British Court Orders Man to Demolish His Family's Home

PC Mode

Thread: British Court Orders Man to Demolish His Family's Home

Page 2 of 3 First 12 3 Last

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus 12:01 02-04-2010

Originally Posted by Fragony:
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.

Fragony 12:09 02-04-2010

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
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 12:47 02-04-2010

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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.

Husar 14:20 02-04-2010

Originally Posted by Fragony:
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 14:28 02-04-2010

Originally Posted by Kralizec:
I couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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.

Subotan 14:40 02-04-2010

Originally Posted by Furunculus:
trolling.

Trolling? It may have been OT, but I was being perfectly serious.

Louis VI the Fat 16:42 02-04-2010

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Could one of the mods kindly correct the spelling in the title?

Thanks,
CR

No.

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'.

miotas 17:15 02-04-2010

He has more than one family? That explains why he needs more than one family home

Beskar 17:19 02-04-2010

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
I think Beskar meant to start his post with "Unlike" (Unlike in...).

Yes, correct.

TinCow 18:39 02-04-2010

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
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.

Originally Posted by :
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.

Subotan 19:43 02-04-2010

Originally Posted by :
industrial, agricultural, commercial, and residential areas has been proven to be necessary for health and economic welfare.

And for good Sim City growth

Pannonian 20:03 02-04-2010

Originally Posted by TinCow:
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 21:58 02-04-2010

Originally Posted by TinCow:
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.

Originally Posted by :
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 22:03 02-04-2010

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?

TinCow 22:24 02-04-2010

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

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.

Originally Posted by :
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 00:38 02-05-2010

Originally Posted by :
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 04:06 02-05-2010

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 09:57 02-07-2010

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 11:20 02-07-2010

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.

Fragony 12:53 02-07-2010

Originally Posted by Meneldil:
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.

Beskar 13:14 02-07-2010

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 13:18 02-07-2010

Originally Posted by Fragony:
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.

Fragony 13:25 02-07-2010

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
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 14:03 02-07-2010

Originally Posted by Fragony:
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 16:50 02-07-2010

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.

Fragony 16:57 02-07-2010

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
....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 17:00 02-07-2010

Originally Posted by Fragony:
That makes no sense to me at all. Who are you buying it from in your opinion.

Uhm..... The previous owner...?

Fragony 17:03 02-07-2010

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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 17:06 02-07-2010

Originally Posted by Fragony:
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!!"

Fragony 17:09 02-07-2010

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
His neighbors cares.

Then his neighbour is the type of person that should just be ignored.

Page 2 of 3 First 12 3 Last

Single Sign On provided by vBSSO