Man fined by council for camping on his own property - Sensationalist Headlines

[quote]It's like something out of The Castle: a man living in a caravan on land he owns in outback WA facing eviction by the local council. Self-described introvert Roland Gopel has found his own patch of paradise on top of a hill overlooking the townsite of Menzies, 730km inland from Perth. The 58-year-old, with a thick grey beard and flowing hair, lives alone in bushland in a caravan borrowed from a friend, with only the flies for company. Leaving Perth behind because of sky-high rental prices, he settled on Menzies, population 250, two years ago for its affordability. "I was getting nowhere renting in Perth … I couldn't find a place where I could afford," Mr Gopel said.[/quote] [quote]Mr Gopel says he pays his rates and should be left alone to live in peace, although he concedes that is looking highly unlikely. He is being penalised $50 a day for what the Shire of Menzies calls "camping illegally". Shire CEO Rhonda Evans said there was an incorrect belief within some sections of the community that people who pay their rates can do what they want with their property. She declined to comment further because the matter is still before the courts. On August 1, Mr Gopel was fined $1,000 plus court costs of $1,745.50, while the Shire began seeking a $50 daily penalty. The fine has grown to $4,750 in the three months since his last court appearance. [/quote] [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-06/every-mans-caravan-his-castle-menzies-landowner-fights-eviction/9115442[/url] Sounds like that local council needs to be brought down a peg or ten.

Property laws in Australia are weird.

Imagine not being able to camp out back in the outback jesus Are they worried about how their neighborhood will look with a trailer somewhere near it or something?

What's the point of owning property if you're not allowed to use it?

This is pretty much why i will never spend my money "owning" a house in the US. You don't actually own your property. The county can fine you for whatever they want. You can be fined for having the grass be too long or leaving construction supplies on the side of the house for too long. Not to mention the amount you pay in taxes in some states is the same as living in an apartment.

[QUOTE=dark soul;52860574]This is pretty much why i will never spend my money "owning" a house in the US. You don't actually own your property. The county can fine you for whatever they want. You can be fined for having the grass be too long or leaving construction supplies on the side of the house for too long. Not to mention the amount you pay in taxes in some states is the same as living in an apartment.[/QUOTE] I've never seen a county enforce something like that, only Homeowner Associations.

[QUOTE=dark soul;52860574]This is pretty much why i will never spend my money "owning" a house in the US. You don't actually own your property. The county can fine you for whatever they want. You can be fined for having the grass be too long or leaving construction supplies on the side of the house for too long. Not to mention the amount you pay in taxes in some states is the same as living in an apartment.[/QUOTE] You are thinking of Home Owners Associations in the US (which are scum and hold anti-american values no matter which way you lean imo). Buy something outside of specifically made suburbs/cul-de-sac's that were all built and owned by one entity. Honestly find the right place and you can have a house payment cheaper then renting a 1 bedroom apartment in the current market.

This is like a homeowners association basically? Outside the journalists words, the man and the "CEO" of the shire specifically refer to him as "paying rates", can anyone clarify what that means? Is that like renting? Or some sort of fee to live in the area? I know the article says he owns the land, but neither the man or CEO ever state that directly.

No, plenty of county bodies have absurd laws about things like that too. I know here for instance they will fine you for things like grass being too long. There hasn't been a home owners association in this area for decades if ever.

[QUOTE=dark soul;52860574]This is pretty much why i will never spend my money "owning" a house in the US. You don't actually own your property. The county can fine you for whatever they want. You can be fined for having the grass be too long or leaving construction supplies on the side of the house for too long. Not to mention the amount you pay in taxes in some states is the same as living in an apartment.[/QUOTE] The idea with owning a property, at least in the US, is that it's an investment. Property taxes might be as expensive as rent in some cases but when you move, in theory, you can sell a house that you own. With renting, you don't have that.

[QUOTE=Charades;52860581]I've never seen a county enforce something like that, only Homeowner Associations.[/QUOTE] My city has fined my home for having trash in our front yard, which was blown on there by the wind. Their "photo evidence" was literally two empty chip bags sitting in our front yard. This is by far not just home owners associations.

[QUOTE=dark soul;52860574]This is pretty much why i will never spend my money "owning" a house in the US. You don't actually own your property. The county can fine you for whatever they want. You can be fined for having the grass be too long or leaving construction supplies on the side of the house for too long. Not to mention the amount you pay in taxes in some states is the same as living in an apartment.[/QUOTE] um US property laws vary and certainly some areas have deeds and such that limit your rights but in general you can do quite a lot as long as its not impacting everyone around you

[QUOTE=Socram;52860634]This is like a homeowners association basically? Outside the journalists words, the man and the "CEO" of the shire specifically refer to him as "paying rates", can anyone clarify what that means? Is that like renting? Or some sort of fee to live in the area? I know the article says he owns the land, but neither the man or CEO ever state that directly.[/QUOTE] A council is equivalent to a US county.

The important questions are... Who is he harming by this action, and what hazards could his actions cause to others and himself. If the answer is no one and no then council needs to fuck off.

[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;52861031]The important questions are... Who is he harming by this action, and what hazards could his actions cause to others and himself. If the answer is no one and no then council needs to fuck off.[/QUOTE] He ruins the appearance of the neighborhood, decreasing the value of every home in it. :v:

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;52861042]He ruins the appearance of the neighborhood, decreasing the value of every home in it. :v:[/QUOTE] Considering he's living in the middle of nowhere where 'Appearance' is quite irrelevant to investors, they still need to bugger off. For suburban or city area's this'd make more sense, but it isnt.

How is this harming or disturbing anyone in anyway? I used to camp in my garden as a kid with some friends because it was a fun thing to do, how is this any different?

The allowed uses of land are not just enforced by HOA folks. (in USA) Zoning has some to do with it and even more importantly the Deed or Public Report will spell out the allowed uses of the land. It could be something as simple as his caravan not being affixed to the ground its on thus being classified as personal property and not an [URL="https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/improvement"]improvement[/URL].

The town's zoning laws probably do not allow for trailers to be stored anywhere within the town's corporation limit to avoid people storing old trailers in the middle of town. The city council where I used to work in the Planning & Zoning department passed an ordinance to forbid the parking of trailers on residential lots since there were several people in town that had run down trailers parked in their front lawn. Unfortunately that also means responsible property owners also can't keep their trailers either. The laws have to be enforced uniformly. Sometimes cases like this can be quietly ignored. Like if we knew something was technically illegal but was not causing anyone trouble we would just pretend we couldn't see it. Until someone gets angry with a property owner and comes and reports them as revenge and then we have to take action. It often leads to a domino effect where one person gets pissed and reports their neighbor, then the neighbor also reports their neighbors, and so on. It can turn quiet neighborhoods upside down.

[QUOTE=Clive;52861416]How is this harming or disturbing anyone in anyway? I used to camp in my garden as a kid with some friends because it was a fun thing to do, how is this any different?[/QUOTE] Because he's doing it as a living. He's living in a caravan, not out under a bed sheet tied to a tree for fun for one night. Not that he's harming anyone, but that's drastically different from what you did.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52861896]Because he's doing it as a living. He's living in a caravan, not out under a bed sheet tied to a tree for fun for one night. Not that he's harming anyone, but that's drastically different from what you did.[/QUOTE] But he owns the property so he should be allowed to do that if he wants too.

[QUOTE=Clive;52861978]But he owns the property so he should be allowed to do that if he wants too.[/QUOTE] Where the hell did I say he shouldn't be?

His property, his rules - the council should go bother people elsewhere as I doubt it's in the public interest.

[QUOTE=GordonZombie;52862371]His property, his rules - the council should go bother people elsewhere as I doubt it's in the public interest.[/QUOTE] "His property, his rules" is not how property works almost everywhere. You are not allowed to do certain things on or to land you own depending on federal law. It may be "Private Property" but it isn't "Sovereign Property"

We have an odd government back in the 1990's when the referendum failed to make local conciels part of the parliament system, the labor government instead change the local council to part of the state thus giving them a lot of powers since they've then abused. This is just another one of their silly's, thankfully they are looking to change it.

[QUOTE=bigbadbarron;52862414]"His property, his rules" is not how property works almost everywhere. You are not allowed to do certain things on or to land you own depending on federal law. It may be "Private Property" but it isn't "Sovereign Property"[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure "living on land you own" is pretty well covered in federal law though.

An update: [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-06/caravan-man-roland-gopel-fined-in-court/9521222[/url] [quote]While the shire has been fining him $50 per day since August 1, a separate prosecution for breaching WA's caravan park and campground act has seen him hit with a fresh $1,000 fine, and ordered to pay $3,000 of the shire's court costs. Speaking outside the Leonora Magistrates Court after the verdict, Mr Gopel said he would be appealing against the sentence at the earliest possible opportunity. "I refuse to pay a fine for living. I refuse to be homeless," he said.[/quote] Basically his alternative is homelessness. Pretty disgusting.

[QUOTE=Ardosos;52860657]The idea with owning a property, at least in the US, is that it's an investment. Property taxes might be as expensive as rent in some cases but when you move, in theory, you can sell a house that you own. With renting, you don't have that.[/QUOTE] My idea of owning property is having somewhere I can do pretty much anything I want.

[QUOTE=download;53189043]An update: [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-06/caravan-man-roland-gopel-fined-in-court/9521222[/url] Basically his alternative is homelessness. Pretty disgusting.[/QUOTE] This isn't about him living these: it's about the conditions he is living under. They require certain facilities to qualify a land as a "home"; similar to zoning laws restricting what can be built/used-as-a-X and where. These laws prevent, say, BP from building an oil refinery in a residential area. Exaggerated example, you get my point, but these things happened. They would build factories, in the early industrial years, right next to a block of houses; pollution be damned. Two examples are given in the article: - He is required to have a septic tank. - He is required to have a mains water line. These are valid requirements for something be considered a home and where someone may live. Without a septic tank, what happens to his bodily excrement? Does he bury it? Where does he bury it? If this guy dies, who's going to pay to clean up the soil? etc. Soil pollution from this type of waste can be serious bio-hazard. Without mains water, where exactly is he getting his water? The local river? Who owns that river then? Does he collect rainwater and purify it? Many purifiers have a waste product, where is that waste product going? These kind of regulations exist to protect people against a "tragedy of the commons"; a situation where every individual acts in their own interest, causing damage to the community. I respect this guy wanting to live by himself and be left alone, but he has to abide by the same rules as everyone else, that protect the community at large. It's not as simple as "old man shouting from hill to be left alone, goverment says no."

[QUOTE=Krahn;53189073]This isn't about him living these: it's about the conditions he is living under. They require certain facilities to qualify a land as a "home"; similar to zoning laws restricting what can be built/used-as-a-X and where. These laws prevent, say, BP from building an oil refinery in a residential area. Exaggerated example, you get my point, but these things happened. They would build factories, in the early industrial years, right next to a block of houses; pollution be damned. Two examples are given in the article: - He is required to have a septic tank. - He is required to have a mains water line. These are valid requirements for something be considered a home and where someone may live. Without a septic tank, what happens to his bodily excrement? Does he bury it? Where does he bury it? If this guy dies, who's going to pay to clean up the soil? etc. Soil pollution from this type of waste can be serious bio-hazard. Without mains water, where exactly is he getting his water? The local river? Who owns that river then? Does he collect rainwater and purify it? Many purifiers have a waste product, where is that waste product going? These kind of regulations exist to protect people against a "tragedy of the commons"; a situation where every individual acts in their own interest, causing damage to the community. I respect this guy wanting to live by himself and be left alone, but he has to abide by the same rules as everyone else, that protect the community at large. It's not as simple as "old man shouting from hill to be left alone, goverment says no."[/QUOTE] He lives in the middle of nowhere. He's not harming anyone. Are you seriously suggesting him being on the streets is better than him living in a somewhat serviceable property? Also lol at purifying rainwater. You don't need to do anything to it, it's fine to drink. He also lives in an arid environment, there's no river or creek to pollute with his waste. Many homes in the area won't have septic systems, they'll have a hole in the ground with an outhouse on top. [editline]9th March 2018[/editline] Most rural properties don't have mains water anyway. It's simply not feasible.