story detail

	British farmer ordered to demolish his secret castle He says he had applied in 1996 to build a house on his farmland, but the authorities wouldn't grant him permission. So, when he and his wife were feeling "desperate," they found a loophole in the British law.
APPROVE APPROVE
OBJECT OBJECT
11 Pikks
	Tags: England Bureaucracy Houses Government Watch These Tags Enter tags to watch, separate with commas, type slowly for suggestions:
	9 comments
posted by:	kapauldo

comments

Posted by bowlofsoup about 1 month ago:

	as much as i love castles and this guy for building it, he knowingly broke the law. we don't have enough context to determine why such a law exists, but i could imagine this same thing happening if i were to try to build this structure in my neighborhood. [QUOTE]

Posted by kapauldo about 1 month ago:

	ok, but now we have a castle. it's a huge amount of stored work. why waste all that work? it's not an eyesore, it's a castle. why not figure out a way to fine the guy and move on? i object more to the solution than to the justice of it. "you built something cool and we didn't approve of it, so now you have to smash your work." it's such small thinking. [QUOTE]

Posted by bowlofsoup about 1 month ago:

	you are using logic, which rarely applies to laws...but again, we don't have context. what if specific architectural features were banned in this area because it lessens the value of historically significant castles? not saying it does, but one could argue that. in austin, texas, we have a city ordinance that prevents buildings from reaching a certain height because they would block the view of the capitol building- seriously. what if the neighbors don't like it? he wouldn't have permits, implying that it could be unsafe or not in compliance with other regulations such as energy usage. i also don't like the fact that it was willful and he admits it publicly. i agree that it is a terrible waste to demolish it- they should grandfather in his house (permit-related issues notwithstanding), and set an exorbitant fine so he can choose what to do. with that approach, he loses either way, and the city wins either way. [QUOTE]

Posted by randyc about 1 month ago:

	it's a shame, but laws have to be credible to work. i think in this case it's probably sufficient to fine him and move on, but what if he built a house on, say, an eco-sensitive wetlands that was preserved for the benefit of all mankind. if that's deemed a socially important objective then fining him and moving on means it's not really illegal, it's just really expensive. in that case, sorry we gotta knock it down, next time don't break the law. [QUOTE]

Posted by kapauldo about 1 month ago:

	you're saying that laws have to have teeth to work, which is fair enough, but this is just a guy defying some council of elders who arbitrarily delayed his permit. there has to be a better way. he did a good thing, he built a cool castle. and further, he tried to hide it with hay. no one complained about the hay. it's a farmer in the middle of nowhere building a castle and hiding it with massive piles of hay. i mean, it's ridiculous to smash his castle out of spite. [QUOTE]

Posted by bowlofsoup about 1 month ago:

	i guess what randyc and i are saying is that it wasn't out of spite. it was out of the "slippery slope" argument. you're saying "but come on- be reasonable" but the law has to draw a line in the sand. expecially when i consider his cavalier attitude, it is clear that he knew the law in some detail. let's say his redneck cousin does the exact same thing, only he builds a pile of crap in the middle of an upscale neighborhood- from the perspective of the law, how is that different? [QUOTE]

Posted by randyc about 1 month ago:

	i agree with you in this case. i only wanted to add the point that there exist or could exist cases in which smashing the cool castle would be the right thing to do. agree? [QUOTE]

Posted by kapauldo about 1 month ago:

	agreed, that case exists. but absent a primary reason, meaning a health, safety, environmental reason, this is a procedural reason - "because you didn't get a permit." and that's strictly defensible but so so wasteful. moreover, he didn't just go rogue and build a castle, he tried for 4 years to get a permit and then said "f this" and built his castle. [QUOTE]

Posted by bowlofsoup about 1 month ago:

	based on the replies to the story (not in the article itself), there is an environmental reason he was denied for permits. it's not like the gubment was lazy or denied him for no reason. it seems like the local gubment did their part.... probably while wearing wigs for some reason. [QUOTE]


	Notice Please log in or register to leave a comment.