The girls are back!

[Guinevere]

You and others have been harassing him about this here and on the CSB for years. You have ZERO proof he is doing anything outside the law. And btw, here is an old post I found by Scooter that seems to indicate otherwise

Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:23 am
Jarlaxle wrote:
From his posts at the CSB (I'm not wading through that 40+ page thread), his area is NOT zoned for beekeeping.

Scooter wrote:
If you can't be bothered to read what he actually wrote (vs. the false accusations that were lobbed against him) then you shouldn't be fanning old CSB feuds based on mistaken recollections.

Because at the time I was the one that took the time to look up the relevant ordinances that proved he was operating within the law.

[Lord Jim]

Oh come on...

Do you honestly think this guy bothered with giving notice, having a hearing to get approval, and paying the required fees? If so, why did he need to hide the hive from "the whiners"?

I was the one that took the time to look up the relevant ordinances that proved he was operating within the law.

I don't know how he worked that out. Did rube email him a copy of the receipt he got? You can read the requirements for yourself right here:

http://www.santacruz.com/2011/04/26/avoiding_the_sting/

If he lives in the corporate limits of the city of Santa Cruz, under the law he's required to give notice so a public hearing can be held, and if he get's approval he's supposed to pay a $1300 fee.

If he lives in the the county of Santa Cruz (but not the city) bee keeping isn't permitted at all unless his property is zoned as "agricultural"...(Not bloody likely)

Pretty straight forward.

Since I don't have to live next door to him, I personally don't give two shits about him violating the law, and unleashing swarms of bees on "the whiners". But then I'm not the guy who pontificates about the virtue of local governments behaving like petty tyrants, "channeling collective behavior" ...

That would be him...

[Guinevere]

Again, you have no proof, you're only speculating.

You should also try reading the actual regs, not the "journalistic" interpretation. In the county, commercial beekeeping is limited to agricultural areas, otherwise you simply have to notify the local inspector of your hive. In the city beekeeping is permitted in R-1 with a permit (I could find nothing in the city ordinance regarding the actual fee and no permit applications on the city web page).

Do you have rubato's street address?

Didn't think so.

[Lord Jim]

you're only speculating.

As are you....

The difference is that my speculation is based on his own words in the very first post he wrote about this several years ago when he talked about having to conceal the hive from "the whiners". If what he was doing was legally copacetic, why would he have to hide it? That makes no sense.

What does make sense, is that he would have to hide it in order to avoid having someone make a complaint, because he didn't have legal authorization.

So that's what my speculation is based on; a common sense deduction from his own words. I guess your speculation must be based on rube's well established record for integrity and practicing what he preaches...

[rubato]

Hatred makes you stupid.

And it makes it show.


A-mazing how you don't get this. But perhaps not. Social psychology research shows that the incompetent really are the last to know.


http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/18/healt ... bliss.html

Among the Inept, Researchers Discover, Ignorance Is Bliss

One reason that the ignorant also tend to be the blissfully self-assured, the researchers believe, is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize competence.

The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, they suggested in a paper appearing in the December issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

''Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it,'' wrote Dr. Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of Illinois, and Dr. Dunning.

too funny!


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Among the Inept, Researchers Discover, Ignorance Is Bliss

Then you must live in a state of constant rapture...

More diversionary BS and still no straight answers...

Did you get legal approval for this or not rube? And if so, what's your explanation for why you have to hide it from "the whiners"?

[Guinevere]

Why should he answer you when you have no facts to show that he has any requirement to have a permit, and further, you don't even have the regulatory framework correct.

I sure wouldn't.

And btw, I'm not asserting he doesn't need a permit, simply that you have no facts showing he does. Since it's your assertion, you have the burden of proving the facts that show rubato is required to have a permit.

So, how about that street address.

[Lord Jim]

So your explanation for why he said he had to hide the hive from "the whiners" would be...?

[Guinevere]

Nope - I'm not buying into that. A statement - that may or may not be accurate - isn't proof that rubato is subject to permit requirements. At a minimum, he isn't the city or county permitting authority.

It's your assertion. YOU prove it.

[Lord Jim]

Okay, so you're going to dodge it too. I get it.

Are you saying you don't recall him saying that? We had lengthy discussion about it in the thread where he said it.

Until and unless he comes up with a credible alternative explanation for why he would need to hide the hive from public view, the logical assumption must be that he did not have legal permission to have it. That doesn't really seem complicated to me.

[Guinevere]

I'm dodging nothing and I have nothing to prove.

I gave you some big hints though - rubato isn't the permitting authority so what he thinks is not relevant to the question. You also have no proof of what you allege he said (and it's hearsay, too).

But nice try to try and shift the focus from yourself again.

You can't prove your assertion because you have no facts to support it. Period. End of discussion.

[Lord Jim]

Period. End of discussion.

Oh yeah, like that's gonna work...

rubato isn't the permitting authority so what he thinks is not relevant to the question.

ETA:

Okay, now you may have a point there...

I have to concede that it's entirely possible that rube is completely ignorant of what his legal requirements regarding this are or are not, ("completely ignorant" being one of his singular talents) so it's possible that he's hiding the hive because he thinks what he's doing is illegal when in fact it might not be.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Periods usually are....

[Joe Guy]

The truth is most likely that those rules exist regarding fees and and hearings before people can have a beehive on their property in Santa Cruz. The truth is also likely that very few people know or follow those rules and the city/county doesn't enforce beekeeping laws unless a violation is brought to their attention.

That's why beekeepers will avoid whiners.

Whiners = People who would appreciate it if their neighbors were more thoughtful of other neighbors and obey the law.

Ignorance in Santa Cruz is bliss.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Re "concealing from whiners".
There is no need to assume any violation of local ordinances to explain that some neighbours are assholes. A more rational explanation (not that one is required) is that stupid liberal anti-science neighbours (you identified them LJ) will give him all sorts of grief if they SEE a hive. Otherwise they see bees but there's no one to complain to about bees. You can only complain if you know some guy a few doors away is actually housing them. Then you can phone his house and harass him etc. etc. for no valid reason.

They probably refuse to inoculate against real threats but burden their children with thousands of epinephrine sticks and wail every time a wasp annoys their health drink sucking moments and call the critters "bees", abusing a wonderful creature that is of key importance to humans in their smug yet total scientific ignorance.

I know what "whining" means.... It usually doesn't mean "lodging a legitimate legal complaint to the appropriate authority". In fact, it never does. That being said, rubato might well be inside the city limits where the law is 'draconian' and the non-refundable fee for just the application is prohibitive. So what?

So Joe, are you saying that Scooter was ly......... er, mistaken?

Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:23 am
Jarlaxle wrote:
From his posts at the CSB (I'm not wading through that 40+ page thread), his area is NOT zoned for beekeeping

Scooter wrote:
If you can't be bothered to read what he actually wrote (vs. the false accusations that were lobbed against him) then you shouldn't be fanning old CSB feuds based on mistaken recollections. Because at the time I was the one that took the time to look up the relevant ordinances that proved he was operating within the law.

[Joe Guy]

So Joe, are you saying that Scooter was ly......... er, mistaken?

It's difficult to tell since I don't know what Scooter meant by "operating within the law".

[MajGenl.Meade]

Paging Big RR. Paging Big RR. Ambivalence in aisle 3.

[Lord Jim]

I'm curious to know what he meant by "proved"...

Does he have rube's address?

I've certainly never seen any such "proof"...

[BoSoxGal]

good honey crop, rubato! the haters.

[Jarlaxle]

Why should he answer you when you have no facts to show that he has any requirement to have a permit, and further, you don't even have the regulatory framework correct.

*facepalm* He lives in Santa Cruz....which requires a permit to keep beehives!

And btw, I'm not asserting he doesn't need a permit, simply that you have no facts showing he does. Since it's your assertion, you have the burden of proving the facts that show rubato is required to have a permit.

So, how about that street address.

If he is telling the truth about where he lives, he does.