Indecent housing

I just heard a report on BBC. In Gresham in northeast England,

Click to expand...

Given the location, this is surpising how?

It is most unfortunte that the recent USSC ruling puts us well on our way towards the same thing.

Brad

We've been there for a long time, before the Kelo ruling.

I'm not really sure what is the definition of "indecent housing" but it has long been established that the city can condemn and even demolish a house if it is unsafe, poses a healthy hazard, etc. Maybe that's what "indecent housing" is?

I love this sort of thread.

Thanks Deseo for pointing out the log.

Iain said:

I love this sort of thread.

Thanks Deseo for pointing out the log.

Click to expand...

Thanks Iain. You'll have to excuse us. Most Americans can't understand English. To me, a house that has Christmas lights on it past New Years is indecent. To a Brit, "indecent" probably means "more than a dozen rotting animal carcasses". Anywhere in America, if there's a house that has dead animals in it, or is structurally unsound, or is infested with pests, the city can go through a slow and ponderous process and get the house condemned, and then destroy it. The difference between the US and the UK on this is that in the US, the city will send the homeowner a bill for the cleanup, whereas from the original posting here, it sounds like the Brits will actually compensate the homeowner.

Have you ever been accused of indecent housing?

Click to expand...

No, but I wouldn't have been too surprised. We used to live in a 8x28 trailer in logging camp all summer. Water came from a spring, and the "conveniences" were out in the woods . We lived there the summer our twins were born and the next summer as well. Fortunately we didn't get many visitors But what a life... beaver ponds right in your front yard!

Colorado has turned into a Commie state like CA in that regard. Basically, it is against the law to be poor. We had a friend that bought some land and later nearly got arrested for living in a camper without a hookup to the septic tank (the Sewer-Nazis ). Then there was a guy living in a yurt on his own land near Crested Butte and caught all sorts of hell about it - when the county couldn't make him move otherwise, they cut off his driveway access to the public road so he couldn't get to or from his land

That's one of the reasons we moved to Montana. In this part of the state at least, you can live however you want if you are out of town a ways. Dig a hole, and put a "little house" over it Build a house out of straw bales, or haul in an old trailer, or even live in a cave if you want. Our house we have now is "modern" but we have an old cabin (with accompanying little house) on our land as well. And if you want to build a garage or a shed or a barn, you just go out and do it.

TallPine, I wish you'd stop posting inciteful stuff like that. I already know I want to live in Montana, but my wife won't consider it.

Most Americns think it's wrong for the government to take your house away from you. It doesn't matter why they do it, or how much they compensate you for it.

What do Brits think of the government deciding you ought not be allowed to live in your own home?

DeseoUnTaco said:

...the city can go through a slow and ponderous process and get the house condemned, and then destroy it. The difference between the US and the UK on this is that in the US, the city will send the homeowner a bill for the cleanup...

Click to expand...

What you describe is extremely illegal. A municipality caught pulling that kind of stunt would be severely punished. Of course, that doesn't mean it never happens...

It's not illegal...they cite you for violations of the building code (if the problems are with the structure of the building) or the health code (for things like too many animals, dead animals, rotting trash, etc) or even environmental regulations (if any of those cars up on blocks in your yard happen to be leaking oil or other fluids on the ground.)

If you don't fix them, you'll be fined or somesuch. Even if you pay the fine, you still have to fix the problem(s), or they'll fine you some more. And if you don't pay the fine, they'll put a lien on the property.

Don't fix the problem(s) and don't pay for long enough, and the fines get to the point that they can seize the property.

rudolf said:

Have you ever been accused of indecent housing? I just heard a report on BBC. In Gresham in northeast England, the city council has determined some houses under the "decency level of housing" and have determined they are to be demolished. The councel spokesperson said the owner are free to ask for a reasonable price, but the council would give property removal orders if the talks didn't work out. This is not a 'housing project', but individual owned houses.

This of course has nothing to do with plans for a shopping center.

Looks like it' doesn't suffice to be happy on the 4th of July. You need to be happy each and every day that you kicked them out!

Click to expand...

Dude, have you ever seen British "Council Houses"?
Most are worse than many US slums.

Headless Thompson Gunner said:

What you describe is extremely illegal. A municipality caught pulling that kind of stunt would be severely punished. Of course, that doesn't mean it never happens...

Click to expand...

Wrong. It's as Langenator said. If you have structural hazards, health hazards or environmental hazards, the city can and will (eventually) demolish the house, if they are serious enough. You hear about this in the papers with "animal hoarders", crazy people who end up having, say, 200 dogs in the house, which inevitably means they also have dog carcasses, dog filth, etc all over the place. The neighbors have to complain about it for years, the city has to go through all kinds of process, but they can and do eventually kick the owners out, take all the dogs, and demolish the house.

This is a property rights issue. In this case, the judicial system must weigh the property rights of the crazy animal hoarding home owner against the rights of the neighboring home owners. If the crazy person is denying the neighbors their rights to peaceful enjoyment of their property, then the courts can and do authorize the city to take action.

This is legal in every city in the US, and it occasionally happens in every city in the US and it has been that way for many many years. It's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction and say "people should be able to do whatever they want" but you would change your mind if you lived next door to someone who had 200 dogs and 100 dead dog carcasses in an urban house and that person has shaved off 25% of the value of your home.

Edited to add: Cat hoarding is more common than any other kind of animal hoarding. Here's an article about it on one of our favorite websites: http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=27

Sorry fellas, you're mistaken. A municipality can fine a property owner for a violation. If he still refuses to correct the violation, the municipality can sometimes do the work for him and bill him the cost. That much you're correct on.

But if property is taken, even for ordinance violation, just compensation MUST be awarded. Razing a structure is usually construed as taking property, because it 'damages' (in the legal sense) the property. In other words, it takes value from the property owner. Any time land is seized or buildings torn down, compensation must be awarded.

I've worked with appraisers tasked with deterining what that compensation should to be. Inspecting these sorts of properties is NOT fun, especially when the slothenly property owner takes offense to losing his property. Folks who don't care about their property, or their neighbors, generally don't care about appraisers "helping" the government take their land.

I remember one inspection in particular. The property owner we met with was pretty rough on my boss. Very threatening and intimidating, but he never quite crossed the line. Boss-lady was really shaken up. I reassured her that we had a few odds in our favor, then revealed to her that I was carrying. (I had never told her that I carry on the job - I was afraid she'd fire me.)

"You have a GUN?!?! Why on earth didn't you scare him with it? That woulda shown him!"

"Sorry, I didn't feel like going to jail today. Maybe next time..." (Why is it that non-gun types never seem to understand the gravity of using a lethal weapon?)

ah, misread it then, yeah Eminent domain is a major problem over there.

I went to Europe for 3 weeks and the kid I paid to mow my yard didn't do it. There was a letter from the city on my door explaining that if I didn't mow they would and charge me. It really sucks to come off of a 10 hour flight, and three hour layover, and another 4 hour flight to find your yard 10 inches high. The bill for boarding my dog at 23.00 a day sucked too.

The kids dad made him mow my yard 6 times instead of the three I paid him for.

this is a controversial subject in several places at the moment with Prescott, the minister concerned, supporting this drive for demolition of 19th-c houses by the Mayor of Middlesborough, ex-police chief Mallon, who wants to replace them with modern housing. Some residents claiming that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the area, it just needs modernising and it would be more cost-effective. Not knowing the town I can't say.
Certainly there are compulsory purchase powers in reserve. The slum clearances in Eastern London in the '30s and '50s would never have happened without it, except the bits the Luftwaffe knocked down. No doubt there would be negotiations about the price but the city can impose a purchase price in the last resort.
These arguments about the rights of property owners to do what they will, with what they hold, bedeviled the construction of the sewer system in the 1850s, and the first underground railways a bit later, and stretched out the process interminably.

The perversion of "blighted" is the story of Scenic Park, Ohio.
Read this my people, it makes my blood boil:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml

These arguments about the rights of property owners to do what they will, with what they hold, bedeviled the construction of the sewer system in the 1850s, and the first underground railways a bit later, and stretched out the process interminably.

Click to expand...

So?

So..........was it in the wider public interest that, failing a financial agreement, a few people or one person should be able to block the construction of Bazalgette's sewer project, which provided proper drainage for a city and saved hundreds of deaths from the cholera?

Zedicus said:

ah, misread it then, yeah Eminent domain is a major problem over there.

Click to expand...

AND here. Haven't you read/heard about London, CT and the Supreme Court decision regarding that city's seizing of homes in order to give to a PRIVATE developer so that the city will get more tax revenue?:banghead:

Mk VII said:

So..........was it in the wider public interest that, failing a financial agreement, a few people or one person should be able to block the construction of Bazalgette's sewer project, which provided proper drainage for a city and saved hundreds of deaths from the cholera?

Click to expand...

It was in the wider public interest not to do away with the property owners rights in the interest of expediency.

Yet one more reason we sent you packing across the pond 230 years ago.

Yeah, and right after we sent King George packing we instituted a new government that has the very same powers you're condemning England for.

The U.S. governments have the power to take private property for public use. That's recently been stretched to mean for the public "good". (Don't get me started on that...) The thing is, most Americans think this power is unspeakably wrong.

I'm curuious what the british atitude is. Do Brits generally think it's wrong for the government to take private property? Or do they find it acceptible and reasonable?

Interestingly, Germany doesn't have this power. Their highway system is a mess. Wide, straight multi-lane freeways suddenly become meandering two lane tracks, simply because some farmer didn't want to tear down his barn.

There's a balance to be struck, not "the rights of real estate owners shall not be infringed under any circumstances", as some people round this board seem to think. If the greatest happiness of the greatest number requires that bridge to be built, or that sewer to be laid out, I doubt you will find anyone in this country who will argue that it should never happen.
Whether it does require it in Middlesborough is an undecided question.

MkVII - not sure where, but I'm convinced I remember a road in the Pennines where the carriageways diverge to sweep around a house in a field.

HTG - opinion is going to vary depending on the case of course. As you have pointed out, and MkVII has too, there are circumstances where many may be less than sympathetic to those holding out. I'm sure that is the case in the US too.

Yes, I think it's on the Trans-Pennine Motorway.
Not that it has anything to do with eminent domain (a phrase unknown here), but my late father recalled an instance where the company he was working for wanted to buy a fellow's house for the land. They could get all the other plots they wanted on the strip, and offered him a fair price, but he was greedy and held out for more. Finally they said, "Well sod him ,lets build it anyway" and started building up and over him on both sides. Then he was anxious to sell, and they gave him a pittance, just to teach him not to be greedy.