Comments on: Man Hid Castle Behind Giant Bales of Hay

By: Joseph P

Joseph P — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:28:14 +0000

By building this beautiful building under the noses of the public and especially the building and zoning commissions, Mr. Fidler usurped their power. Most people in those positions thrive on the little bit of power they derive from those lowly public offices. Now it is a matter of flexing their power even if it makes them look stupid. The point will be “I am a small person but I am in charge! Roar!” Hopefully the town fathers will see this for the tourism opportunity it could be, instead of the narrow power struggle it has become. You know if the public didn’t complain about those ugly bails stacked up then why should they mind the wildly beautiful castle that now adorns their neighborhood.

By: c-dub

c-dub — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:25:27 +0000

I would be very surprised if they made him tear the house down. If he’s got building code violations (which I have to think he does, since he’s not a professional builder and he didn’t have any inspections) then they’ll probably make him pay for the permit he should have gotten originally, plus a hefty fine, and make him correct any deficiencies in the building – after they make him tear it open so they can inspect it. If it’s purely zoning violations, they could make him tear down the building, or at least the parts that are non-compliant. And there will likely be some civil actions. In any case, he’s probably going to regret the gambit. Like Sid, I do feel a bit of sympathy for the guy, because a ton of effort went into that house. But, he was stupid, and stupid generally trumps effort.

By: c-dub

c-dub — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:23:55 +0000

@Merkabrew
Yes, I deal with planning and zoning departments, on a very regular basis. And yes, it can be frustrating, but that only gives me the right to complain and negotiate and do what I can to improve the system: it doesn’t give me the right to ignore the law. From there, I can’t really follow your argument: you think a landowner should be able to do whatever they want with their property, but that freedom stops short of painting one’s house pink…? But fake castles are okay? (Frankly, I’d be embarrassed to live next to that monstrosity: this is the 21st century, everyone, let’s stop building like we don’t know where we are. I can’t stand theme park architecture. But that’s an aside.)

@Sid Morrison
I’m right there with you on this one, Sid. Getting variances isn’t always an easy process, but just suck it up and do what you have to do. The laws exist for very good reasons – but if you don’t agree with them, try to get them changed. Zoning offices are usually willing to allow variances, depending on the degree. The real key is this: you have to be a good neighbor. If you get your neighbors behind your project, and show the zoning office you’re looking beyond your own interests, you’ve got a chance.

@Kerozene
If you don’t like the restrictions on a piece of property, don’t buy it – but I don’t know where you could possibly go where there isn’t some jurisdictional body telling you what you can and can’t build.

I guess my overall point is that if want to live in a community, we have to sometimes forego our own desires and make accommodations for that community. This guy preferred to turn his back on his neighbors and go it on his own, so he’s got to live with the repercussions.

By: Kerozene

Kerozene — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:48:16 +0000

I agree with what was said above. It really says something about human nature, when his neigbors are fine with a gaudy bright blue tarp with dingy old tires hanging off of it, and a hay bale tower… but not a beautiful handmade castle. I’m sure his neighbors are giddy with mischievious delight at the thought of him being forced to tear it down.

Jealousy is horrible, as is the stuborn piggheadedness of city officials. Who are also in a indignant huff.

Thank god I’m not a land owner. Id get PISSED, if I paid money for land that OTHER people determined the use of.

By: Sid Morrison

Sid Morrison — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:04:08 +0000

I have some empathy for the guy, but oh, his gambit was quite the gamble! What a huge risk!

The article says that the law reads essentially “if you have the structure up for 4 years and there are no objections you can keep it”. But hiding it behind bales of hay for those 4 years clearly evades the *spirit* of the law. Whether he is successful or not will depend on how good his lawyer is. Either way, though, they will wind up paying *somehow* for their snubbing of authority — you can bet on it. I know in my piss-ant little town, you would not want to try this, even if you got away with it, they’d figure out some other way to screw you.

A few years ago, my wife and I put up a large gazebo on our 2.5 acre property. I looked up all the regulations in advance and the peak of the roof was going to make the structure 6 inches too high (!). Rather than change the design or risk fines, we had to go through a rather onerous zoning variance process that delayed us a couple months and go before a review board, &c. It was a pain in the ass, but since we kissed their rings, they weren’t out to get us on that or future issues, either.

Ted Kaczynski wasn’t all crazy — having a little cabin in the woods away from petty town officials has some merit.

By: Merkabrew

Merkabrew — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:13:22 +0000

@C-dub
Have you ever had deal with city officials? I know I have and there a pain in the rear. It’s a little thing I call bureaucracy and it’s bull. The guy probably tried to go through the proper channels and got the run around. He then decided to do it anyways. He is a revolutionary in a sense. I believe if it’s your land your money you have to right to do with it what you want. Me being a property owner I can understand where you are coming from c-dub. I would hate for the guy next door to paint his house pink, but would be with him all the way if he wanted to build a very cool castle. All I am saying in the reality of the situation is that the neighbors should get over it and realize that the castle next door is not going to depreciate the value of there property if anything it will increase value. Zoning and planning laws are set up to maintain the value of surrounding properties. Maybe they should punish him by making him have a bbq for the neighborhood ,but making him tear it down or worse sentencing him to jail thats absurd.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 04:38:39 +0000

hahah so much for the secret (I won’t tell if you guys don’t)

By: c-dub

c-dub — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 04:35:01 +0000

@Merkabrew:
Zoning and planning laws exist for very good reasons. I don’t understand why anyone would think these people should receive special treatment, particularly when they’ve engaged in intentional (and rather massive) deception in order to circumvent the law.

By: Merkabrew

Merkabrew — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:44:38 +0000

This an awesome house I hope they let him keep it. I don’t see why anyone would care. They didn’t care when he had bails of hay pilled up. I guess jealousy always finds a way to rear its ugly head.

By: kevin

kevin — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 02:15:32 +0000

Someone google map this, I want to see