So there are two issues: (c) shouldn't be able to sell without the restriction, and (b) knowing of the restriction made decisions in good faith believing it would be followed and hence have been harmed by it not being followed, no? If (b) doesn't have standing, nobody does and deed restrictions are de facto useless.
Property rights would inherit. So one of their relatives or heirs. If they had no one to inherit the restriction it would go to the state - but the state would have gotten the land unrestricted in that case anyway.
Hopefully just being a resident of a city doesn’t give you standing to sue over any decision that has a tenuous adverse effect on you. I mean if that holds why shouldn’t visitors who might one day hope to visit the given park have standing to sue?
> just being a resident of a city doesn’t give you standing to sue over any decision that has a tenuous adverse effect on you
Why not? If you are impacted, why not? When do you have a standing then?
Visitors out of town have less standing than the people paying taxes to the town, that is fair, but the city IS the people, each and every person, not an abstract third party that herds them like cattle.
The impact should need to be material and related to some legal right you have, it seems to me. In general you cannot sue to enforce a contract or agreement you are not a party to, even if the outcome of adhering to that contract affects you.
In the US, normally, citizens of a city do not have the right to act on behalf of the city. They cannot sue on behalf of the city, they cannot unilaterally attempt to enforce the city’s laws, etc. There are some rare exceptions where cities and states pass laws that create private rights of action when regulations are violated but these are the exception.
I've been trying to find this out. I suspect it was dismissed because they lacked standing. Because there were a bunch of transfer, likely only the last seller has standing to sue for ignoring a deed restriction and of course they don't care.
That's not absolute. There can be other cases where you have standing even if you aren't involved in the transaction but those cases are limited.
Now it's also possible that the deed wasn't properly recorded. If it was, there might be more people who have standing, such as those near the project who are negatively impacted. It's possible that the district court erred or maybe the people bringing suit didn't live in the area or otherwise have standing.
It does seem wrong that you can effectively invalidate a deed restriction by simply selling it enough times.
A burner phone is a device, it doesn't come with a phone number. Phone numbers are all real-identity-tied, so what they really mean is _identity verification_ through phone number. Everyone on HN knows the downsides of that, but there's clear upsides too. It prevents most of the digital "This is why we can't have nice things". The US is on the path towards the worst of both worlds, services still require you to do identity verification but it involves sending your government ID and face video to Thiel-affiliated Persona.
Any analysis of individual arming decisions must account for purely individual reasons to own guns (e.g., for use in hunting) and the cost of possible confrontations that are ubiquitous in society and, depending on others’ arming decisions, can involve guns (e.g., fear of a confrontation with an armed neighbor).
The non-paranoid sportsman is a shrinking demographic, I fear, mostly due to decades of propaganda within the sportsman culture (magazines, organizations).
They still exist within academic and reservationist circles, but the grand majority of gun owners I know in my rural backcountry speak pretty matter-of-factly about racist and anti-social ideas (source: friends, family, and going to bars called things like Rusty’s, Bill’s, etc.)
I got my hunter's safety card back just before covid. Prior to the actual course starting, our instructors spent a good 15 minutes "encouraging" us to join the NRA because "they're really trying to take our guns, blah blah". This was in "liberal" California. When I had last taken the course as a kid in my home state of Oregon, in a conservative majority town, there was never any kind of propaganda that I can recall of this level.
I think with younger shooters there are many people who enjoy 3 gun and other modern match style sort of tactical shooting or cowboy action without obsessively carrying or planning for defensive use. But I don't think these folks overlap with the hunter-type sportsman. And do overlap with the "tacticool" folks. Don't know if that translates to rural though.
The attempted (failed) fascist takeover of Minneapolis by ICE motivated plenty of new and existing gun owners. It is not reasonable to call that fear paranoia, and it's not about the sport. The fact that it failed doesn't mean that chapter of history is over, just that lessons will be learned and it will be a more difficult situation next time unless there are some really substantial changes we see no evidence of yet.
Isn’t there a massive body of research that indicates gun ownership is less safe on average that non-ownership? Ie the chance of accidental shooting of family/friends is high enough to offset any benefit (on average across the US)?
Teen suicide in households with a gun is a very interesting stat to bring up for this. Suicide in general is higher for gun owners, which can be handwaved away as “that’s my right”. But suicide is higher for children of gun owners? That seems like a tough risk to justify.
The thing is there's such a breadth of circumstances and behaviors involved that pigeonholing it under one giant banner is questionable. Like the people who leave loaded guns in random drawers around their houses are doing something very different with a different risk profile. Whereas once you get to teens in households that have guns and generally practice some level of safe storage it's a much more complex issue IMO. Because as a society we want teens to become responsible enough to handle things like cars, or power tools, or guns. But we also know that they're not adults yet. And we know that infantilization of teens isn't going to do anyone favors in the long run. So it's probably not as simple as ban cars and ban guns or whatever else.
No other country allows buying machine guns as easily as the USA. There are people with actual armories in their homes. That is impossible in most countries. Take it as you wish.
Shit. I have a pool. My kids like it. And I have guns! How about instead, we do nothing. We have more than enough to worry about already just with the sentient hazards in homes.
There's a problem with statistics for this and many other things.
Guns attract idiots, idiots have idiot gun problems, it does not follow that if you get a gun, you'll have the same problems.
Similar statistics are easy to fool people with. Doing $expensive_thing is associated with health/wealth/success so if everybody did it everybody would be better off! But in reality there's just a selection bias and whatever the thing is just attracts rich people and the thing has no actual effect. For example: do a study of people who wear sunglasses to find the association between mortality and the price of the sunglasses you wear.
How many people are actually studying gun ownership without intentionally looking for one result or the other? It attracts a tremendous about of bias in both directions and not a lot of genuine curiousity.
Motorcycles are somewhat like this - they're both more dangerous than cars in terms of whether you might get into an accident of any sort. But however bad they are in that sense is amplified by how many people use them like utter idiots: I've lost count of the people I've seen on them in shorts and flip-flops, let alone without a helmet, not to mention people racing them and popping wheelies at racing speeds on 35mph streets.
The problem I have with "safetyism" is it comes across as something you can say about cars, knives, power tools, skis, hang gliders, and so many other things. Like do I buy that even though ski deaths are lower in non-skiing households, just like gun deaths are in non shooting ones, that it's less impactful and important than the same effect with guns? Sure. But it's also a conversation that is soooo patronizing in a ridiculous way that it really seems like a double standard. And so much of it seems disingenuous. Like do we focus on enabling safe storage and mental health safety with guns or making it harder? On making kids and families more knowledgeable and safer around guns or just amping up the anxiety and fear?
> Like do we focus on enabling safe storage and mental health safety with guns or making it harder? On making kids and families more knowledgeable and safer around guns or just amping up the anxiety and fear?
The only way to move forward is through good faith efforts of the former and stopping the lobby groups from doing the latter.
Power tools are intentionally dangerous too. A reasonable person wouldn't take anyone who talks about how a household with power tools is less safe on average seriously either. Or one who moves the goalpost to battleships.
I personally control my life by spending almost all of my income, after bills, towards expanding the elaborate tower-defense-like automated weaponry on my plot of land. If I must leave my fort, I always drive my T-34 into town (I'm saving up for a Sherman).
I'm kind of curious as to how you justify this. I personally think its ok for people to have arms, but I don't personally believe in basic human rights. Where would such things even come from? Rights are just conventions which ought to serve whatever goods you are interested in. Unless you believe in god or some other thing like that, there really is no way to justify rights except relative to some other stated goal.
I will point to two items. One, an interview I had. Two, a footnote in history.
1: I own a gun because a disarmed populace is required for genocide and should it come around again, I’m not going to be that guy. I’m not going to be standing on the side.
What's funny about this to me is that I tried to sign up for insta once and could never get past their automated ID check that would fire after signup despite using a real ID. (So never did sign up. I suspect maybe they just really don't want you using web on mobile devices but ymmv.)
On mobile, Meta absolutely doesn’t want you to use web. I created my Facebook account in 2004, deleted it in 2018 (Cambridge Analytica scandal), and later created a fake one just to use FB marketplace to sell things.
I will never install the Facebook app on my phone, so I use a browser instead. The experience is almost unusable. I can’t rate people. I’m not even sure if I can send messages. I can’t list things. The UI appears to support features that don’t work in practice.
No biggy because I just use a Firefox container and use my laptop instead, where the web version actually does work.
How you do you use fb marketplace without installing the messenger app?
I've tried that, but fb has stopped sending email notification of messages, so without the messenger app installed for notifications, I'll invariably fail to check messages on any kind of timely basis.
So just to be clear, I guess the issue isn't so much SAT or placement tests as it is that there's no functional baseline level of knowledge without some kind of entry exam, and without that there's no functional boundary on the starting place or length of time it will take to get a degree. So some level of entry exam is needed to avoid rebuilding a new remedial version of K12 education inside of every four year college?
I think the focus on the SAT as a mechanism for this detracts from this as the SAT isn't really an designed to sus out topical placement, right?
It's at least a standard, and that's the important part. Narrow down what exactly the best way to tell is later, the SAT fits the bill of good enough to re-impliment quickly.
Putting the financing debt on the books of the thing that's bought instead of the purchaser's shouldn't be legal IMO. Imagine if you could buy houses and leave the mortgage on the house's book instead of your own. It's a total farce.
While this is true, I think the bar should be lower - the real question should be "and how does it compare to renting" - there is very possibly a universe where owning is cheaper than renting even if your home depreciates. Because paying some amount for years to be left with a fraction of what you put in is better than getting none of what you put in.
However many of us knowingly exceed that point. For example we pay ~$500/mo over that point. Though there is no really comparable rental, we definitely could have chosen a more cookie cutter rental to be about +$6000 / year.
We would expect them to be equal on the margin if the market is even somewhat efficient (not always true with rent control, but still pretty close in most places).
That doesn’t mean it’s equal for any given individual of course. So it’s important to do your own calculations and make your own decisions. But I think the fact that it is debated so much shows that it is probably roughly equal on the margin.
reply