Father fights in court to save kids' treehouse

[Praxius]

The tree house is shaped like a pirate ship. Dewberry spent almost $2,500 building it in his front yard.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080421/BC_Treehouse_080421/20080422?hub=Canada

A Vancouver architect took his fight to save his children's pirate-themed treehouse to city hall on Monday.


Andrew Dewberry says he built the $2,500 treehouse in a cedar tree for his two young boys with the approval of the city -- permission granted over the phone -- and he's not going to take it down without a fight.


"This has ramifications well beyond where we are," said Dewberry outside court, whose arguments and court filings include appeals to international law.


As far as treehouses go, Dewberry's is the deluxe version -- a 45 square foot pirate ship, complete with cannons, perched in a cedar in Vancouver's tony Kerrisdale.


But two years ago, the trouble began. Dewberry had built the treehouse without a permit, and a neighbour didn't approve of how it blocked her view.


She complained to the city. When Dewberry tried to apply for the permit after the fact, he was refused.


Last year, the city's board of variance ordered that the treehouse be removed and gave the family 30 days to do so.


At the time, Dewberry said he was "blindsided" by the ruling, so he took the city to court.

His wife, Jayne Seagrave, says she can't understand why the city is fighting this hard to take down their treehouse.


The couple is representing themselves, but for the city the legal price is steep. Seagrave estimated that the court fees alone would be as much as $60,000, and the city's legal expenses might be as high as $20,000.


"We're in provincial court for three days and we can't really work out why we're here on this issue," she said.


The city maintains the treehouse is not a simple tree fort -- it's a structure, and the couple is failing to comply with an order to remove it.


In their own defence, Dewberry and Seagrave insist before they started building they were told on the phone by someone at city hall that they didn't need a permit -- so now they're fighting as a matter of principle, for tree forts everywhere.


The neighbour who launched the original complaint, Janice McShane, wouldn't comment on Monday.

As the world turns, these are the days of our lives......

 

[karrie]

Gawd forbid the neighborhood kids are outside playing. Most people would be damn lucky for a view of trees, let alone playing kids and a neat fort. I can't imagine the sort of bitter person who would fight to remove an outdoor play center from their neighbor's children.

 

[#juan]

But two years ago, the trouble began. Dewberry had built the treehouse without a permit, and a neighbour didn't approve of how it blocked her view.

Therein lies the problem. No Permit. Never, ever, rely on a verbal agreement with a beurocrat who might have to cover his ass later on.

On the other hand, it is an eyesore and should be taken down

 

[Praxius]

Personally, Laws be damned.... permits to build things with our very hands? Permits for this, permits for that.... I've heard of permits for homes and building extensions to your existing house..... but a fricking treehouse?

If they were adding electricity to the damn thing, sure, I could see a permit being needed, but this is wood nailed to wood..... on a tree.... which is made out of wood for those wondering. What view exactly is this treehouse blocking? More trees??

I love how people can bitch and moan, forcing something to come down because "It obstructs my view." ~ FFS, you want to see what's being blocked? Get off your sorry ass and walk outside until you can see it.

Fat friggin society.... cripes.....

*wanders down sidewalk continuing to complain about this and that, shaking his cane all over the place*

 

[karrie]

Well, to be fair, most permit waivers come with a price cap. We didn't need a permit to build a deck, so long as it wasn't worth more than $500.

 

[#juan]

quoting Praxius
I love how people can bitch and moan, forcing something to come down because "It obstructs my view." ~ FFS, you want to see what's being blocked? Get off your sorry ass and walk outside until you can see it.

If I had a nice view of the harbor from my window and someone builds some monstrosity to block my view, I'm going to be upset...........Not only with the loss of the view but the loss of my property value.

 

[Praxius]

If I had a nice view of the harbor from my window and someone builds some monstrosity to block my view, I'm going to be upset...........Not only with the loss of the view but the loss of my property value.

Where the heck does someone's "view" that they personally determined be of any value in a court or rellivent to someone's permit? I used to have a pretty good view of the harbour here in Halifax a few years back too.... do I miss it now? Nope. If I want to go see it again, I can go back there. What if some building is put up blocking my view from my original location I used to view it from? Goto the government and complain for them to knock it down because I can't see the sun reflect nicely off the water as I once did?

Things change, society grows..... And what people do or build on their own properties shouldn't have any matter to anybody else who doesn't live on that property so long as it doesn't pose any health/injury risks... as I personally see it anyways.

If I want to have one big upsidedown burning black cross on my front lawn and a bunch of lephrecauns hanging from a tree, I should have every right to do so, regardless of what the rest of the community thinks. Maybe I don't like their "View" they love so much..... maybe I feel my upsidedown burning cross and hanging lephrecauns is better.

What if I lived in that community for much longer then most, if not all the other people living there and they all don't like what I'm doing? Who has the final say on what I can and can not do on my property if I was one of the original people from that community to begin with?

What happens when one community is filled up with forigners who like things from their own culture and thus, start changing the apperance of the community as the majority see fit?

What about my burning cross and hanging little people in the tree?

 

[#juan]

The fact remains Praxius, that if you cost me money by your actions, you have to pay me. If the city approved of that damn pirate ship, I might be able to make a case in court to sue the city. One of the last houses I owned on the mainland didn't have much of a view untill the contractor finished the park that gave us a beautiful view of the park and the Fraser river, and my property value went up buy over a hundred grand. I knew the park was coming when I bought the house.

 

[MikeyDB]

Yep it sure is a good thing Canadians are dying in Afghanistan to protect the "rights" of Canadians who get fleeced buying permits....

How "free" is this great democracy when this kind of thing happens?

 

[#juan]

Yep it sure is a good thing Canadians are dying in Afghanistan to protect the "rights" of Canadians who get fleeced buying permits....

How "free" is this great democracy when this kind of thing happens?

A damn building permit cost what? twenty bucks? Hardly being "fleeced". Building permits are a good way to ensure that some poorly built "improvement" doesn't hurt someone after the house is sold.

 

[Zzarchov]

It all hinges on if you need a permit. Usually for tree forts you don't.


As for views and property values...

You only have a right to a view in my books, if it doesn't cross other peoples property. If your value is based on said view, then you have to also accept the risk that that view may disappear one day.

The value of your property is an investment, and so carries risk.


Example, Did the city make you pay $100,000 for the increase of your property value from their actions? What about if/when you sell your house?

If people are responsible for negatively effecting your property value, should they not benefit from increasing it?

 

[Praxius]

The fact remains Praxius, that if you cost me money by your actions, you have to pay me.

Not if what I do is on my property it shouldn't.

If the city approved of that damn pirate ship, I might be able to make a case in court to sue the city. One of the last houses I owned on the mainland didn't have much of a view untill the contractor finished the park that gave us a beautiful view of the park and the Fraser river, and my property value went up buy over a hundred grand. I knew the park was coming when I bought the house.

Ah so money over personal preference? Or is it both (ie: those who have money get the preference?)

When determining the value of a home/property, view shouldn't have anything to do with it's value, plain and simple. If there were health concerns like some chemical plant next door, then yeah, I can see a reason for the value to drop.

Should I be able to fight how much I pay for where I live because some fat ass next door owns an ugly yellow car with tiny wheels that don't fit the overall size, therefore obstructing my view of the street with this piece of crap? Should I be able to tell him he needs to get a better looking car or pay for my loses?

Where does one draw the line?

 

[johai]

We should all have had a father like this one. I salute him.

 

[MikeyDB]

That's exactly my point Paxius.

You don't own your house your land your yard your trees you occupy them at the whim of the neighbor who doesn't want his view obstructed...who will whine and bitch to city hall if you don't keep your lawn manicured...if you think you own your property try putting up a clothesline...(said this before)....you pay "taxes" for what? When your road gets plowed is it used by anyone else...taxi cabs, delivery companies, caterers service people transit companies truck drivers ice-cream salesmen...of course it does! When will the neighbor decide that you can't paint your house that color because it's an affront to his/her sensibilities and "shouldn't be allowed....? When in "gated-communities" you decide that the local playground isn't entertaining enough for your kids so you put one up for your children in your own backyard...how long do you think it would be before some "concerned" parent hires a lawyer to coerce you into court on the demonstrable negligence you display by erecting playground equipment where some other child might come to harm.... It's eveyone else's responsibility to pay for the permit and everyone else's problem when you do whatever you think you can with your property and your money and your life....but it's a noble enterprise to send our kids off to Afghanistan to die so the Mafia in city hall and the Parliament buildings can collect more taxes and more permit fees and exercise more control over your life....

Democracy and freedom....curious concepts...

 

[#juan]

Not if what I do is on my property it shouldn't.



Ah so money over personal preference? Or is it both (ie: those who have money get the preference?)

When determining the value of a home/property, view shouldn't have anything to do with it's value, plain and simple. If there were health concerns like some chemical plant next door, then yeah, I can see a reason for the value to drop.

Should I be able to fight how much I pay for where I live because some fat ass next door owns an ugly yellow car with tiny wheels that don't fit the overall size, therefore obstructing my view of the street with this piece of crap? Should I be able to tell him he needs to get a better looking car or pay for my loses?

Where does one draw the line?

My point Praxius, was that my view effected the value of my house. Take away that view and the property value drops. Lots of things influence property values. Some things can be controlled. Some cannot.

 

[MikeyDB]

"Property Values"

The excuse for defining what freedoms you'll permit and which you won't?

Greed is a lovely attribute to see being exercised as "rights"!

 

[#juan]

Greed???

I buy a rather ordinary house for half a million dollars. When I sell it, if I sell it, I would like to at least get back what I paid for it. That is greed? Nonsense! If it is anything, it is self-preservation.

 

[MikeyDB]

If you buy a house for any amount on specualtion then you have an argument, but if you buy a house to live-in and build a community around then your "property-values" argument is bogus. If you're a real estate developer you want to preserve that lovely vista of the lake or mountains or woodland etc. etc. so you can stand in front of the house when you're "showing the property" and drive home the beauty of the surroundings as something immutable and lasting.... Then when the deal closes you can exercise your option on that property across the road and put up that highrise you've got investors interested in....

One mans property values are another mans rung to bigger bucks....

Why on earth would you think you have some entitlement to recover the cost of your property at the expense of someone else's freedoms?

 

[#juan]

Mikey

I have(my wife and I have)bought five houses in the last forty years. Each one we have improved, and sold for more than we paid for it. Several houses ago we finished off the mortgage and added the profit to our savings. This I believe, is normal practice. I sure as hell do not apologise for it.

 

[dirtylinder]

This structure looks like it's entangled in a tree that obstructs the view with or without a fort in it...me thinks the neighbour is a complainer...next they'll be demanding the tree be cut down too!