Man gets 30 days in jail for unfinished siding project

[rambone]

God didn't grant you a "right" to only see pretty houses from your porch.

The founding fathers would laugh at the concept.

Got to be kidding me. After what Jefferson wrote about usufruct use of property. No.

Lay some quotes on me. I have read nothing from Jefferson that would suggest support of regulating the way a person's house or lawn looked to his neighbors.

I'll say it again. God didn't grant you a right to only see pretty houses from your porch.

It's the very basis of modern libertarian thought. I kid you not, they worship the television show and movie.

Not everybody watches television Kirk. Also, I have never read a single book by L. Neil Smith. Your stereotypes don't peg me very well and your references often go over my head.

 

[rambone]

i have a love/hate relationship with the HOA. I hate that I need permission to build a fence or a plant a tree on my property.

But I love that it prevents morons from parking their beater cars on their lawn or using old tires for flower pots.

The nice thing is that HOA's are voluntary and you aren't forced to live inside one. They utilize contracts to get people to willingly sacrifice their property rights, for the goal of having uniform property standards.

They are literally the perfect solution to the problems that people are discussing in this thread. No rights are violated, no government bullying, no Nanny State.

Kirk, why not join a HOA? Why can't I get you to speak on this?

 

[hornadylnl]

The nice thing is that HOA's are voluntary and you aren't forced to live inside one. They utilize contracts to get people to willingly sacrifice their property rights, for the goal of having uniform property standards.

They are literally the perfect solution to the problems that people are discussing in this thread. No rights are violated, no government bullying, no Nanny State.

Kirk, why not join a HOA? Why can't I get you to speak on this?

Because he wants them to bully you, not him.

 

[steveh_131]

Not everybody watches television Kirk. Also, I have never read a single book by L. Neil Smith. Your stereotypes don't peg me very well and your references often go over my head.

Yeah, I'm not sure what the references mean either.

I don't know L. Neil Smith. I enjoyed firefly for the wit and space cowboy theme, but I don't remember much political commentary in it. At least not any that stuck with me.

 

[cobber]

The judge should have just forfeited the house to the State for all the heat this thread is causing. It wouldn't have been any bigger affront to private property rights, than making the guy get his house finished in the first place.

 

[steveh_131]

The judge should have just forfeited the house to the State for all the heat this thread is causing. It wouldn't have been any bigger affront to private property rights, than making the guy get his house finished in the first place.

If we excuse small injustices, they will only get progressively worse.

 

[cobber]

If we excuse small injustices, they will only get progressively worse.

Okay, forget the forfeiture. The county should have used their predator drone to deal with the noxious violating structure. Of course ensuring that innocent life was protected!

 

[teknickle]

Also, I do believe that you have a right to a fair property value proportionate to the work and care you put into your property. I believe that you have a duty to keep up your end of the bargain to not detract from your neighbor's property value.

So if you have been holding onto a house that you bought in Flint, Michigan (or Detroit) 30 years ago....who are you going to sue for your property being so worthless that you have to PAY someone to take it. (as in, the city will condemn it and fine you). Talk about negative equity...but who could you sue for collecting on your financial loss?

If, however, you built a house in a new/in-demand neighborhood in an upscale neighborhood; your property might increase in value. So who do you redistributed that wealth to? It obviously came from 'somewhere', so it should probably put back where it belongs to "make things right".

How about buying 5,000 beanie babies? Those things were HOT for awhile. So you buy up a truckload (and pay just over retail on the HOPES THAT YOU WILL SEE A PROFIT). The world realizes that beanie babies are crap and they scoff at you. Who should reimburse you?

The point is that too many people WRONGLY see their personal house as an investment. Try a basic understanding of risk and investment by reading Robert Kiyosak. Your primary residence is NEVER to generate revenue...it is merely an expense.

Let's say that we are talking about a 'real' income property...like a 4-unit apartment building. Having an ugly building next door might discourage people from looking closer than the road (especially when there is a nicer complex nearby). But if _that_ is the case, you probably didn't pay a premium for the property either and thought to make a quick buck by cutting in on the tenants that the other complex had.
Your loss or gain here is very subjective. Regardless of the profit/loss model or analytics you use to justify your calculations (of that loss or possible gain) it is merely this: a guess.

How can anyone, in good conscience, have such a vengeful pursuit of someone on a wishy-washy feeling?

Has anyone ever actually read the statutes in that city?
It goes beyond 'loose siding' and includes making sure that your windows are properly caulked and "water tight".
So, because it is a law, it is equally enforceable (and MUST be enforced and not "selectively enforced") by policy-enforcers.
Sounds absurd to fine/imprison someone for failing to seal cracked caulk on their own house (because it is absurd).
Please explain the difference between loose siding and cracked caulk?
At what point does it be considered a 'great loss' to your _perceived_ value of your property (which is a joke because, just like a moron watching the daily value of the mutual funds backing their 401k plans)--the value is never real until the transaction happens.
Meaning: your 401k doesn't "lose" money when the stock market goes down. (for crying out loud, you are PURCHASING SHARES during the by-in period..and WANT IT LOW....only when you go to retire to you want to see it explode for those insane, and yet 'safe' returns).
You have NO IDEA the financial impact of the price of your home until you ACTUALLY PUT IT ON THE MARKET AND DUMP IT.
Until then, there is NO LOSS.
Any double-entry ledger accounting system makes use of debits and credits. Money is not created out of thin air.
So show everyone here how loose siding CAUSED YOU A REAL LOSS OF MONEY.


(oh, I know how to stir the pot....but please think about that. You guys are smart but are just over the edge on the wrong side of property rights)

 

[hornadylnl]

A government big enough to regulate your siding is big enough to regulate your ammo supply.

 

[steveh_131]

A government big enough to regulate your siding is big enough to regulate your ammo supply.

Has no one addressed this question yet?

Shocking, I say.

 

[hornadylnl]

Has no one addressed this question yet?

Shocking, I say.

As long as the code is being used to beat up the other guy and note you, it's great. Wait until their city passes an ordinance limiting ammo. They'll be here wanting to hang their government from the lamp posts.

 

[JettaKnight]

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned it, (42 pages!), but, siding isn't all about prettiness. It has a purpose - to keep out water and there's a very good reason for most building codes. Some ensure safety, some ensure resale value, some ensure structural soundness. If you don't adequately protect the shell of the home then you will develop damage from water.

Presumably the homeowner in question has a mortgage or at least a loan for the renovation. Therefore, if he allows damage to the property he's putting the bank at risk.

Also, would you like to buy this house unknowing that it spent five years with rain water seeping into the walls?

 

[rambone]

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned it, (42 pages!), but, siding isn't all about prettiness. It has a purpose - to keep out water and there's a very good reason for most building codes. Some ensure safety, some ensure resale value, some ensure structural soundness. If you don't adequately protect the shell of the home then you will develop damage from water.

Presumably the homeowner in question has a mortgage or at least a loan for the renovation. Therefore, if he allows damage to the property he's putting the bank at risk.

All of that may be true. It still isn't government's business.

 

[thebishopp]

All of that may be true. It still isn't government's business.

Exactly. Besides didn't we give a ton of taxpayer money to the banks already?

 

[rambone]

Lay some quotes on me. I have read nothing from Jefferson that would suggest support of regulating the way a person's house or lawn looked to his neighbors.

I'll say it again. God didn't grant you a right to only see pretty houses from your porch.

Bump.

Kirk, why not join a HOA? Why can't I get you to speak on this?

Bump.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Kirk, why not join a HOA? Why can't I get you to speak on this?

If he wants to join an HOA that is fine. Nothing wrong with HOA. However, for those property owners not in HOAs there needs to be minimum standards to protect those outside of HOAs.

Again we are discussing minimum standards done within due process.

Lay some quotes on me. I have read nothing from Jefferson that would suggest support of regulating the way a person's house or lawn looked to his neighbors

You've never read Jefferson on usufruct? Do you understand the Doctrine Against Waste?

The Founders wanted to protect one's right to profit off property without injuring it or injuring your neighbor.

One could not let land go to hell and then wave your arms over your head and say "meye rights, meye rights". No, you waived your rights by turning your property into a fetid pile of crap and hurting others.

We are discussing acts that harm others. Not what one thinks or what colour one paints a house.

Jefferson pushed for curtailment of longstanding property rights that injured others, e.g., he abolished primogeniture and lobbied to abolish soaking property in debt:

[N]o man can by natural right, oblige lands he occupied... to the payment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead rather than the living, which would be the reverse of our principal. What is true of every member of the society individually, is true of them all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

All of that may be true. It still isn't government's business.

It becomes the government business when your property injures others.

 

[steveh_131]

It becomes the government business when your property injures others.

Being ugly doesn't injure others.

 

[steveh_131]

Oh, that's right. Anything that has the potential to indirectly affect property value is an injury in Kirks world, subject to government regulation.

I don't like this slippery slope.

 

[ATOMonkey]

It's best to just sled down the slope as fast as you can.

When I hit the bottom, I don't want to limp away.