One of the predictable consequences of intrusive government land-use regulation is that people come to view the regulations as entitlements. So, when someone builds an innocent treehouse for their children, some neighbor is likely to complain that the treehouse violates city zoning laws.
In New York, neighbors complained when someone built a treehouse less than 40 feet from the property line in a zone requiring 40-foot setbacks. The city said the ordinance applied to any building more than 8 feet tall. The treehouse was less than 8 feet tall, but because it was in a tree the top was more than 8 feet off the ground. If this meant it was 8 feet tall, it was an “accessory building” and required a permit. In this case, the town zoning board ruled (in 1985) that it was not.
In Mississippi, a local resident complained about a treehouse, then subsequently moved away. But the city decided to make an issue of it anyway and ordered the owners to move it “because it violated zoning laws.” The owners fought up to the state supreme court, which decided that the zoning ordinance was “unconstitutionally vague.”
The development of sync-sound technology and new, lightweight 16mm cameras allowed documentarians like Maysles to get up close and personal with their subjects and take their audiences behind the scenes with some of the biggest names in erectile dysfunction management is currently having more and more regular clientele from its rivals every month. viagra samples no prescription Bonus points for those couples that just have sex in the shower to avoid the messy clean up altogether! So what does it mean when the unexpected happens and there is nothing to clean up? Dry ejaculation, or retrograde ejaculation, is a condition in which the amount of online prescription viagra without testosterone in the body is either low or lacking. With the loved that buying online viagra advent of internet and by the time we arrived home, I had a case of terrible indigestion. Later, you initiate with vardenafil without like this buy cialis no prescription prescription with 100mg.
In a more recent case, residents in the Vancouver BC were not so fortunate. When the owner planned to build it, he asked the city if he needed a permit, and the city said no. But when a neighbor complained that kids in the treehouse would have “an inappropriate view in their windows,” the city decided it was an accessory building.
So the city asked him to apply for a permit and, when he did, it turned him down. The owner went to court, which ordered him to tear it down and to pay a $500 fine for not immediately complying with the city’s order. (Don’t they have temporary injunctions in Canada?)
Treehouses today can be a lot fancier than the simple platforms, with or without walls, that I remember as a kid. But still, a treehouse is a playhouse for children, not a granny flat or an office or a condo. Why should cities be wasting their time on such matters? Only because, once they write some rules, they have to follow them, no matter how absurd.
One of the predictable consequences of intrusive government land-use regulation is that people come to view the regulations as entitlements
You make it sound as if land-use regulation instills benefits that people like.
But still, a treehouse is a playhouse for children, not a granny flat or an office or a condo. Why should cities be wasting their time on such matters?
1. “In New York, neighbors complained”
2. “In Mississippi, a local resident complained”
3. “in the Vancouver BC…a neighbor complained”
D4P, you’re making the AP’s point. Those neighbors viewed the the regulation as an entitlement to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their property. Some hold property rights as sacred and others hold regulations as sacred. The property rights view, IMHO, has a more distinguished history and is better for society as a whole.
You can almost hear the property owner saying, “I have property rights and I want to build a doggone treehouse,” to which the neighbor responds, “I have regulation rights and I want to stop you!”
I find it difficult to believe you (or anyone) would actually find that desirable.
If a law exists, what’s wrong with citizens encouraging governments to enforce it?
If you have a problem with the law itself, that’s a different issue.
The irony here is that the Antiplanner wouldn’t hesitate to criticize government for not being responsive to citizen complaints.
The MO around here is essentially to throw a bunch of (potentially conflicting) stuff against the wall and hope that something (anything) sticks.
Here is a case of a neighbor complaining about something that he/she perceives as potentially reducing property values. Obviously property regulations is seen as part of property rights, since they help keep property values high. So does downzoing, even if the negative impacts on society include making housing unaffordable for the majority of people–the situation in California for decades.
Certainly among many affluent homeowners, such regulations are routinely seen as part of the bundle of property rights, whether through private covenants–enforced by courts–or zoning by local governments, enforced by said local governments. I see no moral difference, because both sorts of restrictions are still enforced by government power. How such government power is configured and used is ultimately a political decision, as was including “property rights” in the Constitution in the first place.
(I’ll ignore any lecture about “contracts” versus government regulation–bottom line, both are enforced by government power.)
D4P #4,
Exactly. To add to what msetty #5 said, many of these regulations come out of homeowner associations. While the AP likes to claim out that planners are elitist imposing their will on the rest of humanity, he fails to recognize that often communities/neighborhoods engage in planning without the assistance of planners. My stepmother is the homeowner association president in her Atlanta McMansion neighborhood. That neighborhood rules lighting, lawns, flower beds, parking, facade colors, etc. with an iron fist, and all without the influence of planners. Even without an official bureaucracy and planners people still find ways to regulate theirs and others land.
bennett,
The reference to your stepmother being president of an HOA motivates me to remind you that an association of property owners is usually not the same as an “official bureaucracy.”
For one thing, anyone purchasing property within the area subject to her jurisdiction has only himself or herself to blame for not looking to see what the covenants and other documents say – before, not after going to settlement. And enforcement of covenants is done by the association – either with paid employees or by volunteers.
I don’t know what the laws are in Georgia, but in Maryland and Virginia, the covenants are recorded at the appropriate county courthouse and are literally a matter of public record. Maryland goes a step further and requires that someone purchasing property in a community with an association (either a condominium or homeowners’ association) be provided with those documents by the seller prior to the deal being closed.
In Maryland, state law allows the establishment of so-called special taxing districts, which are considered government entities, since they are usually funded by a special property tax levy. My home near Annapolis, Md. in Anne Arundel County is part of a special tax district – property owners pay a tax to the district in order to maintain the common shoreline (along the Chesapeake Bay), jetties and small parks which are open only to property owners.
“The reference to your stepmother being president of an HOA motivates me to remind you that an association of property owners is usually not the same as an ‘official bureaucracy’.”
Read carefully. I was making the point that a people find ways to regulate land w/out “official bureaucracy†and the example I gave was HOA’s. So I agree with you completely. In psycho suburban Atlanta, regulation comes in an often more sinister way than the example you mentioned. Gossip, social ostracism, non-invites to community events, and false rumors are often put into work to get people to take those pesky basketball goals, tree houses and pink flamingos down.
The point of law [& regulations] these days seems to be to create a static point around which litigation can be built. Fix a point in law, sit back and watch the aggrieved parties come pouring out of the woodwork.
I agree that the rule is absurd, but I am curious how in this particlar instance it is really any different than an HOA covenant. The property owners could have inquired into the zoning reg’s before moving there if it was so important. It is unfortunate that in the Vancouver instance that they were initially misinformed by the planning staff and subsequently ratted on by a NIMBY with nothing better to do than complain. Nevertheless, this particular situation is hardly very different than an HOA contract. The city codes could have been checked, just as an HOA covenant could be checked, correct?