Holmes Beach, FL — Lynn Tran and Richard Hazen have spent over $150,000 building a beachfront treehouse Anna Maria Island on Florida's west coast—in their own backyard. But it wasn't the cost of the treehouse which was so expensive, it was the legal fees they spent trying to keep the city from tearing it down. After years of legal jousting, the couple has appealed their right to keep their treehouse all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). However, on Monday, the state won.
SCOTUS claimed a case of the state forcing a property owner to tear down an expensive building on their own property was simply not worth their time. Tran and Hazen built the two-level structure on their property as a getaway from their main home. The treehouse has windows which allow guests to enjoy a beautiful view of the Gulf of Mexico. But city officials say the couple did not get the proper permit needed to legally construct the structure. Tran and Hazen disagree and explained that they did everything by the book.
They say they asked the City of Holmes Beach if they needed a permit and were told "No." Construction began in 2011. Shortly thereafter, a so-called "anonymous complaint" led city officials to investigate. That investigation resulted in the city telling the couple they had to take it down because the treehouse was outside of the city's set-back line and they did not have a proper permit for its construction.
They refused to tear it down and challenged the city in court. Unfortunately, the courts have sided with the city. Tran and Hazen then appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the court was not concerned with property rights and therefore chose not make a ruling.
Tran and Hazen only spent $30,000 on the tree mounted structure. In an interview with CBS News, Tran said, "The Supreme Court is the last court of resort...if it doesn't work out, we don't even want to think about it yet...especially when we knew we didn't do anything wrong." And in a telephone interview with the Associated Press, she elaborated, "Part of me still believes there's got to be justice out there and we didn't do anything wrong."
Sadly, her hope has run out. They are now going to be forced to continue to pay a $50 per day fine—which has been racking up for weeks—or tear it down. Make no mistake, if this couple refuses to pay the fine, armed agents of the state will come to their home and arrest them.
Tran and Hazen run Angelinos Sea Lodge, a rental property on the coast. They have no children and do not rent out the treehouse but say guests at their lodge enjoy spending time inside the structure, enjoying the views and the breeze. Holmes Beach Mayor Bob Johnson apparently couldn't care less what happens to the couple's investment. He said their fight to keep their treehouse is "quite honestly a waste of time," and added, "for some reason these people have this fixation on it."
For free-thinking freedom lovers, the thought of the city telling property owners that they can't enhance their own property is an absurdity. Even more ludicrous is the notion property owners ever really own their property. The minute a family stops paying government imposed property taxes, the city takes their property and sells it to someone else, all of which raises the question, "do we really own property or does the government just let us think we do."
After all, as TFTP has reported on numerous occasions, conforming to city codes and permitting is required by law. Even the act of gardening has been ruled illegal in some parts of the country.
Currently, in almost every state in the union, people have to have a permit to go fishing, build a shed, get married, travel, have a business, work, drive a car, and the list goes on and on. So, who's really free if every major life decision is left up to someone else?
damn gouv! they always make trouble!
Governments are inherently evil, corrupt and nothing more than extortion rackets.
Yes they always have to ruin everything! lol
My friend is in a similar situation in California. She and her ex husband decided to build an adobe home at the end of a dirt road in a remote area of San Diego county. They began construction in 1982. They did not apply for permits, but built the structure to the codes in force at the time. The marriage broke up and the house was never finished. My friend's husband lived in the temporary trailer until the whole area burned up in a firestorm in 2003. The adobe structure was unscathed. Her ex-husband moved on.
My friend got another trailer and pulled it onto her property in hopes of finishing the adobe. Even though the adobe was not damaged by the fire, the county would not issue her permits. She couldn't get permits because some bureaucrat had managed to change the earthquake danger assessment and now, no adobe structures are allowed in San Diego county, even though no adobe structure has ever collapsed in an earthquake in San Diego, including the original Spanish mission that dates back to 1769. And so her adobe home sat unfinished.
In 2010 two lawyers bought an adjacent 10 acre parcel out of foreclosure. They immediately turned her into the county, which has now put pressure on her to remove the structure, a structure that is not only fireproof, it's been standing roofless for 34 years and is virtually unchanged from the day construction ceased. The lawyers have now sued her to have the trailer removed as well.
How can it be that we cannot enjoy our property without government interference and neighbors who think their property extends beyond it's legal boundaries, in this case opportunistic leaches who have the legal resources to persecute an old lady who simply wants to live out the rest of her life on the property she bought 51 years ago?
Government is supposed to protect our freedoms and provide an environment where we can live peacefully, not persecute us for not paying them extortion fees or exerting pressure based on misguided policies and construction industry lobbying. What recourse does she have?
California is pretty much a Communist State. And soon to be hopefully it's own Country. Let's see how well they do with that.
More like a fascist dictatorship.
California will never be its own country. The "60 mile circle" that surrounds the LA civic center is the 13th largest economy in the world. Ya think Uncle $am will all let that go without killing everybody involved? Dream on.
To be honest I do not think we (The United States) needs Californias economy and/or all it's deficits we will be better off with out them and to be honest I do not think California could survive very long as it's own country. I can agree with Fascist Dictatorship...Fascism and Communism are very closely related.
You're right. We (the people) don't need California and would be better off without it. The government, however, needs all those Californians who work and pay taxes, own houses, drive cars, etc. The government's needs directly oppose the needs of the people. Read this post and you'll know where I'm coming from. :)
This is horrible! If it is their property and they made the initial inquiry about the required permits then they should be allowed to keep it. how bad are things when you cant have control of your own land anymore
Wow that tree house looks amazing it would be a shame to see it torn down. I hope this gets the visibility and press it needs so the family can keep it.
Instead of breaking the law and crying when they were caught, maybe they could have spent that time and effort informing their fellow citizens and working with them to improve zoning and building laws.
So you agree even when you own your own property. It's not really yours to do with what you wish.
For better or worse, it's really not. What property is depends on what rules the government sets up to protect and/or regulate it, so if the government is reasonably democratic, the nature and scope of those rules is based on what the people want them to be.
Both the fifth and fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution provide due process protections for "Life, Liberty, and Property" a reading of any number of founding documents (for the United States) shows clearly that the Founders held property rights to be as important as other human rights...and I agree with them whole heartedly
150K!? That seems very over-estimated. Unless there is one bed pan in there made of gold.
I read that they spent $30k on the actual tree house the rest has been legal fees etc. And with the $50 a day fine it's continuing to rack up.
what he said ^
ARRGGHHHHH Stuff like this makes me soooo mad.
And people wonder why we hate government! Cuz they clearly don't giver two F*cks!
"do we really own property or does the government just let us think we do." Not after reading this thread.
@highimpactflix does a great job explaining how government is simply, and I have truly come to believe this, Mind control. Without us "believing" that we need them and pay "taxes" they would cease to exist.
I wish. The day will hopefully come when all the zombies complacent with this shit will wake up and everyone will march at once on their government buildings. ARHG!
WOW
AMAZING
Follow me,ok
i think. government should save it...cause it's amazing..
If they took precautions to ensure its safety, I wouldn't even be mad. I'd be pretty impressed that they undertook such an endeavor. I'd probably slap them on the wrist for not going through the proper permitting process, but let them keep it.
It's a bloody treehouse! And it looks awesome! I say we let 'em keep it.
good . The control in order to maintain beauty and wonderful nature gives us enjoyment and psychological comfort
yeah i think the property will be more taken cared by the Government for one reason or the other
Dear @tftproject i learn many things with your post. Thanks dear..
Well, the property is practically owned by the government which basically leases it to the couple. They have to abide to the regulations of the imaginary entity that got everything through coercion.
I think the couple must fight for his rights
The tree house looks pretty nice. I hope everything will be fine for them. They also really look like a loving couple.
The house really looks amazing! & the location is superb! It is not fair if the owners paid all the building fees, licenses & permissions to the local government. Maybe the law has change in the meantime - during the building time?! But still strange. It seems somebody is jealous!
what is a 'set-back line'? anybody know?
A set back line is an interior buffer line that is off-set from the actual property line. So let's say you have a "20ft setback" requirement off your front property line, you are not suppose to build within that 20 foot space. Same goes for the Side and Back property lines. Different zoning classifications usually have different set back requirement measurements. Hope this helps :)
yeah, so the margin of their property as arbitrarily decided by some guys
Disgusting. I am a Floridian and I expected more from my State. We have a Constitution and it is being infringed upon daily and every second of every day.
US and their dumb laws, its my property and i should be able to do as i please
If you are going to put any sort of eyesore on your property without a permit make sure your neighbors are cool with it, they will be the ones who complain.
This is so bad.... when the govt are on your case, they don't put anything into consideration....sometimes I wonder if these govt officials really have a heart. I pray things work out for this couple
Super bummer. Yes all this permitting nonsense...it’s not like it was a skyscraper condo construction!
Both the fifth and fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution provide due process protections for "Life, Liberty, and Property" a reading of any number of founding documents (for the United States) shows clearly that the Founders held property rights to be as important as other human rights...and I agree with them whole heartedly