View Full Version : British Court Orders Man to Demolish His Family's Home
Crazed Rabbit
02-03-2010, 22:38
https://img682.imageshack.us/img682/4329/robertfidlers1468x255.jpg
From the BBC. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/surrey/8495412.stm)
A farmer who built a castle hidden behind a stack of straw bales has lost a High Court bid to save it from being demolished.
Robert Fidler, of Salfords, Surrey, built the home - complete with turrets - without planning permission.
He kept it hidden until August 2006 but was ordered to tear it down by Reigate and Banstead Borough Council in 2008.
Mr Fidler appealed on the basis that his house had stood for four years without anyone objecting to it.
After the hearing, Mr Fidler pledged to take his fight to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.
He said: "This house will never be knocked down. This is a beautiful house that has been lovingly created. I will do whatever it takes to keep it."
An earlier article. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/surrey/7391393.stm)
Councillor Lynne Hack said: "We're pleased that deception has not been rewarded.
"Clearly it is unfortunate that Mr Fidler will have to tear down the property he built, but he already had a home on the site.
"Planning law doesn't distinguish between one man building a house and developers building 200 houses and everyone has to abide by the same rules.
"We have to protect our green belt land from development."
Mr Fidler had claimed he only started building the structure when the council did not answer his planning application to turn a cowshed into a house.
What a bunch of spiteful, petty, fools in power over in Britain. The idea that a man has to get permission from some planning council to build a home on his own property is outrageous. It makes citizens nothing more than caretakers for the government of any property they "own", like medieval serfs, forced to pay to live on it (if there's property taxes) and not able to do anything unless they get permission from their feudal lords.
I detest the idea of some "green belt" being protected from development. What right does the government have to take control of a person's property by declaring it part of some "green belt" and then forbidding people from building homes because it goes against the idea they have constructed? Why should the owners of the property suffer for this idea, this paper construct?
It can't be because of any real, actual effects from this house. If there were any effects used as an excuse to take people's rights, they would have been noticed in the four years this house remained hidden.
Perhaps the worst part is that this man cleverly exploited a loophole that would have let him keep the home he built, but the judges and politicians rejected the legalities and demanded it be demolished because they couldn't have him getting away with the crime of building a lovely home for his family.
I hope he wins his fight against an oppressive nanny-state government in the end.
CR
Gregoshi
02-03-2010, 22:48
They should let it stand simply because they couldn't find a castle in a haystack in four year's time. :laugh4:
Seriously, they should inspect the place, require the owner to make any necessary changes for building codes and then slap on a fine for having cheek. Tearing it down seems rather harsh and spiteful.
Green belts do have some value. Endless city sprawls aren't good for anyone.
Of course, I think what has been done is spiteful. Won't stop the Tories using it as an example to bash Labour's "nanny state" though, despite the fact that it was in a, uh, Tory controlled council.
We're all far better off with zoning laws.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-03-2010, 23:47
Green belts do have some value. Endless city sprawls aren't good for anyone.
Of course, I think what has been done is spiteful. Won't stop the Tories using it as an example to bash Labour's "nanny state" though, despite the fact that it was in a, uh, Tory controlled council.
I don't think it's spiteful, he willfully broke the law and covered it up. The dwelling is illegal and therefore should be pulled down. Otherwise, people would never bother with planning, especially rich people who could hire security for four years.
https://img682.imageshack.us/img682/4329/robertfidlers1468x255.jpg
From the BBC. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/surrey/8495412.stm)
An earlier article. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/surrey/7391393.stm)
What a bunch of spiteful, petty, fools in power over in Britain. The idea that a man has to get permission from some planning council to build a home on his own property is outrageous. It makes citizens nothing more than caretakers for the government of any property they "own", like medieval serfs, forced to pay to live on it (if there's property taxes) and not able to do anything unless they get permission from their feudal lords.
Bingo, welcome to Britain, one of the few feudal states left in the world, and yet it is your country that executes people.
I detest the idea of some "green belt" being protected from development. What right does the government have to take control of a person's property by declaring it part of some "green belt" and then forbidding people from building homes because it goes against the idea they have constructed? Why should the owners of the property suffer for this idea, this paper construct?
It can't be because of any real, actual effects from this house. If there were any effects used as an excuse to take people's rights, they would have been noticed in the four years this house remained hidden.
Perhaps the worst part is that this man cleverly exploited a loophole that would have let him keep the home he built, but the judges and politicians rejected the legalities and demanded it be demolished because they couldn't have him getting away with the crime of building a lovely home for his family.
I hope he wins his fight against an oppressive nanny-state government in the end.
CR
So much hot air, Green belts exists to prevent Manchester swallowing Liverpool.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-03-2010, 23:51
I don't think it's spiteful, he willfully broke the law and covered it up. The dwelling is illegal and therefore should be pulled down. Otherwise, people would never bother with planning, especially rich people who could hire security for four years.
Let's imagine an alternate scenario, where you go 1 mile over the speed limit and the judge orders you to destroy your ferrari, saying "Traffic law doesn't distinguish between one mile over the speed limit and 200 miles over the speed limit and everyone has to abide by the same rules. We're pleased that Philipus's deception has not been rewarded"...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-04-2010, 00:03
Let's imagine an alternate scenario, where you go 1 mile over the speed limit and the judge orders you to destroy your ferrari, saying "Traffic law doesn't distinguish between one mile over the speed limit and 200 miles over the speed limit and everyone has to abide by the same rules. We're pleased that Philipus's deception has not been rewarded"...
Well, I'm pretty sure that British law allows 5 miles or 10%, and they don't destroy your car. In any case, are you suggesting he could claim he accidentally built a mansion?
Yeah... But, want is a nice rich Muslim decided to built a very big Mosque in the middle of his property? Crazed Rabbit will agree that he has the right to keep it, even built illegally?
The same who complain (nota: not aim to Crazed Rabbit) about the loss of the "Englishness", whatever it is, will agree that every body can built whatever he want on his/her property? A Swiss chalet in Yorkshire? Or a carvan serail in Derbyshire?
I prefer when the law, wisely, probibides such exesses.
And a man who built a casttle could expect (and he did, reason why he hide it) retribution. He gambled, he lost. Next time, he will follow the law...
Louis VI the Fat
02-04-2010, 00:17
Zoning laws are the difference between the pleasant - lovely in places - British landscape, and Las Vegas. Or between Switzerland and third world urban sprawl.
Even if I wouldn't be in favour of zoning laws, I'd still have little sympathy for this man, who sought to break the law by sneakily trying to build a 'fait accompli', and who is now trying to have the law suit him by shedding crocodile tears that they should be so cruel as to want a finished house torn down. This is not a matter of 'pity, he should've thought of this before'. This is a case of 'sorry mate, you knew the law all along, hence the covertness, but sneakyness doesn't create more law especially for you'.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-04-2010, 00:17
Well, I'm pretty sure that British law allows 5 miles or 10%, and they don't destroy your car.
Yes, I would imagine so. I imagine you don't own a ferrari either.
In any case, are you suggesting he could claim he accidentally built a mansion?
No.
How would you feel in the case I suggested? We can make it so that you purposefully went 6 miles/11% over if you wish.
This is kind of like the moh winner flag thread...
And I find myself with the same feeling. Don't care too much about someone who can afford to take a chance building themselves a castle. Not going to hate him for "wanting to be above the law". I guess it's the perfect news story though, either you can be pissed at the smug judges or at the self centered home owner.
Crazed Rabbit
02-04-2010, 00:37
Well, I'm pretty sure that British law allows 5 miles or 10%, and they don't destroy your car. In any case, are you suggesting he could claim he accidentally built a mansion?
Who's saying the driver accidentally went 1 (or 6, though I hear there's no exemption in Britain) mph over the limit?
Also, what about someone ticketed for not being in contro (http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/01/28/Man-fights-ticket-for-blowing-nose/UPI-37101264719585/)l of his car on the road? Should their car be seized?
PRESTWICK, Scotland, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- A Scottish motorist who was ticketed for blowing his nose while his car was stopped in clogged traffic said he will take the charge to court.
Michael Mancini, 39, of Prestwick, said he was in stationary traffic with his parking brake on when he reached for a handkerchief to wipe his runny nose, leading police Constable Stuart Gray to issue him a $97 fine because he was "not in control of his vehicle" while blowing his nose, the Daily Mail reported Thursday.
"I was in total shock. I was stuck in traffic with the handbrake on and my nose was running," Mancini said. "It's beyond a disgrace. Surely it would have been more dangerous to drive with a blocked nose?"
I don't think it's spiteful, he willfully broke the law and covered it up. The dwelling is illegal and therefore should be pulled down. Otherwise, people would never bother with planning, especially rich people who could hire security for four years.
Why is it that some people always demand strict punishment for anyone who doesn't follow preposterous laws, instead of suggesting the whole permitting process be made simple and easy?
So much hot air, Green belts exists to prevent Manchester swallowing Liverpool.
And who decides that should be a priority? Certainly not the people who actually live there. No, it's people who want to visit there and therefore impose restrictive laws on the people who live there for their own pleasure.
Yeah... But, want is a nice rich Muslim decided to built a very big Mosque in the middle of his property? Crazed Rabbit will agree that he has the right to keep it, even built illegally?
Yes, absolutely.
We're all far better off with zoning laws.
Zoning is theft; it destroys the rights of the property owner, and takes away from the monetary value of their land with no compensation.
This man didn't set out to break the law; he set out to build a home. What terrible consequences was the law supposed to prevent, that we must cling blindly to it? What bad effects have his illegal actions caused?
Why is another house being built so terrible? Show me the harm in his actions, and don't cite oppressive laws as reasons to stop him.
CR
Unlike in America, we don't have vast tracts of land. So buying up a field then just building Walmart or a bunch of buildings without planning permission is pretty serious.
He didn't get council permission to erect a structure on his land. What did he expect?
Let's imagine an alternate scenario, where you go 1 mile over the speed limit and the judge orders you to destroy your ferrari, saying "Traffic law doesn't distinguish between one mile over the speed limit and 200 miles over the speed limit and everyone has to abide by the same rules. We're pleased that Philipus's deception has not been rewarded"...
How would you feel in the case I suggested? We can make it so that you purposefully went 6 miles/11% over if you wish.
If you are going to draw an analogy to driving, a few miles over would be like adding a small room to his house without permission, building a whole :daisy: castle is like drag racing.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-04-2010, 01:57
In America, we don't have vast tracts of land. So buying up a field then just building Walmart or a bunch of buildings without planning permission is pretty serious.
In Britain we have even less land, America is deserted by comparison.
Yes, I would imagine so. I imagine you don't own a ferrari either.
No.
How would you feel in the case I suggested? We can make it so that you purposefully went 6 miles/11% over if you wish.
This is kind of like the moh winner flag thread...
And I find myself with the same feeling. Don't care too much about someone who can afford to take a chance building themselves a castle. Not going to hate him for "wanting to be above the law". I guess it's the perfect news story though, either you can be pissed at the smug judges or at the self centered home owner.
My Uncle was caught for drunk driving by the police whilst asleep at home, because the doorman tipped them off when he left; he got home no problem. He was arrested, charged and convicted; he lost his license and thence his job. We all agreed that was fair enough really; even though we felt the Police should have been out on the road, not drinking tea in the station.
So, sorry, I have no sympathy for this man.
Who's saying the driver accidentally went 1 (or 6, though I hear there's no exemption in Britain) mph over the limit?
Also, what about someone ticketed for not being in contro (http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/01/28/Man-fights-ticket-for-blowing-nose/UPI-37101264719585/)l of his car on the road? Should their car be seized?
Why is it that some people always demand strict punishment for anyone who doesn't follow preposterous laws, instead of suggesting the whole permitting process be made simple and easy?
And who decides that should be a priority? Certainly not the people who actually live there. No, it's people who want to visit there and therefore impose restrictive laws on the people who live there for their own pleasure.
Yes, absolutely.
In Egypt, houses are built on the Nile Delta, and this harms food production. In Spain, many houses were built illegally, ruining coastlines and creating deathtraps. They are now being pulled down.
Zoning is theft; it destroys the rights of the property owner, and takes away from the monetary value of their land with no compensation.
This man didn't set out to break the law; he set out to build a home. What terrible consequences was the law supposed to prevent, that we must cling blindly to it? What bad effects have his illegal actions caused?
Why is another house being built so terrible? Show me the harm in his actions, and don't cite oppressive laws as reasons to stop him.
CR
He set out to break the Law, not to build a home. It was deliberate and malicious. This man is a "Surrey Farmer", this means he owns a vast arable farmstead, and makes lots of money off things like wheat and Oilseed Rape. He is no sort of victim, he could have applied for permission for a part of his land not designated for farming, but he did not. We have a lack of good arable land in the UK and overcrowding is already a serious problem in Surrey.
As for "Zoning is theft" that's complete nonsense, because you can't take away something someone doesn't have. UK land is all either Common Land or farming land with a private Leasehold unless stated otherwise.
CountArach
02-04-2010, 02:20
Seriously, they should inspect the place, require the owner to make any necessary changes for building codes and then slap on a fine for having cheek. Tearing it down seems rather harsh and spiteful.
This seems the best solution to me.
Tellos Athenaios
02-04-2010, 03:12
Yes. But the thing is they already _did_ that. I am pretty sure the local building code reads "no buildings here". So making necessary changes amounts to same: taking down the house.
Louis put it best. This is not just ignorance; this is willful, malicious.
I don't care about the legal aspect, I'm just looking forward to the siege... :thumbsup:
CrossLOPER
02-04-2010, 04:23
I don't care about the legal aspect, I'm just looking forward to the siege... :thumbsup:
Me too!
Seamus Fermanagh
02-04-2010, 04:45
CR:
I loathe such things too. However, legally, I think this chap is in trouble and will be forced to raze the home.
As I understand it, with the rare exception of true "freehold" property, all property within the borders of a sovereign state is technically the property of that sovereignty under the doctrine of "soveriegn rights." This is the basis of eminent domain, whereby the state can confiscate a property. Ultimately, you do NOT really own your property, only the use of it, and property taxes are the fees for its use and estate taxes the fee paid to have it transfer to your heirs and not escheat to the state.
One of our legal beagles can probably give you some more precise sourcing for this, I picked it up (loathing every word I read) while doing continuing education in estate planning for my insurance license.
Aemilius Paulus
02-04-2010, 05:58
In America, we don't have vast tracts of land.
Whoah, you gotta be joking me, right? :laugh4: If America does not have vast tracts of land, then who does? Like PVC said... US is basically empty by European standards, and roomy by most world standards (especially if you consider that US is not covered by deserts, hot or cold). Sure, Canada and Russia have more space, but much of it is not comfortably habitable, especially in Canada. Brazil is the last choice, as China is too thickly populated...
Sasaki Kojiro
02-04-2010, 06:09
Beskar meant britain instead of america...
Yes. But the thing is they already _did_ that. I am pretty sure the local building code reads "no buildings here". So making necessary changes amounts to same: taking down the house.
Louis put it best. This is not just ignorance; this is willful, malicious.
Willful yes, but why malicious? What is the negative of this particular house?
Tellos Athenaios
02-04-2010, 06:14
I think Beskar meant to start his post with "Unlike" (Unlike in...).
@Sasaki, again Louis explained it already:
This is a case of 'sorry mate, you knew the law all along, hence the covertness, but sneakyness doesn't create more law especially for you'.
Crazed Rabbit
02-04-2010, 06:22
As I understand it, with the rare exception of true "freehold" property, all property within the borders of a sovereign state is technically the property of that sovereignty under the doctrine of "soveriegn rights." This is the basis of eminent domain, whereby the state can confiscate a property. Ultimately, you do NOT really own your property, only the use of it, and property taxes are the fees for its use and estate taxes the fee paid to have it transfer to your heirs and not escheat to the state.
One of our legal beagles can probably give you some more precise sourcing for this, I picked it up (loathing every word I read) while doing continuing education in estate planning for my insurance license.
Hmm, while I hope that is not the case, at least in the US, I suppose it could. Time for revolution! :knight:
In Egypt, houses are built on the Nile Delta, and this harms food production. In Spain, many houses were built illegally, ruining coastlines and creating deathtraps. They are now being pulled down.
Neither of those cases applies here.
There's absolutely no evidence of any maliciousness behind this. He built his family a house; how is that malicious?
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
02-04-2010, 06:23
I think Beskar meant to start his post with "Unlike" (Unlike in...).
@Sasaki, again Louis explained it already:
This is a case of 'sorry mate, you knew the law all along, hence the covertness, but sneakyness doesn't create more law especially for you'.
That describes willful, not malicious.
I understand the instinct to feel sympathy for the guy, although it isn't warranted. It's what the article is designed to do, same as the Medal of Honor winning guy. But I don't see where the "he's a bad guy, who does he think he is, demanding special consideration" reaction comes from. Don't you gripe when you get a parking ticket? If the cop messed up the ticket and you could get out of it, would you?
They do say that the true patriot rejoices upon getting a parking ticket, because it proves the system works. But I've never met anyone like that :p
Crazed Rabbit
02-04-2010, 06:26
Could one of the mods kindly correct the spelling in the title?
:embarassed:
Thanks,
CR
It is no different here, you have to follow every petty rule, unless the rule is 'don't rob grannies'.
As I understand it, with the rare exception of true "freehold" property, all property within the borders of a sovereign state is technically the property of that sovereignty under the doctrine of "soveriegn rights." This is the basis of eminent domain, whereby the state can confiscate a property. Ultimately, you do NOT really own your property, only the use of it, and property taxes are the fees for its use and estate taxes the fee paid to have it transfer to your heirs and not escheat to the state.
Hmm, while I hope that is not the case, at least in the US, I suppose it could. Time for revolution! :knight:
Better fire up the torches and sharpen your pitchforks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax#United_States
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-04-2010, 10:17
Hmm, while I hope that is not the case, at least in the US, I suppose it could. Time for revolution! :knight:
Neither of those cases applies here.
There's absolutely no evidence of any maliciousness behind this. He built his family a house; how is that malicious?
CR
He set out ot break planning laws and disadvantage others by taking up arable land with a mansion and building illegally in a way that a poorer man would not.
England is not some hick frontier nation, and he clearly doesn't need the house, nor does it need to be sited specifically there. This has nothing to do with a "family home" and everything to do with a wealthy man thinking the law does not apply to him.
Frankly, I would think you would appreciate the principle of all being equal before the law.
It's his own land ffs. What does it matter if poorer people can't afford it, look at what he built it's really nice. Jealous people don't like nice and jealous people tend to work for rules-fetisjist government agency's. You know the type, painfully boring, monotone speech, brings his lunchbox to work, has an equally boring wife he no longer has sex with except when on holiday, two hot daughters.
Furunculus
02-04-2010, 11:17
I detest the idea of some "green belt" being protected from development. What right does the government have to take control of a person's property by declaring it part of some "green belt" and then forbidding people from building homes because it goes against the idea they have constructed? Why should the owners of the property suffer for this idea, this paper construct?
CR
US population density - 32/km2 - 83/sq mi
England population density - 395/km2 - 1,023/sq mi
that simple. come back and tell me you detest planning laws when the population of the US tops 4.5 billion souls!
Green belts do have some value. Endless city sprawls aren't good for anyone.
Of course, I think what has been done is spiteful. Won't stop the Tories using it as an example to bash Labour's "nanny state" though, despite the fact that it was in a, uh, Tory controlled council.
true.
trolling.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-04-2010, 12:01
It's his own land ffs. What does it matter if poorer people can't afford it, look at what he built it's really nice. Jealous people don't like nice and jealous people tend to work for rules-fetisjist government agency's. You know the type, painfully boring, monotone speech, brings his lunchbox to work, has an equally boring wife he no longer has sex with except when on holiday, two hot daughters.
He deliberately broke the law. He was only able to do it because he is rich. If he gets away with it, it will say that rich men can use their money to flout the law.
He deliberately broke the law. He was only able to do it because he is rich. If he gets away with it, it will say that rich men can use their money to flout the law.
Party card usually does. I don't care about the law, it's something you can get caught for if you break it. Why would someone not be allowed to build something on his own property, there is no problem because he broke the laws, there is a problem because he didn't follow the rules of people who have no fantasy or imagination whatsoever and only have their system. It offends them that some people aren't absolutely ordinary.
Kralizec
02-04-2010, 12:47
Even if I wouldn't be in favour of zoning laws, I'd still have little sympathy for this man, who sought to break the law by sneakily trying to build a 'fait accompli', and who is now trying to have the law suit him by shedding crocodile tears that they should be so cruel as to want a finished house torn down. This is not a matter of 'pity, he should've thought of this before'. This is a case of 'sorry mate, you knew the law all along, hence the covertness, but sneakyness doesn't create more law especially for you'.
I couldn't agree more.
Party card usually does. I don't care about the law, it's something you can get caught for if you break it. Why would someone not be allowed to build something on his own property, there is no problem because he broke the laws, there is a problem because he didn't follow the rules of people who have no fantasy or imagination whatsoever and only have their system. It offends them that some people aren't absolutely ordinary.
And apparently it offends you that some people are ordinary, so where's the difference?
I say the city council should start building trebuchets and that guy better walls some of the lower windows...
Hosakawa Tito
02-04-2010, 14:28
I couldn't agree more.
Zoning laws are the difference between the pleasant - lovely in places - British landscape, and Las Vegas. Or between Switzerland and third world urban sprawl.
Even if I wouldn't be in favour of zoning laws, I'd still have little sympathy for this man, who sought to break the law by sneakily trying to build a 'fait accompli', and who is now trying to have the law suit him by shedding crocodile tears that they should be so cruel as to want a finished house torn down. This is not a matter of 'pity, he should've thought of this before'. This is a case of 'sorry mate, you knew the law all along, hence the covertness, but sneakyness doesn't create more law especially for you'.
I don't know how it works in the UK, but in my little corner of the globe one can petition the Town board for a zoning variance. Failing that one can also work within the system to change the zoning law. What he did was just plain wrong.
From personal experienced I'd say areas with zoning laws are much better off than those without. Especially at the other end of the "wealth spectrum". Zoning laws also protect property owners from those who refuse to maintain their property in a reasonable acceptable condition.
My paternal grandparent's old homestead, in rural north-west Pennsylvania (Cyclone PA), is one such area with no zoning laws. I hadn't been to that area since the early 1980's. Last fall we had a family funeral to attend and I took the opportunity to take a trip down memory lane. That entire little community went from Mayberry to Dog Patch over the last 30+ years. Piles of garbage, junk cars, knee high grass, houses nothing more than tar paper covered shacks that are rotting and falling down. It's heart breaking to see when compared to those childhood memories. And they can't claim they're too poor either. My grandparents & their neighbors were poor too, and didn't have much, but they took pride in and care of what they did have.
Zoning laws are a necessary evil.
trolling.
Trolling? It may have been OT, but I was being perfectly serious.
Louis VI the Fat
02-04-2010, 16:42
Could one of the mods kindly correct the spelling in the title?
:embarassed:
Thanks,
CRNo.
The title will remain as is, to teach you to take the time to spell correctly. I myself saw instantly that the title should've read 'British Court Oders Man to Demolish his Families' Home'.
He has more than one family? That explains why he needs more than one family home :idea2:
I think Beskar meant to start his post with "Unlike" (Unlike in...).
Yes, correct. :embarassed:
Zoning is theft; it destroys the rights of the property owner, and takes away from the monetary value of their land with no compensation.
This is not remotely true. First of all, zoning laws have been in place for so long now that it is pretty much impossible to buy land without knowing in advance what you can use that land for. No one deserves compensation for existing zoning laws because the restrictions on land use are already factored into the value of your land. Compensation is warranted when zoning laws change, but that's not the case here.
As for taking away from the monetary value of the land, it works both ways. Without zoning laws, I could build a tannery on my property, which would totally destroy the value of my neighbors' land. Separation of industrial, agricultural, commercial, and residential areas has been proven to be necessary for health and economic welfare. Without zoning laws, you'd have steel mills next to water treatment plants, industrial office parks at the end of your residential road, and strip clubs next to elementary schools. Zoning laws hurt when they're used to restrict you, but in the grand scheme of things everyone benefits from them far more than they suffer.
This man didn't set out to break the law; he set out to build a home. What terrible consequences was the law supposed to prevent, that we must cling blindly to it? What bad effects have his illegal actions caused?
Why is another house being built so terrible? Show me the harm in his actions, and don't cite oppressive laws as reasons to stop him.
Actually, yes he did set out to break the law. He was denied permission to build the home, so he did it anyway and spent a considerable amount of effort in making sure no one discovered the home until 4 years had elapsed. Say what you want about the harm from this incident, but it's most certainly an intentional violation of the law.
industrial, agricultural, commercial, and residential areas has been proven to be necessary for health and economic welfare.
And for good Sim City growth :yes:
Pannonian
02-04-2010, 20:03
As for taking away from the monetary value of the land, it works both ways. Without zoning laws, I could build a tannery on my property, which would totally destroy the value of my neighbors' land. Separation of industrial, agricultural, commercial, and residential areas has been proven to be necessary for health and economic welfare.
Aye, but zoning does nothing to save one's city from Godzilla attack.
Crazed Rabbit
02-04-2010, 21:58
This is not remotely true. First of all, zoning laws have been in place for so long now that it is pretty much impossible to buy land without knowing in advance what you can use that land for. No one deserves compensation for existing zoning laws because the restrictions on land use are already factored into the value of your land. Compensation is warranted when zoning laws change, but that's not the case here.
As for taking away from the monetary value of the land, it works both ways. Without zoning laws, I could build a tannery on my property, which would totally destroy the value of my neighbors' land. Separation of industrial, agricultural, commercial, and residential areas has been proven to be necessary for health and economic welfare. Without zoning laws, you'd have steel mills next to water treatment plants, industrial office parks at the end of your residential road, and strip clubs next to elementary schools. Zoning laws hurt when they're used to restrict you, but in the grand scheme of things everyone benefits from them far more than they suffer.
Where I grew up, out in the county, we had zoning laws restricting our ability to sell the land; the housing density was set low. And there were no restrictions on property care; one neighbor had a tarp roof on one of his buildings. The other had an unkempt house and a large backyard filled with broken and rusted out cars, concealed only by unmowed grass. The neighbor across the street was a farmer who used manure sprinklers to send 60 foot sprays of manure into the air, which smelled very bad. So I'm a bit familiar with some of the reasons for zoning.
You say you could build a tannery on your property without zoning laws. First off, getting rid of zoning laws doesn't mean getting rid of the idea that one has rights so long as you don't harm others.
Secondly, would you build a tannery on your property? Do you have the room? Would such a placement be economically efficient? Would you want to live with a tannery on your property? Would the homeowners association let you?
In short, why would people act out these worst case scenarios?
People got along just fine without zoning laws for a long time, without the "industries in neighborhoods" you warn against. You say zoning has been proven necessary - well, how so?
I don't buy for a second the economic welfare argument. Companies aren't going to make stupid decisions just because a lack of zoning lets them. And there are economic benefits to building similar stores and industry together. Finally, individual companies are much better at making economic decisions for themselves than the government is at imposing economic rules. Government control in zoning is just as bad as control over the general economy. The economy would be more efficient without zoning, just as it is without centralized government planning over industry.
As for health - as I said before, the lack of zoning shouldn't mean you can just set up industries that are harmful to neighbors.
Finally - Houston Texas has no zoning laws, and they get along fine, without the terrible scenarios you warn against coming to pass. So I dare say it's proven that you don't need zoning laws for a modern functioning city.
He set out ot break planning laws and disadvantage others by taking up arable land with a mansion and building illegally in a way that a poorer man would not.
Taking up arable land? Is the land his or not? Or is it part of some giant community supply?
If he's really taking up arable land, then his income will drop and the price of farm goods rise as the supply of arable land decreases. So if a lot of farmers use their land for something else, the price of farm goods will rise a noticeable amount. This means farmers will have to give up more potential income to build more houses on their land, thus compelling some farmers to get rid of extraneous buildings and use the land for farming again. In short, the use or not of arable land will balance itself out fine.
As for being rich - well those who work hard and are successful are able to do more than poor people. It's the reward for being successful.
But a poor person should still have the right to build as they see fit on their land, even if it's just a small shack instead of a large house.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
02-04-2010, 22:03
Right. It's not about whether abolishing zoning laws, or whether the man broke the law or if he intended to break the law.
It's how far should the zoning laws go. Should they be able to distinguish between building one house and building 200 houses on your land?
Where I grew up, out in the county, we had zoning laws restricting our ability to sell the land; the housing density was set low. And there were no restrictions on property care; one neighbor had a tarp roof on one of his buildings. The other had an unkempt house and a large backyard filled with broken and rusted out cars, concealed only by unmowed grass. The neighbor across the street was a farmer who used manure sprinklers to send 60 foot sprays of manure into the air, which smelled very bad. So I'm a bit familiar with some of the reasons for zoning.
You say you could build a tannery on your property without zoning laws. First off, getting rid of zoning laws doesn't mean getting rid of the idea that one has rights so long as you don't harm others.
Secondly, would you build a tannery on your property? Do you have the room? Would such a placement be economically efficient? Would you want to live with a tannery on your property? Would the homeowners association let you?
In short, why would people act out these worst case scenarios?
People got along just fine without zoning laws for a long time, without the "industries in neighborhoods" you warn against. You say zoning has been proven necessary - well, how so?
I don't buy for a second the economic welfare argument. Companies aren't going to make stupid decisions just because a lack of zoning lets them. And there are economic benefits to building similar stores and industry together. Finally, individual companies are much better at making economic decisions for themselves than the government is at imposing economic rules. Government control in zoning is just as bad as control over the general economy. The economy would be more efficient without zoning, just as it is without centralized government planning over industry.
As for health - as I said before, the lack of zoning shouldn't mean you can just set up industries that are harmful to neighbors.
Finally - Houston Texas has no zoning laws, and they get along fine, without the terrible scenarios you warn against coming to pass. So I dare say it's proven that you don't need zoning laws for a modern functioning city.
You are correct that lack of zoning laws do not mean you can just build things that are harmful to your neighbors. That is prevented by nuisance laws. My response to that is simply to quote SCOTUS, as they explained the situation far better than I ever could:
Building zone laws are of modern origin. They began in this country about twenty-five years ago. Until recent years, urban life was comparatively simple; but with the great increase and concentration of population, problems have developed, and constantly are developing, which require, and will continue to require, additional restrictions in respect of the use and occupation of private lands in urban communities. Regulations the wisdom, necessity and validity of which, as applied to existing conditions, are so apparent that they are now uniformly sustained a century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive. Such regulations are sustained, under the complex conditions of our day, for reasons analogous to those which justify traffic regulations, which, before the advent of automobiles and rapid transit street railways, would have been condemned as fatally arbitrary and unreasonable. And in this there is no inconsistency, for, while the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world, it is impossible that it should be otherwise. But although a degree of elasticity is thus imparted not to the meaning, but to the application of constitutional principles, statutes and ordinances which, after giving due weight to the new conditions, are found clearly not to conform to the Constitution of course must fall.
The ordinance now under review, and all similar laws and regulations, must find their justification in some aspect of the police power, asserted for the public welfare. The line which in this field separates the legitimate from the illegitimate assumption of power is not capable of precise delimitation. It varies with circumstances and conditions. A regulatory zoning ordinance, which would be clearly valid as applied to the great cities, might be clearly invalid as applied to rural communities. In solving doubts, the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, which lies at the foundation of so much of the common law of nuisances, ordinarily will furnish a fairly helpful clew. And the law of nuisances likewise may be consulted not for the purpose of controlling, but for the helpful aid of its analogies in the process of ascertaining the scope of, the power. Thus, the question whether the power exists to forbid the erection of a building of a particular kind or for a particular use, like the question whether a particular thing is a nuisance, is to be determined not by an abstract consideration of the building or of the thing considered apart, but by considering it in connection with the circumstances and the locality. Sturgis v. Bridgeman, L.R. 11 Ch. 852, 865. A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place -- like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard. If the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes be fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control. Radice v. New York, 264 U. S. 292, 264 U. S. 294.
There is no serious difference of opinion in respect of the validity of laws and regulations fixing the height of buildings within reasonable limits, the character of materials and methods of construction, and the adjoining area which must be left open, in order to minimize the danger of fire or collapse, the evils of over-crowding, and the like, and excluding from residential sections offensive trades, industries and structures likely to create nuisances. See Welch v. Swasey, 214 U. S. 91; Hadacheck v. Los Angeles, 239 U. S. 394; Reinman v. Little Rock, 237 U. S. 171; Cusack Co. v. City of Chicago, 242 U. S. 526, 242 U. S. 529-530.
Here, however, the exclusion is in general terms of all industrial establishments, and it may thereby happen that not only offensive or dangerous industries will be excluded, but those which are neither offensive nor dangerous will share the same fate. But this is no more than happens in respect of many practice-forbidding laws which this Court has upheld although drawn in general terms so as to include individual cases that may turn out to be innocuous in themselves. Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U. S. 297, 248 U. S. 303; Pierce Oil Corp. v. City of Hope, 248 U. S. 498, 248 U. S. 500. The inclusion of a reasonable margin to insure effective enforcement will not put upon a law, otherwise valid, the stamp of invalidity. Such laws may also find their justification in the fact that, in some fields, the bad fades into the good by such insensible degrees that the two are not capable of being readily distinguished and separated in terms of legislation. In the light of these considerations, we are not prepared to say that the end in view was not sufficient to justify the general rule of the ordinance, although some industries of an innocent character might fall within the proscribed class. It cannot be said that the ordinance in this respect "passes the bounds of reason and assumes the character of a merely arbitrary fiat." Purity Extract Co. v. Lynch, 226 U. S. 192, 226 U. S. 204. Moreover, the restrictive provisions of the ordinance in this particular may be sustained upon the principles applicable to the broader exclusion from residential districts of all business and trade structures, presently to be discussed.
...
The decisions enumerated in the first group cited above agree that the exclusion of buildings devoted to business, trade, etc., from residential districts bears a rational relation to the health and safety of the community. Some of the grounds for this conclusion are promotion of the health and security from injury of children and others by separating dwelling houses from territory devoted to trade and industry; suppression and prevention of disorder; facilitating the extinguishment of fires and the enforcement of street traffic regulations and other general welfare ordinances; aiding the health and safety of the community by excluding from residential areas the confusion and danger of fire, contagion and disorder which, in greater or less degree, attach to the location of stores, shops and factories. Another ground is that the construction and repair of streets may be rendered easier and less expensive by confining the greater part of the heavy traffic to the streets where business is carried on.
The matter of zoning has received much attention at the hands of commissions and experts, and the results of their investigations have been set forth in comprehensive reports. These reports, which bear every evidence of painstaking consideration, concur in the view that the segregation of residential, business, and industrial buildings will make it easier to provide fire apparatus suitable for the character and intensity of the development in each section; that it will increase the safety and security of home life; greatly tend to prevent street accidents, especially to children, by reducing the traffic and resulting confusion in residential sections; decrease noise and other conditions which produce or intensify nervous disorders; preserve a more favorable environment in which to rear children, etc. With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that, in such sections, very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities -- until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances.
If these reasons, thus summarized, do not demonstrate the wisdom or sound policy in all respects of those restrictions which we have indicated as pertinent to the inquiry, at least the reasons are sufficiently cogent to preclude us from saying, as it must be said before the ordinance can be declared unconstitutional, that such provisions are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Cusack Co. v. City of Chicago, supra, pp. 242 U. S. 530-531; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 197 U. S. 30-31.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
As for Houston, the exception does not invalidate the rule. Just because one place operates effectively without zoning laws does not mean zoning laws are not effective in other places.
Taking up arable land? Is the land his or not? Or is it part of some giant community supply?
If he's really taking up arable land, then his income will drop and the price of farm goods rise as the supply of arable land decreases. So if a lot of farmers use their land for something else, the price of farm goods will rise a noticeable amount. This means farmers will have to give up more potential income to build more houses on their land, thus compelling some farmers to get rid of extraneous buildings and use the land for farming again. In short, the use or not of arable land will balance itself out fine.
As for being rich - well those who work hard and are successful are able to do more than poor people. It's the reward for being successful.
But a poor person should still have the right to build as they see fit on their land, even if it's just a small shack instead of a large house.
CR
I'm not going to debate whether this particular person should have to have his house torn down. It's a beautiful looking building and it seems like this is a situation where strict enforcement of the law is doing more harm than good. The bit you quoted was me responding to your allegation that he "didn't set out to break the law." I disagree and believe he did set out to break the law. I'm not interested in arguing anything beyond that with respect to this specific case. My debate is with the assertion that zoning laws in general are bad. I disagree with such a statement, but I do not remotely claim that all zoning laws are good nor that this specific case is an example of good zoning laws.
Myrddraal
02-05-2010, 00:38
Planning law doesn't distinguish between one man building a house and developers building 200 houses and everyone has to abide by the same rules.
This is not about stopping people building tanneries. This is about preventing urban sprawl. If this law didn't exist, there'd be no stopping those developers from building their 200. Even if the law did try to distinguish between individuals and developers the value of property near London is such that for every developer you stopped you'd have 200 individuals wanting to build.
This man seems to think that these laws don't apply to him because he has a lot of money.
The analogy with the car being scrapped is flawed. The law is against speeding, not against manufacturing cars. Here the law is against building, not buying.
Goofball
02-05-2010, 04:06
While I agree that the end result seems to be drastic in this case (demolishing the home), I have to agree with the ruling overall. As far as zoning laws being tyrannical, I wonder how any of us would feel if we had a neighbor who proposed to erect a massive warehouse right next to our homes, 5 stories high and built right to the extreme edges of the property line? Probably we'd be glad we could simply point out to the idiot that this is against the law...
HoreTore
02-07-2010, 09:57
As long as you have neighbors, you'll have to be nice, like in Goofballs rather extreme example.
Any structure built in violation of building permits should be wrecked instantly, and the builder should be slapped. A fine won't do, that would allow people to do like this idiot and then simply pay their way out of trouble. No, the only way to combat this is to wreck the offenders on sight.
CR noted an interesting thing; that this regulation reduces property value. Well, the same would apply without them, except that you would be left at the whims of neighbors you cannot influence instead of a democratically controlled city council(or whatever elected government body is in control). You bought a house and paid an extra 100k because it has easy access to a beach? Nope, sorry, your neighbor decided to build a boathouse there and shut you out, might as well have burned that extra 100k.
I definitely know which system I prefer.
Meneldil
02-07-2010, 11:20
So much outrage for nothing. Tear down his building already.
Guy tried to get by the law, and he now has to face the consequences. He probably could have gotten away with it through deliberation and talking before building the house, but he instead decided to sneakily create a fait accompli and cry when people notice it. What a sore loser.
So much outrage for nothing. Tear down his building already.
Guy tried to get by the law, and he now has to face the consequences. He probably could have gotten away with it through deliberation and talking before building the house, but he instead decided to sneakily create a fait accompli and cry when people notice it. What a sore loser.
It's a stupid law, so he should obey to every little thing these idiots by default at town hall think up. It's his own ground, if the robbernment can't find any significant reasons such as a pipeline or power-cord being in danger or something like that, this is just abuse that only serves the needs of a very boring person with a rapist-mentality and a law.
It is funny that the legions of the right step-in to protect the rich man who broke the laugh. But they are first to condemn a man for stealing a loaf of bread because he is starving.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-07-2010, 13:18
It's a stupid law, so he should obey to every little thing these idiots by default at town hall think up. It's his own ground, if the robbernment can't find any significant reasons such as a pipeline or power-cord being in danger or something like that, this is just abuse that only serves the needs of a very boring person with a rapist-mentality and a law.
Why is it a stupid Law, it's not like he actually owns the land anyway.
Why is it a stupid Law, it's not like he actually owns the land anyway.
In my opinion he really does. What service does he gets for his taxes over that specific piece of land, what is he paying for, and why don't people have to right to build something on a piece of land they bought. The man build a damn house, the people that have a problem with it will look at it only once, but most likely they will never look at it, not at all, what is their problem except looking for one.
"It is funny that the legions of the right step-in to protect the rich man who broke the laugh. But they are first to condemn a man for stealing a loaf of bread because he is starving."
Stop growing fat on leftist hobby's and there is enough for everyone, not everybody can have a private chaufeur in that setup though, it rains on the just and unjust alike.
HoreTore
02-07-2010, 14:03
In my opinion he really does. What service does he gets for his taxes over that specific piece of land, what is he paying for, and why don't people have to right to build something on a piece of land they bought.
....And when he bought that piece of land, he already knew that he would not be allowed to build another house. If he wanted to build a second house, he should've bought a piece of land which would allow him to do that. Again, what an idiot.
rory_20_uk
02-07-2010, 16:50
There is recently a case where a rich person (a footballer I believe) wanted a house in greenbelt land.
So we went to the Architect and got in contact with the planners. Together they decided what would be allowed - as apparently there are some types of dwelling that are allowed on the Greenbelt.
Although not to my taste, the end result appears rather like a mound as most of the house is under a layer or turf and is a single level dwelling.
Another solution is to get a plot with planning permission and then either replace or alter to one's tastes - you can even get cellars to houses that have been built if you want!!
The person in this case is clearly getting his own way, and feels that rules do not apply to him. Instead of engaging and finding a solution he went off and broke the law. The higher they are, the harder they fall.
~:smoking:
....And when he bought that piece of land, he already knew that he would not be allowed to build another house. If he wanted to build a second house, he should've bought a piece of land which would allow him to do that. Again, what an idiot.
That makes no sense to me at all. Who are you buying it from in your opinion.
HoreTore
02-07-2010, 17:00
That makes no sense to me at all. Who are you buying it from in your opinion.
Uhm..... The previous owner...?
Uhm..... The previous owner...?
That's what I thought, not the state, what's it to them what he does with it. He build a pretty awesome house,
HoreTore
02-07-2010, 17:06
That's what I thought, not the state, what's it to them what he does with it. He build a pretty awesome house,
His neighbors cares. So, the state have made regulations and laws to protect their rights.
The belief that nobody should have a say about what you do with your property is the same logic a 5-year old kid uses when he waves his arms in the air around his brother screaming "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you!!"
His neighbors cares.
Then his neighbour is the type of person that should just be ignored.
HoreTore
02-07-2010, 17:18
Then his neighbour is the type of person that should just be ignored.
So..... if you do something on your property which devalues my own property by say 100k, I should just shut up and take it? Nonsense.
This situation is similar to this; 5 people are having a wonderful time together, sitting around a table chatting. Then suddenly a large brute comes in, behaving like a barbarian and making everyone around the table miserable. You say the brute has every right to do as he pleases, without regard to what others think and if they don't like his behaviour, they should leave. I say the other 5 have the right to tell the brute to either behave in an appropriate manner or leave. The State in this example, would be represented by the bouncer who will throw the brute away if he doesn't play nice.
Never hear that logic when the states decides to built something.
HoreTore
02-07-2010, 17:24
Never hear that logic when the states decides to built something.
Then you'd better get that hearing checked out. Or you could learn to read norwegian, I have the last few weeks of Aftenposten here and there's a zillion articles on the new building projects in Bjørvika there...
rory_20_uk
02-07-2010, 17:24
Having one power trash parts of the country does not mean it's a great idea to give everyone the same right.
~:smoking:
Having one power trash parts of the country does not mean it's a great idea to give everyone the same right.
~:smoking:
What power, isn't like he's building it on the land of someone else. Robberment should just do it's real job and stop bullying when a sheep blah's out of sync.
HoreTore
02-07-2010, 17:40
What power, isn't like he's building it on the land of someone else. Robberment should just do it's real job and stop bullying when a sheep blah's out of sync.
The state is merely acting on behalf of his neighbors who don't like seeing their property values drop, frags.
rory_20_uk
02-07-2010, 17:56
Let's try an example.
Frag, you own a modest dwelling at the foot of a hill over looking some countryside. You like the rural life and wanted to get away form it all.
Someone buys up 4 fields in front to make his new dwelling. Something classy that exudes taste. It so happens that he too thinks the view is nice, so he has the house facing the same way as yours in front.
Sadly, his is 4 stories high with two wings, all but obliterating your view. He also decides he needs privacy, so builds a wall around his new state.
It's his land, but I hope you see that it still impacting on those around him.
~:smoking:
rory_20_uk
02-07-2010, 19:27
That is the reason for the law. You apply, the application gets reviewed and accepted or rejected.
Otherwise you're acting in an illegal manner.
~:smoking:
Law isn't a reason out of itself, this is just plain bullying, let men play a little.
Law isn't a reason out of itself, this is just plain bullying, let men play a little.
Now you are just being stubborn. The guy is in the wrong, End of story.
He purposely broke the law for his own selfish reasons with no regard for anyone else. He never did it for humanitarian or ethical-moral obligations, it was just some one with a lot of money who thought they were above the law who needs to be smacked back to earth.
If he managed to keep it hidden for so long then how can it possibly be a problem for anyone, this is just the state being a prick because they can. OBEY
Sasaki Kojiro
02-07-2010, 20:31
Breaking the law is not immoral. Being selfish is not immoral.
I find the impulse to jeer and chop down anyone wealthy/famous/etc to be unappealing, along with the :rulez: attitude some people here have.
Fragony is the worst devil's advocate I've ever seen.
Furunculus
02-08-2010, 11:09
It is funny that the legions of the right step-in to protect the rich man who broke the laugh. But they are first to condemn a man for stealing a loaf of bread because he is starving.
sorry?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126086-British-Court-Orders-Man-to-Demolish-His-Family-s-Home&p=2427301&viewfull=1#post2427301
i smell a sweeping generalisation, and my last comment to subotan appears equally relevant here.
Fragony is the worst devil's advocate I've ever seen.
Are you ever going to post something constructive, or do we have to make due with the same type of empty one-liners you find everywhere on the net? It's not clever there and it's not clever here, isn't clever anywhere really, but all the more annoying because as some are here to actually discuss things instead of throwing paper planes through the classroom.
HoreTore
02-08-2010, 13:13
sorry?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126086-British-Court-Orders-Man-to-Demolish-His-Family-s-Home&p=2427301&viewfull=1#post2427301
i smell a sweeping generalisation, and my last comment to subotan appears equally relevant here.
Congratilations, Furunculus!!
You're one of us lefties now~:grouphug:
Furunculus
02-08-2010, 13:58
Congratilations, Furunculus!!
You're one of us lefties now~:grouphug:
don't bet on it! :p
Are you ever going to post something constructive, or do we have to make due with the same type of empty one-liners you find everywhere on the net? It's not clever there and it's not clever here, isn't clever anywhere really, but all the more annoying because as some are here to actually discuss things instead of throwing paper planes through the classroom.
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?122329-No-more-global-warming&p=2428875&viewfull=1#post2428875)
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?122329-No-more-global-warming&p=2428875&viewfull=1#post2428875)
Those who worry about CO2 gasses shouldn't breath so much, you are making it all worse. It's pretty clear, just about every theory of the IPCC was wrong or downright fraud, up to the point where India has officially stated that they don't trust the IPCC anymore and are leaving the party. And more are to come.
Ser Clegane
02-08-2010, 15:19
Back on topic, please.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.