Murphy101 Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 So this came across my news feed. This family is not hooked up to the city utilities and it's a trailer home and so the city is condemning their home and threatening criminal trespass charges against them. But I see nothing hazardous to the point of criminal or condemn action worthy in the video. That doesn't mean there isn't of course. Personally I think trailer/mobile homes are tin can death traps. (So does almost anyone who lives in tornado alley.) BUT with housing becoming so insanely stupidly expensive, screw the cities beautification and gentrification zoning. People gotta survive and his home is more financially sound than probably anything he could rent for that price and this is all his. And as long as he has some kind of storm shelter, I don't see an inherent reason to label his home unsafe. And most folks use this as a starting point. It wouldn't surprise me if 5 years from now he has a more foundation made house. Personally, I don't understand why they care if he is on the utility grid as long as it doesn't mean he is polluting the area with his trash or stealing utilities from neighbors. Opinions? http://tribunist.com/news/city-tells-veteran-he-will-be-arrested-if-he-continues-to-live-off-the-grid-video/?utm_source=CDH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 I think it's bull. Leave them alone. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie12345 Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 Part of me suspects there may be other things going on, and this is the way "they" can get to him. Most of the townships I've researched in my area require a septic system in order to issue a CO, but a few small areas do allow for a "proper" composting toilet. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted April 28, 2016 Author Share Posted April 28, 2016 Someone reaponded on it that trailers are only allowed in trailer parks because they are considered a "nuisance" to neighbors. Humph. Which in my un PC mind is politely saying "those" people live on that side of the tracks. Trailer parks are notorious ghettos. Not all so don't scream at me, but many bc they tend to be transient or very very poor and the upkeep shows it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 I started whining years ago when I found I needed a permit to fix my own roof. Why should you need to buy a permit to fix your own house? I am not surprised they have minimum requirements for living spaces. Some of the requirements may be stupid, but others maybe not. If you let one person do this, you have to ask, would it be a problem if everyone did it? Also maybe they have seen a lot of cases of child neglect or similar due to not having modern facilities. We hear about that in the news from time to time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 Someone reaponded on it that trailers are only allowed in trailer parks because they are considered a "nuisance" to neighbors. Humph. Which in my un PC mind is politely saying "those" people live on that side of the tracks. Trailer parks are notorious ghettos. Not all so don't scream at me, but many bc they tend to be transient or very very poor and the upkeep shows it. Their crappy attitudes are a nuisance. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted April 28, 2016 Author Share Posted April 28, 2016 My opinion is that Zoning Boards have WAY too much power! But the days of "my land, my rights" seem to be disappearing into another era. Now it's more like, "pay your taxes and shut up." I get HOA's because you can choose if you want to live within one or not, but I think the way these boards wield their power can be nauseating and it's all about money. If I want to live on my property without city utilities they shouldn't care. But they're going to give someone like this guy a hassle meanwhile they roll out the red carpet for a corporation like Walkmart or whoever to come in- here- let us give you an abatement! Seriously jacked up. Yep. It's nuts. People getting all worried about how those unsightly poor people are bringing down property values are going to gentrify this country straight into an economic toilet and build civil unrest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tap Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 My suspicion, is that it has to do with being inside city limits. There can't be a dwelling without basic amenities like running water, power and sewer. He doesn't have to use them, but he does have to have legal access to them. Basic hygiene and personal safety (ie heat). The laws aren't there to hurt people who live humanly and cleanly on their property, but for the people who take it too far the other way. Leaving piles of feces laying on top of the ground because there is no running water, or having no way to access refrigeration, heat during cold months a fan during the hot ones. If he was outside city limits there would likely be no issue. It is the same reason that people cant typically live in a camp trailer or tent on property within city limits. 20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MomtoCandJ Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 (edited) Well that's crappy, he's a veteran too. Next they will be complaining that he and gf are homeless folks living on the streets, and who would be to blame??? The "city" of Huntsville. Maybe just maybe if people would freakin mind their own business (as in these people who are harming no one) there wouldn't be so many homeless. There are homeless people in my area (in town) because of these stupid "zoning" laws. These people lived in campers with generators and solar panels on their own property waiting for the "city" to approve their building permits. Said city couldn't get enough people to approve the building permit but could get enough to approve the condemning and removal of these campers. Edited April 28, 2016 by MomtoCandJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 I guess being poor is a crime. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted April 28, 2016 Author Share Posted April 28, 2016 I started whining years ago when I found I needed a permit to fix my own roof. Why should you need to buy a permit to fix your own house? I am not surprised they have minimum requirements for living spaces. Some of the requirements may be stupid, but others maybe not. If you let one person do this, you have to ask, would it be a problem if everyone did it? Also maybe they have seen a lot of cases of child neglect or similar due to not having modern facilities. We hear about that in the news from time to time. Oh good heavens. What if everyone started living affordably and safely conserving water, composting, recycling, and using solar energy for their homes. The horror. *insert fainting smiley* /end sarcasism By all means if they are living in a cess pool, I completely agree that is a risk to the community and environment in general. No one is advocating doing away with basic hygiene and health. But they aren't. And they don't even have children. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 Honestly, I can understand requiring sewer hookups in city limits. Maybe they could make some exceptions on a case-by-case basis if the owner proves his solution is sanitary. This guy has 2 acres, but most city properties are a lot smaller and sewage is going to be an issue if they don't have rules about it. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 (edited) Many localities allow you to sell your excess solar energy to the city if you have solar and are on the grid. It might be a good idea for him to go for that if the hookup isn't too expensive. Maybe he needs a gofundme to get stuff installed. Should have checked the rules before he put a trailer on the land. Or maybe he is grandfathered. I hate to see him being kicked off his own land, but hopefully there is a reasonable compromise. Edited April 28, 2016 by SKL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted April 28, 2016 Author Share Posted April 28, 2016 They have water, power and are safely handling their sewage. That's what the water tank, solar panels and toilet compost are. If they aren't making sure the water is clean or the sewage is proper - I'd be okay with fining them for that to be corrected. My guess is some city yahoo inspector came out and had no clue which end was up beyond they weren't connected to the city and declared it unsafe. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mama Geek Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 In my little town it is against city ordinance for a boat to be in front of the most front face of your house, which means for most people that you can't park it in your driveway. We didn't know that when we bought and I don't know if it would have impacted whether or not we bought in the town, but it has been very inconvenient. Most houses do not have enough room on the side to park a boat and there are no places with good covered storage near by. So much for my property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 (edited) Huntsville's response from June 2015. ...The City of Huntsville has been working with Mr. Truitt and his alternative lifestyle choices for the past nine months. Mr. Truitt has now been issued two citations. The first citation on March 27 was for failing to meet zoning requirements – trailers are not allowed in the city limits. Zoning Administration informed Mr. Truitt that he could apply to the Board of Zoning adjustment for a variance. He chose to go to court and was found guilty on May 20. Mr. Truitt is appealing that conviction and his next court date will be July 29. The second citation was issued May 12 by our Community Development Department for owning an unsafe structure (multiple code issues regarding safety, sanitation, sewer, utilities – Code #7-357 through 7-388). As you are aware, the purpose behind these requirements is public safety. This includes ensuring that occupants of a residential dwelling have safe, potable, running water, and electricity, particularly in the wintertime. These are public safety regulations, regardless of how (they are) perceived by some members of the public. The City has posted the property as “Unsafe†for this reason. The absence of a connection to a sanitary sewer system (whether a septic system or sanitary sewer outfall line connected, ultimately, to a treatment facility, is not only a health and safety issue for the occupants, it’s a health and safety issue for others who may live around him/her. There are both benefits to be obtained, and compromises to be made, when people choose to live in an urban community. Contrary to some of the public comments online, it’s not a revenue issue for Huntsville Utilities or the City. Community Development’s mission is, among other things, protection of the public health. We have had many problems in the past with landlords who have taken advantage of poor tenants by refusing to insure the availability of such basic utility services – people who have lived in houses or apartments with no running water, no heat, no electricity, no proper connection to sanitary sewer facilities. We have used this regulatory tool to force these slum lords to bring their properties up to code (when we become aware of the violations), so that their tenants can be assured of having the basic services required for survival – services most of us all take for granted. Edited April 28, 2016 by justasque 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 From googling other articles, it sounds like the problem is that it's a trailer, not so much that it's off the grid. I think it's silly that the city doesn't allow anyone to live in a trailer if it's not in a trailer park, but this guy probably should have taken a look at the zoning ordinances before he moved this trailer onto the property, too. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 More background, from Sept 2015. ...Truitt and Hamar live in what he calls a "manufactured home" and the city calls a trailer. It has solar panels in the front yard, a 550-gallon water tank to catch rainwater and a composting toilet. Truitt says he should be applauded for his lifestyle, not condemned. Instead, the city cited Truitt in March for having a trailer outside of a mobile home park and in May for unsafe electrical, plumbing and heating systems. Truitt said Wednesday that "the city refused to hook up utilities and water, then cited us for not having utilities. In essence, they're saying we can't live off the grid." City officials say the case isn't about living off the grid. Citizens can live "green," city spokeswoman Kelly Schrimsher said, but they need building permits to install features like plumbing and power lines, and the installations need to be inspected. It's for the safety of the residents and their neighbors, Schrimsher said. Truitt did not get permits, she said, and he did not seek a variance... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 He should have filed for a variance. I wonder why he didn't. He may be needing a septic tank. I don't think that's such a huge burden. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 There are a lot of places that don't allow composting toilets. I personally think that should change, but I think in a lot of cases it is because they are older regulations, or they had specific concerns. In general anything about sewage treatment will be picky. But any time people live within city limits, there will be trade offs like that. I can't say they really bother me more than a lot of the completely idiotic HOA rules. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 I think it's bull. Leave them alone. Agreed, but I suspect something else came to the attention of the authorities (not read the story yet). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 I guess being poor is a crime. Municipalities criminalize visible poverty all the time. When I cooked and served with Food Not Bombs, we were breaking the law every week. Didn't matter that we all had food handlers permits and cooked in a commerical kitchen at a church, it was illegal to feed people hot meals for free outside in the middle of skid row. We did it anyway. There are higher laws at play in feeding hungry people. 21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 I bet this IS a revenue thing, because it is in Vegas. They're trying to ban casinos from installing solar power there because it drives up the infrastructure costs for everyone. If every young person paid cash for things and used fully renewable resources instead of going into debt and being dependent on a city, the city would have no power. I'm also thinking that this is something that will increasingly be an issue, because Tiny Homes are gaining popularity everywhere. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 Slideshow of the property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted April 28, 2016 Author Share Posted April 28, 2016 Bah. I'm not seeing anything more than gentrification BS. There's nothing wrong or unsanitary about his water or toilet. I'm curious to know if the electrical is simply bc it's solar power or if there is a genuine faulty power line of some sort. Also, how do you get a permit to do something that not allowed? For example, if the law says you must use city grid electric, then by default you can't get an electrical permit to hook up personal solar panels. I'm perfectly fine with civil disobedience on unreasoned demands. I'm also perfectly fine with sensible community sanitation requirement. If he was a fire risk, raw sewage spreading risk, water pollution risk - I'd be all over demanding he do things safely and sanitary. But otherwise, it just seems like people getting their knickers in a twist over someone having the nerve to look too poor for polite society. And the worse the economic gets, the more people are going to have to accept gentrification zoning laws are untenable. Like not being allowed to have rabbits or chickens. Some restrictions make sense. Totally agree about that. Some are just gentrification people can't maintain if they want to find affordable means to meet their living needs. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 Another article. The city said, in June of 2015: "There is nothing illegal about living "off the grid," provided interested citizens go through proper channels. We encourage green environmental living, and our departments stand ready and willing to guide citizens through the appropriate permitting process. We have several residents in the City utilizing solar power and some are actually putting power back on the grid. "The source of Mr. Truitt's utilities is not an issue. No resident is required to buy utilities from the city. Any property owner, however, is required to meet the building codes that are enforced across the city. The systems Mr. Truitt has attempted to put in do not meet any of the building codes, nor did Mr. Truitt apply for any permits as required by law. His sanitary situation further violates state health codes." http://www.fox10tv.com/story/29326010/city-responds-to-couple-trying-to-live-off-the-grid#ixzz479x5l7sD 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 Another article. The city said, in June of 2015: "There is nothing illegal about living "off the grid," provided interested citizens go through proper channels. We encourage green environmental living, and our departments stand ready and willing to guide citizens through the appropriate permitting process. We have several residents in the City utilizing solar power and some are actually putting power back on the grid. "The source of Mr. Truitt's utilities is not an issue. No resident is required to buy utilities from the city. Any property owner, however, is required to meet the building codes that are enforced across the city. The systems Mr. Truitt has attempted to put in do not meet any of the building codes, nor did Mr. Truitt apply for any permits as required by law. His sanitary situation further violates state health codes." http://www.fox10tv.com/story/29326010/city-responds-to-couple-trying-to-live-off-the-grid#ixzz479x5l7sD Which implies - give us more money for the inspections, and spend more money on the property so we can charge you higher property taxes. Revenue is the issue. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted April 28, 2016 Author Share Posted April 28, 2016 Slideshow of the property. I am not an electrical expert. I only know an itty bit. I saw two things on the electric box that would have needed to be corrected and easily could have been for under $30. I have no idea why the plug ins were shown. Yeah yeah. It's a technicality. But I'm telling you right now, I doubt you'll find a single business or house in my city that does not have a similar plug in mess in at least one room. (Mine is under my living room tv.) The majority of inspectors would shrug and say you shouldn't do it and move on. He has a fan. So what? Why is that picture worthy? People do comprehend that the majority of the world doesn't have air condition and usually don't die as long as they have sufficient air flow and water, right? It's okay. *I* don't want to ever do without my ac and heater, my house stays a comfy 65' year round. But I don't much care if other people do. It's Huntsville, Alabama. He has living this way for well over a year now. Does it even get cold enough to be life threatening without a heater? I really don't know. I see some things I don't like. I would think they need improved but aren't necessarily hazardous. For example, the tank on blocks looks rather precarious but I'm unsure if it actually is or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 Which implies - give us more money for the inspections, and spend more money on the property so we can charge you higher property taxes. Revenue is the issue. I don't know, I have a new respect for building codes and permits after my mom and stepdad came close to dying last year. They were renting a house temporarily from my mom's brother, who had thought it would be a good idea to gut it and redo everything himself without permits or inspections, including installing the furnace. The thing was leaking carbon monoxide and by the time it was discovered, another day or two and my mom and stepdad probably would have gone to bed and not woken up. Without requiring permits or inspections, also keep in mind the kind of shoddy, unsafe work that would probably be done on low income rental housing on a regular basis. Red tape is a huge pain, but it's also there for a reason. 23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 (edited) While I understand that he needs zoning variances and probably needs to upgrade his set up to be in legal compliance, I am sympathetic to the fact that all of those things cost money. Money he may well not have. Between what I see on the slide show and them ending up homeless or living out of a car, I think they are better off where they are. The city or a veterans group could help them make the upgrades rather than trying to evict them. Most municipalities bar trailers outside of trailer parks, which provided the trailers are in habitable condition, smacks of straight up classism to me. Especially since most municipalities bar new trailer parks. Edited April 28, 2016 by LucyStoner 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted April 28, 2016 Author Share Posted April 28, 2016 To be clear, if the sewage was unsafe - I am perfectly happy with fines and demands to correct it. But I'm not seeing anything that says that. Same goes for the water and solar panels. If what he is doing is unsafe, fine and demand it be done safely. Not that it not be done at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 I don't know, I have a new respect for building codes and permits after my mom and stepdad came close to dying last year. They were renting a house temporarily from my mom's brother, who had thought it would be a good idea to gut it and redo everything himself without permits or inspections, including installing the furnace. The thing was leaking carbon monoxide and by the time it was discovered, another day or two and my mom and stepdad probably would have gone to bed and not woken up. Without requiring permits or inspections, also keep in mind the kind of shoddy, unsafe work that would probably be done on low income rental housing on a regular basis. Red tape is a huge pain, but it's also there for a reason. I've never had a carbon monoxide level test in a home inspection. I hear you though. I thought most places required rental properties to have detectors for just this sort of reason. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 Without requiring permits or inspections, also keep in mind the kind of shoddy, unsafe work that would probably be done on low income rental housing on a regular basis. Red tape is a huge pain, but it's also there for a reason. This! Not only could shoddy work be done on low income housing, but any contractor you hire to work on your own house could be done in a shoddy manner. Things you might not catch are caught by the inspectors. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 I've never had a carbon monoxide level test in a home inspection. I hear you though. I thought most places required rental properties to have detectors for just this sort of reason. When we replaced our furnace a couple of years ago, the inspector checked our home to make sure we had carbon monoxide detectors installed. If we had not, we would have failed the inspection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 (edited) I've never had a carbon monoxide level test in a home inspection. I hear you though. I thought most places required rental properties to have detectors for just this sort of reason. I think with the amount of renovations he did, he was supposed to get permits to do the work and have everything inspected afterward. My mom told me the guy who came in to fix the furnace was horrified at how poorly it had been installed, so if my uncle had done everything by the book it might have been caught much sooner. We're habitual renters though, so I don't know the details of how it all works and I'm just going by what my mom told me. ETA: Oh, and irt the carbon monoxide detectors, yeah, I think they are required in rentals. My mom and stepdad were only renting this house for a few months while theirs was being built, so everything was done sort of under the radar. Which is stupid. What's horrifying is that my uncle is planning on trying to sell the house this summer. I hope any potential buyers hire a REALLY good home inspector. Edited April 28, 2016 by Mergath 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skimomma Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 I am about as crunchy as it gets and 100% for composting toilets, solar power, and alternative dwellings. That said, if a city has ordinances, residents should be held to them. You want to live off of the land? Great! Do it. But do it where it is allowed. Or apply for a variance. Or work to change an ordinance you disagree with. I do not think this is always about gentrification. I live in a small city that does NOT enforce the ordinances and I am angry. I bought my property with the understanding that I would adhere to the ordinances and my neighbors would as well. I am angry that the city will not fine my neighbors that are currently operating a junk yard in their front yard or the neighbor that has his extended family living in a dilapidated motorhome that is parked on the street or the other neighbor that burns their garbage including diapers and a COUCH. The average lot is 50x100 feet. What my neighbors do is right in my business. I could go on and on and on. Not only are these violations impacting my quality of life (garbage smoke, anyone?) but it is also lowering the value of my investment. I get it. Some ordinances are dumb. One has the option of reading those ordinances and deciding if they want to live with them before buying or moving into a neighborhood. I want chickens. There is an ordinance prohibiting them. I have been working with the city over the last two years and a new ordinance has been drafted and is going to the city council next month. I worked with several like-minded neighbors to get it changed. I knew I could just get the chickens because my city does not enforce anything but decided to do it the right way so I have a leg to stand on when I call about the burning couches. 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie12345 Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 He should have filed for a variance. I wonder why he didn't. He may be needing a septic tank. I don't think that's such a huge burden. I think a septic tank is important for a full-time residence, but it's far from inexpensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 I took a gander at Huntsville's regs. It looks like for minimum requirements a trailer has to be hooked up to "an approved water and sewer system." A water closet toilet is required, as is hot and cold running water at kitchen sink, lavatory, and tub or shower. Electricity is not required, but where it is present it must be up to code. I'm sure they charge fees for permits and variances. The moral of the story is, if you want to live off-grid, you should live somewhere the grid doesn't reach. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 Having ordinances that require sewage be handled safety and a permitting process/building codes to ensure that power sources are safe seems to be reasonable on behalf of city governments. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 I took a gander at Huntsville's regs. It looks like for minimum requirements a trailer has to be hooked up to "an approved water and sewer system." A water closet toilet is required, as is hot and cold running water at kitchen sink, lavatory, and tub or shower. Electricity is not required, but where it is present it must be up to code. I'm sure they charge fees for permits and variances. The moral of the story is, if you want to live off-grid, you should live somewhere the grid doesn't reach. That's not practical when it comes to tiny houses. The laws will need to be changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skimomma Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 FTR, I am against classist ordinances. I see no reason for any city (HOAs are a different story) to require a minimum square footage/bedrooms for a dwelling or get picky about construction provided it is safe. Trailers that are safe and permanently installed do not get my knickers in a knot. Burning couches and diapers do. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted April 28, 2016 Author Share Posted April 28, 2016 It is one thing to require inspections. It's another for the inspections to be not about whether it is actually safe and sanitary, but just a way to discriminate against anyone looking too poor or not buying into the corporate mandates. I'm all for his water, electrical and sewer being inspected. If what he is doing is unsafe, then I'm all for him being fined and directed on how to make it safe. What I am NOT okay with is calling it a safety inspection when it is not. Just saying you can't live in a home richer people view as unsightly is not a health inspections. Just saying you can't use solar power because the city wants you to use electric is not a safety question. Getting hooked up to the grid is not cheap either. Idk what it is in Huntsville, but my dad paid over $20k to do it to his property in Mississippi. And he has a septic tank with leach field and well water. This guy is on two acres. I wonder how close development is creeping up to him? I wonder if there's pressure somewhere to buy his property and divide it up for other uses? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 That's not practical when it comes to tiny houses. The laws will need to be changed. Yes, it is good to have appropriate regs that allow for tiny houses. Interestingly, his trailer is enormous. The pics make it seem like a "double long", if that is even a thing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 It is one thing to require inspections. It's another for the inspections to be not about whether it is actually safe and sanitary, but just a way to discriminate against anyone looking too poor or not buying into the corporate mandates. I'm all for his water, electrical and sewer being inspected. If what he is doing is unsafe, then I'm all for him being fined and directed on how to make it safe. What I am NOT okay with is calling it a safety inspection when it is not. Just saying you can't live in a home richer people view as unsightly is not a health inspections. Just saying you can't use solar power because the city wants you to use electric is not a safety question. Getting hooked up to the grid is not cheap either. Idk what it is in Huntsville, but my dad paid over $20k to do it to his property in Mississippi. And he has a septic tank with leach field and well water. This guy is on two acres. I wonder how close development is creeping up to him? I wonder if there's pressure somewhere to buy his property and divide it up for other uses? And we don't know exactly what the issues are. We do know from previous statements that Huntsville does allow solar panels. Regarding the bolded, based on what I know about Huntsville, that is doubtful. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skimomma Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 Just saying you can't live in a home richer people view as unsightly is not a health inspections. Where is the line? My junkyard neighbors are not being "unsafe," although I would argue some of those cars are leaking into the soil so, maybe. My beef is not that it is unsafe. It is just really really ugly and will make it difficult for me to sell my house at all, let alone for market value. The burning garbage might not be considered "unsafe," but my issue is that it stinks and makes it miserable to open my windows or hang out in my yard. Perhaps those are "richer people" values? I do think it is well within a municipality's responsibility to protect other home owners within that municipality. I think basics like requiring houses are painted when needed, junk is cleaned up, and broken windows do not remain boarded up indefinitely is reasonable. Restrictions on size and type of houses should probably be reserved for people who want to live in an HOA. But that is *my* line in the sand and everyone has a different one. What makes something a "richer people value?" I'm not arguing for or against the people in the article. I don't see an issue with their house and would likely not mind having them as neighbors. But that is so subjective. So all we can do is fall back on the ordinances. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 Yes, it is good to have appropriate regs that allow for tiny houses. Interestingly, his trailer is enormous. The pics make it seem like a "double long", if that is even a thing. I thought it looked like that picture was warped by taking it with a wide angle lens. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luuknam Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 Which implies - give us more money for the inspections, and spend more money on the property so we can charge you higher property taxes. Revenue is the issue. We ripped out all the electrical wires in our house and installed new wires etc in a small town in north Texas. The inspection was $25 or less. It's really not *that* big a deal, and can prevent the worst of DIY messes from existing (the inspector was clear that there might still be issues - that his inspection was not a guarantee that everything was perfectly sound). Our property tax was also non-existent, since our house was assessed at $9,000 and you get a $10,000 discount on your assessed value if it's your sole residence or something (unfortunately, we did not get money back for having a negative value, lol). I don't recall getting the gas or water pipes we installed inspected, not sure if it was required - I'm guessing it probably was and we probably did, I just don't recall, but I'm sure it wasn't any more expensive. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted April 28, 2016 Author Share Posted April 28, 2016 Where is the line? My junkyard neighbors are not being "unsafe," although I would argue some of those cars are leaking into the soil so, maybe. My beef is not that it is unsafe. It is just really really ugly and will make it difficult for me to sell my house at all, let alone for market value. The burning garbage might not be considered "unsafe," but my issue is that it stinks and makes it miserable to open my windows or hang out in my yard. Perhaps those are "richer people" values? I do think it is well within a municipality's responsibility to protect other home owners within that municipality. I think basics like requiring houses are painted when needed, junk is cleaned up, and broken windows do not remain boarded up indefinitely is reasonable. Restrictions on size and type of houses should probably be reserved for people who want to live in an HOA. But that is *my* line in the sand and everyone has a different one. What makes something a "richer people value?" I'm not arguing for or against the people in the article. I don't see an issue with their house and would likely not mind having them as neighbors. But that is so subjective. So all we can do is fall back on the ordinances. Actually junk yards and debris/trash burning can be hazards and it's possible to pass health rega to address them sensibly. Junk yards can be havens for mosquitos as water pools in the vehicles for example. Similar to how I can have a garden pond, even a very large one. Or a pool. And usually I don't need a special permit. (Sometimes I would though. Such as an in ground one. And it presumes I have distance from utility lines and property lines.) But permit or not, if my "pond" or "pool" becomes instead a cess pool of mosquitos haven stagnant water? I'm going to rightly have the health inspector show up at my door demanding it be fixed or else. Junk yards aren't illegal, but there's a reason you can't decide to just pile one in the middle of a regular housing addition. Fire burning can be handled similarly and usually is in many areas. For example, fire bans still apply. Basic fire safety still applies. Even if I lived on a cattle ranch and it were okay, it still wouldn't be okay to do it 10 feet from my neighbors property line. My bestie lives on a property where all the houses are on 2-4 acre lots. They only have trash burning allowed on certain days, and it's not weekly, so everyone knows and can plan for it. And if someone is caught burning on other days, during a ban, or in an unsafe manner - they can be fined for it. Trash burning in a small housing addition isn't safe bc most of the yards aren't big enough to safely assume it won't spread. So again, I'll say it's extremism. It's one thing to say never. It's another to want sensible safety regulations. I'm all for sensible safety regulations. Paint and Windows though are going to be a bit of a harder sell for me. Because the bigger question to me is why do I care more about my property value than that my neighbor is obviously struggling and might need my help? A plate of cookies and an offer to hold a paint brush would do more good for all parties to my mind. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TammyS Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 This is very common. The town where my mother owns an (currently empty) house will condemn your home, no matter how nice it is, if it doesn't have the electric turned on. You can have the water shut off, but only for 3 months, and you still have to pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted April 28, 2016 Author Share Posted April 28, 2016 We ripped out all the electrical wires in our house and installed new wires etc in a small town in north Texas. The inspection was $25 or less. It's really not *that* big a deal, and can prevent the worst of DIY messes from existing (the inspector was clear that there might still be issues - that his inspection was not a guarantee that everything was perfectly sound). Our property tax was also non-existent, since our house was assessed at $9,000 and you get a $10,000 discount on your assessed value if it's your sole residence or something (unfortunately, we did not get money back for having a negative value, lol). I don't recall getting the gas or water pipes we installed inspected, not sure if it was required - I'm guessing it probably was and we probably did, I just don't recall, but I'm sure it wasn't any more expensive. Inspections for the entire house here are about $200-300. But they check absolutely every single nook and cranky to see if it works and if it's up to safety standards. However, doing it yourself permits can add up something fierce depending what all and what types you have to get. I agree there's no big deal getting an inspection fee here though. Those are pretty cheap. Electric only would be about $50. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.