And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
After owning an in-ground swimming pool for several decades, I would not want another property with one. Other than that, this looks like a nice respite.
Only if it comes with a pool babe to maintain it. Because I've been there and done that. When the kids are grown and gone, chemicals and cleaning and opening and closing are forever.
In a canyon. With a wood shake roof. And dead leaves all over it. Might as well just stack full gas cans against the outside walls. And violating just about every other common-sense survivabililty measure in a wildfire zone.
And some fall, the tearful owner will be "Shocked! Shocked, I say..." that it's about to become a monument to human stupidity during a major brushfire.
This is why some areas should be declared unbuildable, all fire protection withdrawn completely, home insurance coverage legally denied in perpetuity with the full backing of the state, and the entire area redlined from ever receiving a penny of federal disaster relief.
If you can absorb the cost to rebuild it every twenty years out of your own pocket when it inevitably burns to the ground, ROWYBS.
Otherwise, once it burns down and the owner can't eat the cost to put it back, rebuilding permits are denied forever, and it reverts to permanent wild habitat by eminent domain, and the owner given $1/acre.
Now show some rich stupid jackhole's house perched over the waves and built beyond the mean high tide line that gets surf-pummeled by storms every generation or so.
But also we are totally opposed to government intervention in people's private lives! Do we know that this property is in a location where brush fires are common? Seems like you want to confiscate these people's property based on a picture. But again, small government and "don't thread on me" or something
1) "Totally opposed"? No. Never said any such thing. You conflate "minimal" with "anarchy" at risk to your own argument, with a heaping helping of reductio ad absurdum. Best wishes with that approach. 2) Those are oak trees, growing in a canyon. Brushfire city. Period. 3) I don't want the property confiscated until Reality makes it obvious it never should have been built upon to begin with.
It was jackassical government greed that let some mid-century idiot build there in the first place, to maximize the county's taxable property value. Which then requires more brush crews to save it, and more roads to maintain to get to it. And then more disaster funds when it repeatedly gets burned up. Government created this problem. Smaller government would start by ripping out the paved road that gets there, closing the nearest fire stations, condemning the land, and turning it into permanent natural habitat. But that breaks five or ten government rice bowls, and gets entitled idiots all riled up.
I've only seen this about 5M times in my lifetime in this state.
If some idiot wants to build his own private road, or make do by getting supplies in and out by pack mule, and carries the liability for such an idiotic house out of his own pocket, that should be the only way that place gets built.
Dollars to donuts the owner also gets all bent up when coyotes eat his pets, and mountain lions start eyeing his kids, and screams to Uncle Government to "do something". Then pisses and moans when the local fire department tells him that with trees and brush 20' from the house, they've already written it off when a fire breaks out. And he's likely then the first in line at the trough when they declare a "disaster" (as opposed to "natural causes x human stupidity", which is also the plot recipe for every episode of Rescue 9-1-1, USCG: Cape Disappointment, and 57 other reality-based shows) once his house is a charred chimney surrounded by ashes.
It was big government that started such nonsense, from A to Z, in the first place. Like people along the Mississippi found out some while back, some places shouldn't have houses on them, ever, unless there's an annual stupidity tax on the property equal to 100% of its assessed value.
If government withdraws all services to such parcels save tax assessments, and cancels utility easements, which currently start a goodly number of the brushfires up there in competition with lightning (you could look it up), the problem self-corrects within years, if not months, with no further effort nor public expenditure.
That's minimal government. Your ball.
For a vivid exemplar of this sort of stupidity right this minute, google "Rancho Palos Verdes landslide zone", and read up about the latest batch of entitled idiots with more money than common sense, currently pissing, moaning, and harrumphing that gravity has annoyingly reasserted itself in their multi-million-dollar cliffside neighborhood, and demanding that government somehow stop it, and/or recompense them from public funds for their idiotic residential choices. Boo frickin' hoo.
After owning an in-ground swimming pool for several decades, I would not want another property with one. Other than that, this looks like a nice respite.
ReplyDeleteOnly if it comes with a pool babe to maintain it. Because I've been there and done that. When the kids are grown and gone, chemicals and cleaning and opening and closing are forever.
DeleteAnd don't forget the huge repair bills.
DeleteHaving lived in homes with in-ground pools since 1988, I will never live in one that doesn't have it.
ReplyDeleteThe benefits FAR exceeds the cost in all ways.
In the spring I'll be installing a propane pool heater and come Christmas day I'll be swimming! YAY!!!
Different strokes for different folks. That's for sure.
DeleteI like it, especially that nice fish pond up front.
ReplyDeleteLooks better since the tree has been trimmed.
ReplyDeleteA hook up place for frogs and ducks
ReplyDeleteIn a canyon. With a wood shake roof. And dead leaves all over it.
ReplyDeleteMight as well just stack full gas cans against the outside walls. And violating just about every other common-sense survivabililty measure in a wildfire zone.
And some fall, the tearful owner will be "Shocked! Shocked, I say..." that it's about to become a monument to human stupidity during a major brushfire.
This is why some areas should be declared unbuildable, all fire protection withdrawn completely, home insurance coverage legally denied in perpetuity with the full backing of the state, and the entire area redlined from ever receiving a penny of federal disaster relief.
If you can absorb the cost to rebuild it every twenty years out of your own pocket when it inevitably burns to the ground, ROWYBS.
Otherwise, once it burns down and the owner can't eat the cost to put it back, rebuilding permits are denied forever, and it reverts to permanent wild habitat by eminent domain, and the owner given $1/acre.
Now show some rich stupid jackhole's house perched over the waves and built beyond the mean high tide line that gets surf-pummeled by storms every generation or so.
But also we are totally opposed to government intervention in people's private lives!
DeleteDo we know that this property is in a location where brush fires are common? Seems like you want to confiscate these people's property based on a picture. But again, small government and "don't thread on me" or something
1) "Totally opposed"? No. Never said any such thing. You conflate "minimal" with "anarchy" at risk to your own argument, with a heaping helping of reductio ad absurdum. Best wishes with that approach.
Delete2) Those are oak trees, growing in a canyon. Brushfire city. Period.
3) I don't want the property confiscated until Reality makes it obvious it never should have been built upon to begin with.
It was jackassical government greed that let some mid-century idiot build there in the first place, to maximize the county's taxable property value. Which then requires more brush crews to save it, and more roads to maintain to get to it.
And then more disaster funds when it repeatedly gets burned up.
Government created this problem.
Smaller government would start by ripping out the paved road that gets there, closing the nearest fire stations, condemning the land, and turning it into permanent natural habitat.
But that breaks five or ten government rice bowls, and gets entitled idiots all riled up.
I've only seen this about 5M times in my lifetime in this state.
If some idiot wants to build his own private road, or make do by getting supplies in and out by pack mule, and carries the liability for such an idiotic house out of his own pocket, that should be the only way that place gets built.
Dollars to donuts the owner also gets all bent up when coyotes eat his pets, and mountain lions start eyeing his kids, and screams to Uncle Government to "do something". Then pisses and moans when the local fire department tells him that with trees and brush 20' from the house, they've already written it off when a fire breaks out. And he's likely then the first in line at the trough when they declare a "disaster" (as opposed to "natural causes x human stupidity", which is also the plot recipe for every episode of Rescue 9-1-1, USCG: Cape Disappointment, and 57 other reality-based shows) once his house is a charred chimney surrounded by ashes.
It was big government that started such nonsense, from A to Z, in the first place. Like people along the Mississippi found out some while back, some places shouldn't have houses on them, ever, unless there's an annual stupidity tax on the property equal to 100% of its assessed value.
If government withdraws all services to such parcels save tax assessments, and cancels utility easements, which currently start a goodly number of the brushfires up there in competition with lightning (you could look it up), the problem self-corrects within years, if not months, with no further effort nor public expenditure.
That's minimal government.
Your ball.
For a vivid exemplar of this sort of stupidity right this minute, google "Rancho Palos Verdes landslide zone", and read up about the latest batch of entitled idiots with more money than common sense, currently pissing, moaning, and harrumphing that gravity has annoyingly reasserted itself in their multi-million-dollar cliffside neighborhood, and demanding that government somehow stop it, and/or recompense them from public funds for their idiotic residential choices.
Boo frickin' hoo.