Texas arresting people in bars for being drunk

[Flint]

I play in bands, in bars, for drunk people.

I get drunk, depending on the size of the band's bar tab.

Texas is supposed to have more common sense than this.

Society is going downhill when somebody thinks this is a good idea.

[FallenFairy]

then YOU My Friend are going to jail.

[Flint]

Then, my good sir, I'll see you at the Supreme fucking Court.

DON'T TREAD ON ME

[FallenFairy]

It may come to that...
and isn't THAT a fucked up idea - heading to the Supreme Court to have a drink!!
Now what I would like to know is who thought this up in the first place????

I like when you call me SIR!! lol

[plthijinx]

this was in the paper today:

Originally Posted by Houston Chronicle

The state's alcohol authorities have put a temporary halt to the arrests of drunks in Texas bars.

Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Administrator Alan Steen notified a legislative committee this week that the agency is suspending the controversial program known as Operation Last Call for further review.

here is the link to the story:
Houston Chronicle

[Dagney]

I can understand the 'reason' for wanting to do something like this - aka - getting drunk drivers off the road before they have a chance to kill someone. However, I think it is a violation of our constitutional rights to go about it this way.

I think the funding could better be spent in doing random breathalyzer tests at bars (not arresting people, but letting them know they are indeed, too drunk to drive) and getting them a cab to take em home.

But then again, I rarely drink, and when I do, I never drive. So the logic perhaps is lost on me.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by FallenFairy

ahhh but again - bars are privately owned...

You wish we still had private property in this country.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Griff

You wish we still had private property in this country.

[thread hijack]

Does SB 881 help us out at all? I just checked in and saw that the Saha's got to keep their farm, but I don't know that sb881 would have prevented the whole very expensive mess. Anyone?
Under Blight, one of the definitions reads

(4) A structure which is a fire hazard or is otherwise <!--BeginNoIndex-->dangerous to the safety of persons or property.

That could be loosly interpreted.... could be my house. I wonder what definition was used to condemn the Saha farm, prior to the changes enacted by this bill?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by jinx

[thread hijack]

Does SB 881 help us out at all?~snip

Let's see?

§ 204. Eminent domain for private business prohibited.
(a) Prohibition.--Except as set forth in subsection (b), the exercise by any condemnor of the power of eminent domain to take private property in order to use it for private enterprise is prohibited.

Well, that's pretty clear...... let's look at the exception in (b).

(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply if any of the following apply:
(1) The (I) THE condemnee consents to the use of the property for private enterprise;
OR (II) THE CONDEMNEE DOES NOT FILE OR DOES NOT PREVAIL ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTION FILED TO A DECLARATION OF TAKING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CONDEMNEE'S PROPERTY.(Emphasis theirs)

OK, they can if you don't care. Not prevail? If you object to the condemnation and they say tough shit, they can use it for commercial use? WTF!

(2) The property is taken by, to the extent the party has the power of eminent domain, transferred or leased to any of the following:
(i) A common carrier, public utility or railroad as defined in 66 Pa.C.S. § 102 (relating to definitions).
(ii) A private entity that occupies an incidental area within a public project, such as retail space, office space, restaurant and food service facility or similar private entity.

OK, they can for a quasi-public service like busses and if the business isn't a major part of the project. Hmmmmm.

(3) There is, on or associated with the property taken, a threat to public health or safety. This paragraph includes the following:
(i) Removal of a public nuisance.
(ii) Removal of a structure which is: (A) beyond repair; or (B) unfit for human habitation or use.

Oh, tricky. Legally, any violation of the building code is reason the revoke your occupancy permit, which makes it "unfit for human habitation". It usually doesn't go that far...but it could.

(4) The property taken is abandoned.
(5) The property taken meets the requirements of section 205 (relating to blight).
(6) The property taken is acquired by a condemnor pursuant to section 12.1 of the act of May 24, 1945 (P.L.991, No.385), known as the Urban Redevelopment Law.
(7) The property taken is acquired for the development of low-income and mixed-income housing projects pursuant to the act of May 28, 1937 (P.L.955, No.265), known as the Housing Authorities Law, or to be developed using financial incentives available for the development of low-income and mixed-income housing projects under:
(i) section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Public Law 99-514, 26 U.S.C. § 42);
(ii) the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-383, 88 Stat. 633);
(iii) the National Homeownership Trust Act (Public Law 101-625, 104 Stat. 4129); (III) THE CRANSTON-GONZALEZ NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT (PUBLIC LAW 101-625, 42 U.S.C. § 12701 ET SEQ.);
(iv) 53 Pa.C.S. Ch. 60 (relating to optional affordable housing funding);
(v) the Brownfields for Housing and Redevelopment Assistance programs of the Department of Community and Economic Development;
(vi) the Homeownership Choice Program of the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency; and
(vii) any successor program to a program under this paragraph.
(8) The property taken is acquired pursuant to the act of June 25, 1999 (P.L.179, No.24), known as the Economic Development Eminent Domain Law in order to allow for the removal of blighted properties within the borders of a former military facility located in a county of the second class A.

I can understand they don't want the courts to knock this bill apart because of conflict with a previous law.

(9) The property is used or to be used for any road, street, highway, trafficway or for property to be acquired to provide access to a public thoroughfare for a property which would be otherwise inaccessible as the result of the use of eminent domain or for ingress, egress or parking of motor vehicles.

So they can take another property for WalMart and yours for a driveway.
The bottom line seems to be; they can't take your property for private business unless they want to. What a sham....what a shame.

[Griff]

On the upside, more people are pushing back. There is a big fight developing just North of us (NYS) where a gas pipeline is coming through. It isn't a big deal if your property is large enough to accomodate it, since natural gas pipelines are usually pretty safe. Unfortunately, the present route goes through one families' mature timber stand and anothers' small river bounded property which will become unsuitable for building. There has to be a better way to do this stuff. If they started by asking property owners if they'd consider hosting the line and base their route on willingness to participate, they'd possibly do better. They would rather use lawyers and government to push folks around though.

[zippyt]

If they started by asking property owners if they'd consider hosting the line and base their route on willingness to participate, they'd possibly do better.

Griff , Think about that for sec , asking the land owners IF they want a gas main run thru their front yard , who the HELL is going to allow that ??

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by zippyt

If they started by asking property owners if they'd consider hosting the line and base their route on willingness to participate, they'd possibly do better.

Griff , Think about that for sec , asking the land owners IF they want a gas main run thru their front yard , who the HELL is going to allow that ??

Actually, my development was built around an underground gas pipeline. In some cases, it passes into peoples yards.

It really comes down to compensation. If it meant a payment of $100 per month for the average house to act as host, there might be some people who would go for it. As an added bonus, you would have automatic caretakers since it would be in the residents interest to report signs of a leak.

[Griff]

Yep. money

[xoxoxoBruce]

When I bought my place, in 1978, I was reading the deed (after the sale of course ) and it said there was a petroleum pipeline right-of-way.
Yipes! So I got the name of the pipeline company and called them in the Midwest, maybe Ohio.
I gave them my name and address and told them my problem. Within 3 minutes the had someone on the phone explaining the line didn't cross my land, but down the road a little ways.
The line had been put in before the property was subdivided and would show on all deeds descended from that property.
They really blew me away when they started describing all the properties involved. I mean every feature, slopes, notable rocks, even big trees. They knew it up, down and sideways.
Now, this pipeline runs for hundreds of miles but they had all the details for my little area in minutes. I was impressed.

Hey Texas... got a word for ya'. Speakeasy.
Cops... do your damn job, not just some ploy to make jack for the county, this is a sick travesty. Protect and serve my ass.