Categories
property rights

Castle in the Hay

The haystacks, covered with tarps and old tires, were ugly.

And yet no one complained.

The people near Honeycrock Farm, Salfords, Redhill, Surrey, knew that Robert Fidler was building something behind his haystacks. But, maybe because they were, at heart, good British people, they said nothing.

But what Fidler had built behind the stacks of hay was a mock Tudor mansion, complete with cannons and turrets and such.

Tastes differ as to its beauty, but hey: it was a lot better than hay.

After building it for two years, he and his family lived in it for four. Without telling anybody.

And then came down the haystacks.

And came trouble.

Fidler thought that he had gotten around the local planning laws by living in his structure for four years without complaint. Too bad, then, that the Reigate and Banstead Council says that rule is void — because nobody had been given a chance to see it.

They had seen ugly haystacks, instead.

Now, you probably thought that zoning laws and building codes were there to protect neighbors. But the neighbors had no complaints about ugly haystacks with blue tarp. A nice house in olden style?

Why complain about that?

Well, some did. Why shouldn’t Fidler have to go through the same Kafkaesque nightmare they did?

I guess they didn’t appreciate the cleverness of the ploy.

Not so clever, however, that he’ll be allowed to keep his house. Too bad.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Mugging for Dollars

Rampant abuse of eminent domain by government! I’d be happy to drop the subject … which I’ll do just as soon as property rights are universally honored, held sacrosanct. Until then, well, you know what to expect from me.

What’s the latest? Harrison Sheppard’s article for California newspapers entitled “Eminent Domain: Land grab or tool to rebuild?” Ponder that headline for a minute or so before I tell you what’s funny about it. Not funny ha-ha.

Figured it out? Is eminent domain a “land grab” … or a “tool to rebuild”? If you’re waving your hand and saying, “Paul, Paul, isn’t it — can’t it be both?” — well, who can disagree? A tool to destroy, then “rebuild.”

Take any given motive a common mugger might have for lifting your wallet. Say he wants to pay a doctor’s bill. Now we have a newspaper headline that says: “Mugging: Wallet grab or tool to improve health?”

The reporter observes that acts of predation that defenders of property rights “call ‘abuse’” are called “necessary tools” for “economic rebirth of depressed areas” by government officials and developers. So, if you can’t afford to live in a castle, it’s OK for them to steal your home and force you to move to some other economically “depressed” area so legalized muggers may benefit?

At least the common mugger has the decency not to pretend he’s violating your rights for the Common Good.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.