Single-family homeowners / landowners should not have to seek permission from local governments to build on their own land, nor should they have to pay fees for permitting/government approval processes. Requiring the government’s permission to build on your own land is an infraction of Americans’ liberty. Attaching costs to the permitting process for single-family homeowners / landowners is classist and can restrict them from making necessary changes to the structures on their property based on their available funds.
Homeowners/landowners should, however, be required to present projected “natural resource” usage data to the local resource management government agencies. This should be done so that the agencies can ensure fair water/resource distribution and prevent harmful environmental impacts, based on a blend of Native American and modern science standards. The proposal of natural resource usage can be denied/approved by resource management government agencies, in which the landowner seeking approval must make changes to their plan to adhere to the agencies’ guidelines before moving forward with their project.
Government resource management agencies should be made up of voted-in, local council members. Lobbying of these council members should be entirely illegal and the council members should not be allowed to hold any stocks/investments during or after their terms. The council members should also have NO relation to any private interests (developers, investment funds, mining companies, etc.). It would also be great if a percentage of the council members be native Americans from the local areas.
Any building codes should be public, easy to read, and all contractors should be routinely evaluated on their job sites to ensure building codes are met. For projects where homeowners/landowners wish to conduct the work themselves (unlicensed), they should be provided with the building codes and their project evaluated upon completion.
This is amazingly well-thought out. I love how you replaced the permitting process that has fees and excessive regulation tied to it with a local-based impact and approval process. It has the perfect blend of homeowner rights tied to genuine community impact and safety concerns.
Excellent post! I just learned of something called “opt-out building” which is available (but under fire) in Arizona and perhaps other states. There should be a federal mandate for all states to allow this option to homeowners and DIYers. Alternative materials like hemp crete and earthen construction should be maximized. I have a 45yr old home in hurricane prone northern FL that is still sound, but I can’t afford to insure it, let alone rebuild to code. I’m not trying to battle mother nature, if she takes out the home I’ll start building something else and live in a tent in the meantime.
not sure if you have Facebook, but if you do, you should follow the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF). They’re like the ACLU for landowners and have had some significant Supreme Court victories, winning about 18 out of 20 cases. One recent victory involved a $20,000 fee for a road, and the Supreme Court sided with the landowner.
In 2023, they also won a landmark case on property taxes. The ruling stated that when the government seizes land for unpaid property taxes, they cannot keep the equity from the sale. They can only retain the amount owed in taxes, as keeping the equity violates the Fifth Amendment.
PLF works extensively in small towns and rural areas, combating excessive fees. Many local governments are likely unaware that they’re losing these cases because they’re not following PLF. However, PLF is swiftly eliminating these unjust fees.
“Homeowners/landowners should, however, be required to present projected “natural resource” usage data to the local resource management government agencies.” NO homeowners and landowners should not be required to present projected natural resource usage data. When you own private property, IT including the grass, trees, dirt, and possibly mineral resources, it belongs to you—it’s not public property.
The key word here is own—private, personal, not public. By talking about natural resource data, it implies that these resources belong to someone else, which they do not. The individual property owner should not bear the burden of public good. If the public values something on that land and doesn’t want it developed, they have the process of eminent domain to go through. A regulatory taking is still a taking and remains a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
I disagree about the projected natural resource usage. We need to become better stewards of this earth, and we can’t do it without understanding how various ecosystems work and the various independencies. We do tremendous destruction with clear cutting, blacktopping, manicured lawns using roundup, etc. That has to change radically. Nobody really OWNS land, it belongs to nature, not we humans. We need to work in collaboration & cooperation with natural systems to heal the damage we’ve inflicted.
