My condolences to Bob's family. I hiked with Bob back in the '90s. Nice guy! May he rest in peace.

I didn't meet my wife via Boulder Single Hikes, but coincidentally I happened to mention Bob and Boulder Single Hikes to my wife yesterday. I hadn't thought about Bob and Boulder Single Hikes for more than a decade. Weird that I'd wake up this morning to this bad news.

Chuck Wright

The SCFD tax should be repealed altogether. With the SCFD tax, the money is distributed based on politics and to those organizations with the most political pull. Without the tax, the money is distributed based on what the people who earn the money actually want.

An organization that is so great that people freely provide all the support it needs does not need taxpayer support. An organization that isn't so great and can't convince people to freely provide all the support it needs does not deserve taxpayer support.

Chuck Wright
http://www.lp.org/

tandp_colo: > No. People like you would not contribute at all to programs and facilities such as "Denver Zoo, Denver Museum of Nature & Science and the Denver Art Museum."

You don’t know what I would voluntarily contribute to, and frankly it’s none of your business. Libertarians are opposed to tax funded zoos, museums, and shooting ranges, but we are not opposed to zoos, museums, or shooting ranges. What’s wrong with tax funded zoos, museums, and shooting ranges? Coercion!

> But, then again, you probably would prefer not to be scarred by exposure to or even the presence of science and/or culture.

That’s odd because I earned a Bachelor of Science degree from a state university and a Master of Science degree from a private university. I’ve been to the Denver Zoo, the Denver Museum of Nature and Science and the Denver Art Museum and many other zoos and museums all over the globe. Sorry to disappoint but I don’t have any scars from any of them.

It doesn’t follow that if one is opposed to tax funded X that one is opposed to X. For instance, one can be opposed to tax funded grocery stores but in favor of grocery stores.

> Yours world is a dark, stark, gray panopticon where everyone is armed, polite and politically correct and no intellectual activity beyond mere survival is ever pursued.

I don’t want everyone armed. I want all peaceful people to have the choice of whether, when, and with what to arm themselves. I’d like people to be polite, but peaceful people have a right to be impolite. I’m not politically correct, and everyone should be free to be as politically correct or incorrect as they freely choose to be as long as they are peaceful. I want people to be as intellectually active as they freely choose to be.

> Communities are strengthened by public support for the arts and sciences.

I agree; however communities are weakened by coerced support for the arts and sciences. Communities are weakened by coerced support for shooting ranges too.

The problem is not the arts, the sciences, or shooting ranges. The problem is coercion.

> Given a choice, communities would much rather fund and share a zoo, a museum, a planetarium, etc than a shooting range.

If people were free to fund or not fund zoos, museums, planetariums, shooting ranges, or whatever, I wouldn’t care which receives the most funding. Zoos, museums, planetariums, shooting rangers, etc. that are not so good that people freely provide all the support they need, are not good enough to receive taxpayer support.

Chuck Wright
http://www.lp.org/

The SCFD tax should be repealed altogether. With the SCFD tax, the money is distributed based on politics and to those organizations with the most political pull. Without the tax, the money is distributed based on what the people who earn the money actually want.

Chuck Wright
http://www.lp.org/

> "We hear about problems with parking and noise and trash, but I've never heard, 'I walked into my neighbors' house, and I was offended by the number of people living inside the house,'" she said.

Bingo. The unrelated persons occupancy limit is a victimless crime. If there is no victim, there should be no crime.

It's none of the government's business whether the people who chose to live together are related, and it's unconstitutional because it won't pass the rational basis test (for more on the rational basis test see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_revi... ). It won't bass the rational basis test because the same number of related people could legally live together, and related people living together could cause the same problems as unrelated people. Too, the limit is arbitrary. Why shouldn't the limit be higher or lower than what the current law allows?

The city should repeal the unrelated persons occupancy limit law, and it should enforce its noise and litter ordinances.

The parking problem can be solved by establishing private ownership of on-street parking. There should be a street parking market where street parking spots can be bought, sold, leased and rented. Imagine if you're a homeowner and you owned the right to park in front of your home. If you owned the parking rights in front of your home, you could decide who can park in front of your home, how long they can park there, and what you would charge for parking in front of your home. You could decide that only you and your family members can park there. You could decide to only let your tenants park there. You could even decide to allow anyone to park for free as long as they like, or could prohibit anyone from parking there. Or you could decide to sell your parking rights to your neighbor because you need the money more than the parking and your neighbor needs the parking more then he or she needs the money.

Chuck Wright
http://www.lp.org/

Bleeth: > Much like your previous response to me, it offers no valid solutions.

What's not valid about my solution?

> However, the over-occupied rental a street over, has anywhere from 6-7 cars at any given time.

The parking problem can be solved by making street parking privately owned.

> It's not just about cars, it's about the noise generated, college kids tend to let loose more often.

Enforcing the noise ordinance can fix the noise problem. Repealing the arbitrary unrelated person occupancy ordinance, which is a victimless crime, would free up resources to enforce the noise ordinance, and so would repealing a whole lot of other unnecessary victimless crime laws.

> Chuck but there's no excuse for ignoring noise statutes, bottles and cans all over the place,

I didn't say there's an excuse. These laws should be enforced, but these are separate problems from the unrelated persons occupancy limit. People who exceed that arbitrary limit do not necessarily violate the noise ordinance or toss bottles and cans all over the place. Punish the people who actually do harm instead of peaceful people who aren't harming anyone. In fact, most do not.

> completely weeded out landscapes

Another victimless crime.

> most important, ignoring the occupancy limits that are there for a reason.

People who ignore unjust laws, which include all victimless crime laws, are heroes.

Chuck Wright
http://www.lp.org/

Bleeth,

See my response to JinArv regarding parking.

Chuck Wright
http://www.lp.org/

JinArv,

Parking isn't a problem due to too many unrelated people living in a residence. Parking could be just as bad if the same number of people lived in a residence but happen to be related. Parking is a problem because the city owns the on-street parking, which effectively boils down to no one owning the on-street parking. The city should sell on-street parking spaces to the public, and there should be a street parking market. Problem solved.

Chuck Wright
http://www.lp.org/

Bleeth: > Have you lived next to an over-occupied rental Chuck?

Over occupied according to who? The limit is arbitrary, and we shouldn't have arbitrary laws.

> Either you have not or you simply don't care about the plight of those of us that do.

I do care, but giving government more power over our lives is not the solution.

> why not open up your generously spacious home to 2-3 incoming freshmen this fall?

I should be free to do so. I should be free to take in 10 freshmen if I so choose. It's my home, and I should be the King of my castle.

> Imagine how lovely your landscaping will look, trashed with beer cans, liquor bottles and the wafting odor of puke. But hey, I guess you don't mind cleaning that stuff up.

One person living alone could have some friends over for a party, and they could trash my landscaping with beer cans and liquor bottles and vomit all over my yard. The problem should be addressed via laws against trashing other people's landscaping and vomiting in other people's yards or on the street or sidewalks.

Chuck Wright
http://www.lp.org/

Bleeth: > What's anal retentive about not wanting to live right next to an over occupied rental full of students that couldn't care less about their neighbors or their surroundings?

You're prejudging the students. All students do not behave badly. The students should be judged for their actual behavior instead of their living arrangements. If the same number of related people occupied the same home, they wouldn't violate the occupancy limit, but they could behave as bad or worse than students. Too, what about people who are not students and want to live together but can't because of the occupancy limit?

It's none of the governments business whether people living together are related, and people should be free to decide for themselves their living arrangements. We should have equal protection of the laws instead of relegating unrelated people to second class status.

Chuck Wright
http://www.lp.org/