• Man forced to live in his unfinished house, due to city error. City tells him too bad
    33 replies, posted
[video=youtube;xcC82pHLtn0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcC82pHLtn0[/video] [url]http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1079218[/url]
That's such a nice house too... I've seen houses crammed together closer than that, not sure about that state though
"hey we fucked up and all but lol fix ur shit lol gg wp no re" that's horsedick. They said it was k to build, so he did it. Then they come back and take the permit? does it really [I]really[/I] matter that much?
gotta love that green screen glitch between the reporters legs
why did the guy think building barely 3 feet from his neighbours house seemed normal...
[QUOTE=Aman;43779767]why did the guy think building barely 3 feet from his neighbours house seemed normal...[/QUOTE] He didn't know, he made the plans for his house and got it approved, I'd start building too. Also if your neighbor didn't have a yard nor has windows or utilities on that side of it what's the problem?
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;43780035]He didn't know, he made the plans for his house and got it approved, I'd start building too. Also if your neighbor didn't have a yard nor has windows or utilities on that side of it what's the problem?[/QUOTE] Though I think the city is in the wrong, that IS really close. It would certainly at least make you question the minimum distance between houses, which he should have done before starting
Should have taken a left turn
There isn't some contract for this stuff?
Houses can be moved, the city should have to pay to have it done
[QUOTE=Zeke129;43780831]Houses can be moved, the city should have to pay to have it done[/QUOTE] After 2 years it essentially has to be gutted anyway because of water damage. It's probably cheaper to demolish it and rebuild.
Looks fucking awful anyway. Gives him a second chance to design a decent house! Better yet let an architect do it. Also I didn't realise people wore those Oakley earbud sunglasses in real life.
[QUOTE=Samg381;43779668]gotta love that green screen glitch between the reporters legs[/QUOTE] "Holy shit, Jim. Didn't we tell you to go to the bathroom before we went Live, to avoid shit like this?"
What a nightmare. I'm sorry for that family.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;43780965]After 2 years it essentially has to be gutted anyway because of water damage. It's probably cheaper to demolish it and rebuild.[/QUOTE] If by cheaper you mean wasting $200k then yea, I guess.
[QUOTE=Zillamatic;43781929]Looks fucking awful anyway. Gives him a second chance to design a decent house! Better yet let an architect do it. [/QUOTE] Okay mister objective opinions man. Unless, of course, you happen to be an architect, and your point wasn't that you personally think it looks bad, but rather that you see structural-stability flaws or something. [editline]4th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=BANNED USER;43780035]He didn't know, he made the plans for his house and got it approved, I'd start building too. Also if your neighbor didn't have a yard nor has windows or utilities on that side of it what's the problem?[/QUOTE] I think it may have to do with fire protection and such. Buildings generally have to be a certain distance apart, in order to reduce the risk of fire spreading.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;43780831]Houses can be moved, the city should have to pay to have it done[/QUOTE] As far as I know you can't move the foundation so he'd have to have his entire foundation removed and rebuilt just so the structure isn't compromised. Not to mention I'd think keeping the house in a different place off its foundation wouldn't be good for it. But I'm not a contractor so I don't know shit about building houses.
I'm not sure how he could go through the entire process of designing an extraordinary home and contracting everything and never hear that his house was too close to his neighbor's, it just screams red flag when you see it. The city should pay for most of the cost to tear down and rebuild it though, they essentially began causing damages the moment they issued an illegal permit.
Buy neighbors property, demolish house, boom. Big ass backyard for your dreamhouse. Add a pool or some shit (I'm almost 90% sure it doesn't work like that)
SO the clerk that fucked up only got a verbal scolding and more training? While the home owner lost pretty much 200k and his time. Now you know if you're pissed off at your own life and like taking it out on others go be a clerk in the zoning office.
He should have known really that he was way too close to the other house, seeing as it is his job and he should know the laws within his own city. So but I don't think the city should then revoke his permit, what's worse, having a house a few feet closer than allowed or having a half built house still covered in wrapping for two years, seriously, they could have at least let him carry on then say, well you've got to sort this out at one point, but we'lll let you complete putting a roof over your family's head.
[QUOTE=Macneil_bmx;43784445]He should have known really that he was way too close to the other house, seeing as it is his job and he should know the laws within his own city. So but I don't think the city should then revoke his permit, what's worse, having a house a few feet closer than allowed or having a half built house still covered in wrapping for two years, seriously, they could have at least let him carry on then say, well you've got to sort this out at one point, but we'lll let you complete putting a roof over your family's head.[/QUOTE] He got approved twice. Since he got the approval it is usually assumed everything is okay. It is city's fault if it took them 2 years to find something wrong. Their employees were not doing a proper job and that isn't this man's responsibility.
[QUOTE=EagleEye;43783683]Buy neighbors property, demolish house, boom. Big ass backyard for your dreamhouse. Add a pool or some shit (I'm almost 90% sure it doesn't work like that)[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure it could work that way. I'm sure there is some type of form and legal work to fill out in order to expand property lines. Either way I think both sides are a bit faulted. The guy IS a contractor after all so its not like he's ignorant to city code. At the same time the city did make a pretty big mistake and should at least foot some of the bill
[QUOTE=Trumple;43780180]Though I think the city is in the wrong, that IS really close. It would certainly at least make you question the minimum distance between houses, which he should have done before starting[/QUOTE] He did. They approved it. That's the whole point
[QUOTE=Jmax;43793714]He did. They approved it. That's the whole point[/QUOTE] Yes, I agree, he did have the plans approved correctly If you've ever had to deal with planning permission of any kind before, one of the first things you encounter is minimum building distances. For that, there's always a reference somewhere, it's quite common. In my opinion, he should have checked that (and almost doubtlessly did) before even drawing his plans. That way, when they came back and approved such a small gap, he could have questioned their decision and referenced the minimum distance regulation. Humans make mistakes, and though the council should pay, with something as important and common as minimum build distances he should have been more careful, especially before pouring his hard earned cash into it
I'm siding with the city on this one. Its a clusterfuck because the permits got approved, but its the contractor's responsibility to know the city's laws regarding construction.
[QUOTE=areolop;43794479]I'm siding with the city on this one. Its a clusterfuck because the permits got approved, but its the contractor's responsibility to know the city's laws regarding construction.[/QUOTE] If the plans got approved then he should have the right to build it irrespective of him knowing the laws or not. Yeah he should have, but the fact that it got approved is on the city not on him.
[QUOTE=areolop;43794479]I'm siding with the city on this one. Its a clusterfuck because the permits got approved, but its the contractor's responsibility to know the city's laws regarding construction.[/QUOTE] Then I guess you're okay with retroactively enforcing new laws?
[QUOTE=areolop;43794479]I'm siding with the city on this one. Its a clusterfuck because the permits got approved, but its the contractor's responsibility to know the city's laws regarding construction.[/QUOTE] Ignoring that he said he asked questions all the time and they approved all of it.
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;43795859]Then I guess you're okay with retroactively enforcing new laws?[/QUOTE] It's not really a new law though. The only reason it's being retroactively enforced is because nobody knew it was a problem until now. The law was there the whole time but [I]nobody[/I] caught that he was inadvertantly breaking it until way after the fact. On the one hand, it's their fault for not catching the error immediately because if they had then it would not have happened. On the other hand, it's his fault for not catching the error immediately because if he had then it would not have happened. Both people missed the same exact thing. To fix the problem he would have to basically tear down the whole thing and build it again at the cost of thousands more dollars. It is therefore easier on him to take it to court and hopefully get it ruled in his favor; it's just a matter of who is more at fault. It was his own money that he put into the construction and the city approved that construction despite the error being there which is why I believe he should win his lawsuit despite the fact that the error [I]could[/I] have been caught by either of them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.