Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 208
- 3
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Court opinion
Premise: You own some oceanfront land. You want to build on that land a 15,000-ft2, 24-room hotel 60 feet from the water.
Problem: The land is zoned exclusively for single-family houses. Hotels are forbidden.
Solution: "Hotel? What are you talking about? This is just my vacation home. And, if I should happen to rent out some rooms on AirBnB later, there is no ordinance preventing me from doing so." The state Department of Insurance disagrees, but the state Building Code Council overturns the Department's decision and agrees that, under the state's definition, this building does count as a single-family house.
Problem: Only 5,000-ft2 structures can be built 60 feet from the water. 15,000-ft2 structures are forbidden.
Solution: "15,000 ft2? What are you talking about? My house is composed of three 5,000-ft2 structures, structurally independent from each other, and connected only by air-conditioned hallways." The county zoning board agrees that, under the county's definition, this does count as a single-family house composed of three separate 5,000-ft2 structures.
Problem: A disgruntled neighbor appeals the zoning board's ruling to the state courts, which overturn the zoning board's ruling and decide that this is not a valid single-family house under the county's definition. (Under the county's definition, a single-family house can consist of one principal structure and other accessory structures. But in this case all the structures are the same size, so they count as three principal structures, and that is forbidden.)
Solution: The state legislature enacts a law explicitly stating that a county's definition of "building" or "dwelling" cannot override the state Building Code Council's definition. Accordingly, the federal courts overturn the state courts' ruling and agree that the county definition of "single-family house" is void, the Building Code Council's decision controls, and—13 years later—your hotel definitely is legal.
This is precisely why I think courts should have a "return to legislator" option, at least for future cases if not for the current one. Rather than have a war between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and being forced to either ignore the spirit, or mangle the language of the letter until it fits what you think the law should be, this should be a case where the judge goes "Hey, lawmakers, we found a bug in your code, fix it!"
Now, it would be unfair for the people involved here for the law to suddenly change on them mid-court battle, and their own case should be decided based on the law as written, but the law could update for future cases.
In this particular case, the obvious solution is to adjust the "single-family" zoning law to prohibit renting to more than a single family at a time. You can build your 24 room "single family house", good luck finding single families that will pay you enough to recoup your costs when renting in series instead of in parallel.
In Ireland it’s not uncommon for judges at sentencing to say something like “I have to judge in accordance with the law as it stands but the legislation needs updating on these points”.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link