Garage Door causes arrest - WTF!

[thefool_wa]

Check this story from Colorado out: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/8661917/detail.html

The Boulder Daily Camera reported in its Thursday editions that Megan Forbes was arrested and taken to jail on Sunday for failing to show up on a court summons she received for replacing her original garage door with a new one.

The problem, the newspaper reported, was that Forbes' home is in the history Mapleton Hill area and replacing the original garage door on her 106-year-old home required a Landmark Alteration Certificate from the city -- something she didn't obtain.

Forbes was getting ready for church Sunday when a Boulder police officer knocked on her door, arrested her, and took her to jail.

This seems a little out of hand. First off, the fact that the cops took special time out of their Sunday to come and arrest her on her way to church is draconian at best. But my biggest complaint about this is that this type of offense should not necessitate a person going to jail. She probably shouldn't have ignored the summons, but come on, this seems to hardly be a civil matter, let alone a criminal one.

She owns the house, if she wants to replace the garage door let her. Hundred year old house or not, it is hers to do with as she likes.

They really are trying to build a prison, for you an me to live in.

[skygazer]

1. A friend of mine went through a similar thing

His property in Vermont was controlled by the Vermont Land Trust, a group that protects historical property. The property consisted of two houses, some barns and several outbuildings. To do ANY kind of structural work on any of those buildings, the family had to get the permission of the Land Trust which was only given if they went through many, many hoops outlining exactly the work that was to be done in great detail, etc.

One day, a tree was uprooted in a storm and fell on one of the barns which was in a delicate structural state anyway. It was badly damaged and was unsafe to go in or even near as it leaned dangerously. It took almost TWO YEARS to obtain permission to tear it down - repairing it would have been nearly impossible financially (the Land Trust only helps to a certain extent to finance any repairs or upkeep - it simply makes it almost impossible for you to do the work yourself). So he was left with an eyesore and a hazard on that property until we were finally able to take it down.

The idea behind these groups is often laudable but the execution is usually problematic.

[thefool_wa]

2. I find their existence problematic at best

I can understand protecting historic public property, but if you own a house what you do with it should be your concern and yours alone. This is like the perverted extrapolation of a home owners association, which is another practice I find questionable. No one should have a say in what you do your house except the building safety inspector. Even then, his only purpose is to check what you've done to make sure it was done safely and to code.

I say again though that the enforcement is my primary concern here. There's nothing quite like making everything as dramatic and uncomfortable as possible.

question in re your experience: what would "The Trust" have done if they just tore the thing down anyways without waiting or any hoop jumping?

[skygazer]

3. I'm not sure

I think there were legal ramifications but I don't really know what. I was a tenant on the property and the owner was a good friend which is why I was privy to as much as I was - his rantings on the subject were many and punctuated with some impressive colorful metaphors.

I can almost see a voluntary membership in an organization that actually HELPS you to maintain the historic integrity of your personal property but this situation seemed more one of antagonists. I'm not sure how the Land Trust got involved in the first place but it was a situation that didn't work out well for the property owners - they eventually had to sell the place because they couldn't afford to keep it in the manner required by the Trust. From what I understand.

[momophile]

5. I know there have been cases where people who tore

down without the proper permits have been made to rebuild. Extreme cases, but I did hear of one in Chicago when I was there in school for historic preservation.

[momophile]

4. I'm bullish about historic preservation

and while I don't think she should have been arrested, she does have to follow the rules of living in a historic district. If she doesn't like them, move. I know this neighborhood and it is wonderfully beautiful in its historic setting. The rules are no different than a covenant and if you don't like covenants, don't live in such a neighborhood. As for those who lived there before a district is landmarked, it is likely that your property value went up, so sell. (Of course, like everything else, this is not always the case)

As for historic preservation in general, I guess we could argue it all day. One way to look at it - would you agree that it is up to the owner if he/she wants to destroy art - let's say the Mona Lisa. Most would not agree, I'm thinking. And architecture is art too.

As for the garage door lady, it is not that she could not replace her garage door. It's that she needs to get it reviewed first. Big deal. It's not a problem finding a garage door that a historic commission will approve. Go through the process, like all your neighbors and get one approved.

I would like to repeat, though, that I don't think she should have been arrested (and I don't give a damn that it was on a Sunday or not).

[thefool_wa]

7. I would tend to agree

In principle that if you don't like it don't live there, and personally that is the approach I take. I would never live in a neighborhood where my neighbors had a say in what I do to my property or where I have to check with anyone (other than the building permit office - property has to be safe) before perfomring home improvements.

The story made it seem that the hoops necessary were extravagant, but again, as you said if you don't like it don't live there.

As far as the Mona Lisa, well I disagree there. If someone were to purchase the Mona Lisa for a grotesque sum of money it would take to do so, then it is their decision what to do with it. If they want to put it on public display, private exhibition or hack it into .5"x.5" squares, put glue on the back and sell the pieces as postage stamps, well they bought the art and it is their's to do with as they see fit. Is there a loss to the artistic community, definitely, but if they don't like it then they should make the owner an offer he can't refuse and protect it themselves. Achitecture is art, but it is transient art and subject to the whim of the owner (as it should be).

[Strong Atheist]

10. Agreed. nt.

[XemaSab]

20. Did they even HAVE garages in 1906?

:shrug:

[thefool_wa]

22. One can only wonder

Maybe it was in preparation for their first automobile, you know, 20 years later. And how do you maintain period for a house that obviously has anachronistic architecture.

weird.

[China_cat]

23. Historic preservation is one thing

but we have neighborhoods here that control what color your house can be, what bushes you can plant, prohibit you from having laundry hanging outside and don't allow you to own a pickup. The consequences for violating any of these can be as steep as confiscation of your property.

What I really can't understand are the people who live there.

[LostinVA]

6. Can't agree -- when you live in an historic district, you know

You have to abide by certain rules and regulations. That is supposed to eb the point of why you move into one: preservation. And, I think that's great. We've torn down so many great homes over the years. Right after college I worked in a City PLanning Department, and I can tell you most of our requests were for paint jobs, trimming trees, etc. Mostly normal stuff... but about 30% of the requests were for things that would totally change the appearance, destroy original components, or were just plain nutty (tearing off the back porch and putting in a huge Jacuzzi). These rules have to exist, because you can't trust some people to do the correct thing. She legally had no right to do what she did. She owns her home with qualifiers. That's the law. As is responding to a summons.

I live in a neighborhood with a HOA. Thank the gods.

If you don't want to be told what to do to your house, then don't buy a home in an historic district, or with an HOA.

[thefool_wa]

9. Why cling to the past

The existence of these types of associations is not a requirement and, in fact, can be a real hassle. There is little, if any real benefit in making it next to impossible for someone to improve their home. If a person wants to tear down a 100 year old deck so they can install a jacuzzi on the house they own, what is the tangible benefit derived from preventing them form doing so? What exactly is the benefit from having this type of organization period?

I understand that some people derive a kind of personal satisfaction from an aged thing and that we as human creatures cling to our past through the durable objects produced during time periods other than our own, but the world must move forward. I am all about the "if you don't like it don't live there" mentality, but the idea of telling someone they can't put a jacuzzi that they will take immediate satisfaction from in their own home because people who don't live in that home think, believe, or want the property to have some intangible historical value that they are not financially invested in is not only pointless and draconian, but (IMHO) is an infringement on the rights of the person who worked hard and accumulated the money to purchase the home in question.

However, since these organizations exist and are hard to dismantle, I will stick with the "if you don't like it don't live there" mentality and not live there. This woman still should not be in jail over an issue so petty.

question: are summons issued only for criminal matters, or both criminal and civil? I have a hard time believing she was arrested for failure to appear in a civil matter. generally the court just finds in favor of the present party and moves on.

[LostinVA]

15. Then a person shouldn't buy a house in an historic district

There are plenty of -- much cheaper -- houses available.

And, I don't consider it clinging to the past, I consider it much needed architectural preservation.

You can get a summons for a civil matter.

[Gormy Cuss]

11. I tend to agree. I would never buy a house with a HOA.

I love the fact that the houses on my street all look different, that no one can dictate my landscaping choices or the like. The county does have strict rules on tree removal, junk cars, and public eyesores but the rules are much more lenient than most of the HOA charters I've read or heard about from friends. Most of those friends sought out HOAs because it makes them feel more comfortable.

Now I would buy in an historic district and abide by the preservation rules. I like old buildings. My current house is my first residence built after 1920.

[thefool_wa]

14. County ordnances are different

They are established laws passed through our democratic system to help protect the property values of all, not pretentious groupings of petty megalomaniacs (can you tell I've had bad experiences with HOA's).

I may even be playing a little of the devil's advocate when it comes to historical districts as, much like you, if I bought a house in one my intent would be to keep it as it was - regardless of the Historical Society's existence. There is no other reason to buy an old, nice house than to preserve at least some of the mystique that comes from its age.

[LostinVA]

17. My HOA perfectly mirrors your first paragraph

>>>They are established laws passed through our democratic system to help protect the property values of all>>>>>

That's my HOA, not the last part of that sentence.

It's also an HOA that represents several thousand residences.

[LostinVA]

16. My HOA is great -- I love their regulations

WE live in a heavily wooded, very natural neighborhood -- it stops people from just cutting a tree over a certain diameter just for the hell of it, along with all the stuff you listed. I honestly don't consider anything in the charters to be nutty. I grew up in the country, with a guy who literally had a junkyard on his front lawn... I am grateful for the HOA stopping crazy people from moving in next door and chopping down all the trees and paving their yard.

It has nothing to do with feeling more comfortable... not to me, anyway.

[Gormy Cuss]

19. I wasn't making a NIMBY swipe by using the term comfortable

Sorry if it came across that way. I really do prefer to live only with municipal regs rather than HOAs or CCRs. If the city or county determines that everyone needs to get a permit to take down a tree, that's fine with me. I just don't like the private deals to make the same sorts or rules and more often than not I've heard of restrictions that I know I wouldn't want to put up with, like restrictions on house colors, or fencing material, or choice of trees, or paving.

Until I moved here I had always lived in old hodge-podge urban neighborhoods. That's my comfort zone and why HOAs rub me the wrong way. You said you're grateful for the protections offered by your HOA, so it works for you. I'd say it works for a lot of people based on the number of HOAs out there.

[jmowreader]

8. This is like Bush and the FISA Court

The lady knew the door she wanted to install--probably something like a Clopay Model 75 steel roll-up--wouldn't be approved for installation on her home, so she just went out and did it then essentially told the HRC to go screw itself by ignoring their summons.

Covenants are no mystery to those living under them.

[flvegan]

12. For a Failure to Appear? Always begs the question: Did she even

receive the summons in the first place? Service of Process in some regions is laughable at best.

[Robb]

13. Here's the door:

Courtesy Rocky Mountain News:


(snip)
Ironically, while Forbes apparently ignored the summons, she did meet with the preservation board's design team and had worked out a compromise, agreeing to install a garage door that was more in tune with the design sense of the neighborhood.

She put in the door two years ago, according to the article.

[CanuckAmok]

18. How to avoid arrest:

If a police officer shows up to arrest you, immediately run to the nearest car, smash a window, and begin to steal the stereo. This somehow makes you invisible to cops.

[thefool_wa]

21. I am soooo trying that the next time I run from the cops

not. :)

good for a laugh though...