Living in a tent on your private property.

[Wao nahele kane]

Building codes are not that lose Kathy.
Here's an example for factory-built-homes.
(a) “Factory-built housing” means any structure or portion thereof designed primarily for
residential occupancy by human beings, which is either entirely prefabricated or assembled at a place
other than the building site.
(b) “First user” means a person, firm or corporation who initially installs FBH within this State. A
person who subsequently purchases an installed FBH is not a first user within the meaning of this
definition.
© “Installation” means the assembly of FBH on site and the process of affixing FBH to land, a
foundation or an existing building.
(d) “Insignia of approval” means a tag, tab, stamp, label or other device issued by the building
official to indicate compliance with the statutes and these rules.
(e) “Manufacture” means the process of making, fabricating, constructing, forming or assembling
a product from raw, unfinished or semi-finished materials to produce FBH.
(f) “Site” is the parcel of land on which FBH is installed.
Section 6103. Building Permit Required. No person shall install FBH or cause the foregoing to be
done without first obtaining a building permit from the building official for each FBH.

The county has not addressed private tents on private land simply because they are outside the limitation of powers for the county. Case in point, you wont see such address regarding a motor home or camper used as a residence on private property either. These manufatured products are already in compliance with federal and state laws.
Foundations and or public safety issues are the key to structures that fall under county codes in the light of improvements.

Pup tents are "erected"... but the "erected" citation pertains to what? Read on. It's easy to pull a phrase out of the code and apply to what ever you like... but then it is not in the context of application; is it?

President John Adams once said - "Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty." Adding, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
When we assume that we can make laws that "TEMPORARILY ALLOW" private property owners to camp on their own property, we have adopted a course of tyranny.



E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.

[janet]

From the Tribune-Herald of September 3, 2009:

"It's now up to Mayor Billy Kenoi to decide if eligible Puna landowners may live a tent while building a legally permitted home.

A bill authorizing the use of temporary living structures for up to two years was passed unanimously Wednesday by the Hawaii County Council and will now be sent to Kenoi.

. . . . .

The bill allows a single tent or similar structure to be erected on land zoned for agriculture and located within "the geographical district of Puna."

Besides needing an active, county-issued building permit, the landowner must meet several other criteria. Those include maintaining an access lane, being at least 10 feet from any structure, keeping all flames outside of the temporary shelter, and having "adequate sanitation" -- a compost toilet or other waste-disposal system approved by the state Department of Health."

If the Council is passing a new law to allow for temporary occupation of tents during construction of a permanent residence, I would suggest further research of the Code may be warranted before one assumes that such permanent residence IS allowed.

[TheodoreJay]

Putting up a yurt woudl be a good strategy (will hold up to nasty storms better and get you off of the ground), then rent it out when you have your house built?

[missydog1]

I had written the part below before Janet put up her post about the new bill. (Then held off on posting, ambivalent about feeding this debate.)
________________

You didn't address the main part of my reading. The governing section says that permits are required. The exceptions list tents under certain circumstances. If the governing section did not apply to tents, then there would be no need to except them in a subsection.

I disagree that motor homes are not addressed because they comply with standards. They are not addressed because they are on wheels. Take a compliant mobile home off wheels and put it on blocks and it now needs a permit.

Permits are required for structures that are going to remain put and be lived in, or even used for other projects. Permits aren't just about foundations and framing. Also required to enforce setbacks. Also a sleeping structure has to meet the code for light and ventilation, fire safety.

That said, the County turns a blind eye to all sorts of violations and even squatters. That doesn't mean they don't have any authority; they choose not to use their funding to exercise the authority.

I think it likely that if a neighbor put up a large tent and lived in it, and kept it up for six months or a year, in violation of building setbacks and too close to someone's property line, that it could get cited for being unpermitted, because at that point it's generating a complaint. I would also expect that in the case of a tent of room size being used for living while a permitted home is being built, that the inspector would have a problem with it.

[missydog1]

Thank you Janet!

I think it's a no-brainer that if tents were allowed for living on land under current code, this bill would not exist.
Note that the article mentions the same things I had thought would come into play - fire safety, building setback, and needs a permit. I had thought about the waste disposal but didn't mention it.

Also note this is only for Puna ag land, and it will not affect requirements for other zoning and areas.
Interesting they are passing this. Anyone know why?
Maybe because people are already doing it and now the County can get revenue and have some control over the health and safety aspects?

[Wao nahele kane]

LOL... yeah I already know about the newly passed at council bill, that’s why I pulled up the code that supposedly cites the Ban on Tents. I see no ban, but I see a council woman who has misinterpreted the code and made a large mistake. Unfortunately the near newly passed bill is unconstitutional as would any law that prohibited or limited basic human needs not be allowed and made a criminal act.
The bill if passed will eventually find its way into the courts and be removed as law and the ACLU will be the first to attack it.
Case in point...
Court opinions that address homeless people sleeping in public areas etc. Keep in mind this is merely public areas and sleeping, not your own private property.
Read what the opinions are and why denial of basic needs or even limiting those needs via a temporary allowance would be unconstitutional and abridge basic human rights.
http://theplazoid.wordpress.com/2009/03/...mping-ban/

Furthermore... the code already allowed for temporary buildings on construction sites without permits... it does not define their use and does not limit their time during the construction process. This left the doors wide open with regard to what the newly proposed code will now severely limit. Thus forcing the building department to enforce something they were not having to enforce prior.

This is more convincing evidence that the council doesn’t even know what the building codes already said.
They think they are being more lenient and broadening the code when in-fact they are doing just the opposite.
As per the reasons for making the bill, though the points appear compelling, under scrutiny they merit no public interest. Personal Tents don’t fall and crush people, barbeques and such are used daily by homeowners in permitted homes everyday without permits. Composting toilets are already accepted without special permit use. Ventilation in a fabric space is a mute point in itself and beyond far reaching. Setbacks are not an issue with a tent as they can be moved if necessary without great effort, unlike a site built building. Cite a valid public interest.
TO TOP IT ALL OFF... this is subject to the puna district only? WTF? Like that's going to fly... LOL

How much will the county be sued for when the first case goes to court after the first infraction is issued?

Herein lays the largest dilemma... the new county code if fully approved is now stating that if you own property in the county of Hawaii, Puna district exclusively - If you are not building a house on your land - You are not allowed to use a temporary shelter (tent) on your own property to protect yourself from the elements, you cannot make an encampment to provide for your own basic sustenance. You will be unable to use a composting toilet, tent, barbeque, etc. In essence the law abridges the most fundamental of all property rights ever known to mankind, destroying thousands of years of previously respected rights.

Now can you honestly say within your heart that the U.S. Supreme Court or any court within the state is going to allow that? Can we sit here in our homes with our internet connections and modern conveniences and state that such a code is beneficial to us. Can you in any way shape or form condone such codes enforcement on some-one who only owns their land and has no other recourse for their sustenance and protection from the elements? Would you rather them be sleeping on the street in Hilo and milling about town with nowhere to call home? I certainly hope not.

As per the council woman’s being in touch with God… I have no comment on that as the code speaks for itself about her intuitiveness with regard to Gods word.


E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

I've no intention to live in a tent however; where in the legislation is living in a tent on your own private property not allowed by Hawaii county code?

---

No tent of canvas, plastic, or similar material shall be used for
residence purposes.

Case Close............

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wao nahele kane

Case in point...
Court opinions that address homeless people sleeping in public areas etc. Keep in mind this is merely public areas and sleeping, not your own private property.
Read what the opinions are and why denial of basic needs or even limiting those needs via a temporary allowance would be unconstitutional and abridge basic human rights.

---

Apples to paint cans.

The case revolved around the CRIMINAL violation. Read the COURT's opinion. The law was amended based on the Court's ruling because it was a CRIMINAL violation. The new law still makes it a violation but akin to a parking ticket. Hawaii County does not impose criminal penalties for a violation, thus like many other communities (this was cited in the motion you mentioned) Hawaii prohabition is constitutional.

[MarkP]

There is a need to enforce minimum standards in many facets of life, housing being a very important one. Without addressing what the code actually says or whether it is actually enforced, it makes sense to me that sanitation, setbacks, ventilation, and control of fire would be addressed no matter what the circumstances, even on private land. Having people crapping openly on their land could definitely cause health problems that cross property lines. To claim that anything goes on private property doesn't fit with basically all the rest of law in general so I am skeptical about that. I can definitely see that living long term in tents could potentially cause problems in all the areas that the code addresses with regard to actual houses so I have to assume that the same issues are addressed with tents. If not there is a massive loophole that would have been exploited by thousands of people already.

Many people do already live in tents on their land. They do not however ask the building inspector to condone it when he comes for a housing inspection. A neighbor of mine had a storage container on his property. That turned out to be one of the items on his final inspection list. He bolted some wheels on it long enough for the inspector to check it off the list, then dropped it back on the ground after the inspection.

I don't even remember the exact question I once asked of the building department but I remember being disgusted that the person I talked to hemmed and hawed and said it was in the code. It was a cold call to the BD so I can not claim to have really worked for the answer but I could tell that the person I was talking to had no idea and far worse did not seem to think it was their job to get a correct answer for me. I also think it is entirely possible that someone from the building department could be extremely sure of their answer without it being correct.

It is clear to me that the Bldg Dept thinks that the code prohibits living in tents or other unpermitted structures. Bottom line, don't ask them, just do it, but be extremely unobtrusive, quiet, and a good neighbor. Some losers can't manage that even though they live in a real house.

[Wao nahele kane]

We'll see Bob... We'll see.
"No tent of canvas, plastic, or similar material shall be used for
residence purposes." - Again, cited and used out of context and the only reason why the ACLU has not stepped in yet, no-one has been cited by the fiction based ban as it does not pertain to them.

I already know firsthand that the ACLU is already poised to pounce on this issue and they do not agree with your out of context based interpretation. The old code was not in violation as it did not pertain to tents for private use on private property. The new code will have the ACLU involved very quickly.

And for anyone who reads this subject and who is living in a tent and subjected to the application of the old code out of context or the new code to emerge.
You should immediately contact the ACLU in Honolulu, they are waiting for your case to come forward with open arms.

An old e-mail -
July 29, 2008
Dear Mike,
Thank you for alerting us to this issue. The ACLU of Hawaii will respond to
your request via U.S. mail if you reply to this email with your mailing
address. If you know anyone who has been directly affected by this (in that
they received a warning, ticket, or are otherwise afraid that they may
receive a ticket in the future), please ask them to contact us. Thank you
for contacting the ACLU of Hawaii. -STOP

The rest of the issue is cited in regular snail mail.

The ACLU of Hawaii can be contacted at the following link regarding this matter.
http://www.acluhawaii.org/index.php?id=128




E ho'a'o no i pau kuhihewa.