04-27-2015, 02:45 PM
Anarchist? Please demonstrate how that is anything like an anarchist position?
Land rights are transferred with the land. The application of building codes undermine pre building code land rights that were not originally subject to such regulations. The devaluation/takings occur when the owner is then forced to pay additional moneys to meet the applied codes that previous owners with the same land rights were not subject to forcing them to build something far more advanced and not necessarily congruent with the region/subdivision. When a parcel is subdivided, it becomes subject to revision with regard to the transfer of rights and uses. Keeping subdivisions uniform without future modifications meets the original land use intent and does not place future uniformly applied expectations upon inappropriately previously planned subdivisions.
After an initial build takes place under the original land rights a future remodel or demolition and rebuild could then be expected to meet updated codes but not until the original land rights have been executed. This keeps uniform application of law in check by virtue of applying all use rights to the land instead of an arbitrary/indeterminable destiny application. No surprises or additional burdens placed on the municipality or the land owners. In the case of the big island it would considerably reduce the Counties liability and reduce the enforcement burdens placed upon it.
This also effectively allows an area to actually develop and evolve the infrastructure and economic base necessary to implement highly advanced codes that are beyond the scope of the underdeveloped region in question. I.E. applying building codes that are largely developed for high density areas increasing building cost substantially to meet the many additional safety needs is not applicable to a lazy rural communities needs and substantially undermines its potential evolution.
There are legal standings with regard to this sprinkled throughout former court rulings.
Land rights are transferred with the land. The application of building codes undermine pre building code land rights that were not originally subject to such regulations. The devaluation/takings occur when the owner is then forced to pay additional moneys to meet the applied codes that previous owners with the same land rights were not subject to forcing them to build something far more advanced and not necessarily congruent with the region/subdivision. When a parcel is subdivided, it becomes subject to revision with regard to the transfer of rights and uses. Keeping subdivisions uniform without future modifications meets the original land use intent and does not place future uniformly applied expectations upon inappropriately previously planned subdivisions.
After an initial build takes place under the original land rights a future remodel or demolition and rebuild could then be expected to meet updated codes but not until the original land rights have been executed. This keeps uniform application of law in check by virtue of applying all use rights to the land instead of an arbitrary/indeterminable destiny application. No surprises or additional burdens placed on the municipality or the land owners. In the case of the big island it would considerably reduce the Counties liability and reduce the enforcement burdens placed upon it.
This also effectively allows an area to actually develop and evolve the infrastructure and economic base necessary to implement highly advanced codes that are beyond the scope of the underdeveloped region in question. I.E. applying building codes that are largely developed for high density areas increasing building cost substantially to meet the many additional safety needs is not applicable to a lazy rural communities needs and substantially undermines its potential evolution.
There are legal standings with regard to this sprinkled throughout former court rulings.