I have never been a fan of anyone telling someone else how to live on their own property. I recently heard a saying. "Don't tell me how to freedom and i want tell you how to freedom". It sits very good in my mind.
In my country - you can stay in an RV or caravan on your property - if you take the wheels off it becomes a dwelling -so will need consent - I think you may have to get permits if hooked to sewage etc . Small cabins are fine /sleepouts (placement rules apply - from street, from fence etc ) - but if you put in oven or plumbing needs a consent . You can sleep in your own garage - however you can not rent that garage as accommodation . My local bylaws stops RVs parking in the street in same spot for more than 30 days - however if no neighbours complain - probably nothing happens . In my country you only lose your house for not paying taxes, mortgage and for debt by court order . Also can lose for govt infrastructure ( roads etc ) . Think someone can own your mineral rights - and dig it up ( but never heard that happening to residential houses ) . Anyway if you have a family , or retired and no money Govt must provide accommodation - even fit and able poor can get accommodation - but probably only on a weekly basis .Lots of rules for set back , how much land may be using for house ( zone dependant ) - Garages say must be set back 5 yards from berm - yet your neighbour could park 6 cars on his front lawn - normally rich will have double/triple garage - so only see this in student area or bunch of guys renting or maybe someone trading cars- they probably have them registered to other addresses as well - to avoid business from home rules ( which say a single accountant , dressmaker can get exceptions for anyway )
@@ostlandr It may surprise you to know that Germany has been a "nanny state" for over a century; Otto von Bismarck began with a health insurance bill in 1883. He was determined to give his people proper care, and he was very successful at it.
Actually it is not your property, belongs to the corporation. You have to pay them to tell you if you can do something or not on it. Don’t pay your taxes and they will take it away from you. I got burned out and got kicked off my property for rv for not having a building permit that they wouldn’t give to me.
@@D-B-Cooper If that happened to me, I not only would've burned it to the ground, I would've contaminated the property so badly that the cleaup costs would exceed the value. I'd make it a freaking superfund site.
"Long term". 🤦🏼♀️ As a full time RVer, this is so annoying that the county isn't allowing it. If they are actively building the home I don't see what the issue is. RVs are self contained and built for living in.
Funny how a large-scale disaster or emergency allows government officials to declare a state of emergency in the name of being able to act quickly and with flexibility. But a family experiences an unusual and unforeseen disaster and they can't be allowed to do similar.
Superior was small, old mining town with cheap, small houses. Then, the Rock Creek subdivision was built and the new residents outnumbered the original town. Rock Creek is known for strict HOA rules, down to the style of mailbox. It was old-town that burned. There's no way Superior town council will have any empathy for poor people. In old-town, they could paint their houses any color! Think of your property values!
Water issues are debatable there. A farmer upriver cannot claim all of the rivers water for thier fields. Also polution is a no go, anything that can leech into the water shed. Otherwise, just be safe.
I don't quite agree you. Let's say you own an acre of land in the middle of the town, should you be allowed to setup a pig farm just because you own the land?......
Fire Victim "Can't you remove the ordinance or make an exception because of the circumstances?" Town: Sorry, we can only create government regulations, we can't get rid of them.
People clamber and hold onto even the smallest iota of power. Town governments and HOAs are perfect examples of this. Only people who run for these are power hungry scum.
Those that made the decision to enforce this senseless and heartless ordinance need to be given a Chance to reconsider. If not, they need to be made famous. Post their photos, addresses and phone numbers. If they can’t feel empathy, they can feel uncomfortable.
Bar those people behind this cruelty from their houses (no need to actually burn them down) and tell them to "figure it out without breaking their own rules."
I hate when people side with rules rather than compassion. That's why I hate "zero tolerance". I call zero tolerance "zero intelligence". Not every situation is the same.
Saw a Reddit story where a school had a "zero tolerance" policy that, if one student attacked another, BOTH got punished. This one bully was causing problems, so the students dealt with it. A kid would walk up to the bully and smash him in the face. Of course both students were suspended for a week. As soon as the bully came back, ANOTHER student clobbered him. The bully missed the whole rest of the year and had to repeat the grade at a new school.
Zero tolerance = zero judgement required. The thing is that the job of executives (mayors, principals, etc) is to exercise judgement - otherwise their job is pointless . They can be completely replaced by a list of rules.
I've always said, never expect compassion from your government. I know rules are rules but understanding and compassion for your fellow man should always come first.
@@bengraham6015 we used to take care of such creatures with a fence rail and a bit of rope. Ride them out of town on a cold night, minus their clothing. It worked before we were a country quite effectively. Or my alternative, a grand toxic waste dump before they can notice or stop me, then good luck finding me later and no more tax payments or mortgage payments, let the bank and town fight over the toxic property.
My heart goes out to all those made homeless from the fire. As a victim of Superstorm Sandy I was flooded out. Bounced from friends and FEMA shelters for 10 months. I expect the town will rethink it's decision with the media exposure.
My sister and brother in law lived this way after a flood damaged their home and the city they lived in here in Washington state was very supportive. And the city also had zoning laws against the use of RV’s for living in. This mayor is full of crap.
"The board said they would have a discussion at their next work session". Open meeting laws generally do not allow boards to vote immediately on new issues brought up during a board meeting. In order to have a vote on changing a policy it must be placed on the agenda so all potential viewpoints can come to the voting meeting to express their support or opposition to the change. Based on their actions on related measures it seems likely they will have a proposal on the agenda at the next public meeting.
@@ygrittesnow1701 Granting exceptions is changing the policy and requires a board vote. The enforcement side of the house can forbear while waiting for the board to make a decision, but the board cannot direct the executive agencies without a vote on a previously announced agenda item.
Great story about Milo and Wolfy in the elevator, Steve. My dogs did the same thing when I stayed in a hotel with them. With mine, it was funny to watch them instantly widen their stance with all four legs (and widen their eyes) when the elevator started moving. Oh, and they were definitely confused to see different surroundings when we exited the elevator.
Ridiculous. My county in Ga recently tried to crack down on poor people living in RVs. There was such a public backlash that they are being allowed to stay longer.
@@witebatman that is essentially what happened. People were upset. I could see both sides because the RVs in question are in really bad shape and there are sanitary concerns. I think the government decided to try and help the people
About 6 years back my parents house burned down I was still living with them at time. We had insurance that was capable of covering for a rental house but we still lived in a hotel for about a month with 2 cats and a dog in one room no one enjoyed it. We didn't have any real amenities until we moved into the rental. I would have loved an RV while we worked on the house or found alternate living instead of that hotel.
I had a building burned during the 2003 wildfire in San Bernardino, CA. The Board of Supervisors announced that victims could "take as long as they need" to clean up. The Property Nazis in the Code Enforcement posted a notice giving me 10 days! They said my rubble was an "attractive nuisance". None of my structures were visible from the road. The Property Nazis only knew of my loss because I followed the rules to REPORT the loss.
I think "attractive nuisance" means "Kids might try to play on it and get themselves hurt." Swimming pools without fences are also labeled "attractive nuisances".
@@S_Roach I lived on 3 acres situated on a STEEP hill. There was NEVER foot traffic of any kind. All of the surrounding houses were the same. No one could see my house without having to open the gate at the bottom of the driveway. The gate was posted NO TRESPASSING. My two Rottweilers patrolled the gate. The Property Nazis put the notice on the gate. They never set foot on the property. AGAIN, they never OBSERVED anything. The notice was placed only because I REPORTED the loss.
I've also been through the experience of having a pet and a hotel room. I'm a consultant; I had a 3-month engagement turn into a 5-year job. So, of course, there was no way I was going to board my cat for 5 years. I leased an apartment in Atlanta along with another guy on the same job (saving on the per diem, cha-ching!) but I kept Hurricane in my hotel for the longest day of my life until Monday could roll around while I reported for work, the papers could be signed, and the keys picked up.
They don’t actually own the property. You pay for the right to use it then pay rent in the form of taxes. This is why imminent domain works really. Also why the government can seize your land if you don’t pay taxes.
This is why here in Texas we have legislation and many politicians that support the idea of getting rid of property taxes. You shouldn’t have to pay the government rent on the property you own.
If it's illegal to PARK the RV on the land for more than 30 days, perhaps they could start the RVs, drive them around the block, and then park them there again for another 30 days. There was an ordinance in my community that said vehicles could not be parked for more than 24 hours and they cited me for my classic car. But unknown to them, I knew about their ordinance and drove the vehicle daily, if only for a few minutes. At the magistrate hearing they were dumbfounded when I asked them to prove that I didn't move the car. They had to admit that they didn't surveil my property 24/7 and just assumed that the car was parked more than 24 hours.
if you really wanna be a dick and know they aren't watching you 24/7 jack up the wheels, "drive it" for a few miles, then set it back down XD they could never prove you didn't drive it without 24/7 surveillance and the odo will show that it's been driven
I've been a Colorado resident for 24 years and I'm sorry to say this sort of thing has become all too common. When I moved here the prevailing culture had small town, rural sensibility. My wife, like the folks in this story, is a descendant from pioneers. I'd hate to move somewhere else but increasingly stuff like this is making us consider moving to another state.
Moving won't help you much. These types of laws are becoming increasingly prevalent. The motto, "live & let live" is vanishing quickly. There are cities with laws about what colors you can paint your house. People are subservient to bureaucracy.
Big city residents move out to the country, ala Green Acres, and then bring with them their Big City mentality, and proceed to impose it upon people who have lived there for generations. The idiots don't recognize that the reason they wanted to live in the country was because of how the country culture operates, instead they muck it up as badly as the place they were trying to get away from.
The cities and the state know how much the land is worth now, so it's better for them if they can get you to leave, then the land can be developed and more $$ for the city and state in taxes and increased property values.
Happened to my grandmother after Katrina. There were 7 or 8 adults plus a couple kids living in her 2 bedroom house in Mississippi. The town kept giving her a hard time about getting a FEMA trailer. Finally she had to just tell them that she was getting one whether they liked it or not and if they wanted to throw a little old lady out on the streets then they would have to make that decision and live with their own conscience. She got her trailer and never heard anything about it again.
My dad was paid to deliver trailers to LA after Katrina. His company was stopped at the state line and refused entry to Louisiana. They were instructed to drop the trailers and head back north.
@@JasonW. May of been for their safety. I have a friend that was hot-shoting generators and supplies to LA. following Katrina. He said despite marshal law and curfews some areas were like a war zone with looters and shootings. He wasn’t supposed to be caring any firearms but his natural instinct and God given right told him otherwise. One night he almost had to use it in self defense.
@@JasonW. Wait... 'They were instructed to drop the trailers and head back north.'? They were told to leave the trailers behind at the border??? They weren't allowed to take 'em back to the company lot??? E'scuze?!?!? *Why?* If the cops didn't want trailers in Louisiana, why did they want 'em stacked up at the border?
I have done disaster recovery and this is way more common that you would think. Most towns have these types of ordinances. Only a few will waive those after a disaster. So way more common than you think.
The town should do it of course, but also it said they have 5 lots. That is legally 5 different properties. So that's 5 months and depending on the wording of the ordinance they can probably just start the cycle over at lot 1.
Meanwhile here in SC. There's a person near me that lost their house around 5 years ago to a fire. They've been living in an unattached 5th wheel on the driveway ever since. The burned out house still stands.
Had that near my place for a few years. Problem was the insurance company wouldn't pay/close the file but also wouldn't help secure the remaining contents. Owner was forced to become a caretaker of his own property that he wasn't even allowed to cleanup or rebuild. About 8 years later he was allowed to build a garage package and put his stuff in there. took about a decade to see a new house to be built. Dumb
When my house burned down, I stayed in a trailer in the back yard during rebuilding. I was able to keep an eye on the place to prevent people from stealing building supplies.
The only rule that should apply is a time limit. Can't live in an RV there forever but as long as progress is being made towards rebuilding it should be allowed.
It's supposedly their property. They should be able to live in an RV on their property as long as it harms no one else ; and we're not talking about eyesores or hurt feelings; it's their property and they should be able to do whatever they want as long as it's not harming someone else.
@@MrPir84free Cities/towns etc. etc. are the ultimate HoAs. They get to decide not only what you get to put on your property but even how and when you do develop it. Not the way it should be but it is the way it is.
Rhetorical question: did any of the powers that be lose their homes in the fire? Compassion and understanding are generally not traits of government. Having experience with the Camp Fire, Dixie Fire, and other major fires, my experience is that government is less concerned with the citizenry and more concerned with the Rules and the continued existence of Government.
I'm doubtful that the individuals who do the work of the government are lacking in compassion. Their jobs, though, are to apply the rules of whatever laws or regulations may be applicable. If they apply those rules as instructed, they are doing their jobs and if they alter or modify the way the rules are applied, they are insubordinate. Why are rules so complicated, with so many details? Because there are lots of folks who will try to game the rules to qualify for a benefit they're not entitled to, or to be exempted from some rule they do not wish to follow. Those who are neither bear the brunt. Also this also local (city) government, the likes of which we'd hope to see as concerned about its citizens. Those who, like the Tin Woodsman, are lacking in heart may be found lacking in votes at the next election.
The factual answer is, yes, some local officials lost their homes. Many of the lost homes in Superior were about 100 yrs old. They require people to build to new standards. Hundreds of people are showing up at council meetings and we are seeing flexibility in the local governments.
THE FIRE DESTROYED ABOUT 1000 HOMES. These people list everything. They have no other options. Apartments are in short supply (Thus very expensive!), there are just not enough homes to buy it rent to keep up with demand. Why can't the city bureaucrats look at reality, understand the predicament, become human, and suspend the zoning laws for at least a year?! I heard from another related story that at least a few dozen families have had to resign from their jobs, and relocate elsewhere, out of state. The Marshal fire 🔥 was a perfect storm. It started as a small grass fire, but it was an exceptionally windy day. Winds blowing over 50 MPH blew the fire for miles. Homes, businesses (including a restaurant in business over 50 years) were destroyed. Even a local Tesla dealership was damaged, 2 cars destroyed.
The human brain, including humans that have a brain, moves faster than the people that write laws. Law writers are always out of step with their victims.
It seems to me that these victims, owning 5 adjacent properties, could park one RV on two of the properties, leave it for 30 days as apparently allowed by ordinance, then move them to another of their adjacent properties for another 30 days, continuing to rotate as necessary.
that was my thoughts entirly i agree "malicious compliance" they own 10 lots in total im shore the letters were delivered to an address 30 days notice + 7 days just move the rvs to the next lot bingo you have over a year but most of these types of rules carry a 30 days in any year clause
Sad situation! I drove through the Marshall Fire area today for the first time since the fire. Housing is difficult to find anywhere near these homes, and restoring any level off community and normalcy should be priority. There has to be a reasonable way to accommodate RVs in these communities.
I think this is a good example of where people have had enough money their whole life, that they have gotten use to throwing it around against what they dislike. No taking into account the actual problems around them, and realistic resolutions. But how dare someone might have something that someone else considers a potential eyesore. What's even more stupid here, is these entire neighborhoods are gone, there's nobody else living there to really complain. Since everything has burned down, and everyone's going through the process of either selling their properties and collecting insurance money, or rebuilding. Which means everyone in that area that chooses to be there, is willingly dealing with construction noises.
We have a lot of similar by laws up here in Canada, (London, Ontario) that say you can NOT live in an RV / motorhome type vehicle. Except in "some areas" only while your home is being renovated.
Not mentioned is that if you are building, being on site at all times prevents theft and all manner of malfeasance and makes sure that questions from contractors are answered promptly. It should be encouraged not denied. On the other hand, living permanently in an RV and not ever building is a different matter.
I swear to goodness! This man is a good man. Glad you made this public knowledge. Where does good old common sense and decency come in to play? If this didn't get straightened out RIGHT NOW I would take all my insurance money and move out of that town. How cruel!!!!
In washington state a similar situation got a towns ordinance tossed by a judge. There is some clause in the state constitution that the ordinance conflicted with and the state constitution trumps local ordinance. The town appealed and lost. Wound up paying the peoples legal fees and court costs as well.
In a perfect world and ideal situations enforcement of ordinances is reasonable. But sometimes in life shit happens, it's not like these people want to spend the rest of their lives in an rv when before the fire lived comfortably in a adequate home that is no longer there.
In Pa, we have Zoning Hearing Boards to hear cases involving zoning violations. They can, and have, authorized temporary occupancy until say 10 days after the occupancy certificate is issued for the reconstructed home. Reduced permit fees apply for reconstruction of fire and storm damaged structures. Many times repairs made to the previously approved plans and standards don't require a permit to begin with. Cases in appeal are held in abeyance during the legal process which allows for the legalities to be continued. A member of council or Board of Supervisors could also table the matter for 6 months or a year during which reconstruction could be completed. There are solutions including amending an existing ordinance to address the issue.
There is not a chance in hell I would leave my property because some bureaucrat said I must do so, given the circumstances. I have a feeling the town council will have a change of heart soon, due to pressure from constituents. But if they hold fast, everyone else must hold fast, too. This is so absurd it is hard to comprehend.
My friend and I were helping a fellow out in Deltona FL, whose house had been flooded when an elderly woman came up crying. It seems her house had been flooded too, and most all of her worldly possessions were ruined and on her driveway. A Deltona City Code Enforcement official had told her she had 1 day to remove everything or she would be fined $100.00 per day. She didn't know what she could do?
Thank you Lehto’s law… This reminds me of how law is like a traffic intersection. The intersection between what is morally right and what is legal are often two entirely different streets. I hope that compassion and common sense meet and actually intersect. Hopefully these people get a green light and can move forward. 🤔❤️🇺🇸
I think the government needs to stay out of people's business and private property,period. What if a homeowner likes to travel and wants to park their rv on their own property? why should they pay thousands of dollars to store or park their rv on someone else's property, when they OWN their own property and pay taxes? I understand people not wanting for their neighborhood to turn into a trailer park.I an not saying let every homeowner bring in rv and move people in. But if they neatly park it hidden behind their house or to the end of their driveway,why is it anyone's business? If the damn snobby neighbors don't want to look at it, let them invest in a tall,solid fence. Until the city now says, sorry,live with it,no fences allowed.
Allow a variance requiring regular renewal. Renewal requires evidence of progress towards a permanent structure on the lot. Far too simple a solution for a bureaucrat to understand.
I am designing temporary housing for emergencies like this. These kinds of laws are a huge obstacle. There are not enough hotel rooms or other accommodations. The cities need to make exceptions to allow temporary housing after a fire or flood or hurricane.
I contend the government has no right, nor place, to make these laws regarding another's rights to his own property. The purpose of government is to protect the whole, not to protect the sensitivities of a privileged few.
Exactly it's like the mayor and everybody in the mayor's office says everybody in the town have to abide by the laws but then whenever a tragedy happens an it's the other way around then laws get lifted for them
Especially in situations where you or your property don't utilize or benefit from government services. Taxes are a scam when you have no utilities or connections to the outside world. Sure, charge me $5 or whatever when i bring a bag of trash to the dump every couple months or so, that's perfectly fair, as i'm using the service, but don't charge me for maintaining sewer systems, roads and other such infrastructure that i'm not connected to or utilize. You can argue that i 'benefit' from the government maintaining the roads, but they don't. They don't plow the roads, maintain them, and for the past 3 decades i've been driving over surfaces that seem to have been roads once, but resemble cluster bombed runways ever since i've been here. I really don't benefit from the infrastructure because it causes expensive damage to my vehicles instead of providing a safe means of travel Tires last a few months and i'm regularly stuck with flats. The mail, cops, or emergency services don't come out here either. So what am i really paying for? Sunshine? Wind? Rain? Taxes don't affect those, and that's pretty much all i need as far as 'services and utilities. I'd be super okay with my tax money i'm robbed of all going towards education though, so maybe we can raise a generation of kids that aren't too stupid to fix all the broken infrastructure, or even know why it needs fixing in the first place. But that won't happen, my state is in the bottom 5 of education, so idiocracy here we come full send! DURRR!
@@rustymustard7798 I don't agree with taxes either, but it takes minimum of 3yrs non payment for anyone to be able to lay claim, in Missouri after ten yrs of abandonment it only cost the ten years of taxes vs whatever value they (tax collector's) lay to it, which keeps money grubbing jacke$$es in check
Why is this law in place to begin with? I can see an ordinance limiting how long a large vehicle can be parked on the street, because that can be a road hazard. That said, people should be able to keep an RV on their property.
Laws like these are usually to prevent neighborhoods from getting run down with homeless relatives or friends mooching or boondocking permanently in the backyards. Mooching is when you hook your electrics and sewage up for free. So that's an additional toilet not getting taxed. Some towns and all their people are in agreement to preventing that.
@@melkel2010 if you own the land then presumably you are paying for whatever utilities they use. The point here is that they are not setting up their vehicles on public land. There are already laws in place stopping you from stealing stealing utilities. What this city is doing sounds like HOA shenanigans, but on a larger scale.
It would be just for the council to suspend their property tax. It would be just for the council to have a fund to plant trees in the burned area. It would be just for the mayor and the county/council to take a pay cut in these troubling times where this fire burned everything.
Welcome to Superior, CO, one of many small towns in Colorado who can't see the forest through the trees. So glad I'm not living there anymore. So many local ordinances put in place to improve/preserve "beauty" of the area...to their own detriment.
That sounds like not only should they make an exception for these people right now, but amend the law to make an exception for all similar situations in future. With time limits and so on. This shouldn't happen with the same law twice.
Thanks for this video Steve, it is a good reminder for me because I'm choosing where to move, and this reminds me to look at city boundaries and research their regs or hopefully be outside city limits (I already resolved to avoid HOAs).
Steve I have no doubt in my mind no doubt that the people when that tongue will see that those folks can stay in their RVs on their own property and you worded it so well as long as they’re making reasonable progress to try to rectify the situation thank you again for taking this up you do such good work I will appreciate if they’re changing the forfeit laws also I’ve heard and I think you’re part of the reason why that’s happening this is Jim mungai from Kennerdell Pennsylvania thank you again Steve
There are always exceptions to every rule. If you can show that you are scheduled to rebuild then you are absolutely giving a good faith effort to follow the rules.
I'm here in prison, because I stole some money, how come you're here?, After a fire,I stayed in a RV while my house was being rebuilt and I broke a rule, staying too long in a RV,
The board should consider each person affected and decide who should be allowed to stay in an RV or travel trailer etc based on their particular situation. Most people would probably not live in an RV etc on their property only a few. Let them until they can rebuild.
They cannot dictate what kinda of home you have, the classism/clastism and is illegal here by supreme court ruling, Missouri town tried to do it and went to supreme court in was 99 or 00 can't remember which
My neighbor went through the same thing in a county that has no zoning, County Council said that it was against the law they got around it after suing county council.
I think developers want that land. How did the fire start? There can be variances to the code for them. They are long time residents. They are trying to rebuild their homes after a devastating situation that isn't normal. The council are purposely trying to get the residents to sell their lan, now cheaper without structures. Coruption, I believe. They will grant variances to the new owner/developer, I"ll wager.
This was the Marshall fire in Colorado. It was a wind-driven wildfire that destroyed more than 1000 homes and 30 commercial properties. It wasn't a move by some developer to muscle out family from their land.
Where I live in Virginia the county allows living in an RV while building or remodeling a home and you can live in the RV up to 12 months. To live in an RV permanently the RV must pass the same codes as a house would, or you can set the RV up in an RV park if it meets certain criteria, mainly the age of the RV itself.
Odd question... Can they go to a judge and ask for injunction against the enforcement of the town ordinance, until such time as the town council/board takes it up or comes to a decision after??
That's where property rights should not be legislated away cause any legislation is a restriction on a person's life period anyone that says rules are rules should be made to house these people at their house's
I'm pretty sure that telling someone what they can put on their property is unconditional and I hope they will be taking that town or county to court. Sounds like a good one for IJ to take on!
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.15 (1/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TLBjiHvkKtE/mqdefault.jpg)
"Prior to the fire." Time to elect a new mayor and council. Fire every. Single. One.
couple of flaming bags of shit on their porches would make it real.
And possibly move out of the county in the meantime and not put a damn thing on the property that makes the property value go up.
RVs, trailers and tiny homes should be allowed everywhere
I have never been a fan of anyone telling someone else how to live on their own property. I recently heard a saying. "Don't tell me how to freedom and i want tell you how to freedom". It sits very good in my mind.
As long as the living space is safe, and sewage is properly dealt with, I see no problems.
In my country - you can stay in an RV or caravan on your property - if you take the wheels off it becomes a dwelling -so will need consent - I think you may have to get permits if hooked to sewage etc . Small cabins are fine /sleepouts (placement rules apply - from street, from fence etc ) - but if you put in oven or plumbing needs a consent . You can sleep in your own garage - however you can not rent that garage as accommodation . My local bylaws stops RVs parking in the street in same spot for more than 30 days - however if no neighbours complain - probably nothing happens . In my country you only lose your house for not paying taxes, mortgage and for debt by court order . Also can lose for govt infrastructure ( roads etc ) . Think someone can own your mineral rights - and dig it up ( but never heard that happening to residential houses ) . Anyway if you have a family , or retired and no money Govt must provide accommodation - even fit and able poor can get accommodation - but probably only on a weekly basis .Lots of rules for set back , how much land may be using for house ( zone dependant ) - Garages say must be set back 5 yards from berm - yet your neighbour could park 6 cars on his front lawn - normally rich will have double/triple garage - so only see this in student area or bunch of guys renting or maybe someone trading cars- they probably have them registered to other addresses as well - to avoid business from home rules ( which say a single accountant , dressmaker can get exceptions for anyway )
Welcome to the Libertarian party! Both the D's and the R's are big-government Nanny State types.
@@ostlandr It may surprise you to know that Germany has been a "nanny state" for over a century; Otto von Bismarck began with a health insurance bill in 1883. He was determined to give his people proper care, and he was very successful at it.
The town board has forgotten who they serve. They answer to the citizens, not the other way around.
💯
Bro Honest Government Leadership died with JFK.. Greed took over decades ago
Actually it is not your property, belongs to the corporation. You have to pay them to tell you if you can do something or not on it. Don’t pay your taxes and they will take it away from you. I got burned out and got kicked off my property for rv for not having a building permit that they wouldn’t give to me.
Sounds like it is time for a new board. Vote them out.
@@D-B-Cooper If that happened to me, I not only would've burned it to the ground, I would've contaminated the property so badly that the cleaup costs would exceed the value. I'd make it a freaking superfund site.
"Long term". 🤦🏼♀️
As a full time RVer, this is so annoying that the county isn't allowing it. If they are actively building the home I don't see what the issue is. RVs are self contained and built for living in.
Exactly.
WTF do they define as a legal living abode anyway?
@@GeeTrieste One that looks exactly like its neighbors. Which all look like the town over.
Funny how a large-scale disaster or emergency allows government officials to declare a state of emergency in the name of being able to act quickly and with flexibility. But a family experiences an unusual and unforeseen disaster and they can't be allowed to do similar.
@DiogenesRewound if that matters then you are thinking like a racist
Superior was small, old mining town with cheap, small houses. Then, the Rock Creek subdivision was built and the new residents outnumbered the original town. Rock Creek is known for strict HOA rules, down to the style of mailbox. It was old-town that burned. There's no way Superior town council will have any empathy for poor people. In old-town, they could paint their houses any color! Think of your property values!
I lean more toward anarchist everyday.
If your protecting the perimeter, you are " security watch." And are able to stay there.
@@rustyshackleford2902 that's a good idea. Hopefully it's a valid loophole. Love the user name, by the way! :) My favorite show of all time, KOTH.
Let’s hope they do the right thing. Personally, I’m against any restriction on what a person can do on their own private property.
Oh, imagine what a HoA will do since they have much less accountability than a town's politicians.
Me too....
Water issues are debatable there. A farmer upriver cannot claim all of the rivers water for thier fields. Also polution is a no go, anything that can leech into the water shed. Otherwise, just be safe.
I don't quite agree you. Let's say you own an acre of land in the middle of the town, should you be allowed to setup a pig farm just because you own the land?......
@@AdavidPT No, you should not be "ALLOWED", you should be "FREE" to. How many people in town also eat pork products?
It's all about control.
Always has been 🌎👨🚀🔫👨🚀
Fire Victim "Can't you remove the ordinance or make an exception because of the circumstances?"
Town: Sorry, we can only create government regulations, we can't get rid of them.
It's amazing how many laws are passed and enforced that restrict actions that don't affect anyone
People clamber and hold onto even the smallest iota of power. Town governments and HOAs are perfect examples of this. Only people who run for these are power hungry scum.
As long as our nickel pays for it they are happy to parade their pony show around for us
Its worst than that imagine having your own property and then someone telling you what to do with that property.
@@chattingman8546 yeah imagine not being able to dump toxic chemicals or blow a massive hole in said property, what a shame \s
@@chattingman8546 I think that's what is happening here.
Those that made the decision to enforce this senseless and heartless ordinance need to be given a Chance to reconsider. If not, they need to be made famous. Post their photos, addresses and phone numbers. If they can’t feel empathy, they can feel uncomfortable.
Bar those people behind this cruelty from their houses (no need to actually burn them down) and tell them to "figure it out without breaking their own rules."
People get the government they deserve.
How does this even get in front of the city counsel? And what heartless bastard enforces the ordinance?
Someone who only cares about getting their paycheck
Code enforcement is always used to abuse people.
"Just following orders."
@Bobb Grimley counsel for the defense disagrees. It is a noun, verb and adverb in the U. S. Legal system.
@@richardbeckenbaugh1805 how is it used as an adverb?
I hate when people side with rules rather than compassion. That's why I hate "zero tolerance". I call zero tolerance "zero intelligence". Not every situation is the same.
Saw a Reddit story where a school had a "zero tolerance" policy that, if one student attacked another, BOTH got punished. This one bully was causing problems, so the students dealt with it. A kid would walk up to the bully and smash him in the face. Of course both students were suspended for a week. As soon as the bully came back, ANOTHER student clobbered him. The bully missed the whole rest of the year and had to repeat the grade at a new school.
@@ostlandr THAT'S AWESOME!
I mean, stupid policy, but the kids used it against him.
Pretty crazy to suspend victims though
Zero tolerance = zero judgement required. The thing is that the job of executives (mayors, principals, etc) is to exercise judgement - otherwise their job is pointless . They can be completely replaced by a list of rules.
@@DavidLaFerney agreed. They seem to think that a lack of judgement is impartial, but it's not. Because it's shallow and doesn't look at the details.
JC, have a heart. These people have lost everything so let’s pile on them for making the best of their situation in a RV.
I've always said, never expect compassion from your government. I know rules are rules but understanding and compassion for your fellow man should always come first.
See there's the problem, the government isn't the town, the people are
@@bengraham6015 we used to take care of such creatures with a fence rail and a bit of rope. Ride them out of town on a cold night, minus their clothing. It worked before we were a country quite effectively.
Or my alternative, a grand toxic waste dump before they can notice or stop me, then good luck finding me later and no more tax payments or mortgage payments, let the bank and town fight over the toxic property.
Politicians don't give a fuck about people, especially poor people. They would rather they just die.
these people living in rv's are voters, there are many owner who lost there homes. election will come around.
My heart goes out to all those made homeless from the fire. As a victim of Superstorm Sandy I was flooded out. Bounced from friends and FEMA shelters for 10 months. I expect the town will rethink it's decision with the media exposure.
They won't. Colorado politicians are basically as bad as Illinois nazis
My sister and brother in law lived this way after a flood damaged their home and the city they lived in here in Washington state was very supportive. And the city also had zoning laws against the use of RV’s for living in. This mayor is full of crap.
Thats why he is a politition.
"The board said they would have a discussion at their next work session". Open meeting laws generally do not allow boards to vote immediately on new issues brought up during a board meeting. In order to have a vote on changing a policy it must be placed on the agenda so all potential viewpoints can come to the voting meeting to express their support or opposition to the change. Based on their actions on related measures it seems likely they will have a proposal on the agenda at the next public meeting.
I would like to see these people run for mayor or city council in the next election. We need people who are reasonable running governement.
would be a shame if the mayor and town counsels homes burned
@@ygrittesnow1701 Granting exceptions is changing the policy and requires a board vote. The enforcement side of the house can forbear while waiting for the board to make a decision, but the board cannot direct the executive agencies without a vote on a previously announced agenda item.
Great story about Milo and Wolfy in the elevator, Steve. My dogs did the same thing when I stayed in a hotel with them. With mine, it was funny to watch them instantly widen their stance with all four legs (and widen their eyes) when the elevator started moving. Oh, and they were definitely confused to see different surroundings when we exited the elevator.
Ridiculous. My county in Ga recently tried to crack down on poor people living in RVs. There was such a public backlash that they are being allowed to stay longer.
Poor people don't live in rvs. Poor people can't afford rvs. Rvs cost 150 thousand or more new .
To clarify, these are really run down RVs.
@@catsbyondrepair these are really run-down old RVs.
@Rita Jo not these RVs. These are old and run down.
@@witebatman that is essentially what happened. People were upset. I could see both sides because the RVs in question are in really bad shape and there are sanitary concerns. I think the government decided to try and help the people
About 6 years back my parents house burned down I was still living with them at time. We had insurance that was capable of covering for a rental house but we still lived in a hotel for about a month with 2 cats and a dog in one room no one enjoyed it. We didn't have any real amenities until we moved into the rental. I would have loved an RV while we worked on the house or found alternate living instead of that hotel.
I had a building burned during the 2003 wildfire in San Bernardino, CA. The Board of Supervisors announced that victims could "take as long as they need" to clean up. The Property Nazis in the Code Enforcement posted a notice giving me 10 days! They said my rubble was an "attractive nuisance". None of my structures were visible from the road. The Property Nazis only knew of my loss because I followed the rules to REPORT the loss.
I think I would have responded to code enforcement's notice with, "Thank you for the compliment!"
Attractive nuicance does that mean it was too good looking
I think "attractive nuisance" means "Kids might try to play on it and get themselves hurt." Swimming pools without fences are also labeled "attractive nuisances".
@@S_Roach I lived on 3 acres situated on a STEEP hill. There was NEVER foot traffic of any kind. All of the surrounding houses were the same. No one could see my house without having to open the gate at the bottom of the driveway. The gate was posted NO TRESPASSING. My two Rottweilers patrolled the gate. The Property Nazis put the notice on the gate. They never set foot on the property. AGAIN, they never OBSERVED anything. The notice was placed only because I REPORTED the loss.
@@S_Roach Then there are the people who complain about the "wrong" fence being an "attractive nuisiance"
I've also been through the experience of having a pet and a hotel room. I'm a consultant; I had a 3-month engagement turn into a 5-year job. So, of course, there was no way I was going to board my cat for 5 years. I leased an apartment in Atlanta along with another guy on the same job (saving on the per diem, cha-ching!) but I kept Hurricane in my hotel for the longest day of my life until Monday could roll around while I reported for work, the papers could be signed, and the keys picked up.
What's more amazing is how many people think they are free, or they own THEIR property.
It's sickening when realized
They don’t actually own the property. You pay for the right to use it then pay rent in the form of taxes. This is why imminent domain works really. Also why the government can seize your land if you don’t pay taxes.
@@Chris-cv1ll Yes, I consider property tax as rent.
@@musicloverme3993 i agree . Finally someone confirming my beliefs. I knew I wasn't crazy
This is why here in Texas we have legislation and many politicians that support the idea of getting rid of property taxes. You shouldn’t have to pay the government rent on the property you own.
@@kamilegier4730 double taxation. Straight up theft. This has to stop by all means people can't keep being pushed its time for the (New Age )
Steve I had a dog that I loved so much that died when I was a young teenager. I’m 65 now and I still grieve over that dog to this day.
If it's illegal to PARK the RV on the land for more than 30 days, perhaps they could start the RVs, drive them around the block, and then park them there again for another 30 days.
There was an ordinance in my community that said vehicles could not be parked for more than 24 hours and they cited me for my classic car. But unknown to them, I knew about their ordinance and drove the vehicle daily, if only for a few minutes. At the magistrate hearing they were dumbfounded when I asked them to prove that I didn't move the car. They had to admit that they didn't surveil my property 24/7 and just assumed that the car was parked more than 24 hours.
if you really wanna be a dick and know they aren't watching you 24/7 jack up the wheels, "drive it" for a few miles, then set it back down XD they could never prove you didn't drive it without 24/7 surveillance and the odo will show that it's been driven
They have 5 properties. They can tow them to a new property every few weeks.
Someone wanted your car.
@@juanduenas1943 probably the mayor
Brilliant!
I've been a Colorado resident for 24 years and I'm sorry to say this sort of thing has become all too common. When I moved here the prevailing culture had small town, rural sensibility. My wife, like the folks in this story, is a descendant from pioneers. I'd hate to move somewhere else but increasingly stuff like this is making us consider moving to another state.
Moving won't help you much. These types of laws are becoming increasingly prevalent. The motto, "live & let live" is vanishing quickly. There are cities with laws about what colors you can paint your house. People are subservient to bureaucracy.
not going to change, get rid of the politicians, find better people who understand "public service".
Run and you will always be on the run. Stay and fight, drain the swamp- local and federal.
Big city residents move out to the country, ala Green Acres, and then bring with them their Big City mentality, and proceed to impose it upon people who have lived there for generations.
The idiots don't recognize that the reason they wanted to live in the country was because of how the country culture operates, instead they muck it up as badly as the place they were trying to get away from.
The cities and the state know how much the land is worth now, so it's better for them if they can get you to leave, then the land can be developed and more $$ for the city and state in taxes and increased property values.
Happened to my grandmother after Katrina. There were 7 or 8 adults plus a couple kids living in her 2 bedroom house in Mississippi. The town kept giving her a hard time about getting a FEMA trailer. Finally she had to just tell them that she was getting one whether they liked it or not and if they wanted to throw a little old lady out on the streets then they would have to make that decision and live with their own conscience. She got her trailer and never heard anything about it again.
My dad was paid to deliver trailers to LA after Katrina. His company was stopped at the state line and refused entry to Louisiana. They were instructed to drop the trailers and head back north.
@@JasonW. sounds like what a warlord in a 3rd world country would do. Stop the delivery to people who need it and ration it out to their people 1st.
@@JasonW. May of been for their safety. I have a friend that was hot-shoting generators and supplies to LA. following Katrina. He said despite marshal law and curfews some areas were like a war zone with looters and shootings. He wasn’t supposed to be caring any firearms but his natural instinct and God given right told him otherwise. One night he almost had to use it in self defense.
@@MamaMOB Some do, some don't, but almost all of them care about the optics when that hits the news!
@@JasonW. Wait... 'They were instructed to drop the trailers and head back north.'? They were told to leave the trailers behind at the border??? They weren't allowed to take 'em back to the company lot??? E'scuze?!?!? *Why?* If the cops didn't want trailers in Louisiana, why did they want 'em stacked up at the border?
I have done disaster recovery and this is way more common that you would think. Most towns have these types of ordinances. Only a few will waive those after a disaster. So way more common than you think.
Hello, how are you doing I hope you’re having a great day So far🙏
The town should do it of course, but also it said they have 5 lots. That is legally 5 different properties. So that's 5 months and depending on the wording of the ordinance they can probably just start the cycle over at lot 1.
Yep, my thoughts exactly. Letter of Law met.
Or just, once every week or two, move the RV to the town hall parking lot for the night. Or maybe to an agreeable neighbor's property for the night.
In TV shows, the whole town comes together and helps rebuild your home.
In real life, you get this.
Meanwhile here in SC. There's a person near me that lost their house around 5 years ago to a fire. They've been living in an unattached 5th wheel on the driveway ever since.
The burned out house still stands.
Had that near my place for a few years. Problem was the insurance company wouldn't pay/close the file but also wouldn't help secure the remaining contents. Owner was forced to become a caretaker of his own property that he wasn't even allowed to cleanup or rebuild. About 8 years later he was allowed to build a garage package and put his stuff in there. took about a decade to see a new house to be built. Dumb
@@cookingwithjesus exactly, d
When my house burned down, I stayed in a trailer in the back yard during rebuilding. I was able to keep an eye on the place to prevent people from stealing building supplies.
The town needs to have a heart, understand that yes there are extenuating circumstances for this situation to enable them to bend the rules.
Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. Welcome to America.
The only rule that should apply is a time limit. Can't live in an RV there forever but as long as progress is being made towards rebuilding it should be allowed.
How would you tell how long they have been there for?
also insurance may take a while to pay out all the damages
Why should it even be illegal to live in the RV in the first place? What's the function of this ordinance supposed to be?
It's supposedly their property. They should be able to live in an RV on their property as long as it harms no one else ; and we're not talking about eyesores or hurt feelings; it's their property and they should be able to do whatever they want as long as it's not harming someone else.
@@MrPir84free Cities/towns etc. etc. are the ultimate HoAs. They get to decide not only what you get to put on your property but even how and when you do develop it. Not the way it should be but it is the way it is.
I am a city councilman and that would have been a no brainier, there is away to delay enforcement till the question is resolved. People!
Rhetorical question: did any of the powers that be lose their homes in the fire? Compassion and understanding are generally not traits of government. Having experience with the Camp Fire, Dixie Fire, and other major fires, my experience is that government is less concerned with the citizenry and more concerned with the Rules and the continued existence of Government.
I'm doubtful that the individuals who do the work of the government are lacking in compassion. Their jobs, though, are to apply the rules of whatever laws or regulations may be applicable. If they apply those rules as instructed, they are doing their jobs and if they alter or modify the way the rules are applied, they are insubordinate. Why are rules so complicated, with so many details? Because there are lots of folks who will try to game the rules to qualify for a benefit they're not entitled to, or to be exempted from some rule they do not wish to follow. Those who are neither bear the brunt. Also this also local (city) government, the likes of which we'd hope to see as concerned about its citizens. Those who, like the Tin Woodsman, are lacking in heart may be found lacking in votes at the next election.
The factual answer is, yes, some local officials lost their homes. Many of the lost homes in Superior were about 100 yrs old. They require people to build to new standards. Hundreds of people are showing up at council meetings and we are seeing flexibility in the local governments.
THE FIRE DESTROYED ABOUT 1000 HOMES. These people list everything. They have no other options. Apartments are in short supply (Thus very expensive!), there are just not enough homes to buy it rent to keep up with demand.
Why can't the city bureaucrats look at reality, understand the predicament, become human, and suspend the zoning laws for at least a year?!
I heard from another related story that at least a few dozen families have had to resign from their jobs, and relocate elsewhere, out of state.
The Marshal fire 🔥 was a perfect storm. It started as a small grass fire, but it was an exceptionally windy day. Winds blowing over 50 MPH blew the fire for miles.
Homes, businesses (including a restaurant in business over 50 years) were destroyed. Even a local Tesla dealership was damaged, 2 cars destroyed.
The human brain, including humans that have a brain, moves faster than the people that write laws. Law writers are always out of step with their victims.
These officials need to be removed
It seems to me that these victims, owning 5 adjacent properties, could park one RV on two of the properties, leave it for 30 days as apparently allowed by ordinance, then move them to another of their adjacent properties for another 30 days, continuing to rotate as necessary.
Beat the system at its own game!
that was my thoughts entirly
i agree "malicious compliance" they own 10 lots in total im shore the letters were delivered to an address 30 days notice + 7 days just move the rvs to the next lot bingo you have over a year but most of these types of rules carry a 30 days in any year clause
Sad situation! I drove through the Marshall Fire area today for the first time since the fire. Housing is difficult to find anywhere near these homes, and restoring any level off community and normalcy should be priority. There has to be a reasonable way to accommodate RVs in these communities.
I agree with you Steve,give these people that just lost their homes a break.
???
Housing in Boulder County is some of the most expensive and scarce in America. Recognize the difference between the intent of the law, and the letter.
I think this is a good example of where people have had enough money their whole life, that they have gotten use to throwing it around against what they dislike. No taking into account the actual problems around them, and realistic resolutions. But how dare someone might have something that someone else considers a potential eyesore.
What's even more stupid here, is these entire neighborhoods are gone, there's nobody else living there to really complain. Since everything has burned down, and everyone's going through the process of either selling their properties and collecting insurance money, or rebuilding. Which means everyone in that area that chooses to be there, is willingly dealing with construction noises.
We have a lot of similar by laws up here in Canada, (London, Ontario) that say you can NOT live in an RV / motorhome type vehicle. Except in "some areas" only while your home is being renovated.
the politics should be kept out of it.there should be an emergency acceptance to allow residents to be parked till the house is bulit.
THERE SHOULD BE NO RULER OVER WHAT IS YOURS
I agree with you Steve on the reasonable temporary exemption from that ordinance.
Hundo, unfolded, across the hood of the turbine car, not in the box, on the right top of the main cabinet. 325.
Not mentioned is that if you are building, being on site at all times prevents theft and all manner of malfeasance and makes sure that questions from contractors are answered promptly. It should be encouraged not denied. On the other hand, living permanently in an RV and not ever building is a different matter.
I swear to goodness! This man is a good man. Glad you made this public knowledge. Where does good old common sense and decency come in to play? If this didn't get straightened out RIGHT NOW I would take all my insurance money and move out of that town. How cruel!!!!
In washington state a similar situation got a towns ordinance tossed by a judge. There is some clause in the state constitution that the ordinance conflicted with and the state constitution trumps local ordinance. The town appealed and lost. Wound up paying the peoples legal fees and court costs as well.
Hello, how are you doing I hope you’re having a great day So far. God bless you 🙏🙏🙏
In a perfect world and ideal situations enforcement of ordinances is reasonable. But sometimes in life shit happens, it's not like these people want to spend the rest of their lives in an rv when before the fire lived comfortably in a adequate home that is no longer there.
In Pa, we have Zoning Hearing Boards to hear cases involving zoning violations. They can, and have, authorized temporary occupancy until say 10 days after the occupancy certificate is issued for the reconstructed home. Reduced permit fees apply for reconstruction of fire and storm damaged structures. Many times repairs made to the previously approved plans and standards don't require a permit to begin with. Cases in appeal are held in abeyance during the legal process which allows for the legalities to be continued. A member of council or Board of Supervisors could also table the matter for 6 months or a year during which reconstruction could be completed. There are solutions including amending an existing ordinance to address the issue.
Anybody else catch the irony of Steve being in favor of RVs for once?
@Gretchen K. I think Steve could care less about the RVs it's the homelessness that's what he's trying to get at and everyone knows is not right
There is not a chance in hell I would leave my property because some bureaucrat said I must do so, given the circumstances. I have a feeling the town council will have a change of heart soon, due to pressure from constituents. But if they hold fast, everyone else must hold fast, too.
This is so absurd it is hard to comprehend.
The town should hold an emergency session and address this issue.
My friend and I were helping a fellow out in Deltona FL, whose house had been flooded when an elderly woman came up crying. It seems her house had been flooded too, and most all of her worldly possessions were ruined and on her driveway. A Deltona City Code Enforcement official had told her she had 1 day to remove everything or she would be fined $100.00 per day. She didn't know what she could do?
Might I suggest investing in a Bulldozer and welding equipment?
Feral hog problems require well-regulated solutions.
Thank you Lehto’s law… This reminds me of how law is like a traffic intersection. The intersection between what is morally right and what is legal are often two entirely different streets. I hope that compassion and common sense meet and actually intersect. Hopefully these people get a green light and can move forward. 🤔❤️🇺🇸
Everything Hitler did was legal under German law (after the Nazis took over and wrote said laws.)
@@ostlandr Carpet bombing was legal then too. Hopefully we've all grown to refrain from either by now.
I think the government needs to stay out of people's business and private property,period. What if a homeowner likes to travel and wants to park their rv on their own property? why should they pay thousands of dollars to store or park their rv on someone else's property, when they OWN their own property and pay taxes? I understand people not wanting for their neighborhood to turn into a trailer park.I an not saying let every homeowner bring in rv and move people in. But if they neatly park it hidden behind their house or to the end of their driveway,why is it anyone's business? If the damn snobby neighbors don't want to look at it, let them invest in a tall,solid fence. Until the city now says, sorry,live with it,no fences allowed.
Allow a variance requiring regular renewal. Renewal requires evidence of progress towards a permanent structure on the lot.
Far too simple a solution for a bureaucrat to understand.
Aint those little dictators from homeowners associations just great
In New York State on Long Island, these tiny "villages" have sprung up which are literally HOAs with the force of law behind them.
The headline here caught my attention as a big WTF? Can't wait to hear the whole story
I am designing temporary housing for emergencies like this. These kinds of laws are a huge obstacle. There are not enough hotel rooms or other accommodations. The cities need to make exceptions to allow temporary housing after a fire or flood or hurricane.
I contend the government has no right, nor place, to make these laws regarding another's rights to his own property. The purpose of government is to protect the whole, not to protect the sensitivities of a privileged few.
Its not only are there not enough hotel rooms its the cost of those rooms when you have to use them for months
CP They already exist.
Also being ON the property discourages theft or looting while the new home is being built.
These are the type that say its the law until they are the ones be effected by a law and then puff law is suspended or removed.
Exactly it's like the mayor and everybody in the mayor's office says everybody in the town have to abide by the laws but then whenever a tragedy happens an it's the other way around then laws get lifted for them
Maybe the town should provide living space for these people
I love how people still believe they "own" property. No, you pay rent yearly with taxes. If you don't pay guess what... you're gone
It's yours legally and are responsible for it that what deeds are, and not all places have property taxes geez
Especially in situations where you or your property don't utilize or benefit from government services. Taxes are a scam when you have no utilities or connections to the outside world. Sure, charge me $5 or whatever when i bring a bag of trash to the dump every couple months or so, that's perfectly fair, as i'm using the service, but don't charge me for maintaining sewer systems, roads and other such infrastructure that i'm not connected to or utilize. You can argue that i 'benefit' from the government maintaining the roads, but they don't. They don't plow the roads, maintain them, and for the past 3 decades i've been driving over surfaces that seem to have been roads once, but resemble cluster bombed runways ever since i've been here. I really don't benefit from the infrastructure because it causes expensive damage to my vehicles instead of providing a safe means of travel Tires last a few months and i'm regularly stuck with flats. The mail, cops, or emergency services don't come out here either. So what am i really paying for? Sunshine? Wind? Rain? Taxes don't affect those, and that's pretty much all i need as far as 'services and utilities.
I'd be super okay with my tax money i'm robbed of all going towards education though, so maybe we can raise a generation of kids that aren't too stupid to fix all the broken infrastructure, or even know why it needs fixing in the first place. But that won't happen, my state is in the bottom 5 of education, so idiocracy here we come full send! DURRR!
@@rustymustard7798 I don't agree with taxes either, but it takes minimum of 3yrs non payment for anyone to be able to lay claim, in Missouri after ten yrs of abandonment it only cost the ten years of taxes vs whatever value they (tax collector's) lay to it, which keeps money grubbing jacke$$es in check
@@screweverything2215 How about providing us with a list of states that have no property tax on land or real estate?
@@alexnone5720Alaska pays you to live there, next
Tennessee welcomes you back.
Kimi and Finnish racing drivers the world over approve of your shirt.
Why is this law in place to begin with? I can see an ordinance limiting how long a large vehicle can be parked on the street, because that can be a road hazard. That said, people should be able to keep an RV on their property.
Laws like these are usually to prevent neighborhoods from getting run down with homeless relatives or friends mooching or boondocking permanently in the backyards. Mooching is when you hook your electrics and sewage up for free. So that's an additional toilet not getting taxed. Some towns and all their people are in agreement to preventing that.
@@melkel2010 if you own the land then presumably you are paying for whatever utilities they use. The point here is that they are not setting up their vehicles on public land. There are already laws in place stopping you from stealing stealing utilities. What this city is doing sounds like HOA shenanigans, but on a larger scale.
Could the victims move their RVs to each other's lots to start new 30 day periods?
The way government works today, I’m surprised they didn’t also fine them for open burning when their houses burned down.
Fine the home owners for polluting the air .,!! lol.
It would be just for the council to suspend their property tax. It would be just for the council to have a fund to plant trees in the burned area. It would be just for the mayor and the county/council to take a pay cut in these troubling times where this fire burned everything.
Welcome to Superior, CO, one of many small towns in Colorado who can't see the forest through the trees. So glad I'm not living there anymore. So many local ordinances put in place to improve/preserve "beauty" of the area...to their own detriment.
That sounds like not only should they make an exception for these people right now, but amend the law to make an exception for all similar situations in future. With time limits and so on.
This shouldn't happen with the same law twice.
or how about towns cant tell people what they can and cant do on their own property.
If your house burns down I might let you and your family live in my garage, maybe.
Thanks for this video Steve, it is a good reminder for me because I'm choosing where to move, and this reminds me to look at city boundaries and research their regs or hopefully be outside city limits (I already resolved to avoid HOAs).
Need to call it a construction trailer.
Sue the city, the mayor, and city council and take them all to court.
Hundo still on the hood of the Turbine car. 1
Steve I have no doubt in my mind no doubt that the people when that tongue will see that those folks can stay in their RVs on their own property and you worded it so well as long as they’re making reasonable progress to try to rectify the situation thank you again for taking this up you do such good work I will appreciate if they’re changing the forfeit laws also I’ve heard and I think you’re part of the reason why that’s happening this is Jim mungai from Kennerdell Pennsylvania thank you again Steve
Some Karen that still has her home has taken exception to the poor people that lost theres and don't care if they live in a tent under a tree..
Simple solution: Burn Karen's house down.
They wouldn’t be allowed to live in a tent either!
Run for city council member and mayor and vote them out.
Hello, how are you doing I hope you’re having a great day So far🙏
I hereby nominate you for Best Commonsensical Lawyer in the land. Best regards. P.s.: Loved the Milo and Wolfy elevator experience... dw.
There are always exceptions to every rule. If you can show that you are scheduled to rebuild then you are absolutely giving a good faith effort to follow the rules.
I'm here in prison, because I stole some money, how come you're here?, After a fire,I stayed in a RV while my house was being rebuilt and I broke a rule, staying too long in a RV,
Compassion and understanding walked off into the sunset many years ago in the USA.
The board should consider each person affected and decide who should be allowed to stay in an RV or travel trailer etc based on their particular situation. Most people would probably not live in an RV etc on their property only a few. Let them until they can rebuild.
They cannot dictate what kinda of home you have, the classism/clastism and is illegal here by supreme court ruling, Missouri town tried to do it and went to supreme court in was 99 or 00 can't remember which
My neighbor went through the same thing in a county that has no zoning, County Council said that it was against the law they got around it after suing county council.
I think developers want that land. How did the fire start?
There can be variances to the code for them. They are long time residents. They are trying to rebuild their homes after a devastating situation that isn't normal. The council are purposely trying to get the residents to sell their lan, now cheaper without structures. Coruption, I believe. They will grant variances to the new owner/developer, I"ll wager.
This was the Marshall fire in Colorado. It was a wind-driven wildfire that destroyed more than 1000 homes and 30 commercial properties. It wasn't a move by some developer to muscle out family from their land.
Same thing happened to my neighbor. In Berrien County Georgia. Said he couldn't live in RV while rebuilding.
Ben still riding on the hood.
Where I live in Virginia the county allows living in an RV while building or remodeling a home and you can live in the RV up to 12 months. To live in an RV permanently the RV must pass the same codes as a house would, or you can set the RV up in an RV park if it meets certain criteria, mainly the age of the RV itself.
"I own this property and I pay taxes on it." Unfortunately, those cannot both be true at the same time.
So glad you are fighting the good fight. The town needs a brush with Internet notoriety.
Steve I agree with you that town should allow them because the special circumstance to live in the campers on their own property while they rebuild
Hello, how are you doing I hope you’re having a great day So far. God bless you 🙏🙏
You have my vote on this . Steve
If the town board can ENFORCE an ordinance saying fires that destroy homes aren't allowed, then they might have a case
Odd question... Can they go to a judge and ask for injunction against the enforcement of the town ordinance, until such time as the town council/board takes it up or comes to a decision after??
That's where property rights should not be legislated away cause any legislation is a restriction on a person's life period anyone that says rules are rules should be made to house these people at their house's
Hello, how are you doing I hope you’re having a great day So far. God bless you 🙏🙏🙏
I'm pretty sure that telling someone what they can put on their property is unconditional and I hope they will be taking that town or county to court. Sounds like a good one for IJ to take on!