Hacker News Reader

Comment by gravypod | Hacker News Reader

Wait, if he bought the land then I don't really see a problem. I know that "it's an eye sore" but that is subjective.

Can I say "your orchard is an eye sore, you have to flatten it"?

If he bought the land then I don't see a reason to press criminal charges. I could see them saying "you need to maintain the property," but I don't understand "you need to remove it."

I think it's crazy that people can come on to your private property and say "remove this" and make you comply. If anything, why the hell aren't the cops arresting people who are destroying his private property? In my eyes they are coming after a victim.

View on HN

Owning a plot of land doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. I can't buy a plot in the suburbs and build a skyscraper on it. Buildings require permits, even buildings made of shipping containers.

So putting a shipping container in my yard should require a permit?

"should" is perhaps the right question, however in California the answer is "does it?".

I don't know if you live in California, but "permits" are the go to weapon of neighborhood activist groups to try to get what they want. Whether it is to prevent building, property use, or nuisances. My guess is that someone argued the container is a "building" (it has windows and a door after all), and every city requires that you get a permit before you put a building on your property. Whether it is a lowly garden shed or a guest house.

Should neighbors be able to attack each other with the municipal code? That is a pretty deep question. Do they? Sure all the time.

Honestly? Maybe. Depends on how long it's there and what it's used for. It can negatively effect both my quality of life and my financial situation. You don't have a right to do that.

Sure we do. Simply driving an ICE car probably affects more the quality of life of other people than having a container sitting on a plot of land.

Some negative effects are wrongful, but far from all.

This must be a stupid question but what is an ICE car?

Gas-powered (as opposed to electric cars).

Ah internal combustion engine. I googled and got stuff like this [0]

[0] - http://image.syracuse.com/home/syr-media/width620/img/weathe...

heh... I thought we were talking about an Immigration and Customs Enforcement car.

Try driving your ICE car without a permit and the government will come down on you.

To my knowledge there is absolutely no law on the books preventing someone from driving any automotive vehicle on private property in the united states.

This was told to me by a US police officer who came in to talk to us about getting ready to drive. He said going to the mall or a football stadium on a Sunday is the perfect way to get practice. It just needed to be private property.

Edit: To clarify this happened a few years ago when I was still in high school.

And that's why it's a maybe. If it's sitting there because you're moving or turning it into a tiny house, that's one thing. If it's abandoned and has become a den of heroin addicts and meth cooks, or full of trash then that's another.

Just to be clear, you are arguing that all land, regardless of topology, existing use and zoning, and adjacent interest is equivalent, right?

Not at all, clearly building into the ground or adding stilts should require permit. In the pictures it looks like the container is on flat ground.

Should is up for debate, but many places require a permit for an RV or shed, so a shipping container probably does.

This particular container is attracting vandalism where it sits, arguably a quality-of-life issue extending beyond the property line. Dunno about the general case. This particular case here gives no reason to argue that permits in general are a case of government overreach.

Well he wasn't doing "anything he wanted to" and he definitely wasn't "building skyscrapers" on the land. He had a shipping container and it seems like someone threw a party on the land.

There are millions of things the government could go after him for but they didn't. They didn't go after permits, or safety codes, or anything. They cited him for "abandoned or vacant building open to the public" which is complete BS.

If they went after him for building permits (which do not apply here) or anything else I'd agree that is fine. That is not what happened. What they have done is essentially went after him for a charge of "I don't like what you have that here, it looks ugly"

So putting an unsecured (both to random individuals and to the hillside) container wasn't what he wanted to do? If not, he should totally sue someone, because if I ordered a pizza and an empty shipping container with windows cut out on the sides was delivered instead, I'd be mad.

Also, having an vacant building open to the public is a safety code violation. Why do you think empty building have locked doors and fences around them?

How is this different than a gazebo?

If he had built a gazebo or similar structure on the land, would the neighbors have anything to say about it (except maybe "make sure the homeless can't be comfortable in it")?

Well it wouldn't be as much of an eye sore, and he would probably still need permits.

http://dpw.lacounty.gov/general/faq/index.cfm?9185=9185&Acti...

He did go and call it an experiment in sustainable living, implying the intent was for it to be a dwelling. I don't think it's unreasonable for some permit requisites to apply to it, like being a rust hazard or a danger to neighbors during an earthquake.

Rust hazard?

I laughed when I saw this. Thanks for pointing it out.

I may be missing something, is this not a thing people say?

Couldn't anything metal be a rust hazard? Am I allowed to own a metal mail box or is that a rust hazard.

Perhaps this is distracting the conversation then. I just brought up rust because it is a common element of rental inspection (http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/looking.shtm...), and because inhaling iron particles has been known to cause respiratory issues - probably more relevant in a human enclosure than in a mailbox (albeit not as serious as asbestos or lead). But the point stands, if the container is generally accepted as a public-access dwelling, then it is not unreasonable to subject it to inspection for livability.

It sounds like something the Ministry of Information would issue (movie Brazil..a must see)

> They cited him for "abandoned or vacant building open to the public" which is complete BS.

Maybe it's intentionally BS, and the city expects him to win. Then the city can say, "well a jury found him not guilty" and shut up the annoying neighbors without looking like they are ignoring the problem.

Maybe it's just the cynic in me but I think that the DA is far too lazy to file a case that they are sure they won't win. No matter the reason.

Hopefully you are right and this turns out in RR's favor.

I think jrockway was more implying that they are looking to file this case and lose it, so that people will stop prodding to file more cases which they will also lose. This is totally compatible with laziness.

I wasn't thinking that, but I like the way you think. We should write a TV show together or something.

Excuse me, let me introduce you to Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby, or a litany of prosecutors who have filed trumped up or erroneous charges against someone just for the sake of power and attention. Sometimes it's not about winning or losing, but punishing someone the state disagrees with.

Actually that's the problem: With very specific exceptions to pollution, etc. you should be allowed to do with it as you please. It's yours. You bought it and now own it. Who would ever cede this right??

Property rights in the US and UK have deteriorated.

Look at the Tiny House movement. It's clever but it is also a symptom of something rotten. There is something wrong with a society where half a person's working life is dedicated to the establishment and maintenance of mere shelter.

If I bought the property next to yours, and built large walls to block light from entering your windows, you'd rather the law had no power to stop me?

Not a problem by my standards. I don't care what you do next to my property. It is your property.

But also, that is not what happened. He did what amounted to putting a box on a hill.

I'll put a parabolic reflector on my property to focus sunlight into a single point on your house, setting it on fire. It's my property so I do what I want.

Libertarian nonsense falls apart so quickly.

No, because that would cause damage to others' property, which isn't allowed in propertarianist theories.

Denial of sunshine isn't damage?

Fire can directly kill someone. A shadow cannot directly kill someone.

Can you please shed some light on how you think these two things are remotely the same?

(Had to sneak in the pun)

What about my super expensive potted plants that shrivel and die from the lack of sunshine?

You have multiple paths for recourse. Your plants don't need to be inside, you can install a sun roof, you can get lights, or finally you can talk to your neighbor.

> I'll put a parabolic reflector on my property to focus sunlight into a single point on your house, setting it on fire

The difference is that Robert Rhinehart isn't setting fire to people or directly harming them.

The difference is that you are trying to directly cause serious bodily harm. This is the worst analogy possible.

The right analogy would be do I have the right to say "he has a parabolic reflector on his property that could start a fire. He needs to remove it."

To me, that is unreasonable.

> Libertarian nonsense falls apart so quickly

Only under the scrutiny of logic with more holes then Swiss cheese. If you'd like to debate libertarian policies then I'm all ears. My email is in my profile.

Wonderful example of a strawman attack if I've ever seen one.

Ignoring the obvious property rights issues and the fact that the majority of libertarians still support the existence of limited government interference, even the most hardcore anarcho-capitalists who aren't covered by the above still believe in a non-aggression principle which would clearly be violated. But that is small percentage of an already small group.

There is no aggression involved in blocking all sunlight from someone's windows? I would beg to differ.

Aggression is not a trivial concept to define.

It's "non aggression" principal not "no aggression"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle?wprov...

What's so bad about attaching a covenant to a piece of land and then subdividing it?

(this is a rough euphemism for a zoning ordinance, where people buy land in cities with standing agreements not to do stupid shit that bothers their neighbors)

> Not a problem by my standards

FWIW, basically everyone in the world disagrees with you. Sunlight is an essential factor in building codes.

That's why it was such a ridiculous and inapplicable hypothetical to raise in this discussion. One only notices a box on a hill when it is one's strict intention to do so.

Unless the box is orange and placed around an area that was ear marked to become a park and a popular hiking spot. Then maybe everyone that goes up there will notice your box.

If it was on it's way too becoming a park why was it put to auction?

I can't say. But it's linked to at the beginning of the article. Residents had apparently worked to prevent development of the area.

Who are these people that have the time to hassle property owners, city officials, and "criminal" (read: wrong skin color) "park" visitors on a regular basis, but can't pony up $20k among the whole group to actually get done what they claim to want done?

At least we've backed off from the "this is just like building a giant dome over your neighbor's house to deprive them of all sunlight" analogy. That was silly.

> "I don't care what you do next to my property. It is your property."

Awesome. Can't wait to establish my crack den/brothel/suboxone clinic/for profit prison/coal mine/pesticide factory/eurotrash party house as your next door neighbor.

Zoning regulations a reason.

Such easy things to say when you're just dealing with a hypothetical. You almost certainly do care what your neighbors do(or don't do).

You've managed to simplify the argument into a yes/no question. Congratulations. You have also managed to completely avoid the central issue: It's his land. Like it or not it's his. If you want to pass ordinances regulating the height of walls and structures go for it. Otherwise, kindly go pound sand.

> If anything, why the hell aren't the cops arresting people who are destroying his private property?

Because he had "private security" conducting regular inspections.

The presence of one security contractor does not mean that another doesn't need to do their job.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com