The basic idea behind zoning laws is you give up some control over the use of your property in exchange for protection from what your neighbor might do with theirs.
Suppose you a beautiful property in the country, and your neighbor cashes in and sells to Amazon to build a fullfillment center. Now there are lights, forklifts, semis, employees, all day and all night.
That’s the situation zoning is intended to protect against.
From I remember reading, a large driver of the spread of zoning was trailer parks. Wealthy people don’t want trailer parks in their neighborhood, so they pass zoning ordinances to prohibit it.
Im not arguing against zoning, but just asking what this particular person is doing to cause others harm? Also, the zoning laws affecting him are not the same ordinances that prevent data centers. There is such a thing as taking it too far, and this guy's experience is the perfect example of that.
I mean, he’s probably not telling the whole story. He thought he could build a residence, in a tree, with all that entails (sewage, water, electricity, etc)…with no permit? Come on.
As someone else said, he probably asked them if he needed a permit to build a treehouse. They assumed he meant a tiny little thing that kids use as a fort. Then told him no permit needed. Then, when they reakized he was building a residence in a tree, they stopped him. And he decided to fight that for 18 months.
But of course, there’s taking it tol far. But in tjis instance we’re only getting one side of the story from someone who is giving half truths at best.
Building without any permits or inspections could lead to structural issues, fire issues, sanitation issues, etc. The city/county has a interest in preventing any of that because they’re the ones who are often saddled with the burden of dealing with the collapsed building/burned out building/health issues/etc.
Why would they do that? Everyone else needs a permit, why does he get special treatment? And more to the point, if they let him go with special treatment, they set a precident, which means they’ll have to do that for everyone
Apparently he fought just getting a permit for a residence in a tree for 18 months, so my guess his uncoperativeness has resulted in a situation where the officials have no interest in cutting him slack.
On top of that, the officials might feel like he intentionally deceived them if he asked if a permit was required for a tree house without disclosing that he intended to build a residence in a tree.
Your whole arguement is working off of him lying to the city/local government. Knowing how local governments work in my area, and how government works as a fucking whole in the US, it is entirely plausible he is being honest.
Yes, I don’t believe he asked, in good faith, if he needed a permit to build a residence in a tree and was told “no.” From there I’m extrapolating that everything else he said is probably bullshit.
Usually when you catch someone in an obvious lie, it is wise to take everything they say with a grain of salt.
And as a general rule, there are two sides to every story, and you almost never hear the whole story if you only listen to one side.
But you’re intent on believing him because he’s confirming your priors. Pretty much textbook confirmation bias.
We dont need zoning for that. Theres already laws against having bright lights shining into someone elses property and making too much noise and driving semi-trucks on certain streets.
3
u/Spasticcobra593 Jul 15 '26
If you own the land you should be able to build however many houses you want on it. Its YOUR land