Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

The New Castle Doctrine

Radley Balko | 2.5.2010 1:33 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

British court rules that a man's castle is no longer his home.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Reason Writers Around Town: Radley Balko on Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws for Slate

Radley Balko is a journalist at The Washington Post.

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (69)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Colonel_Angus   15 years ago

    I really really fucking hate zoning laws and building codes of all kinds. Planners are bigger scum than lawyers.

    1. Cabeza de Vaca   15 years ago

      A good example of this would be Joe.

      1. peachy   15 years ago

        That was my first thought...

        1. Suki   15 years ago

          Is that the same creep SugarFree linked to yesterday?

          1. JW   15 years ago

            Yes. A "former" urban planner and proud of it.

            1. Colonel_Angus   15 years ago

              Joe P. Boyle, also loved eminent domain for parks and bullshit.

              You can put a park or school anywhere land is available on the market, they don't need to be in a rigid location like roads.

              1. Suki   15 years ago

                Yuck! Why on earth do SF and others keep wanting someone like that back here? Sounds like a disruptive troll of the worst kind.

                1. The Gobbler   15 years ago

                  For the bitch-slapping.

                  1. Suki   15 years ago

                    +1

                2. robc   15 years ago

                  In the days of incif, I rarely even considering adding joe (note case) to it, and I never came close to actually doing it on those rare instances.

                  1. FrBunny   15 years ago

                    joe was a net positive around here.

                    1. Fluffy   15 years ago

                      Joe dramatically increased the post count of many threads by inspiring rage among the more sensible commenters.

                      Of course, in the modern "threaded" era, if Joe showed up again the tangle of enraged threads would become completely intolerable, instead of being 75% intolerable as it currently is.

                    2. everyone   15 years ago

                      Agreed. Suki/John Trafagliero, on the other hand? An enormous negative.

    2. Anonymous Homeowner   15 years ago

      > I really really fucking hate zoning laws
      > and building codes of all kinds.
      > Planners are bigger scum than lawyers.

      According to the Independence Institute, there are "Free Market Alternatives to Zoning."

      One approach involves what Professor Robert H. Nelson calls "Privatizing the Neighborhood:" buying a home affiliated with a homeowners' association (HOA) that has an architectural rules committee. [See here, here, and here] Unlike a government, HOAs cannot extend their jurisdiction to homeowners who have not opted in. Since HOAs are very local and small, participants are often neighbors and hence have incentive to settle disagreements in a civil manner. You would also have more influence on your HOA than on Boulder City Council.

  2. Old Mexican   15 years ago

    "Mr. Fidler made it quite clear that the construction of his house was undertaken in a clandestine fashion," the court ruled.

    in his own prooperty - what's clanestine about that?

    Aren't you glad you separated from the British just in time? I am that you guys did.

    1. Colonel_Angus   15 years ago

      We're only about six to twelve months behind their stupidity.

      The process is England ->California -> U.S.

      1. A Different Bill   15 years ago

        I think you got that backwards - your arrows resemble "greater than symbols." The progression is actually more like a regression - it is a retrograde motion, like sliding into a sucking pit of bureaucracy. Thus:

        U.S. -> Hahafornia -> England.

        It is what awaits us at the bottom of the slope into the pit.

        1. anonymous   15 years ago

          I believe he was indicating the order of stupidity transmission, in which case he was entirely correct.

      2. Christ on a Cracker   15 years ago

        Actually, its

        England->California->New York->Ohio->US

  3. Voros McCracken   15 years ago

    Yeah it's hardly surprising he did it in a "clandestine fashion" considering the behavior the government engaged in once they found out about it.

  4. Hazel Meade   15 years ago

    Gaaah....

    Fuck anyone that wants to live in a castle. You MUST live in a cookie cutter home made by a developer. Only fools attempt to build a house that doesn't look exactly like 100 million other houses. Obedience! Conformity!

    1. juris imprudent   15 years ago

      Obedience! Conformity!

      Unity! Equality!

  5. Aresen   15 years ago

    I am no more in favor of zoning laws and building permits than other libertarians, but someone who thinks he can hide the construction of a large house has got to be a few bricks short in the chimney.

    1. Old Mexican   15 years ago

      Who cares? It is HIS property.

    2. dmoynihan   15 years ago

      He did hide construction and lived in a completed building. For four years.

      1. EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy   15 years ago

        Which suggests that planning people in Reigate and Banstead Borough Council don't know how to use Google Earth.

  6. Warren   15 years ago

    Ren said

    Some people hate the English.
    I don't! They're just wankers!
    We, on the other hand,
    are colonized by wankers!
    Can't even find a decent culture
    to be colonized by!
    We're ruled by effete arseholes!
    It's a shite state of affairs
    to be in, Tommy!
    And all the fresh air in the world
    won't make any fucking difference!

  7. Nick   15 years ago

    Does the cannon work?

    1. JW   15 years ago

      +10

    2. Robert Fidler   15 years ago

      It does.

      Now, if I can only find some bloody ammunition for it.

      Britain, you know.

    3. Suki   15 years ago

      What about the loop holes for the crossbowmen and footbowmen?

      1. A Different Bill   15 years ago

        Vats of flaiming oil?

        Moat?

        Siege engines!!

        1. Suki   15 years ago

          Siege engines are what the cops have in this case.

  8. BakedPenguin   15 years ago

    This is such an obvious demand for obedience, it's disgusting. They're not even bothering to claim that the house is unsafe, or that they need the land to build a road, or something. It's just that the man did not obey their rules, and now his house must be destroyed. Authoritarian shits.

    1. The Gobbler   15 years ago

      If an Authoritarian shits and no one is around to smell it, does it still stink?

      1. BakedPenguin   15 years ago

        Well, according to the Obama fans I've talked to, it smells like roses and looks like a rainbow log.

        So yes.

    2. EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy   15 years ago

      It is worse than that: Robert Fidler did obey the letter of the law (i.e. he got away with it for long enough that it should have been fait accompli), so suddenly the bureaucracy---which we can be sure are usually very interested in the letter of the law---is suddenly all about the spirit of the law.

      Law for thee and not for me.

      It is pure revenge under color of authority for making them look like the incompetent boobs they are.

      So, let us be clear: Mike Miller, a chief planner with the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council is an gormless, frustrated little prick worth of scorn and derision.

    3. Anonymous Homeowner   15 years ago

      If the boot stomping on a human face forever is privatized, even if the privatization of said boot is mandated by the government, would it make authoritarian demands for obedience stink less?

  9. DOuglas2   15 years ago

    "no enforcement action may be taken against any breach of planning control consisting of the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining or other operations after a 4-year period beginning with the date on which operations were substantially completed. What is substantially complete must always be a matter of fact and degree and of the prevailing circumstances in any case. Therefore, it is not possible to define precisely what is meant by the term 'substantially completed'. In the case of a single operation, such as the building of a house, the 4-year period generally would not begin until the entire operation was substantially complete. Arguably, in the case of a house, it is not substantially complete until all the external walls, roof-tiling, woodwork, guttering and glazing are completed; but it might be regarded as substantially complete if only some decorating or internal plastering work remains to be done, particularly if the building has already been put to use for its intended purpose. Each case should be judged on its particular facts, with all the relevant circumstances being taken into account."
    In this case the judge has found that a building is not substantially completed, even if in active use as a dwelling house, if it still has bales of hay outside it. Therefore the "4 years" required to fall within the loophole starts with the completion of the removal of hay.
    Yes, it makes little sense, but the Judge wanted to find the way he did because otherwise without change in the law it would invite others to use this loophole, and the law as written left him little wiggle-room other than to say that the building wasn't substantially complete until recently.

    1. EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy   15 years ago

      It doesn't make "little sense", it is utter tripe. The house was finished and being lived in, though the landscaping still needed some work.

      The court ignored the law because they found it inconvenient.

      The correct and reasonable bureaucracy response would have been to:

      a) Shrug it off and figure that if no one complained about the hay, it wasn't causing the neighbors any trouble.

      or

      b) Admit that you'd gotten beat this time and amend the law to prevent a relapse.

      That's it. If the law is to mean anything it must apply to public servants as much as to anyone else.

      1. Colonel_Angus   15 years ago

        And he is a farmer. How do the bales of hay have anything to do with the completion of the house?

        1. Suki   15 years ago

          You have to feed the laborers something.

      2. Planner Yoda   15 years ago

        If the law is to mean anything it must apply to public servants as much as to anyone else.

        And that is why you fail.

    2. Zach   15 years ago

      So you're saying rather than having to rewrite a poorly written law, they'll just interpret it as they see fit. Makes sense to me!

  10. P Brooks   15 years ago

    "This was a blatant attempt at deception to circumvent the planning process,"

    Oh, horror!!!

  11. Enjoy Every Sandwich   15 years ago

    I'm sorry but I'm a bit lost. It doesn't look like an actual castle to me, just a castle-shaped house. What law would that violate?

    1. Suki   15 years ago

      The law of look and feel. Check with Steve Jobs on that one.

    2. MP   15 years ago

      The law of not building something before you grovel before the P&Z overlords. The only issue here is a lack of a proper permit.

      Fucking doucebags. I hate planners sooooo much. Local P&Z members are mini-totalitarians.

    3. skeptic   15 years ago

      In England all development is severely restricted in "green belt" lands (i.e. land never developed except for agriculture). He built a house on a site which would never in a million years have been allowed under their "zoning".
      UK planning consent is roughly equivalent to zoning approval, UK building control roughly equivalent to our building permits and inspections -- ostensably to guarantee that a sound and safe structure is built (both in terms of "will it fall on someone's head?" and "will it cause public health risk because they cross-connected the sanitary and storm sewers?".

      1. EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy   15 years ago

        I understand that. I just don't care: he beat them fair and square by their own rules.

        It is a time for the application of that ever so famous stiff upper lip.

        1. Suki   15 years ago

          Then he didn't beat them at all, he followed the rules.

          I must change into my black catsuit, cowl and spike heel boots to fight this injustice.

          1. Suki   15 years ago

            [looks at waist] If I do this in reality better add a corset. If I do it in fantasy I can be taller too.

            1. EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy   15 years ago

              Um...yeah.

              In my fantasy I can be broader of shoulder, squarer of jaw and more steely glinty in the eye.

              And, oh yeah. I can have one less chin, too. Very important that.

              When do we get to the transhumanist future, anyway?

          2. EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy   15 years ago

            Oh, he beat them. They wanted him to bend a knee, and he didn't.

            That is a victory.

            Only the court seems to be offended by it.

  12. robc   15 years ago

    I considered posting this earlier, but wasnt a decent thread for it. Now there is.

    Fuck you, England!

    1. message from God   15 years ago

      Robc, Irish?

      1. robc   15 years ago

        Last name is, better Anglo-germanic-cherokee mostly.

        1. robc   15 years ago

          s/better/but/

          1. R C Dean   15 years ago

            No, I think it works just fine with better.

        2. Suki   15 years ago

          Cherokee! My early-adopting of North America cousin!

          1. robc   15 years ago

            As is the norm, the early adopters get screwed.

            1. Suki   15 years ago

              That thing about SAT scores being genetic is true?

  13. JB   15 years ago

    Fuck the government, fuck the state, and fuck anyone who works for them.

    1. Tulpa   15 years ago

      Now that's the libertarian bridge burning tradition we all know and love. Half a percent forever!

      1. Fluffy   15 years ago

        Tulpa loves the taste of boot. He can't get enough of it.

        1. Tulpa   15 years ago

          Right -- because issuing pointless blanket fuck-yous to millions of your fellow citizens, is the only alternative to prostrating oneself before the State.

    2. The State   15 years ago

      I believe you have that backwards. We fuck you, you say thank you.

  14. anonymous   15 years ago

    Conservative Liberal puritans planners want government to control what you do inside to your bedroom.

  15. davidbaer   15 years ago

    Cash Making Opportunities - The Beginning The working life is already tough enough, but the worries of being out of work was even tougher. The unsecured working environment have prompted me to search the internet for an alternative source of extra income so that I could learn how to Make Money Work for me and be Financially Independent. I listed down a number of Free Internet Business Opportunity Ideas while researching ways how people earn money online while working-from-home.......

    http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Competition Improves Services. So Why Not Apply That to Schools?

John Stossel | 5.21.2025 11:50 AM

The 3 FAA Failures Creating a Dangerous Mess in the Skies

Robert Poole | 5.21.2025 10:45 AM

In Mission: Impossible—The Final Reckoning, Tom Cruise Does What the U.S. Government Can't

Peter Suderman | 5.21.2025 9:59 AM

An End to Tax on Tips

Liz Wolfe | 5.21.2025 9:30 AM

How To Fix California's Self-Inflicted Homeowner's Insurance Crisis

J.D. Tuccille | 5.21.2025 7:00 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!