posted by
n1
on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:12AM
from the tax-and-zoning-regulations-for-altruism dept.
from the tax-and-zoning-regulations-for-altruism dept.
The Center for American Progress reports that 9-year-old Spencer Collins built a mailbox-like structure that held books, and placed it in his front yard as a free library.
But a month later, his parents received a letter from officials saying the library violated the city's zoning ordinance and needed to be removed or they would be fined. The city prohibits people from having structures on their property that are detached from the physical house.
City officials justified the move because they said they "need to treat everybody the same," says Richard Coleman, noting they can't just ignore the two complaints they'd received because "we like the little libraries."
Little Free Library Movement has been advocating this strategy since 2009.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
City Cracks Down On 9-Year-Old For Opening Free Library In His Front Yard
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 77 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 4, Funny) by jimshatt on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:18AM
(Score: 5, Informative) by VLM on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:28AM
The other aspect is to fight it as a structure.
Never underestimate the ability of a hard core conformist to find a way to pound down the nail that stick up. None the less, I've looked at the local zoning and building codes where I live and if there's no permanent attachment to the ground (no foundation, no concrete) then it isn't legally a structure. So what he has is not an illegal structure but more of a garden ornament or patio furniture. This is why kids playhouses don't need a building permit, or swing sets, or patio tables, but a deck or tool shed does need a permit if it has a permanent foundation. I am well aware there are "nice" looking prisons where the local government specifies the species and quantity of each lawn flower in your garden, although thankfully I don't live in a hellhole like that, and unfortunately this kid does.
(Score: 1) by crAckZ on Tuesday June 24 2014, @12:20PM
When I was looking to buy my first house I ran into this. A modular home, on a full finished basement, with a 2 car attached garage and state farm said I wouldn't be able to get homeowners insurance because it wasn't a permanence structure. I asked them how I was going to move the finished basement along with the 2 car garage with a "modular" home but I got no answer as the under writers have final say. I know this may be off topic but it is odd what and who considers permanent .... Permanent.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday June 24 2014, @02:07PM
Oh I wouldn't say its off topic at all, lots of stories about the word "structure" having no agreed upon definition, so its incredibly likely if the kid reads the actual zoning / building code, that he can either fight under the existing rule that its not a structure, attempt to get a personal variance declaring his lawn ornaments are OK, or if there's a bored lawyer in the area he could try to fight the law itself being ridiculously vague and unenforceable and get the law itself changed or invalidated. Another fun option is categorizing a vast list of unenforced code violations in the neighborhood, this guy has a log cabin themed mailbox, this yard has a kids playhouse, that tree has a birdhouse, all obviously more "structural" than his lawn ornament.
(Score: 3, Informative) by choose another one on Tuesday June 24 2014, @02:07PM
Nah, they already thought of that, in 16-4-1.3 B 25:
Be better to go with it not being a structure - indeed it looks pretty portable / temporary in the picture, it actually appears to be locked (bike cable lock) to the garden bench (which presumably is allowed).
Or look at what else they allow in 16-4-1.3 B:
Reading is recreation, books are equipment. Done.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday June 24 2014, @02:11PM
"outdoor cooking equipment"
Book burning is a thing. I'm not encouraging it, but obviously a bible could roast a couple marshmallows if necessary. Much as you're allowed to keep your charcoal grill outside even if its not operating at that instant, a book should qualify.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bucc5062 on Tuesday June 24 2014, @07:38PM
I remember as a child an expression that went "Reading is Fundamental"...unless you are a fundamentalist, then it becomes a threat. Here is a nine year old boy not only passionate about reading, but wanting to share, actively with others, even strangers this same passion.
Shame on the city council. Not for responding to the complaints, perhaps it is the law there and like cops, they have to respond, but shame for not recognizing the value this young man brings to their community. Shame for not working with him (and his family) in trying to find a way to keep his free library open. They took a cowardly way out by just sending a faceless letter when they had an opportunity to teach a lesson in civics. People must abide by laws, but we can also help those who do good for the community to continue that help. Such small minds compared to the large heart and mind of this young man.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 4, Informative) by BradTheGeek on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:22AM
Fucking bureaucracy. If you own property, aside from safety regs you should be able to build what you want.
Call it a shared art installation then and sue for abridgment of speech.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hoochiecoochieman on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:45AM
No, you don't. You assume people will be reasonable. They aren't. If rules are not created and enforced, people will put all kinds of stupid, dangerous and ugly things in their properties, until the neighbourhood looks like Mogadishu. Believe me, I know the places.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @12:26PM
Yes, you do, if you want to live in a free society. I see no assumption of reasonableness in the post to which you're replying, as you claim.
You claim people will build stupid, dangerous, and ugly things without rules. The post you're replying to included safety regs as legit constraints, so that eliminates your argument that people will build dangerous things. Saying people will build stupid and ugly things is true, and it's the price of freedom. I agree with the post saying other than safety issues, I want to live in a free society where my land is my land to do as I want, even if people think it's stupid and ugly. There can be no freedom without private property rights, and forcing at gunpoint someone to tear down a structure on their private property because you think it's stupid or ugly is tyranny.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:33PM
I always thought there should be designated areas in the US where there are no zoning laws. Nothing, nada, zilch, zero. The only limits would be that you must follow pollution laws and you must get engineering approval for your structure (eg your building is structurally sound). I can imagine it would be quite a crazy landscape but man I bet it would be a real neat place to live/visit. It would be a free-for-all and you fully acknowledge that when you choose to own property there, there is no complaint department. So tough shit if you move in and someone opens a diaper disposal facility next door to you.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday June 24 2014, @02:13PM
Its called rural land.
Results vary greatly.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday June 24 2014, @05:36PM
Rural land is great if you love driving everywhere. I want a balance between rural land like freedoms and city convenience. I want to be able to walk to the supermarket while also having half an acre to build a machine shop in a large garage/barn and park old rusty Mack trucks next to it which are waiting to be restored without the town/city bitching.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 24 2014, @05:45PM
You can live on rural land 5 minutes away from a small village/town. My grandparents did that when I was a kid. Next door to a farm but 5 minutes from the supermarket.
Remember 5 minutes in California at 10 MPH rush hour traffic doesn't equal very far, but 5 minutes in the middle of nowhere at 60 MPH is 5 miles.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Tuesday June 24 2014, @07:54PM
Encroachment is a problem then. Slowly but surely the rural land turns into suburbia and suddenly code enforcement rears it's ugly head.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:47AM
In other words, you to keep your cake and eat it, too. Not possible.
I don't know how it is in the US, but around here we have these things called light industrial parks, away from residential areas, where you can buy a piece of land to play with your Mack trucks all you want. But it's just a few minutes drive from anywhere. So, it's not like you have to move to the middle of the Sahara to do what you want.
But please keep your Mack trucks away from my neighbourhood. These kinds of things don't belong in a residential area.
Your freedom ends where other people's freedom begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @06:48PM
You're looking for the community of Max, Nebraska. [google.com]
120 years without any government.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @07:41PM
Houston, TX. It hasn't fallen into the Gulf yet.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hoochiecoochieman on Tuesday June 24 2014, @05:03PM
Wow, those grandiloquent "it's-either-black-or-white" statements about freedom never get old!
If you don't like rules, you are free to move anywhere where there aren't none. But don't infringe on the right of others to democratically choose together what they want for their community. Because there are other freedoms different from psychopathic individualism, you know.
My country (Portugal) is a poster child for bad urban planning. It doesn't go near the horrors that exist in Latin America, for instance, but it's pretty bad for European/North American standards.
Fortunately the municipalities started enforcing building rules some decades ago. With varying degrees of success, though. Without those rules, the whole country would be a giant shanty town. Even with rules, still there are plenty of eyesores in the landscape that make me want to throw up.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Tuesday June 24 2014, @10:39PM
Move where, exactly, where there are no rules? The middle of the ocean? No, there is no such place where a person can be truly free.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:30PM
But they can't. They (meaning: the people) vote someone into office for a couple of years (2 or 4) and then they hope they don't screw 'em over. When the people are screwed over? They get mad. But they forget, as it's only a tiny change. Do this all over (as bureaucracy is slow) every month and people won't notice how much worse it is than 6 months ago. The people need to remember in order to recognize evil politicians. But no one is interested in politics and data visualization.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by BradTheGeek on Tuesday June 24 2014, @12:55PM
I specifically mentioned safety regs. That eleminats (most) danger when properly applied. My christmas lights are ugly. Your shed is stupid. His garden is hideous. These are all subjective measures and should not be controlled in a supposedly free society. If I want to paint my house lime green and purple and keep a fenced in garden growing nothing but poison ivy and rotting meat flowers so be it. It is my property to do with as I want. If you want to build a giant condom vending machine that dispenses cacti in your front yard, more power too you. I won't like it, but it is not my property. I have choices.. I can discuss matters with you and perhaps come to a resolution. I can ignore it. I can sell my property and move. What I and the government should not be able to do is abridge that right. Period.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:17PM
You can blame this on all the assholes who see homes as investments rather than places to live.
This is why you have HOAs which dictate how long your front grass must be or what color your fence must be, enacting ever more strict rules and mandating ever-growing expenses to comply with the new rule that you must replace your chain-link fence with a brick/stucco fence like everybody else is doing because Muh property values.
I do agree that some things should be regulated, like if you're installing solar panels and fucking with the power grid, but as far as superficial things like choice of color or landscaping, fuck off! I may not like your tie, but I'm not gonna run to HR and try to get you fired because the color of your tie offends me.
Live and let live.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by scruffybeard on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:49PM
You have a choice to purchase a house in an area with existing HOA covenants. If you don't like the rules, don't buy the house. While some HOA's have rules that go too far, most are there to prevent you from parking your cars in the front yard, with waist high grass, and a dilapidated front porch. I agree with your sentiment, that homes are treated too much like an investment, and some think the measure of your worth as a human is related to the greeness of your lawn. However I still don't want my home value drop because my neighbors either can't afford, or choose not to perform basic maintenance to their home.
(Score: 3, Funny) by My Silly Name on Tuesday June 24 2014, @02:09PM
(Score: 4, Informative) by scruffybeard on Tuesday June 24 2014, @02:14PM
You sir... are truly silly!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @03:25PM
You mean if you don't like the rules, move far away and get a new job, if you can. Eminent domain has been used in the past (2 big occasions within 50 miles of where I live in the last 3 years, as a matter of fact), to grab land from private homes and replace them with HOAs, against the objections of the folks who've lived there for decades and were forced out at gunpoint by the sheriff department. Reality, at least here in the US, is not as free as "just don't buy the house".
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 24 2014, @03:29PM
"most are there to prevent you from parking your cars in the front yard, with waist high grass, and a dilapidated front porch"
Why are all their rules about specific ivy species allowed for planters or which shades of beige require committee approval?
We have no HOA and no specific zoning rules, but:
The fire dept will cite you (indirectly via the cops) for #1 for obvious reasons and the DNR will also be pissed (not clear why oil runoff from my driveway is so much cleaner than oil runoff directly onto the grass, but whatever.
For #2 the FD will cite you (again via the cops). Come on, just try to think of a better fire trap than waist high grass in the summer surrounded by wood house. What could possibly go wrong...
For #3 you will get some warnings and then lose your occupancy permit if its actually structurally unsafe. If you merely don't like the paint job then tough cookies.
There is a widely held false belief that given identical homes, the one in a HOA will have a higher value. Its actually the other way around, given two identical properties, people will pay quite a bit of money to avoid both the HOA itself and the kind of people HOA's attract.
There is some self-selection going on. If mom and dad find the aesthetic of cookie cutter houses with cookie cutter identical gardens to be appealing instead of appalling, then they move in. If the kids don't like that, or rebel against it, then there is going to be trouble. As an aesthetic statement I find it appealing rather than appalling that one of my neighbors dares to have a deciduous tree in his front yard while I have a pine, and I think its cool my other neighbor rebelliously planted violets in his front yard garden without asking for my permission, so I'm not exactly a candidate for a HOA.
(Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Tuesday June 24 2014, @05:10PM
Perhaps it was an extreme example, but depending on the jurisdiction, and circumstances, all may be legal. Where I live, we have no municipal government, so HOA's take on that role. They take care of things like waste removal, and the rules of where to store it before it is picked. It is true that I have a limited color pallet for the house, nor can I use chain-link fence around the perimeter, but honestly I can say that most of the rules are reasonable and flexible, and my neighbors have never had trouble getting alternatives approved. I don't deny that there are some people and/or HOA's that go to extremes, even to the extent that they are self-selecting. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. I am confident that there is middle ground between the "Desperate Housewives" TV set, and complete anarchy up to the perimeter of MY PROPERTY DAMMIT!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @06:21PM
> While some HOA's have rules that go too far, most are there to prevent you from parking your cars in the front yard, with waist high grass, and a dilapidated front porch.
This is the usual excuse submitted by everyone for why Gestapo's are a "good thing".
Unfortunately, the problem with Gestapo's are that they attract the controlling busy-body personality types onto the boards (largely because only the "I have to control you" personality types are the only one's interested in the damn things). So, over time, they gradually accumulate the controlling busy-body's that was to micro-manage everyone else's lives, and they shift from preventing cars on cinder blocks in the front yard to decreeing that your trash can has to be brought back in by 3pm of the day of pickup, and must be positioned exactly 18 inches to the left of your garage door, and no more than 2 inches from the house wall.
FWIW, one of the really bad Gestapo's near where I live actually pays employes to go around daily and measure that the prisioner's have positioned their trashcans in the appointed locations.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday June 25 2014, @03:10AM
Most of the HOAs I've been acquainted with do two things: sue homeowners who aren't quick enough to follow every trivial rule (but selectively so... only people they don't like), and embezzle money, since there's little or no accountability (the worst case I personally know of was about $700,000, *POOF*).
As to the rules, I once looked at property where everything down to the color of your mailbox was under covenants. This property was at the end of the road, no neighbors, and right next to the oil lease, which had actively pumping wells and the usual mess associated with that. Do you really think the covenants were about keeping the neighborhood beautiful?
Increasingly, we see rural subdivisions that prohibit agriculture, or at most allow "hobby farms" (of the sort that amount to a horse and two goats). How is this in keeping with the neighborhood, otherwise farm and ranch property?
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by fadrian on Tuesday June 24 2014, @06:08PM
What? Do you think that the externalities of what you do (including your crappy design choices) should be paid for by the folks who just happen to be in the neighborhood that you bought into? HOAs are just a local authority to make sure asshats (and their externalities) aren't a problem.
Plus, when a family's house and the real estate it sets upon are their largest asset (not uncommon), it's hard to tell them not to consider it an investment. Hell, if I paid $250K+ for a car, it damn well had better be evaluated as an investment, too. Perhaps your assets are substantial enough that you don't need to treat something that costs as much as your house as an investment. If so, more power to you, but you're in the minority - not that you wouldn't be smart, in that case, to make sure you had additional real estate investments, even for tax avoidance purposes.
Do I like the way some HOA's act like busybodies? No. Am I willing to live with them because of the potential side effects of not having them? Hell yes. There are places in most large cities where whatever HOA's that were in effect at the time the neighborhoods were built are long gone. There are few HOA's in the country. I'd suggest you find one of those places.
If there aren't any sans-HOA properties around where you want to live, then I guess the market has failed, huh? Maybe neighborhoods without HOA's aren't in high demand because most of us don't want our neighborhoods to look like the Libertarian paradise which is Somalia. We have rights to associate and bind ourselves with contracts, too. And if you don't want to be bound by the contract, don't move there. You obviously don't want them and they don't want you. Why subject yourself when jobs and houses are so plentiful? And, if jobs and houses aren't plentiful where you want to live, maybe you have a bigger problem than the fucking HOA.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday June 24 2014, @06:46PM
Agreed, you need HOAs because people are all too often just jerks.
HOAs are not immutable authorities. They are associations in which any active members can dramatically affect enforcement, and even re-write the rules, or cause the organization to look the other way.
Enforcement is largely a matter of preference as well. When the membership tells the board they are not in favor of enforcement of provision XYZ, no board member is going to go against that. Those that insist are voted out.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @06:14PM
> This is why you have HOAs which dictate how long your front grass must be ... because Muh property values.
Which is why I have a personal rule:
I will never own property anywhere that has a local Gestapo (and yes, I refer to HOA's as Gestapo's, which quite accurately describes their activities).
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:06AM
Somehow IÂ seriously doubt HOAs in your area are unbound by law and thus reliably react to mere disagreement by arresting, beating/torturing, imprisoning and/or executing the individual. You should read a bit about the Internet's tradition relating to Godwin's Law [wikipedia.org] before making similar comparisons in the future...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:03PM
he said 'apart from safety regs', safety is objective, and hence can be regulated.
As far as the ugly is concerned: beauty and ugliness are in the eye of the beholder, they are by their very nature subjective. That makes it an area you do not want to regulate.
The reason you don't want to regulate (i.e. use government force on) anything subjective is that there's a simple historical fact: "all positions of power sooner or later changes hands". Sooner or later the shoe _will_ be on the other foot and it will be your subjective opinion that will be opressed.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 24 2014, @02:41PM
"safety is objective, and hence can be regulated"
That brings up an interesting and useful point which hasn't been discussed, is some stockholm syndrome prison inmates believe strongly in binary thinking and assume not regulating the precise wavelength of color and location and arrangement of garden flowers automatically means utter end times zombie apocalypse free for all.
I can personally assure you from experience that a municipality not regulating the house paint shade of beige or color of tulips does NOT automatically magically also mean the EPA, BATF, DNR, DOT, IRS, FCC, FAA, and DOE will automagically agree that no regulation of any sort will happen. The DNR is legendary as it is, for not giving a F what a municipality or HOA want. The EPA is more easily bought but still lays down the law with a big banhammer once in awhile. The FAA will bulldoze an infringing communications tower if its not permitted/marked on approach maps, and if they treat megacorps like that, imagine how amused they'd be at a mere citizen, like a cannon being fired at a mosquito...
Not regulating the exact species of rose in my garden does not somehow imply I'm allowed to build a nuclear reactor or hazardous waste dump or dam a river. At least not without non-municipal approval.
Also I don't live with dirtbags, so oddly enough they don't want to do dirtbag things, so it tends not to be a problem anyway.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday June 25 2014, @10:28AM
We have a huge problem with this in central London right now. Inconsiderate rich bastards who have no other option to extend their homes are building super-basements that stretch down several floors and usually the entire length of their gardens. Once finished the plan is that they don't show on the surface what-so-ever, so you wouldn't think that would be a problem at all. Unfortunately, the excavations and reinforcement works required to stop the walls caving in and the house on top falling into an empty void isn't just loud and annoying, it frequently causes catastrophic damage to neighbouring houses and their contents. Screw relaxing our building regs, tighten the bastards up already!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by morgauxo on Tuesday June 24 2014, @12:52PM
It's not bureaucracy. It's assholes who think they should have a right to determine what their neighbors do on their own property. They said they can't ignore the two complaints they received. That's how things work where I live. There are rules but the rules get enforced when somebody complains. The city probably would have happily lived the other way but some ignorant busy-bodies with no lives of their own just had to go and make a phone call.
(Score: 1) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:45PM
One of the regulations in my city is that if you are seeking a variance for your property (such as a shed that is larger than 121 sq.ft.) you need the permission of your neighbors. My good neighbor has 2 such structures on his property and both times I had to sign off on them. It is actually quite annoying since I could really care less since it is his property but I have to show up at the city council meeting that he is going to to get the variance to state that I don't have an issue with his plans.
The biggest issue is that more of the busy bodies are elected to things like city council so stupid regulations like this keep getting approved. The people who are voted in even run on these platforms as more people move into the new housing developments where they have HOAs and basically want their bylaws to apply to everyone outside of their development.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by DrMag on Tuesday June 24 2014, @04:02PM
There's another, far more insidious aspect to this, especially as you point out these people are becoming far more prevalent among those who make laws. Here are two examples from where I live that demonstrate:
We're not allowed to have pets. Recently, I received a letter from the condo management that stated they had heard that someone in the building had a dog, and they were asking for someone to come forward and say who it is so that "they could address the issue in person". They circulated letters asking for people to snitch.
We are allowed to have a garden, in what little ground space is available. BUT, in order to do so, we have to design out what the garden will look like and what will be planted there, present it to the board for approval, AND circulate it among the neighbors to get their approval. IN ADDITION, we are not allowed to fence it off and protect it from the deer, rabbits, and raccoons that share the neighborhood with us.
It's a huge problem when busy-body tattling is encouraged and rewarded, and even worse when they start saying, "Yes, you have this freedom" and then proceed to regulate it to the point that the freedom is absolutely useless. We're starting to see more of both of these in government today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @06:11AM
They are just pointing out you have the freedom to snitch.
It's called the right to Free Speech.
It's too bad you are against freedom.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @09:08AM
I bet that the (only) two complaints came from Californicationists who moved to Kansas to stuff up other people's life and liberty.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zafiro17 on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:36AM
It's easy to cry "bureacratic fascists!" or whatever, but I'm actually on the city's side on this one. Anyone who doesn't like zoning rules needs to go live someplace where there are none. I've spent most of the past 20 years living in Nicaragua, Benin, and Senegal (http://www.therandymon.com/ [therandymon.com]) and it's ridiculous when you can build anything anywhere you want with no thought to the impact on the rest of the neighborhood. You've got a gas station in a residential block, your neighbor's house becomes a pharmacy and everyone is parking all over your space, the guy who opens a bakery in his garage goes out of business because the gas station fumes ruin his business, etc.
Sorry kid, rules are rules. Maybe his neighbors aren't cool with the idea? Maybe they don't want the library to become a huge hit and have more cars in the rural roads where their kids ride their bikes, etc. If the city bureaucrats are cool (no guarantee) they can find a way together to make it work out. Don't immediately assume they're shutting him down because they don't like reading or something - who's to say they aren't trying to find a compromise?
Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
(Score: 2) by WizardFusion on Tuesday June 24 2014, @11:46AM
+1 insightful
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @12:00PM
You know there's a middle ground between regulating everything to minute detail, and regulating nothing at all?
I mean, German bureaucracy is certainly not known for too lax regulations, but even here I cannot imagine someone getting problems for an object like the one in the picture. And there the USA call themselves "land of the free" ...
And if the issue is more cars in the roads, then they should make rules against that, not misuse building codes for unrelated stuff. I'd guess it's possible also in the US that a road is only permitted to drive on for people living there or visiting the people living there. That would be a reasonable restriction.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Horse With Stripes on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:13PM
That's just what they putin the brochures. You don't get to read the fine print until it shows up on a court order, subpoena, or warrant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:22PM
Kudos for not capitalizing the name of the Russian mobster/president.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:50PM
D'oh!
George Constanza: That should have been "put in"! "Put in!" I didn't mean it!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday June 24 2014, @12:10PM
As a property owner, I have to say ... hell yes, I'm with the city on this one!
If my town did not have zoning laws you can bet I would be knocking on doors and collecting signatures to get some enacted. I would even take time away from my day job to run for town council if I had to. A very substantial portion of my net worth is tied up in my home, and I would not want to see that devalued because some jerk wants to build a 30-foot penis statue next door or start an open-air biker bar across the street.
That said, there is such a thing as a zoning variance, for people who want to do something reasonable than doesn't happen to fit within the limits of the current zoning of the property.
What boggles my mind is that someone complained about the library. If you look at the picture it bears no more resemblance to a "structure" than does a picnic table. Just because I think zoning laws are a good and important idea, does not mean I think everyone responsible for enforcing them is particularly smart.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:17PM
It's the 'burbs. I'm guessing that the neighbors all race to get up five minutes before the other so they can get outside to measure each others grass to rat them out to the HMA for being a day behind on the mowing. I'm wondering if anyone had a problem with the bench shown adjacent to the bookcase.
Were I them, this'd probably make me consider no longer trying to help the community by sharing good things, and instead find out what the zoning regulations are on a very tall privacy fence.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:55PM
Were I them, this'd probably make me consider no longer trying to help the community by sharing good things
You can not fix crazy. No matter where they live. Some even go a step further and join communities where there are standards. Loooooooong lists of standards. I stay as far away from those as I can. My sister had to tear down a fence because it was 1 inch too close to the road. Meaning someone measured it. She found out the issue was they didnt like the 'style' and wanted to find a reason any reason to get rid of it.
My neighbor has on at least 5 occasions (that I know of) called the cops and the city because my grass was a little long. If it really is too long they just mow it and dont ask questions and send you the bill. They would just tell me 'someone complained' and 'it is a little long but nothing to get concerned about'. The first time he decided to mow my yard he was a bit surprised that I kicked him off (why yes I am trying to grow new grass and no it should not be mowed yet). "I am going to go call the cops" "How about I go inside and will call them for you, for trespassing". They city does not bother coming by anymore and just tell him to mind his own business.
So just to tick him off I set my mower a different height every time so it does not match his. He will then go out and re-mow so it matches.
I would bet cash they found a book in the 'library' they didnt like. Then decided 'children might see that'. It is like those 'slow children at play' signs you see everywhere. People take it upon themselves to police the neighborhoods. One of my neighbors got mad at me when I pulled that from my yard that they put in my yard. "I do not want it in my yard, if you want it put it in yours, not mine. We have signs that regulate this its called speed limit sign you can call up state DOT to have it changed".
Like I said you cant fix crazy. There is *always* one or two of these goofballs in every neighborhood.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @03:26PM
She should instead have moved the fence one inch away from the road.
And by tearing it down instead of doing the minimal change to adhere to the rules, you sister encouraged such behaviour.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday June 24 2014, @08:11PM
Check the regs carefully. Then build a replica of a prison camp fence just within the legal limits.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @03:39PM
Sorry but that's hilarious. :) That guy has issues methinks.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday June 24 2014, @08:17PM
For added fun, mow each row to a different height. Make waves and scallops!
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 24 2014, @02:22PM
"I would not want to see that devalued because some jerk wants to build a 30-foot penis statue next door or start an open-air biker bar across the street."
Don't live with dirtbags and people with awful taste. I live in a relatively free area, and its just not an issue. There's a difference between one paragraph zoning laws which we have, and specifying the genetic sequence of allowed shrubbery.
There's a funny topic to google for "Potemkin village". If you live in what boils down to Somalia, mandatory gardening laws are not going to magically fix little Somalia. It'll just be Somalia with a coat of fresh paint. And property values to match.
(now in humorous voice, so have a sense of humor...) I believe most of the people who insist everyone wants to trash their property despite evidence against, are pretty much in the closet about their own desires. So you secretly want to build a 30-foot penis statue, well, that's OK, just don't assume everyone else wants one. I have no compensation thing going on, so a mere 29-footer will be enough for me. (end humorous voice)
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday June 24 2014, @02:45PM
I tried that. Didn't work. There must be some trick to it I don't understand. Let's just say that was a factor in why I sold my condo and moved to the 'burbs.
Now THAT is a good point. These are wildly variable and if the rules are too lengthy and detailed, it's a recipe for trouble because you KNOW someone in the neighborhood wants to control what color you can paint your fence. My dad had the poor judgment to buy in a neighborhood with a property owners' association that had rules like that, and you would not believe the petty acrimony that spun out of control starting with an anonymous complaint that he repainted his house the wrong shade of brown. That's a true story.
That incident happened many years before I was in a position to buy real estate myself, and when I did I made sure to get the attorney I hired for the purchase to check into all that stuff for me. It turns out that my town's rules are sane and are mostly concerned with what kind of business you can run out of your house -- no biker bars, but a penis-sculpture studio would be OK.
I've come to believe that if you do not understand the local ordnances and regulations, you are not ready to plunk down $50K-$100K+ for a downpayment on a property. In other words, if there are pedantic rules and they come as a surprise to you, you didn't do diligence during the purchase.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by metamonkey on Tuesday June 24 2014, @03:08PM
Easier said than done, and sometimes they move in after you're already settled.
We're having a problem like this in my development. There were three construction phases. Phase 1 (which I'm in) and phase 2 were completed around 2007. Then the housing market collapsed and nobody was buying new homes. The developer wound up selling out to another developer to finish out phase 3.
We had a list of home styles and paint colors, etc to choose from, and phase 1 and phase 2 look nice. All the homes mesh well with each other.
Well the new developer said "pffft, fuck the architectural control committee!" and lets people put up anything they like. Now we've got stucco homes with spanish tile next to red brick next to wood siding next to etc etc etc. Phase three looks like an ugly, jumbled mess. I'm glad my home is about as far from the phase 3 construction as it's possible to be in the neighborhood.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @03:55PM
Your nightmare is my utopia. I hope more developments crumble and people can build whatever home suits them best, unless it impedes on the safety of those around them. We should encourage freedom of expression, not restrict it with "architectural control committees".
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 24 2014, @05:19PM
It is a fundamental problem of human nature that we can't decide as a group if art, creativity, and diversity are features or bugs.
I agree with AC, nightmare on diversity street, sounds more visually appealing than cookie cutter central.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jimshatt on Tuesday June 24 2014, @12:50PM
Saying "sorry, rules are rules" really gets on my nerve (I have the urge to shout right now). Rules can and should be changed if they don't make sense.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Tuesday June 24 2014, @02:22PM
This, so much this.
At one time, about 200 years ago, the actual reasons underlying all laws mattered. And if they were bunk, the rules got changed. Back then we had a boatload of insane laws imposed on us by the upper class leadership of people far away, with drastically different life experiences relative to those the laws affected. Our bullshit detectors were finely tuned.
Today the situation is very, very damn similar except the "upper class" is the connected political elite/corporations in Washington. "If you don't like the rules, go somewhere else" presupposes there is, in fact, anywhere else to go. I'd love to go somewhere that has rational copyright laws (5 years, one extension, only registered works covered) but this hypothetical region makes too much sense for any modern country to even think about.
If the laws don't make sense they must be changed. We have literally hundreds of laws on the books written objectively poorly. Laws that everyone infringes, ergo selective enforcement is possible, or not written narrowly enough to specify just the problem (as in this case), or without mandatory sunset criteria to require re-evaluation on the order of 5-10 years maximum as society evolves.
These things must be rejected, not accepted. Blind adherence is a malignant cancer upon a free society. The attitude espoused here runs completely counter to the interests of society. People holding positions like "GTFO if you don't like it" may think they have the high ground today, but tomorrow they could be on the other end of the stick. If that doesn't seem like an enjoyable proposition, think twice before damning your fellows.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday June 24 2014, @02:27PM
At the bottom of TFA, it says that is exactly what the kid is trying to do. Having looked at the picture, I think the solution in this case is as simple as defining the difference between a structure and lawn furniture, because in my humble opinion the library box in question looks a lot more like an outdoor bookshelf than a building.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by snick on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:35PM
I agree that zoning rules are necessary, and this particular rule might have merit (though what the merit is ... i'm not sure ... preventing informal subdivision of lots?)
In any case, go look at the picture. The Little Library is a trestle with an oversized birdhouse sitting on it. There is no indication that it is anchored to the ground at all. Referring to this as "a structure" as defined in the zoning is beyond absurd. Any swing set or play set would be larger and more substantial. It isn't much bigger than a patio table. Unless the law forbids those "structures" then using it to shut down the Library is an arbitrary application of the law.
And laws that get applied arbitrarily are no better than no laws at all.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:51PM
I guarantee you someone squealed. Probably some old douche bag who has nothing better to do but watch everything going on in the neighborhood. The town doesn't usually drive around looking for violations.
When my friends bought a home a few years back, someone called the town on them. Why? Well they had a legal accessory apartment and the neighbors thought it was illegal. Nevermind the fact that the previous owner had his mother live in that apartment for 15 years. The town sent in an inspector and found a bunch of minor code violations. I helped my friend fix them but it was a mystery as to who called. Long story short, they found out it was a nosy neighbor who thought that since they were a younger couple who had another younger couple move in the accessory apartment that they would throw wild parties. Assholes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @03:45PM
Your post reads like a knee-jerk reaction to claims that haven't been made. I don't think having "none" is the only other option when someone states zoning rules are unjust. Maybe these zoning rules are being misapplied (I think they are), and/or the situation could've been handled differently by the complainer(s) or city (I think it could've). I haven't seen anyone advocate for "get rid of all zoning rules" (even folks who claim to, then state "except for safety regs", which means they still want zoning rules). I also haven't heard anyone claim fascism.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @12:15PM
Back in the day this was popular in Germany, with kiosks of free books located throughout Munich that people would return when they were done reading, and place their own books on the shelves for strangers to borrow. Sad it doesn't work here. :(
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Jtmach on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:46PM
It works very well in the right areas. There are 3 of these little libraries within 2 blocks of my girlfriends house. We even stop over from time to time and pop a book or two in one of them.
Sadly this kid has a busy body neighbor with too much time on their hands. The city is just trying to keep everyone happy. With any luck they will find an easy solution. That's reasonable for everyone.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mattie_p on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:24PM
Mrs. mattie_p found a Little Free Library near us in Denver, and has been using it extensively for the past few months. I'm disappointed in this finding, as it seems to ban any and all structures including doghouses and chicken coops (the keeping of domesticated chickens being banned separately by the town). Although playhouses seem to be permitted... see their city code [dogsbite.org] p 107. Just attach a swing to it and it is a play structure and therefore permitted.
As someone who has researched city codes and ordinances before, I know how difficult it is to find these little nuances.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @01:30PM
There are exceptions to every rule. This madness must not stand!
The mayor of Leawood, Kansas is Peggy Dunn, peggyd@leawood.org
(Score: 2, Insightful) by WanderCat on Tuesday June 24 2014, @02:16PM
I sat on a jury for a civil trial, in which the local homeowner's association was suing the owner of a home who built a carport that was six inches over the front setback line. The entire defense was documenting failures to enforce the deed restrictions in other places in the neighborhood.
In short, they're not picking on the kid or his good attempt at advancing the common good.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday June 24 2014, @02:29PM
The free library from the article is less substantial than a mailbox. It's more on the scale of a birdbath. We should find out who registered the complaints and find everything on their properties to cite them for.
I bet it has nothing to do with the library itself and everything to do with a neighbor who plum doesn't like that kid or his family.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by qwerty on Tuesday June 24 2014, @05:06PM
The "Tiny House" movement figured this out a while ago. They build their tiny houses on wheeled trailers to make them perfectly legal to "park" pretty much anywhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @05:39PM
Can you believe my city has ordinances specifically against wheeled trailers being visible, so it wouldn't work here? This is in the land of the free, outside any HOA. We didn't know until one of our neighbors was cited and fined(!) and sure enough, no wheeled trailers within view of the street. :( Yay liberty.
(Score: 1) by Freeman on Tuesday June 24 2014, @10:49PM
Bureaucracy, it creates laws, so it can enforce them.
Home Owners Associations typically increase the value of your home by making sure your neighbors don't put some random eyesore next to your house. In your neighbor's case that means no fancy brand new OR broken down trailer parked on the grass.
In the case of the original article it looks like more of bureaucracy gone bad than anything.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday June 25 2014, @01:55AM
Put some hidden rails in the lawn. Whenever someone presses a button the shelf is rolled out and when done it's put back. Then there's no "permanent structure". Bureaucrats are there to screw with their own rules .. ;-v