Thorny garden in Rosemount: Neighbors love Tom Piekarski's flowers...

So...a person should never be able to sell something out of their home. OK Got it.

jcf817 wrote:

So...a person should never be able to sell something out of their home. OK Got it.

You obviously missed the part about garage sales and such, but I understand, as society is compelled to help people like you who have a difficult time in understanding even the most basic principles. Or, you could just be attempting to skew, in which case you are not very good at it.

jcf817 wrote:

So...a person should never be able to sell something out of their home. OK Got it.

Further, if one were to take your idea and run with it, what is to prevent a strip club to be located next to a school or day care center or to prevent that club owner from exercising, under your definition, his or hers constitutional right of free speech and displaying signage using nudity, profanity, or depictions or even large photos of sex acts for everyone,(including 5 year olds at the school) to see?

What's wrong with nudity and sex?

jcf817 wrote:

What's wrong with nudity and sex?

Probably a question for your spouse or S.O., if you are that hung up about it. Maybe he or she will tell you why you haven't seen them naked nor provided with satisfaction/gratification in the last decade. A good question, just the wrong venue to query. Good luck in your quest.

Rosemount Developer wrote:

<quoted text>
Probably a question for your spouse or S.O., if you are that hung up about it. Maybe he or she will tell you why you haven't seen them naked nor provided with satisfaction/gratification in the last decade. A good question, just the wrong venue to query. Good luck in your quest.

Ha! You're funny. I like you.

Rosemount Developer wrote:

Interpretation of the law is generally based upon 2 tenets: The POINT of the law, or what is specifically written, AND the spirit of the law, which is what it the law was intended to accomplish. This has been true in democracies and republics for milleniums. Indeed, in this case, the spirit of the law is certainly to prevent retail operations in a residential setting, even if the point of the law does not specifically say so. Much the same by example, the point of the law gives us free speech, but the spirit of the law does not allow one to incite panic by inappropriately yelling "FIRE" in a darkend cinema.

Spoken like a true attorney. It's not a case of what's right, only how it was written or supposedly interpreted.
It would be an interesting "change" to see people focus on what's right in the name of helping a neighbor, and spend less time thinking about what some very bored law makers trying to justify a pay check come up with.

I will let your insult (calling me an attorney) slide, but you need to watch your words with me going forward.

The man IS running a retail operation in a residential zoned area. This is NOT a garage sale, it is NOT a "For Sale" sign on a car in the driveway, it is NOT just selling produce grown on his property, and it is NOT a legal use to buy products and resell them at his residence.

This is very clear cut: If he wants no further issues with the law, he needs to OBEY the law. If he wants to conduct this type of business, he is welcome to do so in an area appropriately zoned. One need not be a lawyer to understand such basic precepts, one only needs to employ a bit of logic, understand the constitutions (state and fed), and apply precedent that is now nearly 200 years old in Minnesota, and nearly 250 years old in the US. To think that a citizen who is a lawyer is the only person capable of understanding such just shows that the flip side of this conflict has no depth and no knowledge of the the law and is merely determined to whine like a spoiled child who cannot have his way. This is basic stuff, but obviously well above the remedial abilities of those whining, who whine because they have no other legal or logical way to try to get their way.

Rosemount Developer wrote:

I will let your insult (calling me an attorney) slide, but you need to watch your words with me going forward.
The man IS running a retail operation in a residential zoned area. This is NOT a garage sale, it is NOT a "For Sale" sign on a car in the driveway, it is NOT just selling produce grown on his property, and it is NOT a legal use to buy products and resell them at his residence.
This is very clear cut: If he wants no further issues with the law, he needs to OBEY the law. If he wants to conduct this type of business, he is welcome to do so in an area appropriately zoned. One need not be a lawyer to understand such basic precepts, one only needs to employ a bit of logic, understand the constitutions (state and fed), and apply precedent that is now nearly 200 years old in Minnesota, and nearly 250 years old in the US. To think that a citizen who is a lawyer is the only person capable of understanding such just shows that the flip side of this conflict has no depth and no knowledge of the the law and is merely determined to whine like a spoiled child who cannot have his way. This is basic stuff, but obviously well above the remedial abilities of those whining, who whine because they have no other legal or logical way to try to get their way.

Attorney is not an insult unless you choose to take it that way.
"Watch my words with you going forward"? What kind of nut job are you?
My general thoughts were along the lines that we have, and always have had brain dead law makers at the capital trying to justify thier cushy taxpayer salary by creating, gasp, yes, more laws.
It has hit the point of insanity. Obviously you are comfortable with this, and your gardening neighbor is not. Pity to be him, sad to be you.

Your genralizations are sickening. Your posts indicate a disturbed person. Your guesses of what I or any other poster are or are not comfortable with is merely your pitiful attempt to grasp at straws. I happen to believe that the laws are the laws, and you do not change them by simply breaking them. I certainly agree that there are too many laws. However, laws that prohibit individuals living in a residential area to use their property for retail trade are good laws. This law was not designed to collect taxes, or to target an individual for some type of uncomprehensible punitive act, or to cause this resident financial hardship. The law exists to make sure that retail trade is maintained in an area that is designed for such, including traffic flow, pedestrians, infrastructure, minimization of light and noise on residential neighborhoods, overall safety, etc. Per my previous post, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it is a duck. In this case, this person has every attribute of a retail business, including signage, resale of goods, traffic, etc. So, he is operating a retail business in a residential area, and that is against the law. Nobody is telling him he can't sell the goods he grows in the ground on his lot, but he can't run a retail operation in a residential neighborhood.
Good luck with your therapy, and try to stay on your meds.

You are a hoot. But also quite anal. You are a perfect fit for a euphorian matro area.
Lets agree you stay in your urban paradise, I'll stay in my rural heaven.
I will not try to be city, you don't try to be country.
Works for me.

speedy wrote:

You are a hoot. But also quite anal. You are a perfect fit for a euphorian matro area.
Lets agree you stay in your urban paradise, I'll stay in my rural heaven.
I will not try to be city, you don't try to be country.
Works for me.

I assume you mean "metro" area. Euphorian? Hmmm. Nice idea, but with so many people as ignorant as you, not really obtainable. I like your idea: You stay in your double-wide away from civilization, and the world will still go around without you. See It works!

Rosemount Developer wrote:

<quoted text>
I assume you mean "metro" area. Euphorian? Hmmm. Nice idea, but with so many people as ignorant as you, not really obtainable. I like your idea: You stay in your double-wide away from civilization, and the world will still go around without you. See It works!

Well, of course we could swap insults back and forth for the next year. I am sure that would accomplish a lot. Suffice to say that you have no clue.
I am a self employed custom car builder, and you are a supposed "developer" yet talk like a lawyer, yet speak on both sides of the same issue.
Oh wait, that's what lawyers do.
I have a 2 year waiting list for street rod building, but if you want a car built, I'll give you a real good deal. mmm hmmm

So, are you cutomizing existing body/chassis, or do you start from the bottom up? My brother did the same thing out east, but then he turned his efforts to buying old VW bugs and fitting them as a dune buggy because the baby-boomers paid big bucks for them. Interesting line of work.

Rosemount Developer wrote:

So, are you cutomizing existing body/chassis, or do you start from the bottom up? My brother did the same thing out east, but then he turned his efforts to buying old VW bugs and fitting them as a dune buggy because the baby-boomers paid big bucks for them. Interesting line of work.

Thank you for the change of subject, truthfully I am more comfortable talking about building cars.
I do a mixture of both. I do a lot of "modernization" of vintage chassis', and also on rare occaisions build tube frame on up.
What is hot right now is take a relatively stock appearing car and do a frame off rebuild yet build it to modern day standards, or somewhat modern.
For example, A recent build was a 49 Chevy business coupe. We used a Camaro front frame, disc brake Trans Am rear end, and landrum and afco coil/leaf springs with addco bars. Body and interior appeared stock yet nicer. The car runs a 502 big block with a race prepped 700r4 built in Alabama by an associate.
It runs a low 13 second 1/4, but can still ride comfy all day and give 16 MPG. It handles like a sports car, yet retains it's vintage look and is a million times safer to drive than original.
I also work on specialty cars up to 2006.
Interesting project leaving this week. 92 GMC Typhoon. Awesome little SUV. Turbocharged 4.3 V6. Beat the Corvettes in 92 and 93. This one ran a mid 13 stock form and my customers wife still drove it daily to Crown College. When it leaves here it will run a low 12 second, and still be daily drivable.
The list is endless, but if it's odd or something others won't build, I will.
It's amazing what you find happening out in some hole in the wall shop in the boonies!
Thanks again for the subject change.

Impressive stuff. Sounds fun too.

Rosemount Developer wrote:

Impressive stuff. Sounds fun too.

It truly is a lot of fun. I had spent over 2o years spinning wrenches, working full time, buying equipment and gaining experience with running a specialty shop in mind.
As it is, I am doing it now. But anyone who is self employed will understand, even after all that planning and years of work, you still start at the bottom rung of the ladder all over. I don't mind because I love my work, and seeing thse cars take shape makes me smile. It ok with me for now working out of a small shop in a fixer-upper hobby farm. My customers don't bat an eye, but honestly I can't wait to get into a nicer shop!

Rosemount Developer wrote:

<quoted text>
It is the LAW and falls well within the state's consitution and has nothing to do with a nanny state, and everything to do with a person blatantly breaking the law and running a business where no business of any kind is allowed. I hardly think anyone cares if he is selling a few ears of corn that he grew in his garden and doing so at the end of his driveway, but he is BUYING product and then RESELLING it from his home, which constitutes RETAIL TRADE no matter how you look at it. Your use of vulgarities merely emphasizes your inability to reason at an appropriate level and demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the issue. With every post like that you make you provide fodder for those who want the city to uphold the law. So in a way, "Thanks!"

FYI - I know this guy and he raises all the he sells, not purchased from someone else and resold. I have talked to him and the city is back peddling since finding out about the constitution article XIII, section 7.

Rosemount guy wrote:

<quoted text>
FYI - I know this guy and he raises all the he sells, not purchased from someone else and resold. I have talked to him and the city is back peddling since finding out about the constitution article XIII, section 7.

Actually, he freely admitted buying all of the flowers he had hanging on his fence and reselling them. It would seem "this guy" whom you know, cannot keep his story straight. Other things too. Go read the newspaper interviews and media accounts of his dealings. As I said, who cares if he sells some corn or cukes from his gardens at the end of his driveway. Unfortunately, his business is a nuissance, and because it is in a residental neighborhood, that makes it worse. If his neighbors wanted to live near a business, they would live in an apartment or condo on S. Robert Trail, not on residential streets specifically zoned for homes and not for businesses. I suppose at this point, I will reserve further judgement until next year when he begins his commerce again. Or not.

you wascally wabbits are tewwible.