Freedom of expression and property rights? Never heard of it
A large cross visible from the interstate and located on private property was ordered removed by an Anderson County judge:
“I had a big let down today because it was on private property,” Potter says. “It wasn’t on public property. It was on private property but the government can come in and tell us where we have to put a cross when the Constitution says they can’t do that.”
However:
Anderson County code states that a structure shouldn’t be able to fall on someone else’s land.
I suppose you could make a smaller cross.
November 23rd, 2004 at 9:48 am
Code is code, and the law is the law. It always bugs me when people think they should get special dispensation just because of what they’re trying to say.
And you’re right, a smaller cross that would not be tall enough to fall on someone else’s property would be fine – so what’s his problem?
November 23rd, 2004 at 10:31 am
Actually, I do kind wonder what they mean by shouldn’t be able to fall on someone else’s land.
After all, people tend to build structures that aren’t, you know, supposed to fall.
November 23rd, 2004 at 10:57 am
“Actually, I do kind wonder what they mean by shouldn’t be able to fall on someone else’s land.
After all, people tend to build structures that aren’t, you know, supposed to fall. ”
Actually, that was going to be my point, their are ceriten structures that are incable of falling (as a tree falls…think pyrmids).
If he built a huge prymid, it would not fall