Widow Faces Eviction In Fla. City For ‘living Off The Grid’

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Well, No.. She obviously doesn't or she wouldn't be sitting on a legal eviction notice for an uninhabitable residence.

Ok, after a bit of research I found the original report by FOX 4 NEWS:

Living off the grid

The report contains a video in which she explains how she is able to live off the grid:

* kerosene lamps for lighting
* portable propane cooker
* solar powered camping shower which uses rain water
* battery powered electronics (recharged with solar)
* non-perishable food for long term storage without fridge
* rain water powered toilet which can indeed flush

edit on 16/12/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

Yup... That is what I saw on the video report by watching what was on the counters and in the bathroom. She's also using a truckers shower, or camping shower bladder for personal hygiene. It's something I've used myself before, as it's marketed and sold as a 'emergency' shower solution, parked in the middle of nowhere.

Now, I have no right to say anyone can't live how they want, and it isn't what I mean to suggest. Quite the opposite..I'd wish her all the luck, elsewhere. However, when we join a community by moving into it, it comes with an understood acceptance of the laws and codes governing it, right? If there is something about that we don't like...move elsewhere. She apparently didn't check or didn't care what code was...and code doesn't much care that she doesn't agree with it. Maybe she'll be able to find a landlord somewhere else that will let her live that way and where laws don't prohibit it?

In this case, it's obvious, her cities code doesn't allow primitive camping conditions to exist long term in an occupied residence. As noted..this isn't unusual, but what she'd run into all over the nation as I understand general standards of city codes.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Well then I would argue the city codes are wrong (she doesn't exactly seem to live right in the middle of a city though, she appears to live in a more suburban area). What is the difference between having rain water and having town water? They are both a valid source of water, and she obviously has enough water to get by. Unless she's living in one of those places where they have made it illegal to collect rain water, which is also stupid.

This is why many of us just can't live of the grid. If you were to go full solar you need an expensive grid tie in system. In Cape Coral, Fl there is enough rain for someone to catch and live off of. Plenty of sun for solar. Using rain water to flush the toilet works, a composting toilet is also an option.

We the people can not win against this kind of bullying by the utility companies and cities. It is almost like they work together to assure the utility companies will get their monthly check from each resident.

This lady does not have a chance to stand up against the city and utility companies, maybe if there is enough outrage. Unfortunately stories like this are usually spun so the resident is portrayed as a derelict whose lifestyle is unacceptable and the city is just trying to make everyone safe.

According to WFTX-TV, the notice cited international property maintenance code which said the property is not safe to live in.

When I read that I immediately thought of Agenda 21.
What other "international" code could they possibly be referring to?
If true then part of Agenda 21 would seem to be based on ensuring everyone is good consumer of public utilities.

Reading about her losing her real estate license she was ordered to pay restitution but any prosecution they said "nolle prossed" (nolle prosequi) which means they will not pursue charges.

It sounds as if there is some interest group that has her targeted relating to real estate.
There's big money in that in FL and I suspect she was stepping on somebodies toes (or bank account)

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


What's the harm in using Rainwater vs. Tap water? Oh.. for one person in one example and doing it in a careful and intelligent way? No problem at all...

It doesn't take real time to look at slums around the world and understand the purpose of residential building codes and base requirements if you choose to be a homeowner or tenant in a given area, though.

It comes back to the same thing...it's camping in a house. Houses aren't for camping...unless you'd like to buy land, be away from others you will impact with your primitive approach and give it a shot like that.

Heck, I'm up to over $300 a month on my utilities. Do you think I wouldn't love to tell them where to stick all that? Water alone is ..obscene. Still, I live in a city and I have codes I must follow to remain living here. I agreed to that when I bought the house, in principle if not by official contract. So did she.

* in terms of population density? I see other homes within sight and shouting distance of her. Hence..codes matter. Of course, we could just erase all codes ..and we citizens can handle problems like this ourselves. Civil court, if nothing else....but then, I'd ask just what my taxes to the city are going to pay for, if not basic enforcement of the same codes I have to follow?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

it's camping in a house

A house is merely an elaborate tent. How one chooses to live in their residence should be of no concern of the State unless she is bothering people around her, which she doesn't seem to be. There is absolutely no valid reason to be harassing her. If she gets by on rain water then let her be. I bet if she had some sort of proper/elaborate water collection system then suddenly it would be more "acceptable" for her to live like that. Countless people live off tank water alone in the area where I live.

Yeah, this has Agenda 21/Sustainable Development/Regional Planning council written all over it.
Agenda 21 implementation has been going on for around 20 years, and in that time, Regional Planning Councils have been forming everywhere globally. Wherever you are, if you are in a U.N. member nation, you are most likely under the "jurisdiction" of an RPC.
I took the liberty of looking up the one that covers Cape Coral:
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council

These organizations all follow the same guidelines, instituting local laws/codes that are taken from the Agenda 21 Local Planning Guide, which is a very big book full of "model statutes" that are then implemented by local governments.

In this way, localitites are able to institute land use laws, and make changes to property rights and zoning regulations without any truly valid input from residents. The meetings they hold about these important issues use specific tactics to make the residents think they are the ones making the decisions, when the outcomes are predetermined before the meeting even starts.

Take a look at that link for the Cape Coral planning council, look it over.
Then do a web search for the one that covers your area.
You'll most likely find it by using the nearest city of significant size along with terms like "sustainability," or "regional planning commission (or council)."

Wrabbit2000
Now, I have no right to say anyone can't live how they want, and it isn't what I mean to suggest. Quite the opposite..I'd wish her all the luck, elsewhere. However, when we join a community by moving into it, it comes with an understood acceptance of the laws and codes governing it, right? If there is something about that we don't like...move elsewhere. She apparently didn't check or didn't care what code was...and code doesn't much care that she doesn't agree with it. Maybe she'll be able to find a landlord somewhere else that will let her live that way and where laws don't prohibit it?

The eviction notice was based on INTERNATIONAL maintenance code (which suggested there was an absence of any similar local code). Where exactly would you like her to move to? Could you kindly tell us which part of the world you think is exempted from being part of "International" community? It's amazing how the few "international" entities could dictate what the majority could or couldn't do and expect them to accept everything with blind faith. And it is more amazing that you think this is ok???

Just because she promoted an idea someone didn't like, that a government body could be summoned to use public funds to go through the trouble to hunt her and shut her down (her location was kept secret in her first interview) should be quite alarming to anyone. She would have avoided the eviction notice if she had not granted the interview. What's more, the notice was served without any proper prior inspection or warning which indicated to me it was the work of the lazy bullies.

Because of the publicity and more people supporting her would the city now consider allowing her to keep her home if "she could prove" she could sustain living off the grid. Is it no longer "innocent unless proven guilty" but "guilty unless you can prove innocence"? Truly amazing...

Britguy
I read this story yesterday evening.
I could not believe they'd be so callous as to threaten to throw her out of her own home over some mad-up BS! It's made worse by the fact that nobody from that office has ever visited her or been inside her property.

I think cases like this are more to do with control than anything else. We are all supposed to be good little consumers and people like this, going off the grid, are a threat to the corporations. If more people started doing this it would impact their profits. The very idea though that they can threaten to seize your home is incredible!

Agreed, but what is even more amazing is the straight faced, unbelievable hypocrisy.

They are telling the people that incandescent light bulbs are being withdrawn because they use too much energy / are inefficient, save energy, the grid is at capacity, the environment is dying, global warming is man made, we're all friggin doomed is we don't switch off the telly at night...then when someone listens and does something about their energy and resource usage, and takes the burden off the state, they threaten to kick her out of her OWN HOME!

Totally unreal.

She'd be better off selling up and moving to a state run by people with more than a handful of brain cells and a few morals to boot.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


My old Mum often tells me that when she was a kid, in her little cottage there was no running water, no heating, no electric light (deepest Wales during the 1940's), no evening meal (they used to beg for tidbits from her fathers plate!) and very little of anything else in terms of comfort, except a log fire.

They used to wash outside in a water butt, with collected rainwater which was usually freezing cold. (said it made her hair really soft)

They used to have a tin bath by the fireside as a treat!

This was the same for 90% of her peers, and very few if any of them actually suffered...it was just the way it was back then.

How is what this woman is doing any different? If anything she is probably living in comparative luxury.

MysterX


They are telling the people that incandescent light bulbs are being withdrawn because they use too much energy / are inefficient, save energy, the grid is at capacity, the environment is dying, global warming is man made, we're all friggin doomed is we don't switch off the telly at night...then when someone listens and does something about their energy and resource usage, and takes the burden off the state, they threaten to kick her out of her OWN HOME!

Totally unreal.

She'd be better off selling up and moving to a state run by people with more than a handful of brain cells and a few morals to boot.

Let's say an entire community or city were to switch to LEDs, use better insulation, cut back on wasting power so much so that they made a significant dent in their power bills and power consumption. The power company would look at this as a loss and simply raise power rates to make up for 'lost income.' It is a rigged system.

California is an example where something like this happened, they were experiencing a drought and were advised to cut back on their water intake, not water their lawn, ect.. When the water company realized they were getting significantly less per person because of the water restrictions they raised the rates for everyone.

There is a big push to make it a requirement to have a utility and water/sewage bill if you have a home. Most people can live off the grid no problem without 'camping out of their home' but this is unacceptable to the utility companies who place a dollar amount on every household.

Asktheanimals

According to WFTX-TV, the notice cited international property maintenance code which said the property is not safe to live in.

When I read that I immediately thought of Agenda 21.

And rightly so. I think alot of folks who see the word "international" here get the same idea, I know I did. But I did a little checking into this and "international" in the name I believe is to bolster their own inflated ego and attract members. It is infact a US based association as can be found here on their website: ICC: International Code Council

As for the 'code' they say she is breaking (basic plumbing and electrical) it can be found here in the document they cite IPMC: International Property Maintenance Code , sections 5 & 6 repectively (pages 19-26). Given, I have not read this indepth and only given it a cursory glance so I could be way off the mark here. However, in the code it does not say that she HAS to use these things only that it has to be provided as per code. In reading the OP's link and the other links provided in the article it does not say if these things can be found on the property or not but it DOES state that the governing entity has not been on or in the property to verify, only to serve notice.

If it turns out that the 'appropriate' hook ups for these things can be found on the poperty and they are indeed in working order then I would say they need to back off, as it would be her decision to use them or not on property she owns. Just going on what can be seen in the videos, it does not look to me as if her lifestyle decision to be 'off grid' is endangering either herself or her neighbors....the fact is, no one has filed complaint about it until now. Just another confirmation that keeping one's mouth shut in certain situations is the best.

Lol at the statist government worshippers in this thread. Disgusting.

You will surely be screwed during Armageddon.

I use utilities and stuff all the time but I don't frown upon those living off the land to the best of their ability, and as long as they are not affecting others in a negative way then it's None of your GDB.

Somebody will help here around here many don't pay their bills and the demoncrats made it illegal to turn off the gas and electricity. No real reason to pay anymore somebody else will pick up the bill

Why evict someone who isn't consuming the local utilities?

For the same reason credit card companies don't want customers who actually pay their debts.

There's no benjies in it.

I think one of these days, the smart-meters they are installing on all of our homes will be shown to not only ration how much we can consume, but also to enforce consumption in the first place. I'm thinking any home where electrical consumption drops below a certain number of kWh, the meter will send out an electronic signal alerting the utility companies to scramble the strong-arm squads.

Don't forget, we are all just digits in a customer database to entities who are far more powerful than individuals (because they can afford lawyers.)

Re: 'Camping in one's home'…

Why would it be just fine to live with one or more of the following but considered "camping" if you utilize all of them?

In Florida, many people (in cities and suburbs) have septic tanks instead of being hooked up to sewer lines (in my neighborhood all 300 houses have septic tanks, they are perfectly sanitary and perfectly legal).

I would bet that this woman has a septic tank, as her toilet does flush and she uses her regular bathtub for showers…So, there's no health issue at all as far as her 'waste' water….Actually, since this water flushes and drains thru her pipes, you could say that technically she does have "running" water….

As far as where she 'gets' her water, there are many people who have their own (legal) personal wells on their property (my parent's neighbors do), choosing well water over the city's…how can it legally make any difference whether the water comes from underground or from the sky… And as long as she is sanitizing it before using, it is perfectly safe…

As far as electricity, there are many places where people power their homes with natural gas and even people who have electricity often have a 'gas' stove/oven, because they feel their cooking turns out better than with electric ones…And certainly many, many homes up north are heated with wood stoves and fireplaces...

Taking all of the above into consideration, you really cannot make the claim that this woman is 'camping' in her house...

IMO, the woman was targeted by local utility companies (who probably paid someone in government to come down on her), because they are worried that others will follow her example and negatively affect their bottom lines...


The fact alone that code enforcement never even went inside her house, is evidence to me that something 'illicit' went on here…


And as far as their digging up the woman's past legal history (being charged with theft of $3500 in a real estate deal), the one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other and is just an attempt to obfuscate the issue by calling the woman's morals into question...

reply to post by Kurius

The "System" Doesn't want people living off the grid because then you are not paying back into the system via water, electric, cable, internet, and house tax bills.

I've been wanting to build a tiny-house, aprox 200 square feet and park it in my sisters yard in the suburbs, living off the grid, but there are so many laws in the way, stacks and stack of foot thick books, that is a beaurucratic (sp?) nightmare

there are many "off the grid" communities here in Australia,so far the authorities are ok with it,or at least look the other way.......people should be able to live how they want in rural areas,different story for the cities as people are tightly knitted therefore regulations are needed for health reasons.....

this lady was clearly quite comfy in her lifestyle and was not affecting anyone else,certainly not posing a health risk.....crazy world we live in......

MysterX

She'd be better off selling up and moving to a state run by people with more than a handful of brain cells and a few morals to boot.

And what state would that be?