Property rights

Exploring the myth .
Its smoking (or it might be) ~;) .

If a property I owned , (completely owned , no mortage , no leasehold , no commonage) needed some work done on it should I be allowed to do it as I saw fit as my freedom of choice or would I have to comply with local laws covering such things under my obligations as a property owner ?

Say for example I wanted to redo the roof covering , the house had been done in hot felt , all the houses near it were done in hot felt , people have been doing hot felt for years , it does a good job and is in my opinion the best option and it should be my choice to make since it is my property .

However due to new health and fire safety regulations the local authorities have banned hot felt roofing .
Should I be allowed to ignore local laws ?
Would I have any chance of success in changing the law if I bought a frivalous lawsuit claiming my rights as a citizen trumped legislation and obligations as a property owner , yet were unable to prove that the law was in fact a bad one or that my rights were being infringed ?

Would the regulations be a sign that I am living under an oppressive government ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Should I be allowed to ignore local laws ?

---

All depends on the jurisdiction and circumstances.

If you are very rich or a corporation, in most countries local laws are barely a hindrance.

Some places (like Texas, as I am led to believe) local tradition trumps local laws every time.

Many places give voluntary exemptions to local good causes.

And down here, of course you can - subject to a small emolument to the right person, of course. I never met a bye-law I couldn't buy.:wink:

Bribery is always legal. Just bribe those who says it's not.

The problem tends to be they're not always receptive to the attempt...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Would I have any chance of success in changing the law if I bought a frivalous lawsuit claiming my rights as a citizen trumped legislation and obligations as a property owner , yet were unable to prove that the law was in fact a bad one or that my rights were being infringed ?

---

Dunno how it is in Ireland but if you can find a similar case where a judge gave the go you have a pretty good chance.

Quote:

---

Dunno how it is in Ireland

---

See the last line in Banquos post . Over here with the correct approach you can even get the firebrigade whose station is 50 yards from the property you are having trouble with not turn up until after enough damage has been done for you to by-pass the planning laws .If done correctly and with the right precautions you can ensure that only the problem parts of the building are fire damaged and that the susbsequent water damage when the firemen eventually arrive doesn't effect the parts that you want to keep open .

Then again the scenario in the OP is not in Ireland ...it is in the land of the free .

could be worse

http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven...eltecheese.jpg

Basing an arguement on hypothecial (SP) conditions.

Most cities and states in the United States have restrictions and regulations on what one can or can not do on one's property.

What I have seen in the past and know from experience is that if one hires a contractor to perform the work - all present codes must be meant. If one does the work themselves - one can repair to the code for when the house was built.

I know this because I remodeled my own home - I did not have to use the 2006 building codes - only maintain the house to the building codes for when it was built in 1994. When I was researching what the cost of doing the remodel would be, I discovered by talking to the contractors this specific condition - concerning remodelling of personal property.

So without more evidence of what the circumstances around the spefic situation, I would state that the homeowner did not understand the local ordances, because the freedom to maintain your property, nor did he understand the city ordances in which he lived.

If the building was used for commerical purposes there is a different set of laws that are involved to insure the safety of the citizens of the community.

Now when one lives outside of city incorporated zones where such ordances are enforced - one can build any structure one wants without building permits if its used for storage of material or keeping of animals - only buildings for human habitation and commerical use fall under building codes - that this is primarily for the county to establish a tax base for the property.

Thats where it gets complicated Red , there are lots of laws involved , the front of the property is in one district the back is in another , so both sets of rules apply , also since not ony has it got neighbouring houses it by chance adjoins a nature reserve which brings in more regulations .
It is not a building codes issue really it is a health and safety one ,together with some public nuisance for good measure . Mainly involving fire risk , noxious fumes and an unpleasant smell .

This is to explore the myth about rights without responsibilities from the closed "smoking" topic but without the emotional baggage that some dragged into that .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

This is to explore the myth about rights without responsibilities from the closed "smoking" topic but without the emotional baggage that some dragged into that .

---

Well then the arguement might be lost on me, because I am a firm believer that with rights come responsibiity.

Bugger . Red can you not take an alternative stance please .
edit forI missed a T

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Bugger . Red can you not take an alternative stance please .
edit forI missed a T

---

How about the state has no right to force me to take responsiblity for my own actions.

Does that work?