| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sam
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 8883
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ZigZag wrote: | | Stupid laws. |
"Hank, without laws, it's actually okay to steal someone's legs, you know." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
reasonablymad
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 6784
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam wrote: | | Quote: | | I could understand if they wanted him to pay a fine or go to jail or something, but knock it down? that seems a bit extreme, and wasteful. |
That's EXACTLY what this guy is betting on. He wanted an illegal house but had no permission for it and would have been actively prevented from violating the zoning code had he not done this in secret, so he wanted to instead build the house anyway and let it sit for four years and then whine about the vandals who want to tear down his illegitimate house. He was banking on sympathy for this being a waste to excuse his breaking the law.
I could have sympathy if he applied for a permit instead of engaging on this illegally from the start so that he could have something nobody else would be allowed to put there. |
just because that's what he was betting on, just because he had an evil plan to execute it, doesn't mean a perfectly good house should be destroyed. yes, I think they should be punished. as someone else said, why not force them out? seize the property from this family and sell it off to someone else.
_________________
... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jeep
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 501
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Edit- turns out that it wasn't a residential planning committee, but a ecological planning committee. That is ok.
But these bullshit residential planning committees who simply dictate waht your house must look like to you isn't ok.
For this, it's not waht it looks like, it's that he built a house in an agriculturally zoned area and didn't take proper considerations for the eco-impact. That's different than 'not fitting in'to a subdivision's stupid idea of what it should look like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bart
Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1567
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Knock down the house. Just because someone was creative in breaking the law doesn't mean he should be allowed to do so.
As an aside, I think it's a rather ugly house. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tesceract
Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 659
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knocking down the house would be pointless and wasteful. It should absolutely not be done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bart
Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 1567
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If we were looking at only this case, I would agree with you. However, if you allow this house to remain standing, you set a precedent that, if you are just imaginative enough about breaking the law, you get away with it. (Or the fine should be really, really high)
Also, as jeep said, they didn't give approval for a house at that location as it would breach enviromental laws, so breaking it down would probably have a positive impact on the enviroment somehow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jeep
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 501
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bart wrote: | Knock down the house. Just because someone was creative in breaking the law doesn't mean he should be allowed to do so.
As an aside, I think it's a rather ugly house. |
Actually, loopholes are a classic and perfectly legal way to get around the law. That said, the damage has likely already been done. Fine him five grand and leave it at that, or maybe make him pay for the environmental improvements that would help lessen teh impact his house has had. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tesceract
Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 659
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First, I'll grant that if the house causes real and significant damage to the environment that a normal house would not, and demolition would fix this, it should be removed.
But if that is not the case, the argument that the house should be torn down as a precedent is ridiculous. Cases such as these are extremely rare, and are likely to happen sporadically regardless of whether any precedent has been set. The amount of effort and sheer weirdness (not to mention favorable circumstance) that goes into making something like this - living behind bales for years - means that this is utterly useless as a simple means of avoiding the law. Besides, destroying the house if no good will come of it besides possibly deterrance strikes me as ludicrous. Will someone really read about a farmer in Sussex building an illegal castle home which is not destroyed and think, 'Hey! I want to break the law and build an illegal home! It may not be destroyed!'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 8883
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| reasonablymad wrote: | | just because that's what he was betting on, just because he had an evil plan to execute it, doesn't mean a perfectly good house should be destroyed. yes, I think they should be punished. as someone else said, why not force them out? seize the property from this family and sell it off to someone else. |
It is a pretty nice looking house and I hope there's an answer to this that doesn't necessitate its demolition.
Err, of course, the entire thing was made between used silos and it was obviously not checked out by building inspectors and kept up to code. The place could be a pile with some fancy veneer.
I'm only halfway admiring his semi-genius little ploy and saying that I am not going to have sympathy for him if he ends up fucked by his attempt to act like he was above the rules that everyone else has to abide by. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Azmoten
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 2208
Location: St. Louis
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Leave it up and he can live there with no penalty. Except for one.
I AM DECLARING A SIEGE!
HRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAARAGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
_________________
"Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life."
-Solid Jackson (From Jingo, by Terry Pratchett) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Willem
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, if he can defend the castle, he can keep it.
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kame
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 2563
Location: Alba Nuadh
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Willem wrote: | | Yeah, if he can defend the castle, he can keep it. |
No moat, no drawbridge. I could take the castle with 50 men in two weeks time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam the Eagle
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 2276
Location: 192.168.0.1
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam wrote: | | reasonablymad wrote: | | just because that's what he was betting on, just because he had an evil plan to execute it, doesn't mean a perfectly good house should be destroyed. yes, I think they should be punished. as someone else said, why not force them out? seize the property from this family and sell it off to someone else. |
It is a pretty nice looking house and I hope there's an answer to this that doesn't necessitate its demolition.
Err, of course, the entire thing was made between used silos and it was obviously not checked out by building inspectors and kept up to code. The place could be a pile with some fancy veneer.
I'm only halfway admiring his semi-genius little ploy and saying that I am not going to have sympathy for him if he ends up fucked by his attempt to act like he was above the rules that everyone else has to abide by. |
- The sod tried to bend the law for he knew the law would disagree in the first place.
I don't know, nor am interested to, about any planning regulations in US. But most of Europe's planning comes from not disfiguring landscape (Costa del Sol excepted  ). e.g No one in Italy would make a slate roof, it just wouldn't fit. Tiles in Northern Europe are no go either, for the same reason. Other countries, like Japan, has no regulations at all, trust me sometime you wish they would.
To know whether or not this demand tearing down would require something else than the close shot we're given. At close range, I don't mind, if it doesn't fit, or hide something pretty, I might but that's not my call.
So my guess is, this fella knew he'd have to be either refused, or more likely, had to pay a hefty tax which he wasn't willing to.
_________________
Meu aerobarca esta cheoi de enguias |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 8883
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yorick
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 12076
Location: Mary's kesh
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kame wrote: | | Willem wrote: | | Yeah, if he can defend the castle, he can keep it. |
No moat, no drawbridge. I could take the castle with 50 men in two weeks time. |
"Bye bye boys!" "Have fun storming the castle!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
