Some New York Homeowners face fines for backyard pools

reply to post by vtcajun


Tell me about it. What I wouldnt give for a fence on the MA border.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Exactly. from what the old timers tell me around here, VT used to be like NH till all the Mass migration (pardon the pun) and socialist movement took hold. May just be time to fence off NH and cede VT to Canada. VT and MA wonder why there are no jobs, but they keep adding fees and taxes to everything. MA I had to pull a permit to hang a picture on the wall (slight exaggeration) but you get the point. Came to VT, but over the last 5 years, things here have steadily gotten worse as local taxing authorities are requiring permits for nearly everything and taxes and fees keep going up. A neighbor wanted to put a playhouse in the back yard for the grandkids, but local authorities drove by and saw it and issued a summons for them to apply for a permit. They found a loophold and put it on wheels so that it appears as non-permanent. It is a playhouse for Christ sake. It is so ridiculous.

[edit on 8/4/2010 by vtcajun]

Originally posted by vtcajun
If what I do does you no harm then why do you have to come onto my property and worry about what I am doing. If I want dig a hole and fill it with mud and wallow in it, what business is it of yours?

Recently here in California, because of the infections disease called Malaria, there has been a state wide search for bodies of water which are not taken care of properly. This is because these dirty bodies of water are breeding grounds for mosquitos which spread Malaria.

People who didn't take care of their pools were fined for breading malaria infested mosquitos in their backyards.

Having a pool without proper filtration, and without taking proper care of it, can create huge DEADLY problems for your neighbors. It's a hazard to you an many.

I for one am glad that there is regulations imposed, and permits requiered for someone to have a swimming pool. Not only does this help prevent cheap men from ignoring filtration systems to help keep the water clean and malaria free, but it also keeps children safe when they decide to swim in it, and when animals decide to drink from it. There is various other reaons too..

So you should think about ALL scenarios before you write it off as some big monster trying to control you and your pools of water.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]

Yes, it is awful that the government is looking for pools that may not be fenced for kids to drown in, that can affect the surrounding neighbor's properties due to unknown construction, and that those neighbors get shorted because insurance doesn't cover the uknown pool. Yup, those evil inspectors.

reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne


But what you raise here as an issue has nothing to do with permits. Permit is only a one time tax meant to raise money for the government. Has nothing to do with one's ability or desire to maintain the pool. But yes, what you say is a public. And there are ways to do this than thru the standard jack booted way that government generally handles things, not meaning to imply that California does, just a generalization. For example a poster early in this thread mentioned the red tape required just to fill in a pool that is no longer wanted. I would venture a guess that it may be a similar situation in CA. Most people who allow their pools to fall into a state of disrepair or no longer take care of it, would fill it in if it were not such a process. Not to mention getting the pool off the property files to lower the property tax. Now that irresponsible governments have squandered all the revenue made from taxes of all kinds, they are raising property taxes while earning power drops and people are no longer able to handle their responsibilities as they once did. It is a vicious cycle perpetrated by an ever intrusive government (all levels).

reply to post by nixie_nox



Fence or no fence the liability is there for home owners. Namely because trespassing doesnt seem to be a punishable offense. Break a leg falling through the ceiling while perpetrating a crime and you can sue the homeowner under our legal system. You climb a fence and drown in a pool, the homeowner should have zero responsibility. No fence and for a small child it might be an attractive nuisance, but at a certain age everyone should have a level of respect and responsibility for others property.

reply to post by vtcajun


Those fences are there to keep small kids out in particular. And I am sure that a pool is far more enticing to them then a fence.

In 2004, of all children 1-4 years old who died, 26% died from drowning (CDC 2006). Fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death for children ages 1 to 14 years (CDC 2005)

It is estimated that for each drowning death, there are 1 to 4 nonfatal submersions serious enough to result in hospitalization. Children who still require cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) at the time they arrive at the emergency department have a poor prognosis, with at least half of survivors suffering significant neurologic impairment.

Of all preschoolers who drown, 70 percent are in the care of one or both parents at the time of the drowning and 75 percent are missing from sight for five minutes or less.

linky

[edit on 5-8-2010 by nixie_nox]

reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne


What about all the protected wetlands, swamps that you're not allowed to fill in and drain? Do malaria carrying mosquitoes assiduously avoid them, because they are no permit problems with them?

I don't think that is the reason. Reason in my next post.

The reason is property taxes.

If you have a pool, your property tax goes up. The revenue at stake is far far higher than a permit fee.

It's not the permit fee, it's not safety. The town is motivated to spy because then they could raise property taxes. Or, homeowners without pools want them to spy so that those with pools pay more of the total taxes the town must collect to run its operations, pay its bonds, etc.

This is abuse pure and simple.

The capacity for government to use proprietary technology to for their benefit far surpasses the majority populaces' comprehension.

Not okay in my book...

reply to post by MemoryShock


I agree with you 100%. Its a tough balance between law enforcement and privacy, but I think this definitely crosses a line.