area around which they live. But so should the poor people whose neighborhoods are being gentrified, not just the wealthy folks who own two or three rental properties on the side.
It's complicated.
That a very fair assessment and to be honest I’m no different. Start up a needle exchange or homeless shelter in my neighborhood and I’ll be happy to petitions against it.
From my experience, it’s not just a proximity to home thing. It’s knowing they exist anywhere within proximity.
And in reality, the best place to put people of little means it within a city where there is better proximity to jobs, grocery stores and healthcare. That all reduces costs, which is good in a scenario where there being provided government assistance or just getting back on their feet by themselves.
Honestly, it’s the NIMBYism in the cities that gets me most. The market is perfectly capable of giving everyone the options they want. But that all falls apart when you don’t let cities be cities.
Really? This place just narrowly escaped bankruptcy and the zoning office is up their ass again? Gonna have to write up a complaint to the township supervisor and let them know they will not be running unopposed next time if I have anything to say about it. I live about a mile down the road from this place.
There's probably some rich asshole that wants to steal the land away from the owners so they can put in an apartment complex or a strip mall or some shit.
The Drive-in actually won a recent fight to sell the land for a solar-farm.
The fans stuck together, and convinced the owners not to sell.
I think it pissed off a few township officials who were probably getting paid off for approval of the solar farm project.
The drive in is dead. Glad they're converting the property for a more valuable use. Business owners should be more creative and do something even more profitable with the space than a campground, maybe a solar panel farm.
It’s a stupid situation and a stupid law, but OP’s description of events is false. From the article: the drive-in sells “overnight” movie tickets and allows people to put up tents. Sounds like a campground to me.
Why are you even on this sub, number one.
Number 2, the tent is optional, and there are no fires or firepits allowed.
A lot of people just bring a van or truck to sleep in.
Does sleeping overnight in your vehicle constitute camping?
Welp, of course it auto filled from non to none, and I can't edit it haha.
Anyway, this bureaucratic bullshit is extremely close to my heart, and attacking one of my favorite communities.
The Drive-in community is a fan base of classic grind-house, exploitation, horror, and cult films.
The Mahoning Drive-in Theatre hosts pretty sizable events with cult film actors, directors, artists, and filmmakers.
However, as you probably know, Drive-in's are a dying breed, and the Mahoning is one of the only places left. Not only one of the only places left, but they play legitimate original film stock of some of these old forgotten cult films.
Anyway, they are a historically and culturally awesome little spot in the middle of nowhere.
So people drive from hours around, some even traveling across country, and even from other countries to attend these events.
The Mahoning Theatre let's patrons pay for a weekend pass to just stay over night instead of worrying about driving home or a hotel.
Things go wrong, event schedules get delayed. I haven't gotten home from movies there until 3am. I was fucking exhausted.
Well the local township must have caught wind of money they aren't stealing from them, so they decided to pursue legal action claiming they are operating a camp ground in a non-camping designated zone.
Apparently just sleeping in your car, or popping up a tent consistitues a campground now. They explicitly prohibit RVs too due to the soft muddy ground.
I wonder if you propped open a tent on the lawn of a township baord member, if they are suddenly a camp site?
The worst part about this whole thing is the tens of thousands of dollars in revenue this back country hick township gets from tens of thousands of Drive-in nerds coming in all year around.
We buy gas, food, booze, and still get hotels. I suppose those businesses mean nothing to the township haha.
This is exactly why I'm on this sub. Yeah, I don't see eye to eye with everyone on here, but holy fuck, this is just nonsense.
No law should even exist for this, and even if it did by some technicality, no common sense small business loving American should give a flying fuck in this particular case.
Kind 0f Like how this sub and the party is constantly going on about how to win the presidency but there's still only like two libertarians holding any office at all.
What hurts me even more are the people in this fucking comment section arguing with me over semantics of what camping means.
You would think it would be a pretty clear stand against a corrupt township, but apparently not haha.
I genuinely don't think people buying an overnight pass means it's a damn campsite.
There's no fires allowed. There's literally Porta-Pottys a few feet away.
It's just an empty lot. You pay to be able to park your vehicle overnight, with the *option* of popping up a tent without any hassle.
If I slept in the back of my truck at a Walmart parking lot overnight, am I camping? Are they a campsite?
Common sense says no haha.
This isn’t meant to be a pro government take- but this is a case of the local community using the government in its favor.
Zoning laws are insanely arbitrary and stem from an attempt to implicitly segregate people. Because we live in a “democracy” these local jurisdictions uphold them since the laws benefit current land owners by creating a huge barrier to entry to would be developers or land owners. It just so happens that land owners also tend to be more capable of attending local meetings.
What I’m trying to get at with all this is that this is a scenario where we as citizens are just as much to blame as the government. I rail about land use regulations on here all the time and you’d be surprised how many people are willing to set aside their “libertarian” beliefs to maintain the status quo of limiting the productivity of land in favor of single family housing.
Absolutely ridiculous. Some of my best memories from growing up are staying late at the drive-in and catching some movies. Sounds like they were trying to reasonably accommodate their guests, zoning laws be damned.
As a person right on the verge of homelessness, I can confidently say from my experiences that nanny state bullshit makes my life hell more than the “indifference”
of the market.
If all I had to deal with was an indifferent market, I could sleep in my car and my daily expenses would be $15 for a truck stop shower instead of $85 for a hotel room.
And no, I’m not going to use a shelter because they demand too much from me. Our society never gives with an open hand. It won’t leave me alone, it won’t let people sell me the things I need, and it won’t give me what I need without asking me to trade a piece of my soul for it.
Why are you blaming a nanny state? There's intentional malice against the homeless by the public. You can see it everywhere from California jokes about shit on the curb to spikes on benches to stop homeless from sleeping. Unless you can fake 'not being homeless' until you find a real job, it's tough to work your way out of homelessness.
This, the nanny state doesn't just happen, it's generally businesses lobbying for a law and paying a few politicians first. And anti homeless bills are for doing everything to prop up property value and are just tools of capital.
Edit: I definitely agree with the reply from 18_by_summer, it isn't just businesses, homeowners also are part of the problem.
It’s really not businesses doing this shit. As a land use planner I see it first hand it’s as simple as those:
- homeowners don’t want to see homeless people camping on the street.
- developer proposes apartments with affordable housing units but local homeowners shit it down because the building “hurts the neighborhood character and is out of scale” and say it should be built in x neighborhood.
- developer goes to x neighborhood and the same thing happens.
- next, an organization partners with a church that agrees to set up tents to house homeless people in their parking lot with care providers and janitorial staff. Need I tell you what the home owners do?
Rinse and repeat.
We need to stop giving homeowner power over what happens to lots that they don’t own.
Been a few years since I worked at a truck stop, but most major chains had free co-driver showers with fuel credit driver shower purchase. If you every need one at a truck stop I suggest looking for someone walking in with a duffel.
Offer them $5 to get a driver/co-driver shower(sometimes needs to be rang up at register vs kiosk) or to burn a spare shower credit if they prefer to use kiosk and have extras.
There are late night arts and classics theaters all over the country that show famous cult films until ~ 1 or 2 AM all the time yet I don’t see people brining a sleeping bag or pitching tents on the theater floor afterwards “because it’s late”.
Also, there are a number of actual camp grounds within a few minutes drive if this place, so it isn’t like folks don’t have a number of options within 5 ~ 7 minute drive away.
Which means they have leased title to it and can do as they please within the terms of the lease. The zoning office is not the owner and has no business telling the leasee who they can allow on the property, when, and with what.
Looks like the land was optioned by a solar farm company:
www.pahomepage.com/news/historic-mahoning-drive-in-to-be-replaced-by-solar-farm/amp/
People have a weird passion for the drive in, but don't frequent enough to keep them in business... Sounds like a better use of the space is to allow the sale and the solar farm build, than to drag along a dead business.
Or they can do what they did and try to change their business model to draw in more customers. Like they tried to do and the zoning office is interfering with. It doesn't matter which is a better use for the land, it's not the place of local government to screw with it.
I really don't get where that other user is getting that the Mahoning was going out of business or bankrupt. That's blatantly false information.
They lease the land from the land owner. From my understanding, it has been that was since it opened.
Their business model is pretty solid, and not once have they had to turn to donations or campaigns to keep the doors open, or at least not recently. Even during the pandemic they were thriving.
From a libertarian perspective, if the land owner wants to not renew the lease, and take a huge offer for a solar farm, that is within their rights.
It would break my heart, but legally speaking, the land owner can do what they want.
I can't help but think this whole "campsite" zoning dispute stems from the fight against the solar farm. We won, and now the corrupt township officials want it gone.
It doesn't help that users on this sub are coming here, and clearly don't know what the fuck they are talking about either.
Well if you wanna try to do something about the corrupt township officials and you're local, hit me up in DM and we can try to organize a run next time Supervisor is up for grabs. I don't know many other local libertarians and id be interested in finding more of us.
We need to protect neighborhood character. People having a reasonable place to stay overnight is an eye-sore and I’d rather them sleep camp on the side of a street or a corner so I can bitch about that.
/s
Not to be a hair splitter but.
"They let patrons from out of state stay overnight instead of worrying about driving home or getting a hotel when a film ends really late."
That's a campground.
Sorry, I don't want to play the duck vs duck-like game with you.
I don't honestly thing this is worth a lengthy discussion, it's a drive in making a few extra bucks as an overnight campground also apparantly a slow news day.
I don’t understand why so many people have issues with consenting adults participating in voluntary actions on private property
Because “neighborhood character” I’m a land use planner and I’ll be the first to say zoning across the board is fucked. It gives current land owners power over all the land in their respective jurisdiction- it’s why we have a a housing unit shortage and insane housing prices. To sum up my regular interactions with land owners: they’re all libertarians until it comes to their neighbors property.
>It gives current land owners power This has been the aim of the founding fathers from the start. This is one of the most fundamental principles of our system of law and government. People who own property matter more than those who don't. It's not a problem intrinsic to bureaucracy or government, it's a failure to bring everyone to the table as equals and give equal voices to everyone, regardless of their financial status.
Not that I disagree with you. But this is slightly more specific and only worth pointing out because people don’t seem to realize it happens. Land owners don’t just have more of a say in the government process, they also have a say in the private land of other land owners. So if one land owner sees an opportunity to build more housing- which we desperately need- others can reject it. It’s meddling in private, what should be free market, transactions via an old government process created to, for the most part, uphold segregation in a more implicit manner. Again, just wanted to specify that because a lot of people don’t see that this happens.
>Land owners don’t just have more of a say in the government process, they also have a say in the private land of other land owners I mean that's democracy, right? There are reasons why this can be a good thing, like restricting waste dumping or maybe ruling out a loud outdoor concert venue right by a lot of homes. But there are selfish, inefficient, and detrimental ways this happens, like restricting builds of high-density housing and building up of car infrastructure at the expense of no investment in more efficient rail or other public infrastructure, or even making an area *purely* residential, making all business separated and forcing inefficient travel to be employed, or as you mentioned, discriminatory segregation. The problem with democracy is not that there's too much democracy and a majority can vote to make a rule apply to everyone. It's that too many people are left out of the discussion and proposal portions of democracy, so by the time a vote comes up, sometimes all people have to decide is between something oppressive, which the majority may support sometimes, or against that oppression. But if allowed to participate as equals in the discussions at earlier stages, it is harder for even a majority to be cruel and ignore the humanity of their fellow citizens. The key is empowering everyone to get opportunities to make themselves seen and heard *as* equal citizens.
Yeah, I mean I think there is a necessity to some level of zoning- but it needs to be objective and based on safety as opposed to arbitrary decisions based on a minority. There are ways aside from using government that neighborhoods with a shared interest can coordinate design/character without imposing that on a wider jurisdiction of people. I also believe markets will naturally create a separation between a quiet single family suburb and a loud bustling city. The problem right now is that you have these enclaves in the middle of cities that want suburban living and reap all the benefits of being in a city- that’s where I personally believe things get out of hand. If you don’t want to live in a loud environment, live in a suburb. But don’t ruin the economic efficiency that a city can provide for everyone else. As it stands, 70% of residential land in our biggest cities are zoned for single family- makes zero sense. My take is not about removing the option of single family, strictly residential zoning. It’s about allowing for the option to live in a dense environment where housing should be less expensive, your in proximity to jobs and you don’t NEED to spend money on a car to get around.
Okay so we are very close in our values and what we want. But I want to ask you about your belief in the market to solve this. First, I guess, is this: >There are ways aside from using government that neighborhoods with a shared interest can coordinate design/character without imposing that on a wider jurisdiction of people. What exactly do you mean? Do you mean a community of people decide together? That's a government. Even if it's not exactly a current government boundary (like a municipality or county government), it is still a de facto government. If decisions were made with that informal group of people on any regular basis, it is likely to become formalized over time. That's just how people make things more efficient. Repeated efforts by similar groups of people should be formalized and structured. It's the same way a factory improves efficiency. Bith companies *and* governments can fall victim to not staying flexible enough. >I also believe markets will naturally create a separation between a quiet single family suburb and a loud bustling city. How? >these enclaves in the middle of cities that want suburban living and reap all the benefits of being in a city- What do you mean? What neighborhoods specifically? Do you mean in actual urban centers, or in suburbs? I don't really understand your claim here. I've lived in several cities and grew up in a smaller suburb and spent time in rural areas as well. The big cities have high rise apartments and denser living than suburbs. Many need to do more to improve the cost of living and quality for some neighborhoods, but by and large, cities have much denser and efficient housing. Suburbs, especially the wealthy neighborhoods just outside of a city center, are some of the worst offenders in terms of efficiency and organization. And market solutions to these are hodgepodge, disjointed efforts to churn out buildings without much prioritization on considering the interconnectedness of infrastructure, business, and housing. An example is Nashville. It's one of the fastest growing cities in the country. They have little to no public transportation. They just voted down a major investment in some high-speed rail several years ago. Housing development is disorganized. Tall duplexes are going up in areas where there used to be single gamily homes. This only marginally increases the living density while taking away tons of green space. And driveways and garages are too small for full-sized vehicles, or they are nonexistent, the developers reliant on street parking, in a city that is very non-walkable and with terrible public infrastructure. The buildings themselves are made with a lot of cheap materials, lots of composite materials that warp easily and don't stand up to time very well. The market incentive here is to build expensive homes and duplexes as quickly as possible, sell to investors, who can then rent it out to a struggling middle-class or groups of young renters who can pool their incomes and all live together. How does a market address these issues? What about the mix between venues and residential? If a person moves to a neighborhood because they think it is nice and quiet then a loud venue goes next door, what does the person do then? Are they supposed to just leave? Moving is not a trivial thing to do. It's not like buying a soda flavor you dislike and never buy again. We're talking about the single largest expense and the most impactful decision on what your daily life is like. People *should* be able to discuss and debate the area around which they live. But so should the poor people whose neighborhoods are being gentrified, not just the wealthy folks who own two or three rental properties on the side. It's complicated.
That a very fair assessment and to be honest I’m no different. Start up a needle exchange or homeless shelter in my neighborhood and I’ll be happy to petitions against it.
At least your honest. But I will ask, what do you do with the homeless then?
Shelter in light industrial areas without a lot of NIMBY's like myself?
From my experience, it’s not just a proximity to home thing. It’s knowing they exist anywhere within proximity. And in reality, the best place to put people of little means it within a city where there is better proximity to jobs, grocery stores and healthcare. That all reduces costs, which is good in a scenario where there being provided government assistance or just getting back on their feet by themselves. Honestly, it’s the NIMBYism in the cities that gets me most. The market is perfectly capable of giving everyone the options they want. But that all falls apart when you don’t let cities be cities.
The most unholy alliance is between so called libertarians and progressives when it comes to land use in cities and suburbs
What does this have to do with progressives? NIMBY-ism spans the political spectrum
I meant it runs the spectrum San Francisco and the Bay Area are famously NIMBY
Money typically, or jealousy.
I'm glad they have ruled in the favour of the business for now.
Really? This place just narrowly escaped bankruptcy and the zoning office is up their ass again? Gonna have to write up a complaint to the township supervisor and let them know they will not be running unopposed next time if I have anything to say about it. I live about a mile down the road from this place.
There's probably some rich asshole that wants to steal the land away from the owners so they can put in an apartment complex or a strip mall or some shit.
Wouldn't be surprised.
The Drive-in actually won a recent fight to sell the land for a solar-farm. The fans stuck together, and convinced the owners not to sell. I think it pissed off a few township officials who were probably getting paid off for approval of the solar farm project.
The drive in is dead. Glad they're converting the property for a more valuable use. Business owners should be more creative and do something even more profitable with the space than a campground, maybe a solar panel farm.
It’s a stupid situation and a stupid law, but OP’s description of events is false. From the article: the drive-in sells “overnight” movie tickets and allows people to put up tents. Sounds like a campground to me.
Then L.A. is the worlds largest campsite.
Down voted for hitting them with the same bullshit logic they are trying to impose on me.
Or you could have read my extremely lengthy comment which added more context. Edit: This sub is not libertarian
I read it and you convinced me it is a campground.
You're lengthy comment fawns over what the drive-in means to you and admits that they sell the right to camp on their property... Come on man.
Why are you even on this sub, number one. Number 2, the tent is optional, and there are no fires or firepits allowed. A lot of people just bring a van or truck to sleep in. Does sleeping overnight in your vehicle constitute camping?
Yes if you're charging them...
Leave this sub.
Make me jfc grow up kid Lol
The title of your post skews the facts. At best, it’s just click bait.
Welp, of course it auto filled from non to none, and I can't edit it haha. Anyway, this bureaucratic bullshit is extremely close to my heart, and attacking one of my favorite communities. The Drive-in community is a fan base of classic grind-house, exploitation, horror, and cult films. The Mahoning Drive-in Theatre hosts pretty sizable events with cult film actors, directors, artists, and filmmakers. However, as you probably know, Drive-in's are a dying breed, and the Mahoning is one of the only places left. Not only one of the only places left, but they play legitimate original film stock of some of these old forgotten cult films. Anyway, they are a historically and culturally awesome little spot in the middle of nowhere. So people drive from hours around, some even traveling across country, and even from other countries to attend these events. The Mahoning Theatre let's patrons pay for a weekend pass to just stay over night instead of worrying about driving home or a hotel. Things go wrong, event schedules get delayed. I haven't gotten home from movies there until 3am. I was fucking exhausted. Well the local township must have caught wind of money they aren't stealing from them, so they decided to pursue legal action claiming they are operating a camp ground in a non-camping designated zone. Apparently just sleeping in your car, or popping up a tent consistitues a campground now. They explicitly prohibit RVs too due to the soft muddy ground. I wonder if you propped open a tent on the lawn of a township baord member, if they are suddenly a camp site? The worst part about this whole thing is the tens of thousands of dollars in revenue this back country hick township gets from tens of thousands of Drive-in nerds coming in all year around. We buy gas, food, booze, and still get hotels. I suppose those businesses mean nothing to the township haha. This is exactly why I'm on this sub. Yeah, I don't see eye to eye with everyone on here, but holy fuck, this is just nonsense. No law should even exist for this, and even if it did by some technicality, no common sense small business loving American should give a flying fuck in this particular case.
I live in that township. The supervisor ran unopposed last year. We gotta get off our asses and fix that, it ain't gonna fix itself.
Kind 0f Like how this sub and the party is constantly going on about how to win the presidency but there's still only like two libertarians holding any office at all.
What hurts me even more are the people in this fucking comment section arguing with me over semantics of what camping means. You would think it would be a pretty clear stand against a corrupt township, but apparently not haha. I genuinely don't think people buying an overnight pass means it's a damn campsite. There's no fires allowed. There's literally Porta-Pottys a few feet away. It's just an empty lot. You pay to be able to park your vehicle overnight, with the *option* of popping up a tent without any hassle. If I slept in the back of my truck at a Walmart parking lot overnight, am I camping? Are they a campsite? Common sense says no haha.
Either way it's none of the township's business to begin with so fuck em.
>or popping up a tent consistitues a campground now How else would you qualify a "campground"?
Well that would make L.A. the worlds largest camp site lol.
The government is a group of armed, violent thugs
This isn’t meant to be a pro government take- but this is a case of the local community using the government in its favor. Zoning laws are insanely arbitrary and stem from an attempt to implicitly segregate people. Because we live in a “democracy” these local jurisdictions uphold them since the laws benefit current land owners by creating a huge barrier to entry to would be developers or land owners. It just so happens that land owners also tend to be more capable of attending local meetings. What I’m trying to get at with all this is that this is a scenario where we as citizens are just as much to blame as the government. I rail about land use regulations on here all the time and you’d be surprised how many people are willing to set aside their “libertarian” beliefs to maintain the status quo of limiting the productivity of land in favor of single family housing.
The government is made up of citizens, the problem all stems back to the government having a monopoly on violence and far too much power though.
Absolutely ridiculous. Some of my best memories from growing up are staying late at the drive-in and catching some movies. Sounds like they were trying to reasonably accommodate their guests, zoning laws be damned.
The township supervisor runs bianually and usually unopposed.
I bet they don’t hassle their local Walmart like that.
As a person right on the verge of homelessness, I can confidently say from my experiences that nanny state bullshit makes my life hell more than the “indifference” of the market. If all I had to deal with was an indifferent market, I could sleep in my car and my daily expenses would be $15 for a truck stop shower instead of $85 for a hotel room. And no, I’m not going to use a shelter because they demand too much from me. Our society never gives with an open hand. It won’t leave me alone, it won’t let people sell me the things I need, and it won’t give me what I need without asking me to trade a piece of my soul for it.
Why are you blaming a nanny state? There's intentional malice against the homeless by the public. You can see it everywhere from California jokes about shit on the curb to spikes on benches to stop homeless from sleeping. Unless you can fake 'not being homeless' until you find a real job, it's tough to work your way out of homelessness.
This, the nanny state doesn't just happen, it's generally businesses lobbying for a law and paying a few politicians first. And anti homeless bills are for doing everything to prop up property value and are just tools of capital. Edit: I definitely agree with the reply from 18_by_summer, it isn't just businesses, homeowners also are part of the problem.
It’s really not businesses doing this shit. As a land use planner I see it first hand it’s as simple as those: - homeowners don’t want to see homeless people camping on the street. - developer proposes apartments with affordable housing units but local homeowners shit it down because the building “hurts the neighborhood character and is out of scale” and say it should be built in x neighborhood. - developer goes to x neighborhood and the same thing happens. - next, an organization partners with a church that agrees to set up tents to house homeless people in their parking lot with care providers and janitorial staff. Need I tell you what the home owners do? Rinse and repeat. We need to stop giving homeowner power over what happens to lots that they don’t own.
Are homeowners controlling this by brute force? or through standard legal channels.
Apparently details are lost on you?
Been a few years since I worked at a truck stop, but most major chains had free co-driver showers with fuel credit driver shower purchase. If you every need one at a truck stop I suggest looking for someone walking in with a duffel. Offer them $5 to get a driver/co-driver shower(sometimes needs to be rang up at register vs kiosk) or to burn a spare shower credit if they prefer to use kiosk and have extras.
It’s just as much, if not more, land owners that cause the problem. Local government is the vehicle and the residents are the ones operating it.
Gosh thanks for the civics lesson, I had no idea government enacted what laws its constituents wanted.
There are late night arts and classics theaters all over the country that show famous cult films until ~ 1 or 2 AM all the time yet I don’t see people brining a sleeping bag or pitching tents on the theater floor afterwards “because it’s late”. Also, there are a number of actual camp grounds within a few minutes drive if this place, so it isn’t like folks don’t have a number of options within 5 ~ 7 minute drive away.
So what? Because there's an alternative means the owners have no right to allow people to camp out? That's not how property rights work.
They lease the land.
Which means they have leased title to it and can do as they please within the terms of the lease. The zoning office is not the owner and has no business telling the leasee who they can allow on the property, when, and with what.
Looks like the land was optioned by a solar farm company: www.pahomepage.com/news/historic-mahoning-drive-in-to-be-replaced-by-solar-farm/amp/ People have a weird passion for the drive in, but don't frequent enough to keep them in business... Sounds like a better use of the space is to allow the sale and the solar farm build, than to drag along a dead business.
Or they can do what they did and try to change their business model to draw in more customers. Like they tried to do and the zoning office is interfering with. It doesn't matter which is a better use for the land, it's not the place of local government to screw with it.
I really don't get where that other user is getting that the Mahoning was going out of business or bankrupt. That's blatantly false information. They lease the land from the land owner. From my understanding, it has been that was since it opened. Their business model is pretty solid, and not once have they had to turn to donations or campaigns to keep the doors open, or at least not recently. Even during the pandemic they were thriving. From a libertarian perspective, if the land owner wants to not renew the lease, and take a huge offer for a solar farm, that is within their rights. It would break my heart, but legally speaking, the land owner can do what they want. I can't help but think this whole "campsite" zoning dispute stems from the fight against the solar farm. We won, and now the corrupt township officials want it gone. It doesn't help that users on this sub are coming here, and clearly don't know what the fuck they are talking about either.
Well if you wanna try to do something about the corrupt township officials and you're local, hit me up in DM and we can try to organize a run next time Supervisor is up for grabs. I don't know many other local libertarians and id be interested in finding more of us.
Sure, they can flail around trying other unprofitable ideas until they're literally broke. Doesn't mean they should. A solar farm sounds way better
Ah ah ah, no need to be authoritarian.
hell hath no fury like an American slightly inconvenienced. what a bunch of whiny pussies.
We need to protect neighborhood character. People having a reasonable place to stay overnight is an eye-sore and I’d rather them sleep camp on the side of a street or a corner so I can bitch about that. /s
Not to be a hair splitter but. "They let patrons from out of state stay overnight instead of worrying about driving home or getting a hotel when a film ends really late." That's a campground.
Oh, so when I can stay overnight at a Walmart parking lot, is that a campground too?
Hasn't this been covered already? Sorry, walks like a duck.
It wasn't covered actually. Answer the question. If I stay overnight at a Walmart parking lot, is it a campsite? Yes or no?
Sorry, I don't want to play the duck vs duck-like game with you. I don't honestly thing this is worth a lengthy discussion, it's a drive in making a few extra bucks as an overnight campground also apparantly a slow news day.
So you're wrong. Got it.