Quick! When I say “outdoor playhouse” what’s the first thing that comes to your mind?

For many it might be something like this: fun, neat, cool, independence, getaway, or any number of other positive terms.

Unfortunately, what I think of these days is code enforcement.

When I named my book (and the blog, etc.), “Technically, That’s Illegal,” I knew the phrase would come up in conversation quite often. You see, many things people do are, technically, illegal.

Last fall, I told you about an illegal treehouse. Today, I’m going to tell you about an illegal playhouse. It belongs to a 5-year-old boy.

One neighbor said the playhouse takes up too much space and “makes it look like junk.”

But neither youth, charm, nor ignorance are any excuse for not following the law in Ocala, Florida.

…the family has been told the playhouse requires the special variance from code enforcement and approval from the historic preservation board.

If it doesn’t get approval, the playhouse must be moved or torn down within 120 days, or the family will start accumulating fines of $25 a day.

Of course, even if they apply for the variance, it doesn’t mean they will get approved. It seems like some folks in that neighborhood have some serious issues!

We all know that government officials have gone overboard in their nannying of our food choices. This post won’t re-hash all of that — here’s a good summary. Besides the obvious fact that this is not acceptable in a free society, there’s also the fact that the government officials and their consultants are terribly inept at deciding which foods are unhealthy and which are not.

Over the years, we have heard a variety of different messages from the various governmental departments on this subject. The Department of Agriculture chimes in with their $.02., which turns out to be more like $155 billion (proposed 2013 budget). Then, there’s the other huge department offering their advice as well, the Department of Health and Human Services, which has 14 agencies under its umbrella (Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Aging, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Food and Drug Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration, Indian Health Service, Medicaid, Medicare, National Toxicology Program, and Substance Abuse and Mental health Services Administration).

Yet, all of this money and all of these agencies collecting and dispensing information don’t end up giving us clear information. Instead, they often try to influence public policy and private behavior through mandating in various ways that we, the citizenry, behave in a healthful manner.

We are left with what we already knew — we should make our own health decisions because there is conflicting information on health. Some people will tell you never to eat butter (see example here), and other people will tell you to find ways to add it into your diet (see example here). The bottom line is that nobody knows exactly how every substance will affect the human body. Our bodies are complicated. Even doctors and nutritionists disagree about these things, and they’ve dedicated their professional lives to this topic. So, you should never trust someone in government to make your nutrition decisions for you.

If you think nutrition is an exact science, think again. Even being obese isn’t always bad.

Kahlon says the research supports the ‘obesity paradox’ — that in some circumstances being obese may be better for your health, even though obesity is associated with an increased risk of diabetes, hypertension, death and catching infections like pneumonia.

“The thinking usually is obesity equals bad and this research demonstrated something different. It shows that perhaps we’re not looking at obesity in the right way. Is all fat bad? Is all fat equal? For acute illnesses, maybe we’re not looking at the right indicators for body mass index and obesity.”

That quote is from a study where overweight patients had higher survival rates than those of regular weight after being hospitalized for pneumonia.

So, while that goes against what we might have believed about obesity, it just goes to show you that we don’t know everything, and we certainly don’t know enough about it to start taking away private food choices.

Though not related to nutrition, please check out my podcast episode about how we’re constantly discovering new things: We Aren’t As Smart As We Think We Are.

It is impossible for most municipalities to enforce their codes.

The enforcement of said codes usually boils down to a few things, none of which are pleasant — grumpy neighbors, tit for tat, and pet peeves of those doing the enforcing.

I cover the idea of grumpy neighbors extensively in my podcast, which features a segment every week about neighbors turning each other in for things, and people generally not having the decency to deal politely with one another, nor the fortitude to “endure” their neighbors’ hobbies or habits.

Today’s focus article proves that one aspect of code enforcement is simply the pet peeve of the code enforcement officer.

This article is about an officer who was let go, but that’s not the part of the article that we are focusing on today.

Please notice the huge picture of her with dozens of illegal signs that she has confiscated and the following words:

During last fall’s election season, Johnson made news when she began to enforce a new city ordinance regarding campaign signs.

Recently, she had increased enforcement efforts on rules against unlicensed business signage.

The lesson of the day is that most of us will go about our day today breaking a variety of laws without knowing it. We just have to hope that the laws we’re breaking aren’t one of the pet issues of the “authorities” in our towns.

Welcome to another episode of Technically, That’s Illegal. This episode features my rant about new laws going into effect around the nation, a school that went into lockdown over something pretty trivial, people getting into a big legal battle over their garden, and why so many people accept the fact that government can protect us from ourselves without destroying liberty.

Links referred to in the podcast:

School Lockdown Over an Umbrella

Check Out the Garden that Is Causing Such an Uproar

Giant Burrito Sends School into Lockdown

USA Prisons for Profit

876 New Laws for the New Year in California

Which Careers Attract the Most Psychopaths

How Mandated Reporting Could Backfire

Why Do People Think Government Can Protect them Without Protecting Liberty?

So, let’s say you violate your city’s municipal code. Most of us do. Usually, it’s things like taking the trash cans out too early or forgetting to register our pets on an annual basis. But, what if we have a junk car on our property? Of course, that is out of the question, especially if vegetables on the property are out of the question.

Now, cities are mulling the idea of whether they can have your goods removed from your own property if they deem the goods to be in violation of city code — this includes cars.

The proposed amendments, which sparked public outcry last October, give the county’s planning and zoning director authority to have derelict vehicles and buildings deemed a public nuisance removed from private property if the property owner does not comply with a notice of ordinance violation within 30 days. The cost of removal, holding of the vehicle, and disposal would be billed to the property owner and collected as county taxes are collected.

Ok, so perfect! Not only do they want to take your belongings from your property, they want to bill you for it! Even junk cars have value. If they didn’t have value or purpose, nobody would keep them. They might not be your idea of a nice thing to view, but that doesn’t mean we need to remove them just to make things look tidy.

Stealing is wrong. Stealing to improve the subjective aesthetic value of a community is still wrong.

Welcome to another episode of Technically, That’s Illegal.

In this edition, the following things will be discussed:

Why my kids play much better without me around, a girl who was arrested after using bad language on a 9-1-1 call, a man arrested for trying to rescue a dog, electronic scrolling billboards, and the first man to visit all countries on earth without using an airplane.

It’s a wild ride.

Here are some links that were used:

Girl Arrested for Swearing over 9-1-1

British Man Becomes First to Visit all Countries Without Using a Plane

Man Tries to Rescue a Dog and Gets Arrested

Business Backlash Over Not Being Able to Use Certain Signs

Why Children Need More Unstructured Play Time

In this episode of the podcast, the following segments are included:

1. Rant about Nothing — Storage Wars has been accused of being fake

2. Overreaction of the Week — A mother who was arrested for leaving her children home alone

3. Grumpy Neighbor Award — Mother arrested for letting her kids play outside combined with a discussion about the golden rule.

4. Safety — How we are actually safer than we think we are. Statistics and anecdotes included.

5. Something positive — A discussion about how we can be better neighbors and a few moments that restore faith in humanity.

Click the yellow play button to listen.

Internet articles that might be of interest/reference:

Tips on Being a Good Neighbor

Moments that Restored Our Faith in Humanity

NYC’s First Day With No Violent Crime

Violent Crime in US Down 4% Across the Board

Why Sandy Hook Feels So Close

Are Robberies Really “Soaring?”

An Excellent Podcast About The Golden Rule

Mother Arrested for Leaving Kids Home Alone

Storage Wars Fake?

Mother Arrested for Letting Kids Play Outside

In this episode, I talk about my recent trip to the dentist, a woman who called the police on The Salvation Army bell ringers, a dispute between some neighbors, and a warning from the CPSC about toxic laundry detergent.

Here are some relevant links:

A Woman Calls the Police On The Salvation Army

Corte Madera Neighbors at Odds

A Natural Consequence of the Nanny State is Calling the Police Too Much

CPSC Warns Not to Drink Laundry Soap

Why You’re Never Failing As a Parent

Isn’t it every kid’s dream to have a treehouse? — a little place of their own to hang out and conspire on how to get more cookies and less school time?

When I was young, we built “forts.” I don’t think we realized that a “fort” was basically a military term short for “fortress,” because our structures were not based on military or combat play. They were places to hang out. They gave us our own place to just be kids. In this way, they were very much like treehouses, only on the ground.

But, I lived in the country. We had no neighbors. We had lots of woods. Kids who live in cities are more inclined toward the treehouse route since there isn’t a lot of wooded space in town to make your own forts.

Anyway, two brothers got their wish for a treehouse last April.

Logan and his parents, Scott and Kacey Olson, his grandparents and his brother Dillon, 12, built the elaborate treehouse in the front yard of the Olsons’ house at 1907 Beverly Hill Blvd.

By late June, Logan and Dillon had a solidly built, 17-foot-high, 80-square-foot treehouse with a deck on three sides.

The brothers helped to build the treehouse, and they are currently trying to save it.

The civics lesson began in late September, when somebody lodged a complaint with the city’s Building Division because the Olsons hadn’t obtained a building permit.

As it turned out, they didn’t need one. Nicole Cromwell, the city’s zoning coordinator, said permits are unnecessary for buildings of less than 120 square feet.

So, what’s the problem? As the family tried to comply with the unnecessary request for a building permit, the city discovered that the treehouse violates municipal code in another way.

Although a “structure” technically is a building on the ground, the treehouse does have four wooden support beams, which qualifies it as an “accessory structure,” and zoning rules say accessory structures have to be set back at least 20 feet from the property line. The closest post is 5 feet, 6 inches from the front property line.

The boys are currently trying to obtain a variance.

Over three days — once in a rainstorm — they and several friends knocked on doors for many blocks around, eventually gathering 61 signatures of people supporting a variance for their treehouse.

As Dillon explained it, their pitch was straightforward. He told people, “If you think it’s a good idea that we should keep our treehouse, you should sign this.”

Good for them. The treehouse isn’t hurting anyone. It actually looks quite nice and safe. I can’t see any good reason for it to be torn down.

Not everyone agrees with me. Read the comments section for a little tidbit from a person who hasn’t yet realized that the law is out of control.

On this blog, I typically only write about legal issues relating to the United States of America. In this case, I am going to branch out a bit. You see, USA lawmakers are following in the footsteps of Denmark in several ways.

A year ago, Denmark enacted a “fat tax,” which attempted to “engineer a healthier populace” by heavily taxing saturated fat and sugar, thereby discouraging their use.

According to the Danish Ministry of Taxation the country’s tax on unhealthy, high-fat products had driven up prices and put jobs at risk.

The Wall Street Journal describes it this way (emphasis added):

Danish lawmakers have killed a controversial “fat tax” one year after its implementation, after finding its negative effect on the economy and the strain it has put on small businesses far outweigh the health benefits.

Besides the issues mentioned in the above quotes about how taxes put a strain on the economy, there are several other obvious problems with this.

Which government agencies/programs are being instituted or beefed up with this new tax money? Is the money simply going to balance the current budget expenses? If the government becomes reliant upon this source of revenue, they are automatically not going to achieve their end of having a healthier populace. You see, the government will come to NEED and depend upon that money. Therefore, if they actually achieve what they say they want (for people to stop consuming saturated fat), they will need to come up with some other tax in order to continue their spending habits.

Then there’s the whole issue of saturated fat in the first place. It’s not as if the science is settled on the fact that it’s unhealthy. These taxes enacted in Denmark and other places have the underlying assumption that saturated fat is terrible for your health. If fat is just plain terrible, why does high fat dairy lower your risk of a heart attack? I recommend you browse around the food renegade site for more information, but a nice debunking of the saturated fat myth can be found here.

Well, what about the sugar? They taxed the sugar, too. Well, I agree that sugar is terrible for your health. There’s really nothing redeeming about it, other than its taste. However, see my above reasoning about why I don’t believe taxing it is the correct thing to do. Then, add to that the fact that I believe people should be allowed to indulge if they choose.

Now, let’s bring this back to the USA. I have documented a number of cases that lead me to believe we are going down the path toward these kinds of taxes on a nationwide level.

Federal guidelines limiting school lunches to 850 calories

NYC’s ban on large sugary drinks

FDA’s plan to gradually reduce salt content in foods

Of course, there are more…but they haven’t been documented here yet. I’ll get to them eventually, but there’s never a shortage of things to write about.

Just remember that the next time government tries to get involved in your food choices that they generally manage to make things worse.