• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Danger of Being Neighborly Without a Permit

Is this a legit way for our local governments to spend their time and energy?


  • Total voters
    19
Yeah I know. Being a libertarian though it does bug the crap out of me that a municipality would regulate such a trivial thing. It's one thing when you have to be concerned with the safety of occupants, or utility hookups or even putting secondary structures so close to a property line that it impacts a neighbor's use of his property. This just seems an exercise in control for control's sake or maybe just shutting up a bunch of squeaky wheels.

Why do you care? You don't live there. Don't they have the right to pass whatever laws they feel like passing? I always find it funny to see libertarians screaming about state's rights, right up until some state or locality passes laws they don't like.
 
Why do you care? You don't live there. Don't they have the right to pass whatever laws they feel like passing? I always find it funny to see libertarians screaming about state's rights, right up until some state or locality passes laws they don't like.

Because "states rights" is only part of the picture. Beyond libertarians believe in property rights and the right of the person to use his property as he sees fit. Of course that runs up into practical concerns regarding one property owner's use of his property infringing on the right of another property owner to freely enjoy the use of his property so some regulation, like noise ordinances for example, is necessary. That regulation should be both necessary and narrow enough to not overly burden the homeowner. At least that's the view of this libertarian - others may see it differently.

Personally I have no vested interest. As I said it simply runs counter to the way a free society should be run (in my view of course).
 
Because "states rights" is only part of the picture. Beyond libertarians believe in property rights and the right of the person to use his property as he sees fit. Of course that runs up into practical concerns regarding one property owner's use of his property infringing on the right of another property owner to freely enjoy the use of his property so some regulation, like noise ordinances for example, is necessary. That regulation should be both necessary and narrow enough to not overly burden the homeowner. At least that's the view of this libertarian - others may see it differently.

Personally I have no vested interest. As I said it simply runs counter to the way a free society should be run (in my view of course).

Which is pretty much why libertarians will never get into power.
 
Because of diversity of opinion? Republicans ain't much different.

No, because those opinions are wholly unrealistic.
 
What we need to do is start fighting back against the concept the state has any business over non commercial structures on land you own

We want asbestos! We want lead paint! We want to buy houses that collapse on us, killing us instantly! Building codes are for Nazis!!

Seriously, i feel like these arguments against building codes are getting dumber and dumber.
 
No, because those opinions are wholly unrealistic.

hmmm.....I honestly don't see where demanding that regulation be narrowly tailored to meet a specific need - in this case conflicts in property rights - is being wholly unrealistic.
 
hmmm.....I honestly don't see where demanding that regulation be narrowly tailored to meet a specific need - in this case conflicts in property rights - is being wholly unrealistic.

Because clearly the people of that area didn't think so because they voted to, or at least elected people to vote on their behalf to pass these laws. So is it state's rights, their right to pass whatever laws they want to pass because they have the freedom to live the way they want, or is it your way or the highway? You can't have it both ways.
 
radcen said:
Granted, in the grand scheme of things it's a small thing, but damn this pissed me off.

Well, now wait a minute. I don't know if someone's already said this, but sometimes there are real reasons to regulate something that aren't so obvious. For example, some of these might have been obstructing sight lines for traffic. Leaving them up might have led to dangerous traffic conditions that could cause injury or death, and this is one reason for regulating detached structures. It's not a huge media meme right now, but that sort of thing does happen--a driver cannot see the running children, gets distracted, makes a turn, and boom, a couple of funerals that could have been prevented if ordinances had been followed.

Of course, sometimes, that's not the story, and it really is someone sticking their nose in where they don't belong. For example, there are a great many cities that have (usually unenforced) laws that prevent people growing their own food--brought to you by lobbyists of the corporate agriculture and grocery industry.
 
I've seen some of these small free libraries. It would never occur to me that a local government would object... but some do. Is this a legit way for our local governments to spend their time and energy?

What's happened is that the ordinances have to answer for the stupid, so the neighborhood suffers. That's how that "government" crap gets goin anyway; people are always behind it.
 
Because clearly the people of that area didn't think so because they voted to, or at least elected people to vote on their behalf to pass these laws. So is it state's rights, their right to pass whatever laws they want to pass because they have the freedom to live the way they want, or is it your way or the highway? You can't have it both ways.

I don't think that's clear at all. The regulations may have been passed years or decades ago and changing them is an uphill battle. More likely the electorate doesn't even know what their elected officials' position on zoning regulations are because it's not a sexy topic that wins elections.

Courts usually demand that laws restricting someone's rights be narrowly tailored to meet a specific a government interest for a reason.
 
Well, now wait a minute. I don't know if someone's already said this, but sometimes there are real reasons to regulate something that aren't so obvious. For example, some of these might have been obstructing sight lines for traffic. Leaving them up might have led to dangerous traffic conditions that could cause injury or death, and this is one reason for regulating detached structures. It's not a huge media meme right now, but that sort of thing does happen--a driver cannot see the running children, gets distracted, makes a turn, and boom, a couple of funerals that could have been prevented if ordinances had been followed.

Of course, sometimes, that's not the story, and it really is someone sticking their nose in where they don't belong. For example, there are a great many cities that have (usually unenforced) laws that prevent people growing their own food--brought to you by lobbyists of the corporate agriculture and grocery industry.

You can have my tomato plants when you can pry them from my cold dead hands.
 
I don't think that's clear at all. The regulations may have been passed years or decades ago and changing them is an uphill battle. More likely the electorate doesn't even know what their elected officials' position on zoning regulations are because it's not a sexy topic that wins elections.

Courts usually demand that laws restricting someone's rights be narrowly tailored to meet a specific a government interest for a reason.

Then the people can overturn it. Let's see if they do.
 
Alright, I think some do-gooders have mischaracterized the problem.

From the article:

"The Leawood City Council said it had received a couple of complaints about Spencer Collins' Little Free Library. They dubbed it an "illegal detached structure" and told the Collins' they would face a fine if they did not remove the Little Free Library from their yard by June 19."

So it seems the structure is the violation, not the concept.

We don't know why the complainers called, but if the structure is indeed against code then the village has no choice but to enforce the code now that it's been brought to their attention.

This sounds similar to the homeowner's association that found the "cop flag" against their code. It is what it is, and regardless of the motivation of either party - codes need be enforced.

That does nothing to change the dynamic, imo. It's their property and so long as it's not a hazard that extends outside of their property, the gov has no business being involved.

It always astounds me how much of our private property rights have bee ceded.
 
Alright, I think some do-gooders have mischaracterized the problem.

From the article:

"The Leawood City Council said it had received a couple of complaints about Spencer Collins' Little Free Library. They dubbed it an "illegal detached structure" and told the Collins' they would face a fine if they did not remove the Little Free Library from their yard by June 19."

So it seems the structure is the violation, not the concept.

We don't know why the complainers called, but if the structure is indeed against code then the village has no choice but to enforce the code now that it's been brought to their attention.

This sounds similar to the homeowner's association that found the "cop flag" against their code. It is what it is, and regardless of the motivation of either party - codes need be enforced.



The Law should be about protecting the innocent from needless harm and promoting liberty and peaceful trade. Where the law fails that test, it is probably a bad law.


This, law or no, was bull****.
 
That does nothing to change the dynamic, imo. It's their property and so long as it's not a hazard that extends outside of their property, the gov has no business being involved.

It always astounds me how much of our private property rights have bee ceded.

Except that's not how reality works. The government can and does have a lot of control over your personal property. You might not like it and you're certainly welcome not to, but that doesn't change reality.

How about you live in the real world instead of the libertarian fantasy world you seem to inhabit?
 
We want asbestos! We want lead paint! We want to buy houses that collapse on us, killing us instantly! Building codes are for Nazis!!

Seriously, i feel like these arguments against building codes are getting dumber and dumber.

****er I've had relatives die from mesothelioma, and you know where they got it from? Working for uncle freaking Sam, not their damn house, the asbestos problems were the negligence of the US government, not people insulating their houses. I've had two relatives get meso and they got it from working at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, and government industrial sites is where at least the plurality of sufferers got harmed. Building codes had nothing to do with it
 
****er I've had relatives die from mesothelioma, and you know where they got it from? Working for uncle freaking Sam, not their damn house, the asbestos problems were the negligence of the US government, not people insulating their houses. I've had two relatives get meso and they got it from working at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, and government industrial sites is where at least the plurality of sufferers got harmed. Building codes had nothing to do with it

Exactly how can asbestos be the problem of the government if people should be free to do whatever the hell they want with their own property? Doesn't that make it the problem of the owners?
 
That does nothing to change the dynamic, imo. It's their property and so long as it's not a hazard that extends outside of their property, the gov has no business being involved.

It always astounds me how much of our private property rights have bee ceded.

They totally do have business being involved.

The main purpose of building codes is to protect public health, safety and general welfare as they relate to the construction and occupancy of buildings and structures.
...
Building codes are generally intended to be applied by architects, engineers, interior designers, constructors and regulators but are also used for various purposes by safety inspectors, environmental scientists, real estate developers, subcontractors, manufacturers of building products and materials, insurance companies, facility managers, tenants, and others.

So if you want things like homeowners insurance, you'll need things like building codes.
 
Exactly how can asbestos be the problem of the government if people should be free to do whatever the hell they want with their own property? Doesn't that make it the problem of the owners?

No one would buy it in a market economy if the Govt wasn't covering up the risks
 
No one would buy it in a market economy if the Govt wasn't covering up the risks

They weren't covering up the risks, nobody knew of the risks until it was too late. Stop pretending the government is a giant conspiracy theory. Welcome to reality.
 
They weren't covering up the risks, nobody knew of the risks until it was too late. Stop pretending the government is a giant conspiracy theory. Welcome to reality.

The first medical reports on the danger of asbestos came out in the era of World War One, by 1920 life insurance companies were denying policies to people who worked setting asbestos insulation, until the mid 1960s There were no less then five published reports from 1925 to 1964, to claim nobody knew is a phony argument, maybe people in high places didn't want to know, but they knew
 
Except that's not how reality works. The government can and does have a lot of control over your personal property. You might not like it and you're certainly welcome not to, but that doesn't change reality.

How about you live in the real world instead of the libertarian fantasy world you seem to inhabit?

How about I actually put forth my efforts to push against statism. Mainstream Democrats and Republicans can push their agendas but no one else is allowed?
 
They totally do have business being involved.

So if you want things like homeowners insurance, you'll need things like building codes.

That changes nothing I stated. It's an overreach and having a little cubby for free books doesn't represent a public health or safety risk. Back to my original statement, "so long as it's not a hazard that extends outside of their property".

I understand that there are many people who find it difficult to keep their hands, via a government proxy, out of other people's affairs.
 
Back
Top Bottom