It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It's All About Federal Funding - Feds tell Idaho man tree house must come down

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

It's All About Federal Funding - Feds tell Idaho man tree house must come down


www.ktvb.com

Tremain Albright's emotions surround his tree house overlooking the Kootenai River in Bonners Ferry.

He’s spent about $14,000 converting it into a guest house.

On Monday, the Army Corps of Engineers officially told Tremain the news that his tree and several others in the city are on the chopping block.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
So, apparently despite getting a variance allowing him to build this tree house where it is, the Feds and his local authorities are telling him it has to be torn down.

Why? $128,000 of Federal funding for free repairs to the levy. So much for states funding their own needs.

I realize this happens everywhere, but not only are they violating this man's rights, but they're also sucking away our tax dollars to do this - my taxes shouldn't go to do things in other states unless it benefits me...

www.ktvb.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
The lesson which hasn't quite sunk into Americans' heads? "If you accept federal money, you accept federal control."



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by joesomebody
 


So when 14 of his guests get maimed in its possible collapse whos gonna pay for it?

Unless maybe you have them sign an certificate to be turned away and left bleeding in the street infrount of the hospital should anything happen.

but we all know thats not gonna happen...


edit on 6-6-2012 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 

Forgive me, but it sounds like you're saying the federal government has the right to ban anything that might cause injury. Is that really what you meant?



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Is the tree on his property? If so the feds don't have nadda.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
My obligatory thank you "Oath Keepers" for "fighting for the Constitution" and thank you soldiers for "fighting for our freedom."



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
The Feds really have no say in the tree if it is on his own private property and he is in fact entitled to protect his tree guest house, for it is his and not for the government to cut down. They already attack us enough, through our money, food, water, air, education, and now land and personal property? When do we put our foot down?! When is enough enough? A few years ago my parents were recently sent a tax notice for mine and my sisters bus shelter we used to wait in for school. My parents decided to drag it back to the house and burn it. We didn't need it anymore, we are grown and out of school, but the government wanted something for it to sit there on private property. The more you have the more they want, it will always be that way and will never change. There are way to many power money hungry hot head assholes in this world that need a rude awakening.
edit on 7-6-2012 by 84Jake because: spelling



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
The story is vague, but if you follow it a bit the problem is the river, not the tree or the house in it. The area is protected from the flooding river by levy's, which, given NO are an issue if not maintained. If the house falls, it MAY wreck the levy in some way, as such the corp does not want to upgrade if the sword of Damocles is hanging. It isn't as if the tree is in the woods, it is on the river, in the flood plane, and if it falls during a flood it will injure others. Just an unfortunate sequence of events and circumstances here. While I'll back any land owner on almost anything, the issue is what his stuff might do to the town, and given NO, hard to argue. That said, the city should compensate him in some way as they gave him the go ahead.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Its a pitty you cant think logicaly.

We have elected people to make laws and keep order... if you dont like it change it, or LEAVE.

America is the ONLY place that has building and zoning codes..o wait i would only think that if i was an ignorant stupid $^&%.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by charles1952
 


Its a pitty you cant think logicaly.

We have elected people to make laws and keep order... if you dont like it change it, or LEAVE.

America is the ONLY place that has building and zoning codes..o wait i would only think that if i was an ignorant stupid $^&%.


Actually you must be. The article clearly states that he received a variance in 2007 and was lead to believe it was permanent. It wasn't until Federal oversight threatened to pull state funding because of the tree did it become an issue and the variance was pulled from him. This is a perverse use of power and that man should be compensated for his loss.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 

Dear Wertdagf,

Thank you for your interest.

Its a pitty you cant think logicaly.
I mean this seriously, would you please take the time to point out where I show I am unable to think logically? If I've got a big flaw, I'd like to try to fix it.


We have elected people to make laws and keep order... if you dont like it change it, or LEAVE.
Are you suggesting that I change the elected people that we have, or the laws? Actually I think both could use changing. That's what November is for, but thanks for the reminder.


America is the ONLY place that has building and zoning codes..o wait i would only think that if i was an ignorant stupid $^&%.
Perhaps my inability to understand your point here is evidence of my ability to think logically. The swearing and insults don't seem to strengthen your point. I understand that there are building codes all over the world which are usually codified at the local level, not the federal.

If I've misunderstood you (and i think I have) please try again.

Charles1952



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join