site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   1054 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for May 2, 2025

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.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In looking at your real property that was originally laid out over a century ago, have you ever noticed that it appears to be composed of a zillion super-narrow lots? (For example, my mother's house sits on a 100×112.5 rectangle of land that is composed of four 25×112.5 strips.) Well, here's a fun fact: If multiple lots that are not compliant with the current zoning code fall under common ownership, and merging them would create a compliant lot, then under the "doctrine of merger" those lots immediately merge with each other! (Under my mother's local zoning code, the minimum lot width is 40 feet, so her property presumably has merged into two 50×112.5 lots… is what I was going to say, but apparently the zoning code was thoroughly amended since the last time I checked it, and the minimum lot width has been reduced from 40 feet back down to 25 feet. Can lots merge and then de-merge? I don't know.)

Court opinion:

  • Gary owns adjacent lots 9 (125 feet wide) and 16 (50 feet wide). Lot 9 bears a house, while lot 16 bears some accessory buildings. The minimum lot width in this zone is 100 feet.

  • Gary dies, and his estate sells lot 16 to Jerome, who wants to build a house on it. The purchase contract is conditional on Jerome's obtaining a building permit, but Jerome waives the condition. Jerome is warned by the title company before purchase, and by the zoning officer after purchase, that the lots may have merged, but he ignores the warnings.

  • Jerome applies for a building permit, but the application is denied because lot 16 has merged into lot 9. He applies for a variance allowing him to build on a 50-foot-wide lot, but the application is denied because lot 16 no longer exists, so there's no 50-foot-wide lot to which the variance would apply. He sues the municipal government, but the trial judge rejects his arguments, and the appeals panel affirms.

Court opinion:

  • Richard owns two lots that are positioned back-to-back, facing different streets. Lot 2 is 50×125 with a house, while lot 6 is 50×95 with a garage. Under the local zoning code, minimum dimensions are 75×100, but there's also a grandfather clause for existing 50×75 lots.

  • Richard wants to replace the garage on lot 6 with a new house. But he is dismayed to learn that the municipal government considers the two lots to have merged. After the govt. rejects his applications for subdivision and variances, he sues.

  • The trial judge reverses the municipal govt.'s determination that the lots have merged, and the appeals panel affirms. The existing lots are compliant with the zoning code's grandfather clause, so the doctrine of merger is not applicable. And, if there were no grandfather clause, a 50×220 merged lot would be just as nonconforming as the existing lots, so the doctrine of merger still would not apply.

I was once strongly tempted to go into title insurance because I Fucking Love Maps and History and I'm kinda interested in Laws but I'm not lawyer material. This is one of those moments where I wonder if I could have saved a lot of grief or would have been ignored.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats