Land Use Regulations on your own property.

[ronpaulvoter]

Suppose you want to buy or build a home in a rural area. How important is it to you to get property that is free of land use or building regulations?

 

[Redress]

Suppose you want to buy or build a home in a rural area. How important is it to you to get property that is free of land use or building regulations?

In the US, there is no place I know of free of land use or building regulations, nor should there be. Like it or not, how you use your land can and often does impact on others.

 

[clownboy]

In the US, there is no place I know of free of land use or building regulations, nor should there be. Like it or not, how you use your land can and often does impact on others.

Alaska is what you're looking for. They have plenty of land that has no taxes, plenty of resources and absolutely no building codes or regs.

The hard one is actually owning your property. The mineral and water rights must be deeded. You can get more of that in Alaska as well.

 

[jamesrage]

Suppose you want to buy or build a home in a rural area. How important is it to you to get property that is free of land use or building regulations?

I lie some regulations.I do not think you should be able to freely build a toxic waste dump, prison, bum shelter, garbage dump and other things most normal people would have a problem with.

 

[Peter King]

I like some regulations, building regulations sometimes are very important in built up areas to not infringe on the rights of your neighbors or the neighbors not infringing on your own rights.

 

[Jerry]

Suppose you want to buy or build a home in a rural area. How important is it to you to get property that is free of land use or building regulations?

Not very important if all you want is a normal home. What few regulations do apply, you can easily get a permit for. If you want to do anything more than have a house, there will be other regulations to take into consideration depending on what exactly you want to do.

A quick note about the house: Your homeowner's insurance will likely want you to have a habitability certificate. To get that, you have to pass a few building inspections. Those inspections are based on building code, but some areas do not have any building code at all. Best bet, if you find yourself in this situation, is to pick the nearest city to get your contractor from and have them build according to city code. This way a city inspector can come out and give you a habitability certificate, which you can then take to get insurance.

 

[clownboy]

I like some regulations, building regulations sometimes are very important in built up areas to not infringe on the rights of your neighbors or the neighbors not infringing on your own rights.

It's the difference between living where there are far fewer folks than those others who seem to enjoy living huddled together. The huddled masses need the regulation.

 

[Redress]

Alaska is what you're looking for. They have plenty of land that has no taxes, plenty of resources and absolutely no building codes or regs.

The hard one is actually owning your property. The mineral and water rights must be deeded. You can get more of that in Alaska as well.

That is not true. Alaska has, like all other states, rather significant regulations involving the use of land, development on land, building codes and so on. For example: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/code/states/ak_building.pdf

 

[clownboy]

That is not true. Alaska has, like all other states, rather significant regulations involving the use of land, development on land, building codes and so on. For example: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/code/states/ak_building.pdf

Those are city codes, not Alaskan State codes. Only a small portion of Alaska is city, hugely rural/wilderness. Often off the grid living. There are many places, with large stretches of land where there are no building regs, no taxes, and no enforcement to begin with.

I'd like to see the building regs for the Kilter homestead, we all just watched him install a wood heater up to his second story. :mrgreen:

 

[Phys251]

Suppose you want to buy or build a home in a rural area. How important is it to you to get property that is free of land use or building regulations?

I'm pretty sure that Galt's Gulch was such a place. Maybe you should try to move there?

 

[clownboy]

Cabin living off the grid in frigid Alaska a labor of love | Alaska Dispatch

While dry cabins are against zoning laws in the city, city limits end just short of the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, where you’ll find dry cabin communities just a stone’s throw from popular bars and restaurants.

 

[Cephus]

More absurd libertarian nonsense. There is probably nowhere on the planet that is completely free of land use restrictions, nor should there be. You cannot turn your property into a toxic waste dump or operate an unshielded nuclear reactor, I don't care where you go.

Where do libertarians come up with this stupid crap?

 

[haymarket]

Zoning ordinances and community by laws are an important part in creating and retaining the quality of a particular area and are consistent and in keeping with the basic idea that a society of people have a perfect right to have a voice in such matters without having a hecklers veto exercised by one person or a few people which destroys quality of life for others.

In short - its part and parcel of living in a civilized society with others. If you do not like this arrangement - simply leave.

 

[Redress]

Those are city codes, not Alaskan State codes. Only a small portion of Alaska is city, hugely rural/wilderness. Often off the grid living. There are many places, with large stretches of land where there are no building regs, no taxes, and no enforcement to begin with.

I'd like to see the building regs for the Kilter homestead, we all just watched him install a wood heater up to his second story. :mrgreen:

No, it is Alaskan codes. And it is irrelevant to my point either way since whether the codes, laws and restrictions come from localities, the state or the federal government does not matter, only that they exist. ALaska, like every other state, has significant zoning, code, and other land use regulations. You just cannot get away from such laws, nor should you.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

More absurd libertarian nonsense. There is probably nowhere on the planet that is completely free of land use restrictions, nor should there be. You cannot turn your property into a toxic waste dump or operate an unshielded nuclear reactor, I don't care where you go.

Where do libertarians come up with this stupid crap?

Of course there are such places. Take DR Congo, a libertarian paradise where you are completely free to do what you want with your land without restriction:

Another libertarian utopia is Somalia. No "EPA Gestapo" there:

Personally, I prefer rural land like this, but it does require some land use regulations to keep it that way:

 

[joko104]

If the government wants to restrict how people use their own land "for the good of everyone," then everyone (ie the government) should pay the land owner for the lose of value due to the restriction - particularly if this restriction is added AFTER the person bought the property.

There is a lot of land that has no zoning restrictions, meaning only ordinances, state laws and federal laws apply. What there is no escape from is property taxes by which people are essentially renting their own property from the government. It used to be that a person's security for old age was homeowners (paying off the mortgage). But that doesn't much apply now because property taxes commonly are as high or higher than renting a small apartment. Thus, for many people a condition of retirement is they must move out of their house.

The government imposing new restrictions is causing many people here to lose their homes and businesses. Septic systems have been outlawed - and the majority of homes and businesses are on their own septic system. They are now required to pay for a public sewage system - for which people are being hit with $10,000 to $20,000 bills for their homes, and more for businesses. Many of the people, particularly seniors, don't have $15,000 as they live hand to mouth on fixed income. For this, the local/county government is putting the bill on their property taxes - at 10% interest - meaning if they can't scrape up around $20,000 to $30,000 in two years they will lose their home for property taxes, even if a tiny wood frame home or even old mobile home not even worth that much.

Fees and new extra restrictions and requirements on people and their homes/businesses is pounding this area in terms of business closures and vacancies. As property values crash as a result, so does tax income, meaning they just keep raising fees and add-ons to make up for it.

 

[Kal'Stang]

More absurd libertarian nonsense. There is probably nowhere on the planet that is completely free of land use restrictions, nor should there be. You cannot turn your property into a toxic waste dump or operate an unshielded nuclear reactor, I don't care where you go.

Where do libertarians come up with this stupid crap?

I wonder what you would have said if it had been someone on your side that had said this....

 

[joko104]

Such a pretty picture. But in many regions government restrictions and regulations on how small scale farmers use their land and don't use it has forced them out and instead you should post a picture of a huge corporate "farm." The age of the barn in your picture tells the story. YOUR side basically has outlawed that farm. So YOU really should show a picture of rows of metal sheds with migrant workers working the for the corporation.

 

[Winchester]

If the government wants to restrict how people use their own land "for the good of everyone," then everyone (ie the government) should pay the land owner for the lose of value due to the restriction - particularly if this restriction is added AFTER the person bought the property.

There is a lot of land that has no zoning restrictions, meaning only ordinances, state laws and federal laws apply. What there is no escape from is property taxes by which people are essentially renting their own property from the government. It used to be that a person's security for old age was homeowners (paying off the mortgage). But that doesn't much apply now because property taxes commonly are as high or higher than renting a small apartment. Thus, for many people a condition of retirement is they must move out of their house.

The government imposing new restrictions is causing many people here to lose their homes and businesses. Septic systems have been outlawed - and the majority of homes and businesses are on their own septic system. They are now required to pay for a public sewage system - for which people are being hit with $10,000 to $20,000 bills for their homes, and more for businesses. Many of the people, particularly seniors, don't have $15,000 as they live hand to mouth on fixed income. For this, the local/county government is putting the bill on their property taxes - at 10% interest - meaning if they can't scrape up around $20,000 to $30,000 in two years they will lose their home for property taxes, even if a tiny wood frame home or even old mobile home not even worth that much.

Fees and new extra restrictions and requirements on people and their homes/businesses is pounding this area in terms of business closures and vacancies. As property values crash as a result, so does tax income, meaning they just keep raising fees and add-ons to make up for it.

There would be no individual land "ownership" in the first place w/o government enforcement protecting said "ownership".

 

[CRUE CAB]

I really wonder about the stability of the 30 that love restrictions.

 

[joko104]

Zoning ordinances and community by laws are an important part in creating and retaining the quality of a particular area and are consistent and in keeping with the basic idea that a society of people have a perfect right to have a voice in such matters without having a hecklers veto exercised by one person or a few people which destroys quality of life for others.

In short - its part and parcel of living in a civilized society with others. If you do not like this arrangement - simply leave.

Yes, the tract homes of suburban are perfect. The diversity of styles and artist natures of older urban areas suck. Those areas should be required to standardize or bulldoze it all down. NO ORGINALITY OR INDIVIDUAL CREATIVE. It's offense. It is the job of the majority via government to require conformity to set a universal standard of living and appearances. Liberals want universally enforced standards to force compliance to the will of the majority. No surprise.

The zoning nazis who declare that "property values" are a constitutional right, for which they can tell you the color to paint your house and what plants you must have and may not have in your yard.

Really, there should be a universal standard how people dress too to maintain the quality of the appearance of the community.

 

[joko104]

There would be no individual land "ownership" in the first place w/o government enforcement protecting said "ownership".

Curious definition of "protection." People in prison are protected by government. Is that what you mean? For some land owners, their land is not protected by the government. Historically, they protected their own land - and sometimes protected it from the government.

It is sad listening to the roar of socialism and their concept of collective land ownership - which means someone else pays but they want control. And how much that actually despise constitutional protections. The government - in terms of the constitution - can not take anything in terms of land from someone without paying for the lose. It has only been in the last few decades that this has been disregarded in terms of regulations. A new regulation on land is a government seizure of that land value. The property owner should be paid for the lose.

 

[Winchester]

Curious definition of "protection." People in prison are protected by government. Is that what you mean?

It is sad listening to the roar of socialism and their concept of collective land ownership - which means someone else pays but they want control.

Not at all. If we did not have laws on the books regarding the individual right to buy and hold a deed to land combined with a government strong enough to enforce the individuals right to use the land, it would be a free for all. The same people who deride government and regulations wouldn't have **** w/o them.

 

[Declan]

One needs to tread carefully when buying land in the rural parts of our area if they intend to change its present use in any way. A lot of land has had use restrictions placed by prior owners on them regardless of county zoning that apply, and some of the zoning has unforeseen pitfalls. Examples of the former would be like no keeping unlicensed vehicle outside, no mobile homes, agricultural only, no subdivision permitted, no businesses (or no business of a certain type), homes have to be a certain minimum size or be made to a certain specification, etc. On the zoning side, there are special tax-relief zoning statuses for farmers in certain parts of the county. You buy and stick build you a house on an acre of that land and you could be paying a mint in taxes, fees and penalties because you retroactively voided that special tax-related zoning status back to when it was originally imposed.

 

[Cardinal]

Suppose you want to buy or build a home in a rural area. How important is it to you to get property that is free of land use or building regulations?

I would want to buy property free of the regulations that determine what mailbox, color grass and trees I'm allowed to have. I've seen neighborhoods with those sorts of HOA regulations and they look like a dystopian nightmare. Somewhere out there probably are HOA rules that determine what kind of dog you can own and the color of your kids' hair.

That said, it's a very fine line between abuse of regulations to no HOA regulations at all that result in your neighbor deciding to keep his '83 Plymouth Voyager on cinder blocks in the front yard.