Woman evicted and house condemned for using solar power

Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by Dramey

 

The fact is that nobody really owns their home. It is rented from the government at a very high price. If you are paying your local government less than $3,000 in the US to rent the property (an extortion known as "property tax") your government landlord will likely evict you. Or at the very least, rob you blind and attempt to throw you in prison. Property taxes means we are nothing more than feudal surfs.

This is a case where the woman wrongfully believed she owned her property when in point of fact her government owns it and she rents it. Sad and infuriating, but true. The problem is that we have allowed government to own our properties.

Who in a suburban or urban area would dare make a change to their property without applying for a building permit? There is a good reason you've got to get permission to modify your property... it isn't yours! It should be, but it isn't.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by truthquest]

YES! Borrowing daddios words, 'WAKE UP' EVERYONE needs to wake up. You are 100% correct, we are nothing more than serfs.

Originally posted by TheLoneArcher

I am sick and tired of the big corporations forcing us to buy their products.
They will not let you become self-sufficient.

BINGO.

We are their whores -
We are their slaves -
and it should NOT go on.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by spinkyboo]

reply to post by butcherguy


no, we are serfs that they are dependent on if they want their world to keep running! if we all decided to tomorrow to say heck with this, quit our jobs, moved onto one of the national forests, lived in tents and lived off the natural game and vegetation, what would they do? ya, they'd probably send tanks and such out there to evict you from the national forest, which, well, they make out to be "our land"...but still what they gonna do? open fire, kill off all their servants, wouldn't help them out one bit really, since well...the reason they would be sending the tanks out there would be to convince us to stop messing around and get back to work! dead people don't work!!

so, they brainwash us into fearing death, and thinking that life, any life is invaluable. many of the native americans in this country couldn't be brainwashed, and well, they made crappy slaves because they saw the happy hunting ground as a more likable alternative. so, well, they were never absorbed into our way of life....they are living somewhat free on their reservations.....

reply to post by dawnstar
Yes, they are utterly dependent on us, the serfs. The populace is almost completely brainwashed, so how could this system ever be overthrown?

People should think a little before raging on about the governament.

First of all, don't be sad for her. Anyone that can afford a solar energy system isn't living that bad. My country is one of the leaders in solar panels and even in here those systems are very expensive.

Secondly, laws apply to anyone. If she wanted to use it, she should ask permission to do it. It's not illegal to own those systems, much the opposite. If you are less of a pain to the energy system, the better, they make more profit, even losing some people over natural energy sources.

She didn't ask permission, she got busted. Like it would happen to anyone else. Simple.

Third aspect of it... Her family. Who in here thinks that is correct to subject a child to the risk of eating bad food (malfunctioning stuff), being in the cold or hot weather? why don't people remember this kind of things in the first place?

So yeah, she uses the solar power to "make ends" sad story. Are you willing to give your tax dollars to someone that didn't make things properly?

Will you give away your taxes because someone decided to get loose of the bills to save some money, and you see your taxes going to that person, while you act according to the rulles (don't come now talking about "oh the system, you're sheeps". I'm talking about common sense rulles)?

And what if some bad weather comes along and that crap flips into another house, because she didn't do it with the right permissions and inspections?

Honestly... Analyze a case before making someone look like a victim.

Originally posted by butcherguy

'WAKE UP' EVERYONE needs to wake up. You are 100% correct, we are nothing more than serfs.

We are prisoners in our own country.

how many people have lost their jobs recently??
could it be.....oh, no!!!....that when she had bought those solar panels, she had a decent paying job?? could it also be...oh, no this never happens....some shady contractor (and it seems the more gov't money that is funneled to any one point, the shadier the businesses seem to get!!) conned her into thinking that she'd have plenty of power for everything???

na, nothing like that ever, ever happens...

by the way, if there were kids living there.....I don't think her power would have been cut off.....if dss didn't step in to help, one of the charity groups would have.

reply to post by butcherguy


In between the years of 1795 and 1800 a young boy was born named Dred Scott. He was born a slave in the State of Virginia, but in 1830 those who claimed him as property moved to Missouri. In 1832, a Major in the Army by the name of John Emmerson purchased Scott while he was stationed just outside of St. Louis. For the next 12 years Emmerson moved from state to state taking Scott with him, eventually winding up in the State of Illinois. Illinois was a "free state" which meant that it held slavery to be prohibited. There was also the matter of the Missouri Compromise where the federal government had, in 1820 prohibited slavery within the Wisconsin Territory, and reaffirmed this prohibition of slavery again in 1836.

Through a series of events during these years, Emmerson had "allowed" Scott to marry which was uncommon for slave holders to do since slaves "had no right to enter into legal contracts". Scott married his wife Harriet and in 1838 they had a child who was born on a steam boat while on the Missouri River. A year earlier Emmerson had married a woman by the name of Eliza, which was the name Scott gave to his daughter as well.

While there was much traveling between these two families, Emmerson finally died while in the Iowa Territory in 1843 and his wife Eliza inherited his estate, including the Scott family. Emmerson's widow continued the practice her husband had engaged in of hiring out Scott for labor and keeping the rents earned as revenue. Scott had attempted to purchase his own freedom but Eliza Emmerson would not negotiate any such deal.

Not satisfied with this decision, Scott sued Eliza Emmerson for his freedom in 1846, using several instances of case law to assert his right to freedom, based upon the fact that much of his residence had been spent in states that prohibited slavery. This first case was dismissed for want of a witness that could prove he was actually a slave to Emmerson, but then the judge granted Scott a new hearing. Several more series of events took place that ultimately led to Eliza Emmerson transferring as property Scott over to her brother John Sanford.

When Scott once again sued, this time in federal court, John Sanford was now the defendant, in one of the most infamous cases ever heard before the Supreme Court known as Dred Scott v. Sanford. The case is infamous for a number of reasons, most importantly is that Scott ultimately lost this case and was unable to rely upon SCOTUS to gain his rightful freedom. It was a travesty of justice that will forever haunt the Supreme Court, and a ruling that was ultimately overturned by the passage of the 13th Amendment.

However, before that Amendment could be passed, Scott wound up being purchased by his original "owners" who essentially purchased his emancipation and on May 26th, 1857 Dred Scott was finally a free man. The moral to this story is that for more than a decade Dred Scott fought valiantly and undaunted for the freedom that was rightfully his all along, never accepting his fate as a slave or serf and never in his heart viewed any person to be "the power that be" other than his own will. While the Supreme Court, mandated with protecting the freedom and rights of all people, demurred and claimed to have no jurisdiction to hear Scott's case, Scott never surrendered, and ultimately triumphed over oppression.

Born into slavery, compelled to work for others against his will, he was finally able to live the remainder of his life and died as all men and women should live and die...free and unwilling to surrender such freedom. Regardless of the statutes and "legal" finagling that attempted to keep him bound to servitude, this noble man understood the law, the actual real and self evident law of nature, that all people are born with unalienable rights and among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Screw the "powers that be", let the power that is you be free!

reply to post by Dramey


Well, if I was that woman, I would write the Official a letter to either write me an affidavit of Truth signed under the penalties of perjury that I can't power my home with solar. The good part about that is that these so-called "Enforcers" will never do such a thing and will most likely drop the case.

I don't see anywhere....that can be shown that they did this over solar power!

There are 100's if not 1000's of ppl doing this same thing, not unlike myself.

It has to be living conditions, or there is more to the story than is being made public.

reply to post by blair56


I'm sorry, did you read the article? She had a job, got laid off, got one that was barely allowing her to pay her bills. People like you make me sick, and fyi, I make a good living, pay my bills, yadda yadda. I also was a registered republican up to the Bush era, so don't give me any "bleeding heart liberal" crap. It's obvious you've never had to struggle, or you wouldn't be callous, and anyone who is proud of the fact that they've kicked people out of their homes deserves the karma that's going to eventually crap on their heads.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by staver]

reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire

Yes you are absolutely right !!!! it would be much better if the woman was homeless especially if she has children. Give her a shopping cart and kick her into the street where she will be safe . People live in much worse conditions around the world unfortunately but the key word is they LIVE . The Gov't needs to get a clue and back off of people who recently became poor and are now living a third world life in the richest nation of the world . These people need compassion not codes .

I don't see that the article (heavily biased) explained how many panels she was using.

I can completely see this woman buying 2-3 panels and claiming it's enough. A person needs (I just checked prices: google is your friend) $10,000 worth of *just* panels in order to generate 1000/kwh of power per month.

Now, if you live in a small house, and you have no one else living there, sure, that's easy to do.

But she also would've required installation, and tying those $10K worth of panels into her home, and she would have to decide to be taken off the grid (and there may have been a law forbidding that in her area- it happens), or allow sell-back/overstocked energy to go back into the grid (Some folks allow their extra energy to go back to their local power companies, many companies do not allow this, however). Additionally she proba...ya know what. Nevermind

She probably didn't have enough power. Right or wrong, she's trying to make payments, the bank owns the house. Her bad.

reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire


there is no excuse for what happened to this woman...codes or no codes...laws or no laws...you are wrong...if she is happy living in her home without central heating or refrigeraters thats her choice...you live how u wanna live...what would they say if she sold her house and went to live off the land?

no 1 person..or group of people should have the right to remove you from your home for simply wanting to use solar power isntead of the national grid...everybody has a right to own a home and defend that home from ANYONE...if she doesnt want to use the grid...they shud cut her off..and leave her to it...let her power her own home but dont evict her

i think this is disgusting

Similar event happening in Grass valley Ca. A gentleman I am aquainted with runs a holistic medicine produce farm outside the "Incorporated" township of Grass Valley, he runs his entire infrastructure through remote access applications, those being cellular relay that he himself paid for and the rest of his 8 neighbors benefit from, a satellite dish for the boob-tube, and Soalr panel installation that runs ALL of his pumps to flow irrigate his field, the ones that run the deep wells that he owns, the house that is by far more up to date than the 100yr old place I live in, powering his double door refrigerator and heating his house through thermal aquatic plumbing that insulates his walls. and he built it all himself with the proper building permits procured from the county....GUESS WHAT?!?!?! The city is currently trying to condem the property, why you ask? Because he IS completley off the grid and of no "Civic Benefit" to the county and town of Grass Valley!! this my dear friends is the reward for being self reliant, What the OP said about, this being because she wasnt using grid power, may be exactly the case.

reply to post by TacticalVeritas


The tragic reality is that local, state and the federal governments are becoming less and less of a "civic benefit" each and every day. What good is government that exists as a parasite, sucking dry the life blood of the very host that has given its purpose? What good is a government that oppresses in the name of "service" while refusing to acknowledge the rights of people? What good are we as the government of the people, for the people, and by the people if we continue to tolerate this?

reply to post by Tifozi


You touch on a point here, a paradox if you will.

She could afford to solar panels? Those are not cheap...

Also its not unheard of for people to sell back power to the power companies, the meter does run both ways you know, why would she not stay plugged into the grid, cut back her electric usage and get a check from the power company? Maybe shes not so smart?...

So we have someone who could afford solar panels, tampering with her meter and violating a host of local ordinances. Maybe shes not too smart?...

Lets not be so quick to let her off the hook folks. She is as much, if not more so to blame for her current situation as any other factor.

Edit for spelling

[edit on 28-1-2010 by Helmkat]

a decent solar setup costs anywhere from 30-50k solar is not a good choice for poor people or for anyone making under 100k per year honestly. what ever happened to solar film supposed to be 10 times cheaper and 10 times better than todays solar B.S wonder if it got stepped on hmmmm i wonder. again green energy is about the money not about the environment.

....I never would have guessed that you actually HAD to have electricity. I mean, you HAVE to have it? What if you don't like electricity, period, you just want candles and books to keep you occupied, maybe a wood burning stove.. Apparently AZ will kick you out of your house?

Originally posted by Helmkat
reply to post by Tifozi

 

You touch on a point here, a paradox if you will.

She could afford to solar panels? Those are not cheap...

Also its not unheard of for people to sell back power to the power companies, the meter does run both ways you know, why would she not stay plugged into the grid, cut back her electric useage and get a check from the power company? Maybe shes not so smart?...

So we have someone who could afford solar panels, tampering with her meter and violating a host of local ordinances. Maybe shes not to smart?...

Lets not be so quick to let her off the hook folks. She is as much, if not more so to blame for her current situation as any other factor.

You know I read many threads in this site that love to complain about the "spelling Nazi's" but if we are to "not be so quick to let this woman off the hook" and hold her accountable for not being smart, then the least we can do is expect those who are suggesting such things make a better effort to spell correctly, and instead of suggesting she "cut back her electric useage" perhaps suggesting she cut back on her usage. Instead of suggesting "maybe she's not to smart" perhaps suggesting she's not too smart. That is, if we're going to hold people accountable for their lack of intelligence.