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.

[QUOTE=Bill14564;225425)
If some citizens believe they lost their rights to operate a STR in NYC they have right to take it to court. If they feel slighted by their government leaders they can vote for someone else. If they want a new law enacted, they can start a bill. A democracy is a government controlled by the people. No one is FORCED. What you believe is YOUR RIGHTS other believe it is not. This is the reason we have court rooms.

Now you are changing the argument. Your initial assertion was "No where, no way, no how, does any governing body have a right to impose laws without a legal cause to do so." Now your assertion is "If some citizens believe they lost their rights to operate a STR in NYC they have right to take it to court."

Yes, they can take it to court, but they will likely lose. The Govt has the ability to make laws that strip or limit the people's rights. That is why we have a Bill of Rights, to explicitly list some of the rights the Govt cannot take away (though they still try, sometimes successfully). The Govt does impose laws that take away rights.

You are very much FORCED to follow the law, particularly the laws that have taken away your rights. Yes, you can vote in the next election but that doesn't change the reality that you are FORCED to follow current law.

Sounds like the same assertion to me. No where, no way, no how, can our government take away your rights. The reason? You can fight them in court, vote them out of office, or start a legislative bill of your own. There is no guarantee your side will win. The side of justice and the law wins.

BTW: everyone born in the USA follows the laws of our constitution. It is not a pick and choose situation. Although, when you feel slighted, it appears that it is. Another right you have? Move to another country. Each of us has the freedom to do that, as well. (As long as the country you choose will accept you) What more can I tell you? It is what it is.

I'm not confused.

If you doubt the power of the government, perhaps acquaint yourself with Executive Order 9066.

If you doubt the Constitution of the United States acquaint yourself with that first

I doubt anyone was wondering

I disagree. I am kinda new to this forum. It seems like some people on these threads can't see the obvious when it is right in front of them. Instead, they want to continue with banter and can't imagine they are highly outgunned. Instead, they WONDER why someone would keep trying to correct them.

On another thread, two retired doctors were chiming in on a hip problem. If you carefully read their posts it was obvious they were retired doctors. Yet, some posters kept arguing their point WONDERING why two rude people were telling them the opposite of what they wanted to hear. After laughing and reading through that thread, I decided to come clean on this one. You can't win for losing.

Nominated for Post of Year!

"Highly outgunned"? I almost spit out my coffee, I love it!

I'm going to re-read "The Emperor's New Clothes" and see if I can figure out what the King's given name was, now that I have a clue.

[QUOTE=BrianL99;2254424]Nominated for Post of Year!

"Highly outgunned"? I almost spit out my coffee, I love it!

I'm going to re-read "The Emperor's New Clothes" and see if I can figure out what the King's given name was.

Well, welcome to TOTV. You have already picked up the gist of what our posters are like. That is why some threads are closed, some posts are deleted. We have everyone from university presidents (just retired) to people who had recently suffered a stroke, and view points vary to an even larger extent. But, you will find that there are some posters who consistently offer wise advice. And you will also probably notice that “the powers that be” look at the forum sometimes.

Thanks. I believe in nearly every thread, one or two posters are supplying the correct information. I look for those. But sometimes, I get caught up in foolishness and can't stop myself from posting fully knowing it is about to go nowhere. Someone sent me a. PM and told me to not waste my time. Today, on one particular post, I have learned that lesson. Wish me luck! (and restraint) Looking forward to reading more of your posts.

1. When someone has to resort to asserting their degrees, you know they have lost the argument because they do not have facts and logic to fall back on so you must bow to their degree.
2. James Madison did not have a Masters Degree in Political Science. Are you asserting he would be unworthy of discussing the Constitution with you?
3. Degree in Political Science. When I watch NCAA football on the weekends and they introduce the players, Political Science and Marketing are the primary areas of study I see under their names. I wonder why that is.
4. Anyone who ever actually writes "The side of justice and the law wins." cannot ever be taken seriously. Are you saying that slavery being legal in the U.S. was justice and that no one's right's were taken away?
5. If all it took was a Masters Degree in political science to be the expert, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to address the Constitutionality of laws drafted by people with law degrees (I don't have a Masters Degree in Political Science so I don't have the right to say this as fact, but I believe that is a higher degree than a Masters Degree in Political Science). We could just come to you or anyone else with a degree in Political Science to get the absolute ruling.
6. The vast majority of SCUSA rulings are split decisions. One or two of them have degrees in something or other related to the law and/or Constitution (may not be as distinguished as a Masters Degree in Political Science, but still some education and possibly some experience.) How can they possibly disagree with each other if they all/most have advanced degrees? I thought the degree made them infallible; but how can they both be right and disagree?
7. There are so many other points that can be refuted, but who has the time to point out all that has been wrong in your posts?

I wish one of my neighbors would switch to STR. I would rather risk having some issues than certainly have issues that I do.

If my ability to rent my properties becomes limited because of some new arbitrary minimum duration, or forces some other arbitrary restriction upon me, I would immediately file an assessment dispute. It would likely win a significant reduction, eventually, after a lot of resistance from the same government that instituted those restrictions.