Hacker News Reader

Comment by rcthompson | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com