9 year old wanted to get his community reading and sharing books. Government says, "Not happening."
Printable View
9 year old wanted to get his community reading and sharing books. Government says, "Not happening."
Them gosh darn liberals.
It's all very emotional to talk about it being a Little Free Library (which is a concept I've heard of being done quite successfully, with no complaints, in a number of places), or to mention the 9yo boy's involvement, but the way I read that, the structure was not up to code - that's a safety violation. It's nothing to do with the structure's purpose or anything. You might complain that he got a citation for something that's so small that it can't possibly hurt anyone if it falls apart, but that's not the thrust of the article.
Maybe if he wants to run his bookshelf, he should talk to the people who've been running them all over the country for some time. The US government isn't squashing the notion of public bookshelves, it's issuing a (probably legit) complaint - and giving him a chance to fix the problem without getting a fine, which is more decent than I'd normally expect of local government.
Hmm. I said "all over the country" because I thought it was a US phenomenon. Turns out it's a global one. Still, when you're talking about construction safety codes, that's more of a local matter, so he should still talk to someone who's done it in the same legislature.
Yes, issue was with structure...all free-standing structures are apparently against city code. The part that particularly ridiculous about that is that it's an enclosed bookshelf barely as tall as the kid. Another article with picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosuav
Makes about as much sense to me as giving a citation for having a table in your yard. (According to the officials quoted in article they would cite a couch in the yard, so table would probably get it too there...)
A couple of moments of research shows that the town and surrounding area is overwhelmingly Republican based on the party affiliations of the candidates for local government positions, so the title of the article is... misleading.
Okay, so there's a reasonable complaint to be levelled at them... but it's not the complaint that the original article makes, which is purely an appeal to emotion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reshad
I'm sure this isn't the first LFL to run into city ordinances like that. There'll be some sort of solution. (Or of course there's what the second link says, trying to get the rule changed. That'll take a long time, but good luck with it, as that would be the best solution.)
Yeah ... you just wait until the wind blows that library down and on top of someone's dog who subsequently sues the city for 15 million dollars ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Reshad
Given it's on private property, I don't see how someone could sue the city for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xywalan
I actually looked up where the city is, and I'm guessing that ordinance might have something to do with the risk of airborne structures if a tornado passes through.. Just a guess though. My main reason for sharing it though was that it's just another sign of the freedoms we don't actually have.
"I own my property!" Really? Don't pay property tax and see what happens. Or wait for homeowner's association or city to tell you you can't have a flagpole in your yard, or that you have to have cut your grass to their standards, or that you have to cut down the tree that's blocking the view of the house across the street.
I get that sometimes there's good reasons (well logical ones at least) for some of those occurrences, but in the end is the fact that our freedoms are a conditional privilege, rather than a right.
I've even seen some news articles in past about cities trying to make it illegal to smoke inside your own home. Crazy world, just getting crazier.
Every freedom we have comes from the barrel of a gun. Which is why so many people so vigorously defend the second amendment. Being bothered by this particular incident is just another little thing that ultimately we will allow. We'll live with ourselves for not acting on our emotional response to this issue. Or if somebody does act, it will be in the most ineffectual method possible.