I am on the fence about this. As a homeowner, if this jerk was living next door to me, I would be plenty pissed. From the look of the house, this is an upper income neighborhood, and the people who maintain their homes don't want to look at his white elephant. If he couldn't afford to finish the house then he needs to sell it because he can't afford to live there. Third, when pressed, he finally found the money to finish the job which makes me wonder how hard he was trying to finish it in the first place. Seems to me like they got used to living like that and he was in no hurry to finish.

So, should he got to jail? I don't know. It seems to have worked. I mean, if facing your neighbors while living in an unfinished house didn't shame him, then I guess his jail experience did. If this law wasn't in place, what's to keep people from buying a lot and putting up a shack instead of a properly framed home?

If the cops didn't hassle this guy, they'd have to take on actual criminals — and those guys are dangerous!

This one has that odor of missing details. Sheepmommy understands.

Jail is the only way to deal with scofflaws.

Deadwood to the rescue: "You can protect your delicate sensibilities by turnin' the fuck away."

The man went broke when the recession hit. He simply did not have the money for the siding. And as decent citizens, we simply cannot countenance a poor person living in our nice neighborhood. He had to go.

Later i'll send my pool boy over to burn down that eye sore.

In some communities, the first time the inspector saw the unfinished construction work he would have received a fine. So he avoided any fines for four years, getting only warnings. He was not arrested for not having siding, he was arrested for ignoring the warnings for four years.

As to whether this should be against the law at all, I would imagine your purest Ron-Paul Libertarian would say that you should be able to have whatever you want on your own property, an ugly house, or a tiny oil refinery, or whatever. But if you allow for any zoning-type laws at all, a time limit on unfinished construction seems reasonable.

Sometimes it is better to MYOB. He could have painted it pink or a bright yellow.

Never owned real estate -- I would have thought the city would put a lien on it or condemned it or something like that, forcing it to auction if not fixed in 30-60 days.

But jail-time? That seems way out of scope.

1) they moved a place with codes. There are places without them where plywood shacks fly just fine.

2) they let it go YEARS, lowering the property values of all in that area. Effectively stealing from all those neighbors. For years.

3) they were given plenty of warnings as to what was going to happen.

I"m supposed to be shocked at the outcome why?

God, there is nothing like the spectre of declining property values to bring out the jackboot in otherwise freedom-loving people.

Jerry, I don't mean to harsh you, but this a compelling juxtaposition:

> Never owned real estate

&

I think renters (and I was a renter for 42 years) have weird ideas about how value for property is supposed to be delivered. When you own, you don't just make a phone call to some cranky old white guy and watch things get fixed. You have to have the money in your pocket when the repair trucks pull up.

Everyone owning property ought to know this. And communities have very real, very compelling standards about how neighborhoods –groups of investors, side by side– will protect their mutual interests.

Clinky's speculation has a better scent:

> he avoided any fines for four years, getting
> only warnings. He was not arrested for not
> having siding, he was arrested for ignoring
> the warnings for four years.

Astra:

God, there is nothing like the spectre of declining property values to bring out the jackboot in otherwise freedom-loving people.

Nah, nothing to do with declining property values, just dealing with assholes who won't play by the rules enough during the day.

At least in my case.

This might be a case where the property owner is right, and it was overblown - but it sure sounds like he was out to make as big a problem as he could, and get away with it.

There's a name for people who want no rules, and it's not "Libertarian".

Okay, when I first started reading this story, I felt for the homeowner. How ridiculous to go to jail for such a thing? Then I kept reading...

Who cannot finish a siding job in three years? Seriously? He'd been warned. For years. What else is the city supposed to do? They can't go to the man's house and yell at him until he finishes the job. They are limited in the scope of punishments that can be doled out to citizens. I would bet my house that the next time he gets a warning for not meeting zoning laws that he'll correct the situation!

I've had neighbors like this. They let their grass get to be a foot high. Everything is in disrepair. I would have loved to see them punished in some way other than just being bitched at by the neighbors, because that didn't seem to bother them in the least.

What a dump. I don't know if jail is the right answer (it does seem like an extreme response to a code violation), but this shows the foolishness of overextending yourself. When you own a piece of property, you're supposed to take care of it--especially when you have neighbors nearby, and especially if they take care of their property. If you can't, you're living beyond your means. It's time to pack up and move to cheaper digs.

Nah, nothing to do with declining property values, just dealing with assholes who won't play by the rules enough during the day.

There is a difference between fining someone and arresting them, initially denying bail, and forcing him to wear an electronic monitor and submit to random drug tests. For a homeownership violation.

The problem is this statement right here:

"The Fabers point to what they call far more glaring code violations outside other houses in their neighborhood. They'd like to know why they were targeted and others weren't."

The mere fact that they submit to arbitrary "code violations" shows what we have succumbed to as a (former) society rooted in freedom. It is not enough that one fails to question whether these "codes" should bear authority over oneself; oh no, why weren't OTHERS caddle-prodded at the nebulous authority of the state?

Of course, a "commission" would be needed to be formed to determine why one house was out of code with lack of siding, and another house was not out of code by having a gravel driveway instead of pavement. And then, for compliance purposes, there must be overseers to ensure this "commission" acted fairly, and super-overseers to ensure everyone "plays by the rules" - rules which have no moral basis for law, and which any free man/woman would be remiss to subject themselves to voluntarily.

Remember - coercion is the only option.

How I would love to live in such a republic that embraced freedom. It is much too bad I will not see this in my lifetime.

Momof4: "2) they let it go YEARS, lowering the property values of all in that area. Effectively stealing from all those neighbors. For years. "

I didn't realize we were all entitled to ever increasing property values. If thats true, section 8 housing aka welfare housing should be illegal.

"So, should he got to jail? I don't know. It seems to have worked. I mean, if facing your neighbors while living in an unfinished house didn't shame him, then I guess his jail experience did."

Well, at least you're true to your name sheepmommy.

Crid,

I wasn't saying he should be some how not be compelled to complete his work.

I am saying since he had real property, it seems the way government usually goes after that is with fines, liens, condemnations, and other civil like incentives and punishments, not with jail time.

"Trim your tree in 30 days or we will trim it for you and add the cost and a fine to your property tax."

Not a lawyer, but jail seems like a punishment for criminal charges, and failing to complete the siding or comply with codes in this manner doesn't appear to be a criminal charge.

I can see both sides of this one... jail is extreme but he had FOUR YEARS. OTOH, he got thrown in the pokey for what? Having an eyesore of a home? So, he annoyed his neighbors? If I can have people thrown in jail for not doing things according to my sensabilities, a bunch of you can expect a knock on the door from a man with a badge around 6:30 this evening. In addition, it seems like these codes were for aesthetic reasons, not public safety. If he had a bunch of rebar sticking out of the ground by the sidewalk, waiting to impale little kids, I could see the justification for arrest.

I suppose HOA laws vary from state to state... In TX, your HOA can take your home if you don't pay your membership fees or fines. I don't think that should be legal- but this dude should be thankful he doesn't live in a master-planned community around here, cause I'd say having your home foreclosed on is probably worse than a night or two in the county jail. (I wouldn't live in a neighborhood with a mandatory HOA.)

This is why I want to move to some unincorporated area in the Hill Country with an off-the-grid Mad Max compound made out of shipping containers*. If you're sitting on enough land, it won't matter what the neighbor's house looks like, because you can't see it anyway.
*actually, some really tasteful things can be done with containers, but I'm also interested in rammed earth...

> The mere fact that they submit to arbitrary
> "code violations" shows what we have succumbed
> to as a (former) society rooted in freedom.

Dude, that's crazy-pompous. We have "succumbed" to safety and order.

D'ya remember Mexico City 1985, or Bam 2003?

Codes save lives, but if you want to move someplace where the man ain't gettin' all up in yo' face wid his codes…

> It is much too bad I will not see this
> in my lifetime.

…then M4 is correct: "There are places without them where plywood shacks fly just fine." More of the world than not is like that. If you haven't seen it "in your lifetime", you haven't searched very far.

> it seems the way government usually goes after
> that is with fines, liens, condemnations, and
> other civil like incentives and punishments,
> not with jail time.

Agreed- It's easy to concede that something really obnoxious happened here... And if only because the cite comes to us from Balko, that something was probably a grave misapplication of governmental authority.

> failing to complete the siding or comply with
> codes in this manner doesn't appear to be a
> criminal charge.

Absolutely true. Yet there's still an odor about this one... It speaks to clearly too those of us who are in the mood to get cranked about intrusive regulation. I bet we'd have a different feeling about it if we heard the other side of the argument.

(But truth be told, I didn't follow the link.)

Swapped my toos. That happens sometimes.

Or rent a house and let the landlord worry about the codes.

Hey Lori, you pooched your own blog address.

But you suggest an interesting point: Let's say you were RENTING this house from this guy. And let's say it was on the cliffs of Malibu or some other place where the tidiness of the property would be expected to mean something to the people who lived in it.

And the guy did nothing for four years, despite promises that he would.

Would you at least want your money back?

"I am on the fence about this."

And that line is my greatest satisfaction here today.

Hope it's painted properly!

@Crid, I wouldn't rent a house I wasn't happy with, especially if I could afford something on the cliffs of Malibu. But let's say I signed a lease with the promise from him he was going to finish the siding. Then he didn't. I'd move out. Not sure why I'd get money back if I'd stayed there.

> that line is my greatest satisfaction here today.

I was wondering it would register with anyone else that way.

> Not sure why I'd get money back if I'd stayed

Because the terms of the contract had not been satisfactorily honored.

My larger point is that a lot of the libertarian enthusiasm of renters might not be felt so deeply when they're expecting landlords to follow through on their responsibilities.


We did all these jokes already, right?

I understand this guy's plight.

But in my case, codes did not exist when the house was built. Nor when we bought the house. High vegetation was the initial ticket, yet the city's laws were not specific upon height of grass or what vegetation constituted weeds. (Such as my tomato

The city adopted codes. Yet, did not enforce all of them, as they were general codes. Nor did they enforce the codes on the entire city.

The house wasn't the best looking place, but it also sits, along with the rest of the town, in the Mississippi flood plain. I paid less than 30,000 dollars and did enough work to double its value, even in this market.

I didn't have to suffer through jail time, but it was threatened. We have paid thousands of dollars in fines and attorney fees. The general harassment would be continuing had I not packed up all our things and moved to Texas. (Even though, I still own the house, and the house has not changed condition, they have backed off. I think that in and of itself makes it obvious that this was an arbitrary enforcement because of some slight to my councilwoman neighbor)

I like that my HOA can make people conform to the rules we all agreed to when moving here, or make people move. That's WHY I bought with an HOA. If I had no kids and didn't care what the neighbors did I'd live in Apache Acres on the lake.

yeah, I'd kinda like to be able to plow up the front yard and make a vegetable patch, but I'm really glad my neighbors cna't dig a latrine out front. Life is give n take.

"> Not sure why I'd get money back if I'd stayed

Because the terms of the contract had not been satisfactorily honored."

If I moved into a dump, I'd pay the going rate for a dump. I wouldn't pay more than that hoping if the landlord doesn't whip the house into shape, a nice judge will compensate me for being an idiot. And it wouldn't take me four years to figure out that the landlord wasn't going to put on the siding, or to pack up and ramble on down the road.

> If I moved into a dump, I'd pay the going rate
> for a dump.

Perhaps you're so deeply-principled and forward-looking that nothing could go wrong. But throughout American life, people sign contracts (including allegiance to community standards for home maintenance) to make things go smoothly. And when they're violated, people present those contracts in seeking redress.

(Arrests usually come later, if at all.)

This is why I want to move to some unincorporated area in the Hill Country with an off-the-grid Mad Max compound made out of shipping containers*. If you're sitting on enough land, it won't matter what the neighbor's house looks like, because you can't see it anyway. *actually, some really tasteful things can be done with containers, but I'm also interested in rammed earth... -- ahw at March 22, 2012 1:52 PM

You may also want to look into hay bails. Those are very efficient as well.

Did anyone notice the code violation was apparently on the back of the house? That gives him a list of his neighbors to consider.

As far as overbuying goes -- he might have. Or it was that he had a job at $80K when he bought the house, but he now is only making $55K.

Enough to afford the mortgage and the rest, but not enough to do much beyond that. My priorities would change as well. The jail time is totally unjustified. The monitoring is stupid. And the breathylzer is beyond the pale. If I'm nailed for DUI or a drug violation I could see it. Because I didn't have stucco on my house -- KMA.

Jimmzerz, I literally do not know. How confident are you that you have the full perspective on this story?

Jimmzerz, I literally do not know. How confident are you that you have the full perspective on this story? -- Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 22, 2012 10:54 PM

Now if he had gone through and spray painted everything bright purple or bright pink, what would have happened? If he is still in hack because he didn't finishing bricking the bottom of the bottom of the house -- again -- KMA.

Right, but what I'm asking is...

"Or it was that he had a job at $80K when he bought the house, but he now is only making $55K."

You mean, they started building a house without the cash to finish it? They finally managed to come up with $12,000 to do the siding--a modest amount for someone with that income. And he didn't mention losing his job. I know unfortunate things happen to people and plans, but this just sounds like poor planning.

"The city adopted codes. Yet, did not enforce all of them, as they were general codes. Nor did they enforce the codes on the entire city."

When you get pulled over, it matters not that 'everybody speeds'. Pay the bail and move on or fight on the line, get your gills ripped out and then pay the bail and move on.

Lori: all those picket fences and new roofs in your neighborhood were financed with equity and premised upon an expected return (financial or satisfaction) on investment.

"Lori: all those picket fences and new roofs in your neighborhood were financed with equity and premised upon an expected return (financial or satisfaction) on investment."

Your point?

My point: poor planning isn't the reason for the hold up, as you assert, it's the lost equity. And the siding isn't the reason he went to jail.

A house isn't an investment unless you plan to sell it or rent it out. They've lived in it for four years--it's a purchase.

I've made improvements to my house and yard because it's my home. All the other homeowners I know feel the same way: they know they wouldn't make money on the improvements they've put into their houses if they sold them.

"A house isn't an investment unless you plan to sell it or rent it out. "
"return (financial or satisfaction) on investment"

I remodeled my bath in 2007. My house was worth half what I paid. Every time I take a candlelit bath I think "so worth it." I'm in Nevada, I'll never see that money back. But baths are cheap, the extra bedroom will never be more than the slab I poured before the equity ran out.
Bottom line, this isn't an issue of earnestness, it's an issue of shit happened. to pretend otherwise is glib, but that's popular around here.

Lori,

I was throwing numbers. But the concept still stands. When I bought my house, twelve years ago, I had a lady, that I loved dearly, who was on SSI. I had a job that payed enough to cover everything, and her money was "play" money. I had a dependable pickup truck that was mostly paid off. My commute was 26 miles. Gas was in the $1.xx range per gallon. A gallon of milk was about $2. I went and bought a nicer riding lawn mower to mow my six acres on credit for about $1000.

Fast forward 12 years. My lady passed, so I am now a single income. My commute is now 110 miles daily. I bought a smaller, more economic car that I'm paying for. I am making more money at my new job. But I'm also paying nearly $4 per gallon of gas. An average gallon of milk cost about $3.50 to $3.99 today. The same lawn mower now costs about $1400-1500. I need to replace it.

So just putting it down as poor planning is bullshit. And where does going to jail come anywhere near being just or justice because people can see the tyvex on your house?

Let me put it in a way you might understand -- I'm going to have you arrested and put on a monitor bracelet because your grass got to 6 inches tall. I don't care that it rained every weekend for the past three weeks and you work 10 hour days during the week.

Jim - you mean you didn't know prices would change and the mower was going to wear out?

Hey, here's what I'm getting at: if you actually have things planned and they don't go your way, you did what you could. If you just muddle along, you shouldn't be surprised at all that things catch you out, or expect a lot of sympathy.

When popular guys like Clark Howard or Dave Ramsey suggest some plan that has what seems like ridiculous cash in reserve, they're not kidding - they've seen their advice work time and again.

And if the subject had taken their sort of advice early on, he wouldn't have been stuck.

Hey, here's what I'm getting at: if you actually have things planned and they don't go your way, you did what you could. If you just muddle along, you shouldn't be surprised at all that things catch you out, or expect a lot of sympathy. -- Radwaste at March 23, 2012 8:20 PM

The problem is that I never expected a that Obama Wants $7-$9 Gas Prices and His Secretary of Energy Steven Chu Admitted it.

I never expected my lady to die under age 60. I never expected such a job shift. I never expected a president that wanted $8 gas.

No matter if you plan or muddle through you are still avoiding the point:

Where does going to jail come anywhere near being just or justice because people can see the tyvex on your house?

Sorry, Jim, I got that part.

Helio Castroneves was put in shackles for some tax court. No exercise of government power can be too extreme.

Fines or liens, as has been pointed out, were the answer here.

Jim P, let me put this in a way you might understand: "[jail] does seem like an extreme response to a code violation." (See my comment above.)

Being unable to finish a house you started building, absent some completely unforeseeable disaster beyond your control, is poor planning. The guy said he ran out of money. It's the simplest explanation, and I believe him.

A minor correction: that's KSTP, not KTSP. The "STP" is for St. Paul.