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!

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

First up is a discussion of some “libertarian magic” called Shared Space, which I was introduced to by Dick Puddlecote‘s blog (including recommended video).

After that, I talk about a politican who completely overreacted to some immature behavior by acting immaturely himself and attempting to make photoshopping illegal.

Then, I discuss the delicate balance of code enforcement issues and another politician who is attempting to ban texting while crossing the road.

• A politician tries to ban lewd photoshopping even though the supreme court has already listened to a similar case and struck it down.
• Either the municipal code is meaningless and tit-for-tat, or it should be enforced equally…but I don’t like that either.
• They either really care about our safety, or these politicians are nuts. I’m going for the second option.
• Ademo Freeman misses court and is jailed

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.

In this episode, I rant about how we think we know everything and then scientists go ahead and discover wild new species.

Overreaction of the week: Huge fines for neatly stacked palates at a store.

Grumpy neighbor award: People complaining about seeing deer carcasses during deer season.

Safety: We now need permits to be homeless. Who knew?

Referenced articles:

10 Astonishing New Species Discovered in 2012

More than $20G in Fines for This…

Of Course They Did…Neighbors Complained About Deer Carcasses

You Need a Permit to Be Homeless

The Government Drove This Guy Out of Business

My New Desktop Wallpaper

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.

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

A woman in Riverside, California was recently arrested for exceeding her speaking time at the local city council meeting. She went over her three minute limit, and was led away in handcuffs.

The really horrible thing here is how she was treated. She’s 60 years old. She cannot get up without putting her hands down on the ground. So, when she had her hands behind her back on her knees (not sure how she got to her knees), the officers were pulling on her wrists and hands to get her up, which was causing her pain. To some young people without physical ailments  this may seem trivial, but I am one of those people who can’t get up from the ground without turning face-down and pushing off.

There is no mention in any article I’ve read of her causing a disturbance. Of course, there will always be people who assume that every arrest was justified. But, until I find out otherwise, I will assume the opposite — that authority figures overreact these days and criminalize everything.

A school district in Wisconsin has banned “I <3 Boobies” bracelet.

The very purpose of the bracelets is to educate other young people about cancer prevention, testing, research and treatment.

The ACLU saw this as a free speech issue, which it is. The school district maintains that they distract students and are sexually provocative.

A federal district court judge recently agreed with the school.

I once saw a shirt that said, “These boobs are fake. My real ones tried to kill me.”

The funny thing about issues like this — booby bracelets in school — is that they usually diffuse themselves when those in “authority” ignore them and make no big deal about it. But, now that attention has been drawn to it, it’s a huge, silly, giggly, middle-school type deal.

Don’t forget…we live in the home of the brave, where people can’t even handle a borderline inappropriate bracelet.

Back in March, I told you about a new city ordinance in Philadelphia that made it illegal for people to feed the homeless in public (for most locations). At that time, I said that it would hurt those in need. Of course, anyone with half of a brain could realize that.

Today, I found out that a Philadelphia woman is currently facing fines of $600 per day for feeding children in her neighborhood. She is doing this in her own yard. She refuses to get the required variance (at a cost of around $1,000) and plans to continue to feed the children.

Note: It is unclear whether this is supposedly a violation of the original ordinance I wrote about or a different issue. It seems like it is a different issue since the original post was in relation to public lands like parks. However, the city of Philadelphia must have a real problem with benevolence for this issue to have made the news again with a different twist.

Also, shame on the neighbor that called this in. What have we come to? We’re more concerned about our neighborhoods being quiet than making sure people have enough food?

I don’t agree with drunk driving. I’ve read arguments to legalize drunk driving, but that’s not necessarily my position…yet. Unlike some other regulations that I discuss, drunk driving has the potential to seriously harm another individual. However, the laws raise enough concerns for me to be troubled by them.

Drunk driving laws lead to witch hunts. Of course, I am referring to police check points. If you have to stop every single car, question the people therein, and administer random breath tests in order to tell whether people are too drunk to be operating a vehicle, maybe the law is too strict. After all, they were enacted for safety purposes. So, if the person isn’t causing a disturbance or driving poorly, maybe they aren’t dangerous after all.

They say that a blood alcohol level of 0.08% can affect your reasoning, depth perception, and peripheral vision. However, just a few decades ago, the legal limit was 0.15%. Either way, did you know you can get cited for DUI if you are under the legal limit IF an officer claims that you showed “signs of impairment?” That’s pretty subjective. However, there is no provision for NOT getting a ticket if you are over the limit and DON’T show signs of impairment.

I don’t point all of this out because I support drunk driving. I just definitely don’t support unfair laws. There are many over the top instances of DUI citations. I’m reading a book right now written by an attorney, Michael D. Cicchini, that gives examples of people getting DUI citations for turning the key halfway on (accessory mode) and sleeping in the car.

The most recent example to make the national news is that of an Alaska man who was given a DUI for floating down a river on a raft while intoxicated. I suppose this was for his own good, because it can’t be construed as being a public safety issue.

(The original article I linked to about this story is no longer available. Efforts have been made to find a replacement, but the details may not always be the same in cases like this.)