United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Americans Own Nothing: Government Claims Ownership Of Florida Couple's Home
Source:
Daily Sheeple
URL Source: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/amer ... ownership-of-their-home_022018
Published: Feb 5, 2018
Author: Dawn Luger
Post Date: 2018-02-06 09:45:56 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 937
Comments: 13
Nancy Nemhauser and Ludomir Jastrzebski were fined $100 per day for the crime of painting their home and property fence like a Van Gough piece of art. The mural is stunningly artistic, but the city is basically claiming Nemhauser and Jastrzebski don’t own their home by fining them over $8000. The daily fines will continue until the painting, an homage to Van Gogh’s “Starry Night,” is removed from private property. Mount Dora, Florida officials say the mural violates the city’s sign ordinance. The homeowners have been fighting the city for months to keep the mural on their home. But should the courts (owned by the government) declare the mural removed, it means the homeowners don’t own and cannot do with their property as they see fit. They may only ask permission to alter government property. The dictatorship many fear is already here. “It’s an artistic town and here we are fighting the city for this art mural,” said Richard Barrenechea, the artist who painted the mural. “I hope a lot of people come tomorrow to see it and we find more supporters.” Art enthusiasts getting ready for this weekend’s Mount Dora Art Festival. Art enthusiasts have wide-ranging opinions when it comes to the mural. “It’s beautiful,” said Rosemaire Gomez. “I love it. It’s heart. They [the city] shouldn’t have a problem with it.” The Mount Dora Art Festival starts Saturday and runs through Sunday. As for the mural, the homeowners are expected to file a brief to appeal the city’s fine. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
It says nothing about ownership, you idiot. It says the mural violates the city’s sign ordinance.
Well, I certainly would not want to live next to such hideous stuff !! The people that pained their house like that are idiots !! Glad I live out in the boonies ! Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt "If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)
It's not a sign, dopey.
That's your defense? Pathetic.
But ... but ... it's a tribute to Van Gogh.
It's a rather bad tribute to Van Gogh. It's garish. If it was less awful, it might not have drawn fines from the local gestapo. It is notable here that the city is behaving as though every house is in a homeowners' association. If they have the power to stop the bad Van Gogh house, they have all the power (and more!) that any HMA claims.
That's one of my favorite paintings and yes, this guy's house is a poor tribute. But it's not a sign.
I agree. The city should not be granted such extensive power over its houses. The busybodiness of modern city councils seems very unrestrained by courts interested in private property rights. Including the right to paint your house in as a bad tribute to a noted Dutch artist.
It's a city-wide ordinance that applies to signs in general. If the citizens of that city want to change the ordinance, I have no problem with that. I DO, however, have a problem with people who flaunt the law then appeal to the nationwide public to get their way.
Yeah, well, it still looks like shit to me, and I would not want to live near it . Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt "If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)
So you're saying the residents of Mount Dora, Florida should not be allowed to regulate signs? Wow! I'm not sure your form of government is any less intrusive.
It isn't a sign by any conventional definition. They're making it up.
What. You think you found some clever little loophole? You don't think the city intended to include monstrosities like this? Fine. Play your legalese games.
But should the courts (owned by the government) declare the mural removed, it means the homeowners don’t own and cannot do with their property as they see fit.
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
" It says the mural violates the city’s sign ordinance. "
#3. To: misterwhite (#1)
It says the mural violates the city’s sign ordinance.
#4. To: Hank Rearden (#3)
It's not a sign, dopey.
#5. To: Stoner (#2)
Well, I certainly would not want to live next to such hideous stuff !!
#6. To: misterwhite (#5)
But ... but ... it's a tribute to Van Gogh.
#7. To: Tooconservative (#6)
#8. To: Hank Rearden (#7)
#9. To: Tooconservative (#6)
If they have the power to stop the bad Van Gogh house
#10. To: misterwhite (#5)
" it's a tribute to Van Gogh "
#11. To: Tooconservative (#8)
The city should not be granted such extensive power over its houses.
#12. To: misterwhite (#9)
It's a city-wide ordinance that applies to signs in general. If the citizens of that city want to change the ordinance, I have no problem with that.
#13. To: Tooconservative (#12)
It isn't a sign by any conventional definition.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]