Quote:
Originally Posted by Randall55
I think you are confused. No where, no way, no how, does any governing body have a right to impose laws without a legal cause to do so. The items you stated are legal because they are defined in laws. Our country is a democracy. People who live here are never stripped of their rights. Again, that would be a dictatorship. NYC changed the rules of STRs according to the law. They didn't just wake up one day and decide to rob their citizens. Although, to many, it appears that way. Good news Is anyone who disagrees with the new limitations has the right to fight in a court room. If they win, it is because NYC violated the law not because they were stripping anyone of their rights.You seem to believe the government has powers to do as they wish. That is completely wrong.
|
Sure, there was a legal process to creating a new law, but NYC *did* create/change the law. If you owned a home in NYC then what you were able to do with your property in June you are not able to do with your property in September - you lost the right to do that, the Govt. took away some of your rights.
Zoning laws and land use restrictions (like wetlands restrictions) work the same way. The Govt follows the legal process to change the zoning or impose the restrictions but in the end, the property owner loses some rights.
Today, I can have my driveway painted any color I would like, that is a right I have because it is not restricted by my deed restrictions or District rules. It is very likely that by December my District rules will be changed to require ARC approval before I can paint my driveway. The District worked within the legal process but in the end I have lost some of my rights to use my property the way I want.
In any of these examples could one say there was there a legal cause to make the change? I don't see it. I don't see where the Govt was forced to make those changes. The Govt *chose* to make those changes. While I'm sure they could articulate a reason for the changes, what *caused* them to make the changes was a desire to ingratiate themselves with a subset of the voters.