The Individual Vs. The State, An Unusual Case

[Alram]

Here is an interesting story about land ownership and property rights, about the rights of the individual vs. the state.

STEVENSON, Ala. (AP) — James Davis is fighting to keep the remains of his late wife right where he dug her grave: In the front yard of his home, just a few feet from the porch.

Davis said he was only abiding by Patsy Ruth Davis' wishes when he buried her outside their log home in 2009, yet the city sued to move the body elsewhere. A county judge ordered Davis to disinter his wife, but the ruling is on hold as the Alabama Civil Court of Appeals considers his challenge.

Davis, 73, said he never expected such a fight.

"Good Lord, they've raised pigs in their yard, there's horses out the road here in a corral in the city limits, they've got other gravesites here all over the place," said Davis. "And there shouldn't have been a problem."

While state health officials say family burial plots aren't uncommon in Alabama, city officials worry about the precedent set by allowing a grave on a residential lot on one of the main streets through town. They say state law gives the city some control over where people bury their loved ones and have cited concerns about long-term care, appearance, property values and the complaints of some neighbors.

"We're not in the 1800s any longer," said city attorney Parker Edmiston. "We're not talking about a homestead, we're not talking about someone who is out in the country on 40 acres of land. Mr. Davis lives in downtown Stevenson."

A strong libertarian streak runs through northeast Alabama, which has relatively few zoning laws to govern what people do with their property. Even a neighbor who got into a fight with Davis over the gravesite — Davis said he punched the man — isn't comfortable with limiting what a homeowner can do with his property.

"I don't think it's right, but it's not my place to tell him he can't do it," said George W. Westmoreland, 79, who served three tours of duty in Vietnam. "I laid my life on the line so he would have the right to do this. This is what freedom is about."

Westmoreland declined to discuss his specific objections to the grave.

It's unclear when the appeals court might rule. Attorneys filed initial papers in the appeal on Friday. The decision could come down to whether the judges believe the front-yard grave constitutes a family plot that requires no approval or a cemetery, which would.

In the meantime, Davis has protested by running for City Council. A campaign sign hangs near a bigger sign in his yard that says: "Let Patsy Rest in Peace."

A law professor who is familiar with the case said it's squarely at the intersection of personal rights and government's power to regulate private property. While disputes over graves in peoples' yards might be rare, lawsuits over the use of eminent domain actions and zoning restrictions are becoming more common as the U.S. population grows, said Joseph Snoe, who teaches property law at Samford University in suburban Birmingham.

"The United States Supreme Court has said that the states, and the cities through the states, have the power to regulate. But if it goes too far ... then the government's got to pay, and there are certain things the government just doesn't have the power to do," he said. "As we get bigger and as government gets bigger and as people are more regulated ... you start having more and more disagreements."

Davis, a longtime carpenter, built the family's home on a corner on Broad Street about 30 years ago in Stevenson, a town of about 2,600 in northeast Alabama. Once a bustling railroad stop, the city is now so quiet some people don't bother locking their doors. Stars twinkle brightly in the night sky; there aren't many lights to blot them out.

Davis first met Patsy when she was a little girl. They were married for 48 years, but she spent most of her final days bedridden with crippling arthritis. Seated on a bench beside her marble headstone and flower-covered grave, Davis said he and his wife planned to have their bodies cremated until she revealed she was terrified by the thought.

"She said this is where she wanted to be and could she be put here, and I told her, 'Yeah,'" Davis said. "I didn't think there'd be any problem."

There was, though. A big one.

After his wife died on April 18, 2009, the City Council rejected Davis' request for a cemetery permit. The decision came even though the county health department signed off on the residential burial, saying it wouldn't cause any sanitation problems.

Ignoring the council's decision, Davis said he and a son-in-law cranked a backhoe and dug a grave just a few feet from the house. A mortuary installed a concrete vault, and workers lowered Patsy's body into the plot in a nice, metal casket.

The city sued, and the case went to trial early this year. That's when a judge ordered Davis to move his wife's remains to a licensed cemetery. That order is on hold to give the state appeals court time to rule.

For now, Davis visits his wife's grave each time he walks out the front door. He puts fresh artificial flowers on it regularly, and he washes off the marker when raindrops splatter dirt on the gray stone. At Christmas, he said, he and other relatives hold a little prayer vigil around the grave, which is beside an old wooden garage.

Edmiston said the man rejected several compromises from the city, including the offer of two plots in the municipal graveyard.

While state officials say they don't know how many people might be buried on residential lots in Alabama, burials on private property in Alabama are not uncommon, said Sherry Bradley, deputy environmental director for the state Department of Public Health.

While the state can regulate cemeteries, Bradley said it doesn't have any control over family burial plots. The city contends the grave at Davis' home is an illegal cemetery that falls under government oversight, said Edmiston, the city lawyer.

If nothing else, Edmiston said, the appeals court might decide what constitutes a "family burial plot" in Alabama, and what's a cemetery.

"It would be far-reaching if they say anyone can bury someone in their front yard if there are no drainage issues," he said.

As it is, Davis said his five children will bury him in the yard beside Patsy after he dies, and they and his 15 grandchildren will care for the property from then on.

"That's my perpetual care," said Davis, referring to the city's worry about what the grave will look like after he dies.

Davis is adamant that he won't move the body, regardless of what any court says.

"If they get it done it'll be after I'm gone," said Davis. "So if they order her to be moved, it's a death sentence to me. I'll meet Mama sooner than I planned on it."

Click

[eppie]

I just cut out the most important piece of this article.

****"I don't think it's right, but it's not my place to tell him he can't do it," said George W. Westmoreland, 79, who served three tours of duty in Vietnam. "I laid my life on the line so he would have the right to do this. This is what freedom is about."****

We are always discussing the reason and causes for going to war.....many conspiracy theories are flung on the internet, so it is good that we have some real facts here.

The US got involved in Vietnam because it is so important that we can burry anyone anywhere we want! It had nothing to do with the cold war and so on.

I also heard that the first gulf war was to protect our rights to celebrate pancake day, while Saddam was finally removed because he wanted to ban peeing against trees.

[Lissa]

I just cut out the most important piece of this article.

****"I don't think it's right, but it's not my place to tell him he can't do it," said George W. Westmoreland, 79, who served three tours of duty in Vietnam. "I laid my life on the line so he would have the right to do this. This is what freedom is about."****

We are always discussing the reason and causes for going to war.....many conspiracy theories are flung on the internet, so it is good that we have some real facts here.

The US got involved in Vietnam because it is so important that we can burry anyone anywhere we want! It had nothing to do with the cold war and so on.

I also heard that the first gulf war was to protect our rights to celebrate pancake day, while Saddam was finally removed because he wanted to ban peeing against trees.

So you'd rather someone dictate to you want you can and cannot do when your actions have no harmful affects on others or yourself?

This is the essence of what soldiers do, they're fighting for your rights to do what you want so long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights. Given, not all fights that soldiers take part in are the most valid, but I guarentee you, if some Brit, American, Australian, Canadian, French, various partisans (inluding those of the Netherlands) hadn't fought the tyranny of the Nazis and Fascists during WW2, you would not enjoy the freedoms you do today.

[kandrathe]

The US got involved in Vietnam because it is so important that we can bury anyone anywhere we want! It had nothing to do with the cold war and so on.

Or, was it because the French acted all superior after WWII and tried to reassert their colonial rule. The US got sucked into war in an attempt to protect the interests of Standard Oil. Not as sexy as rights. When I hear the code word "national interests", I quickly look to see what resource we are exploiting there.

I also heard that the first gulf war was to protect our rights to celebrate pancake day, while Saddam was finally removed because he wanted to ban peeing against trees.

He was a donkey and while he was our donkey, we were fine with his WMD. Once he chose to placate the Islamic extremists around him, over being our (US and Europe) puppet he had to go -- one way or another. The Wests policy in the middle east has been "either help butter the gears on the oil extraction, or become the butter." And, God knows we need alot of butter on Shrove Tuesday.

And, on topic... I'm on the fence here. On the one hand, I see the Libertarian argument. What harm does it do while he's alive at least and owns the land? So I'd let it be. Once he's dead and ownership transfers, put him and her to a nice plot in a proper cemetery. Sign here, or we'll burn ya both after your dead. Otherwise, we eventually would end up with every works project running underground wires or pipes breaking into the neighborhoods corpses. But, here is a good example of why we need a few laws to keep society civil.

[NuurAbSaal]

we were fine with his WMD.

Really? Sigh.

take care
Tarabulus

[kandrathe]

we were fine with his WMD.

Really? Sigh.

take care
Tarabulus

Yup. See, the new definition includes chemical and biological weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign And... by "we" I mean the western governments who remained mute until they decided to bring it up at his trial over a decade later.

"Writer Joost R. Hiltermann has said the United States government and US State Department was particularly important in helping their then ally the Saddam Hussein government in avoiding any serious censure for the campaign and in particular the attack on rebels and civilians in the city of Halabja. Hiltermann writes; "The deliberate American prevarication on Halabja was the logical, although probably undesired, outcome of a pronounced six-year tilt toward Iraq, seen as a bulwark against the perceived threat posed by Iran's zealous brand of politicized Islam." -- http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/17/opinio..._ed3_.html

[LennyLen]

So you'd rather someone dictate to you want you can and cannot do when your actions have no harmful affects on others or yourself?

And you think that disposing of rotting corpses in residential areas won't have any harmful effects? There are good reasons why there are laws against doing that, and they're not there to curb people's individual freedoms.

Perhaps a better solution would be to allow people to apply for permission to inter corpses on private property, so that the site can be inspected by health officials to ensure that it's not on top of a water supply, or in some other area that could cause harmful effects.

Freedom is a wonderful thing, but take a moment to think of the stupidest, most irresponsible person you know, and think "Do I really want this guy to be able to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants?"

[Kevin]

So you'd rather someone dictate to you want you can and cannot do when your actions have no harmful affects on others or yourself?

And you think that disposing of rotting corpses in residential areas won't have any harmful effects? There are good reasons why there are laws against doing that, and they're not there to curb people's individual freedoms.

Perhaps a better solution would be to allow people to apply for permission to inter corpses on private property, so that the site can be inspected by health officials to ensure that it's not on top of a water supply, or in some other area that could cause harmful effects.

Freedom is a wonderful thing, but take a moment to think of the stupidest, most irresponsible person you know, and think "Do I really want this guy to be able to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants?"

After his wife died on April 18, 2009, the City Council rejected Davis' request for a cemetery permit. The decision came even though the county health department signed off on the residential burial, saying it wouldn't cause any sanitation problems.

So he didn't just do whatever he wanted willy-nilly. He did apply to the city council to be allowed to and was rejected, even though the site was inspected and declared OK. He defied and the city lawyer brought a case against him.

[FireIceTalon]

I just cut out the most important piece of this article.

****"I don't think it's right, but it's not my place to tell him he can't do it," said George W. Westmoreland, 79, who served three tours of duty in Vietnam. "I laid my life on the line so he would have the right to do this. This is what freedom is about."****

We are always discussing the reason and causes for going to war.....many conspiracy theories are flung on the internet, so it is good that we have some real facts here.

The US got involved in Vietnam because it is so important that we can burry anyone anywhere we want! It had nothing to do with the cold war and so on.

I also heard that the first gulf war was to protect our rights to celebrate pancake day, while Saddam was finally removed because he wanted to ban peeing against trees.

War is almost always to expand or protect the interests of private capital, and nations that are in a war will always act in those said interests. The US in WWII was a prime example. Before Pearl Harbor, the US was not involved - Hitler's genocide and eugenics program, his and the Soviets invasion of Poland, the Spanish Civil War, nor Italy's attack on Ethiopia were a threat to American interests, so they stayed out of it. In fact, America was even supportive of Italy to some degree in that American oil companies were still doing business with Italy during all of this, which allowed them to continue their role in the war. When the US did get involved, it wasn't to stop Fascism or the extermination of a group of people, it was to protect or expand American imperial interests - stopping Fascism was, at best, a secondary reason for the US involvement at that point. It was only then that the US adopted a system of anti-Nazi and pro-Soviet policy. FDR had about as much interest in ending the slaughtering of Jews about as much as Lincoln did to end slavery: i.e. not much at all, and they only did it because the preservation of American capital and interests were at stake. It certainly wasn't for humanitarian purposes, in either case.

Anyways, on the topic, I find this whole thing pretty repulsive. The guy is 73, probably doesn't have much longer anyways, and is probably stressed enough at the passing of his wife. Give him a break. Just another example of the State trying to preserve its own interests (as if the house values in the area are more important than allowing the man to respect his wife's wishes and bury her on their property - this has the rotten smell of commodity fetishism all over it) before all else.

[kandrathe]

And you think that disposing of rotting corpses in residential areas won't have any harmful effects?

Hardly. It's in a vault, in a sealed casket, 6 feet under. It's not dioxin. I'd be 100x more worried about all the gas stations sprinkled in our neighborhoods, their run off and rusting underground tanks.

Freedom is a wonderful thing, but take a moment to think of the stupidest, most irresponsible person you know, and think "Do I really want this guy to be able to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants?"

That's the nature of freedom. It's not about what you want. We should live and let live as long as the other person is not a danger to us. Once they cross the line, and endanger us, then we can complain with cause. The trouble is -- our response is to write a law for every idiot, which then restrains us all. Rather, we should enforce the laws we already have on the books -- like reckless endangerment, or disturbing the peace.

[DeeBye]

Otherwise, we eventually would end up with every works project running underground wires or pipes breaking into the neighborhoods corpses. But, here is a good example of why we need a few laws to keep society civil.

Speaking as someone that has some experience in civil engineering, this man speaks the truth. I can't imagine having to re-design existing sewer lines for expansion and having to take into account the possibility of privately buried caskets.

The city bylaws will have something in there about "easements", which means that they have the right to build something there in the future (like expanding a road or adding sidewalks). This has nothing at all to do with the health aspects of burying a person in your own property. It's not even a variable in the equation.

If you think you own your property right up to the road - think again. Your city bylaws state that they have the right to encroach upon your property to build public things. Stuff like expanded roads.

The article says he buried her in the front yard of his "residential lot on one of the main streets through town". Well, I can guarantee you that every town is going to be very vigilant about stuff like this, because in the future they might need to expand roads - which usually means digging new sewer lines. They are not going to allow residents to bury caskets in areas that they possibly might need to use in the future.

[eppie]

So you'd rather someone dictate to you want you can and cannot do when your actions have no harmful affects on others or yourself?

This is the essence of what soldiers do, they're fighting for your rights to do what you want so long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights. Given, not all fights that soldiers take part in are the most valid, but I guarentee you, if some Brit, American, Australian, Canadian, French, various partisans (inluding those of the Netherlands) hadn't fought the tyranny of the Nazis and Fascists during WW2, you would not enjoy the freedoms you do today.

Great way of making me feel like a moron.
I try to make a joke but it was apparantly not funny enough for anyone to give me some kind of credit.
I thought the peeing against trees bit was pretty funny myself, but apparantly I was wrong.

Anyway, it is charming to see you have so much trust in your government; actually thinking that they do those things for you.
(this last bit was ironic)

---

Anyways, on the topic, I find this whole thing pretty repulsive. The guy is 73, probably doesn't have much longer anyways, and is probably stressed enough at the passing of his wife. Give him a break. Just another example of the State trying to preserve its own interests (as if the house values in the area are more important than allowing the man to respect his wife's wishes and bury her on their property - this has the rotten smell of commodity fetishism all over it) before all else.

OK, also on topic then. So do you think his wife notices the difference?

Funny though that you and Kandrathe are on different sides of this discussion than I expected you two to be. You are all libertarian here while kandrathe is more practical..

[LavCat]

If I were the mayor I'd be more worried about the abomination in the crate in the back yard.

[NuurAbSaal]

we were fine with his WMD.

Really? Sigh.

take care
Tarabulus

Yup. See, the new definition includes chemical and biological weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign And... by "we" I mean the western governments who remained mute until they decided to bring it up at his trial over a decade later.

"Writer Joost R. Hiltermann has said the United States government and US State Department was particularly important in helping their then ally the Saddam Hussein government in avoiding any serious censure for the campaign and in particular the attack on rebels and civilians in the city of Halabja. Hiltermann writes; "The deliberate American prevarication on Halabja was the logical, although probably undesired, outcome of a pronounced six-year tilt toward Iraq, seen as a bulwark against the perceived threat posed by Iran's zealous brand of politicized Islam." -- http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/17/opinio..._ed3_.html

Hm. I guess I read something into your post that wasn't there, namely you digging up the issue of the "missing" WMD that were never found during/after the campaign that toppled Saddam, when you were talking about earlier events. I apologise.

take care
Tarabulus

[Alram]

Otherwise, we eventually would end up with every works project running underground wires or pipes breaking into the neighborhoods corpses. But, here is a good example of why we need a few laws to keep society civil.

Speaking as someone that has some experience in civil engineering, this man speaks the truth. I can't imagine having to re-design existing sewer lines for expansion and having to take into account the possibility of privately buried caskets.

The city bylaws will have something in there about "easements", which means that they have the right to build something there in the future (like expanding a road or adding sidewalks). This has nothing at all to do with the health aspects of burying a person in your own property. It's not even a variable in the equation.

If you think you own your property right up to the road - think again. Your city bylaws state that they have the right to encroach upon your property to build public things. Stuff like expanded roads.

The article says he buried her in the front yard of his "residential lot on one of the main streets through town". Well, I can guarantee you that every town is going to be very vigilant about stuff like this, because in the future they might need to expand roads - which usually means digging new sewer lines. They are not going to allow residents to bury caskets in areas that they possibly might need to use in the future.

The photo suggests that she is not buried in any location where an easement might be required.

[kandrathe]

If I were the mayor I'd be more worried about the abomination in the crate in the back yard.

Not to mention the logistical issues in the next zombie apocalypse. Where do you run?

Hence, why we invented graveyards. I am thankful we aren't trying to accomodate the Zoroastrians using Dakhma.

[kandrathe]

I apologise.

No drama.

About that... Have you seen Georges Sada's book? ... and also the March 2005 addenda to the Duelfer report? I would still say my two prime scenarios are a) that Saddam bluffed -- having only the capability to restart his WMD programs and he was jerking around the UN to shield his moth balled capability, or b) he had something and moved it to Syria in the months before the war.

[shoju]

I just cut out the most important piece of this article.

****"I don't think it's right, but it's not my place to tell him he can't do it," said George W. Westmoreland, 79, who served three tours of duty in Vietnam. "I laid my life on the line so he would have the right to do this. This is what freedom is about."****

We are always discussing the reason and causes for going to war.....many conspiracy theories are flung on the internet, so it is good that we have some real facts here.

The US got involved in Vietnam because it is so important that we can burry anyone anywhere we want! It had nothing to do with the cold war and so on.

I also heard that the first gulf war was to protect our rights to celebrate pancake day, while Saddam was finally removed because he wanted to ban peeing against trees.

You are completely missing the point of what he said, and in the process taking it completely out of context.

He isn't saying that he fought in Vietnam, specifically so that 45 years later a man could bury his wife on his property.

Wars are fought because the government sends our troops to fight them. Our troops sign up / join the military because they believe that it is their duty to serve the people of the United States and protect them. They have no control over what wars they do and do not fight. They can only control that they stepped up, and they served. Many of our Military Personnel do so, out of a desire to "protect" the rights of those who live within the United States.

This man, obviously feels that way.

It is the biggest reason that my Best Friend, and his Brother joined the Marines. They did it, because they felt that in doing so, they were saying that they wanted to defend my rights, your rights, and everyone elses rights. They did it, knowing that they would be deployed to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or wherever else the powers that be decided to send them.

You have taken his personal feelings about joining the military, and construed them for National Policy, to try and make some witty point. and it's not witty, nor funny.

OK, also on topic then. So do you think his wife notices the difference?

It's not about that. It's about honoring the wishes of those you love. It's about what he said to his wife, and his desire to hold true to that after she passes. To sound all corny for a second, that's love.


I'd have a problem with it, if he hadn't had the desire to do it right. But, the fact that he went to the trouble of "doing it right", I don't see the big deal with what he wanted to do.

Now there is the can of worms about doing it when you are denied, but telling an old man what he can and can't do, often times leads to interesting results.

[FireIceTalon]

So you'd rather someone dictate to you want you can and cannot do when your actions have no harmful affects on others or yourself?

This is the essence of what soldiers do, they're fighting for your rights to do what you want so long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights. Given, not all fights that soldiers take part in are the most valid, but I guarentee you, if some Brit, American, Australian, Canadian, French, various partisans (inluding those of the Netherlands) hadn't fought the tyranny of the Nazis and Fascists during WW2, you would not enjoy the freedoms you do today.

Great way of making me feel like a moron.
I try to make a joke but it was apparantly not funny enough for anyone to give me some kind of credit.
I thought the peeing against trees bit was pretty funny myself, but apparantly I was wrong.

Anyway, it is charming to see you have so much trust in your government; actually thinking that they do those things for you.
(this last bit was ironic)

---

Anyways, on the topic, I find this whole thing pretty repulsive. The guy is 73, probably doesn't have much longer anyways, and is probably stressed enough at the passing of his wife. Give him a break. Just another example of the State trying to preserve its own interests (as if the house values in the area are more important than allowing the man to respect his wife's wishes and bury her on their property - this has the rotten smell of commodity fetishism all over it) before all else.

OK, also on topic then. So do you think his wife notices the difference?

Funny though that you and Kandrathe are on different sides of this discussion than I expected you two to be. You are all libertarian here while kandrathe is more practical..

It hardly matters if she notices. Point is, he made an oath to her, and stood by it. And in the given circumstances, the State has no right to intervene and trouble this fellow.

I really don't see why my position is so surprising, at least here. The Marxian view of the State is highly critical, usually more so than right-wing Libertarians are (and for different reasons). Of course, due to 60 years of Cold War propaganda, many people seem to think otherwise, but what they think and what really is are two very different things. Thus, outside of the radical left paradigm, our position toward the State is rather esoteric to the general population. The western propaganda machine works extremely well through social engineering to shape discourse and create its own "truth".

[Alram]

So you'd rather someone dictate to you want you can and cannot do when your actions have no harmful affects on others or yourself?

This is the essence of what soldiers do, they're fighting for your rights to do what you want so long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights. Given, not all fights that soldiers take part in are the most valid, but I guarentee you, if some Brit, American, Australian, Canadian, French, various partisans (inluding those of the Netherlands) hadn't fought the tyranny of the Nazis and Fascists during WW2, you would not enjoy the freedoms you do today.

Great way of making me feel like a moron.
I try to make a joke but it was apparantly not funny enough for anyone to give me some kind of credit.
I thought the peeing against trees bit was pretty funny myself, but apparantly I was wrong.

Anyway, it is charming to see you have so much trust in your government; actually thinking that they do those things for you.
(this last bit was ironic)

---

Anyways, on the topic, I find this whole thing pretty repulsive. The guy is 73, probably doesn't have much longer anyways, and is probably stressed enough at the passing of his wife. Give him a break. Just another example of the State trying to preserve its own interests (as if the house values in the area are more important than allowing the man to respect his wife's wishes and bury her on their property - this has the rotten smell of commodity fetishism all over it) before all else.

OK, also on topic then. So do you think his wife notices the difference?

Funny though that you and Kandrathe are on different sides of this discussion than I expected you two to be. You are all libertarian here while kandrathe is more practical..

It hardly matters if she notices. Point is, he made an oath to her, and stood by it. And in the given circumstances, the State has no right to intervene and trouble this fellow.

I really don't see why my position is so surprising, at least here. The Marxian view of the State is highly critical, usually more so than right-wing Libertarians are (and for different reasons). Of course, due to 60 years of Cold War propaganda, many people seem to think otherwise, but what they think and what really is are two very different things. Thus, outside of the radical left paradigm, our position toward the State is rather esoteric to the general population. The western propaganda machine works extremely well through social engineering to shape discourse and create its own "truth".

Doesn't the communist manifesto call for the abolition of private property?
Here is a direct quote from the communist manifesto:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

That is the first plank of the manifesto.