Quick! When I say “outdoor playhouse” what’s the first thing that comes to your mind?

For many it might be something like this: fun, neat, cool, independence, getaway, or any number of other positive terms.

Unfortunately, what I think of these days is code enforcement.

When I named my book (and the blog, etc.), “Technically, That’s Illegal,” I knew the phrase would come up in conversation quite often. You see, many things people do are, technically, illegal.

Last fall, I told you about an illegal treehouse. Today, I’m going to tell you about an illegal playhouse. It belongs to a 5-year-old boy.

One neighbor said the playhouse takes up too much space and “makes it look like junk.”

But neither youth, charm, nor ignorance are any excuse for not following the law in Ocala, Florida.

…the family has been told the playhouse requires the special variance from code enforcement and approval from the historic preservation board.

If it doesn’t get approval, the playhouse must be moved or torn down within 120 days, or the family will start accumulating fines of $25 a day.

Of course, even if they apply for the variance, it doesn’t mean they will get approved. It seems like some folks in that neighborhood have some serious issues!

The post Illegal Playhouse appeared first on Technically, That's Illegal.

Related posts:

1. Illegal Treehouse
2. Free Water, That’s Illegal
3. Inside the Mind of a Code Enforcement Officer
4. Illegal Nutrition Blog
5. Don’t Worry, They Don’t Enforce These Things

A good way to tell whether government officials are out of control with their power-hungry, nitpicking, forced adherence to a myriad of rules is when they begin to harass people who are trying to do good deeds.

For the last 30 years, a group of nuns in Miami have been operating a soup kitchen that was founded by Mother Teresa. A few days ago, these sisters found a violation notice from the city’s code enforcement department. You guessed it — they never got a permit to feed people. (The linked article is an opinion piece)

The sisters felt intimidated because the notice ends with a threat: operating “a business without all required licenses is illegal under state and city law and is punishable by criminal arrest and/or closing the business.”

With such aggressive language, it is obvious that city government shows no respect toward these religiously devoted women and lacks the basic sensitivity to differentiate between a business without a license and charity work.

The post Illegal Soup Kitchen appeared first on Technically, That's Illegal.

Related posts:

1. Illegal Yard Sales
2. A Home for Tent Cities
3. The Hunger Wars in Philadelphia
4. More Hunger Games
5. Government Fail

Over a year ago, I found out that allowing your dog to ride with you on your motorcycle was illegal. Today, I found out that lawmakers in the state of Illinois are discussing making a law that bans driving with a dog on your lap.

Dogs in the driver’s seat — on their owners’ laps — is a dangerous but common habit, said state Rep. Dan Burke (D-Chicago), co-sponsor of the bill.

“Because I travel, I can’t help but observe the number of people with dogs on their laps,” he said. “It is a public safety concern. If a driver is distracted, certainly it would be a risk to other motorists on the road.”

So, he travels and observes and that’s supposed to be good enough? Please notice that he did not mention ever witnessing this causing an accident in his extensive travels. If dogs on laps are causing accidents, I would hope that we would hear those statistics when trying to get a new law passed, rather than personal, anecdotal observations.

In order to sound more legitimate, the lawmakers start talking about how dogs in accidents can become dangerous projectiles, which is true. However, this has nothing to do with whether the dog is on your lap or not. The dog could be a dangerous projectile in the back seat. So, if the problem is unrestrained dogs, that’s what the proposed law should reflect. They should build public support for it by citing statistics in a scientific manner and build the case for a public safety/health concern. That shouldn’t be too hard to do in today’s safety-obsessed culture.

Instead, the plan in Illinois is to build up to the law they really want — that all animals in cars have to be restrained. (The quoted person is someone who has started a dog seatbelt company after her personal experience with a car accident where her dog was present).

Although she’d like to see a bill that requires dogs to be fully restrained like Burke’s, not just prohibited from riding in a driver’s lap, Ramirez knows changing the trend will take “baby steps.”

“It is the most dangerous when a dog is on your lap,” she said.

All of this discussion goes back to the idea that laws should be in place to punish actual crime, not the potential to cause damage somehow. It’s not as if there’ s a 1:1 ratio of lap dogs to accidents. Not even close. However, I am starting to think the ratio of lawmaker to control freak is coming pretty close…

The post Driving with Dogs appeared first on Technically, That's Illegal.

Related posts:

1. Teen Driving Restrictions
2. Drug Dogs
3. Fines for Animals in Cars
4. The Stuff That Laws Are Made Of
5. There’s a Law for That

The secret to surviving a bad economy if you are a local government is to “ramp up” code enforcement.

Property values are down, which means that real estate tax revenues are down as well. Of course, most cities don’t re-appraise the property values, but any person who receives an unfair tax bill will have redress with the city and will probably win since it’s a known fact that property values have plummeted in the last few years.

So, when municipalities discover they have budget shortfalls as a result, they go into hyper mode about enforcing codes. Here are some examples that have been highlighted recently:

1. In Ballwin, Missouri, a homeowner can be fined for having children’s toys in the yard.
2. Even though the typical American lawn is wasted space at a time when we are concerned about the environment and having enough to eat, homeowners in Orlando can get fined and have their garden removed if it is in the front yard.
3. People are typically into environmentalism until it means that they might see large planters and clothes lines from the street. The horror!

In Huntington, West Virginia, they are attempting to take it a step further by not only ramping up the enforcement of their current codes, but also making more things illegal. They are set to vote on a new ordinance. (Emphasis added)

The ordinance also prohibits building materials being stored outdoors unless they are for a permitted project on the property. Penalties include fines of up to $500, up to 30 days in jail or both.

The ordinance is just one part of Williams’ multi-pronged approach to improving the quality of life in Huntington by ramping up code enforcement. The council also will vote on a resolution Monday that authorizes Williams to apply for a federal Justice Assistance Grant in the amount of $28,000 to hire a compliance officer. The position is proposed to fall under the Police Department, not the Division of Inspections and Compliance.

Naturally, this is phrased as a “quality of life” measure rather than a revenue generating measure. Safety! Safety!

If you click the link and continue to read, you will also find out that the city is attemping to get a federal grant in order to pay the salary of a new code enforcement officer that would be needed. That’s practically akin to acknowledging that the city doesn’t have enough money to pay their own officer. Yet, they want people to believe that these new measures are about quality of life and safety.

Additionally, the city of Huntington is looking into having the ability to issue on the spot citations, rather than giving a warning period for compliance.

Williams also has indicated that he will seek the ability to issue on-the-spot citations through the Municipal Home Rule Pilot Program, Williams said. Property owners now have a 10-day warning period to clean up their messes before they receive a citation. Charleston was granted the authority to issue on-the-spot citations as part of its home rule plan and it has worked well, Williams said.

Now is probably a good time to go ahead and read your city’s municipal codes. If something like this hasn’t begun to happen in your town, it’s probably only a matter of time. You never know when they’ll start enforcing these things, and you don’t want to have to rely on the ignorance claim.

So, what is the secret to surviving this bad economy? Have a steady stream of revenue at your fingertips in the form of taxes. When that begins to fail, make sure someone gets punished and literally has to pay.

The post The Secret to Surviving a Bad Economy appeared first on Technically, That's Illegal.

Related posts:

1. Inside the Mind of a Code Enforcement Officer
2. Don’t Worry, They Don’t Enforce These Things
3. More Hunger Games
4. They Want To Take Your Property
5. My Neighbors’ Battle with Code Enforcement

You should have come to the point by now where you distrust nearly every recommendation that comes from any government official. They have interests in the statements they make, and it’s not often altruistic safety and health concerns. Most politicians are bought and sold by business interests, lobbyists, NGOs, etc. So, when they form committees and make blanket recommendations for the health of the nation, you should be just as wary about their statements are you are about any salesperson’s claims about their product. Because, like the salespeople, they have a vested interest in their product, whatever it might be.

When a salesperson lauds their latest gadget or service, we know that we’re not getting the full story. We assume they stand to make money on their endorsement of the product. But, for some reason, we don’t always analyze the government claims in the same way. Somehow, we think that the government officials are unbiased and have our best interest in mind. After all, their not even referred to as politicians anymore — they’re public servants.

One of the obvious ways that government oversteps its bounds is to make food recommendations. It is vital that people get good information on food/nutrition, and be left to make their own decisions. In no way should government restrict our food choices by outlawing what they might consider to be unhealthy. For one thing, this is not a proper role of government. Secondly, they are abysmally bad in their health conclusions.

The most recent example of this calls for a compare and contrast:

Government recommendation regarding dairy –

Choose fat-free or low-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese.

Latest study regarding dairy –

Skim milk may not lower obesity risk among children.

It’s just one study and it only touches on one point of health (obesity), but more will be posted in the future. Until then, if the government says to choose lean protein, I’d look for the nearest goose if I were you. It seems that no amount of studies will change what government recommends (and tries to legislate) that we eat.

Other government recommendations from choosemyplate.gov:

Most Dairy Group choices should be fat-free or low-fat.

Choose lean or low-fat meat and poultry.

Fortunately, the tide is turning in popular culture and media regarding fat’s role in obesity, but don’t expect government to catch on anytime soon.

The post Distrust Government Recommendations appeared first on Technically, That's Illegal.

Related posts:

1. What is the Role of Government?
2. Government Fail
3. Nanny State on Your Plate
4. Large Sugary Drinks Ban
5. Learning From Denmark

Two weeks ago, I took a break from the Internet. I hadn’t done that in…my whole life. I didn’t do facebook. I didn’t do twitter. I didn’t do stumbleupon. I didn’t read blogs. I didn’t promote my content. I didn’t write new content. I didn’t do anything online. And…I didn’t miss it like I thought I would.

I didn’t want to take a break from the Internet. It was something I agreed to do with a friend. I didn’t want to do it, and I don’t necessarily like the implications of what I learned from my unplugged time. But, here’s the bottom line: My podcast will be less predictable (length-wise and schedule-wise). I would prefer to do them at my leisure, rather than being on a schedule. Therefore, I will no longer be airing on Indiana Talks. They have given me a great opportunity, and I loved my time there. But, it’s just not practical to continue.

I will continue to post here about absurd laws and people getting into trouble for stupid stuff, so I encourage you to maintain your subscription or to subscribe if you don’t already. Please keep in mind that I have two different feeds. You can subscribe to the podcast or to the blog. I want to continue to make great content while not being obligated to do so on a schedule.

Some of you may be interested in my rationale, so I will use the next few paragraphs to explain myself. If you just want to know how this affects my website, just know that I plan to continue to blog and podcast, just at my leisure.

1. First of all, I have noticed that since I started my podcast, my blog content has been less than stellar. If I make a post at all, it’s less than one per week. Even then, however, it usually turns out to be something that I thought was interesting but that I couldn’t talk about for an entire segment of the podcast.
2. I only have so much time. When I started the podcast, it was before Christmas. Now that the weather is going to get warmer soon, I just don’t see myself sitting behind a computer that much. For reference, I work on my podcast for 6-10 hours per week. I know that’s not a lot by some standards, but I am a stay-at-home mom and my only work time is when my kids are sleeping. They aren’t going to continue to sleep this much every day, especially once it’s warm outside. Also, as a stay-at-home mom, I have many other duties, including cooking dinner every night, doing the grocery shopping, etc.
3. I want to have more time to do things locally. I want to be more involved with Harvest of Talents. This requires me to do crafts and refinish furniture, etc. I can’t do that if I’m behind a microphone or an editing screen during the only free time that I have (during naps).
4. I want to hang my laundry out to dry — literally. I want to take life more slowly, and with fewer obligations. I only get to be a mother of young children once. I don’t want to be this busy. I don’t want to tell friends “no” to a picnic lunch outside because I’m recording my podcast.
5. I am also the “webmaster” for my church. We are looking at embarking on a big project — an online pictoral directory, which will take a good chunk of my time.
6. I have narrated three audiobooks so far. I’d like to be open to doing another one in the future, but there’s no way I could schedule that into my day while I am recording podcasts.

I hope you guys can tell that I am passionate about the topic of liberty, and I will continue to promote it with this website.

The post The Future of Technically, That’s Illegal appeared first on Technically, That's Illegal.

Related posts:

1. The Legal Watchdog’s Review of Technically, That’s Illegal
2. Podcast Announcement
3. Not Illegal to Record Cops
4. Why It’s a Big Deal to be Arrested
5. Follow-up and a GIVEAWAY

On March 10th, I released a podcast episode called, Behold the Power of Children. This is a partial transcript of the first segment of that episode. Please keep in mind that my writing in this post reflects my speaking style, and therefore contains some imprefect sentence structure.

In the episode, I discussed a show called Hoarding: Buried Alive — and something interesting that transpired in a certain episode:

I like the show (Hoarding) because I have a background in counseling. And one of the most effective ways of counseling I believe is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, which is what is typically used on hoarders and other people with OCD.  What it amounts to is exposing the person to whatever it is that makes them anxious, making them sit there with their anxiety, and reporting on their anxiety level as they go on.  It’s very similar to the pain scale that they use in hospitals. They’ll ask you to rate your pain on a 1-10 scale, and 10 is like the worst you’ve ever experienced in your life and then 1 is just like whatever, nothing.  So doctors and nurses will come in every now and then and ask you about your pain level and they’re trying to gauge how your medication is working and how the treatment is progressing, and so on.

These behavioral therapists do this with the people’s anxiety level.  So these hoarders have a mental disability that causes them extreme anxiety when they go to throw something away.  It manifests slightly differently from one person to another, but that’s the basic gist of it.The therapist will take and handle this person’s belongings and say, “I am going to take this item home with me, how do you feel about that?”  And they’ll say, “Oh that makes me so nervous.” That’s like a 9 or a 10 on their anxiety and they just sit there. And they ask in a minute or two and they receive a similar response only it’s like maybe a 7 or a 8.  And they sit there and they let their anxiety run its course. They realize eventually that their anxiety goes down. Typically, they’re eventually able to get rid of things knowing that their anxiety about it will go away; they’ve just never allowed themselves to sit with the anxiety that long.

I believe it’s an effective therapy. Really it’s one of the more scientifically-based therapies out there because it has a procedure, and it has a rationale to it. One of the most interesting things happened in an episode I watched the other day.  This is episode 1 of season 2.  There is a woman who takes her children into their grandfather’s hoarded home to see the severe hoarding situation. Keep in mind this man does not even have plumbing or anything like that, because when things break in these houses are hoarded there is no way to get a repair person in there whether they can afford it or not. They’re either too embarrassed or their pipes aren’t even accessible.  So when the house becomes so cluttered that you can’t even get workmen in there, you know you obviously have a problem.

But I thought bringing her children in was an exceptional method of therapy.  For one thing, we always question whether we should expose our children to anything negative or uncomfortable. And this woman specifically said that she likes to teach her kids about reality. This man, their grandfather, doesn’t even have paths to walk through. He’s literally walking on top of things.  Now I’ve seen hoarding and I’ve watched the show Hoarders and I’ve seen a variety of different severity levels of hoarding.  This one was pretty bad, to not even have a path.  Most people even if they have to shimmy down or turn sideways, they can have a path where they can see the floor.  This guy didn’t even have that.

Sshe did her best to prepare her kids for what they were going to see but then she just hasd to expose them to reality. And I love that; I love that we cannot plan our teachable moments for our children.  If we could just plan them out conveniently into our schedule, there would be no such thing as a true teachable moment.  It has to be based on reality in real time for it to really be effective.

Secondly the impact that those kids had on the grandfather was amazing.  Kids just say what they’re thinking, they break it down into simple terms , and they’re honest. And so even if they say the exact same thing that a 35 year old or a 45 year old would say- it means something different. Because you know they don’t have all this clutter in their mind about what needs to be said or about how not to hurt someone’s feelings and so on.  And so the kids went into the situation and said thing like, “Grandpa why did you start saving all of this stuff?” This is obviously something that all of us want to know, but we might not say it like that. It was the innocence that the children bring to the situation that was so profound.

Our tendency to protect and shelter our children form everything negative- first of all it’s not healthy for them to be sheltered in that way. Secondly, we are underestimating the difference that our children can make to other people when they are exposed to that negativity if they are allowed to process it. The title of that episode is called “Everything’s Junk” and like I said it’s available on Netflix.  Season 2, episode 1 of Hoarding: Buried Alive.  I really recommend that you guys check that out if you have an opportunity.  A lot of that TV can be very just sensational and ridiculous but I do find interesting tidbits regarding therapy, and human behavior, and psychology in shows like this. And getting the kids involved in someone’s’ therapy I thought that was remarkable.  And it just speaks to our tendency to shelter them. And makes me really want to emphasize that we need to second guess that strategy with our kids.

The post The Therapeutic Value of Children appeared first on Technically, That's Illegal.

Related posts:

1. Behold the Power of Children
2. Children and the State
3. Give Them Some Credit
4. Drug Use and Intelligence
5. Teen Driving Restrictions

We all know that government officials have gone overboard in their nannying of our food choices. This post won’t re-hash all of that — here’s a good summary. Besides the obvious fact that this is not acceptable in a free society, there’s also the fact that the government officials and their consultants are terribly inept at deciding which foods are unhealthy and which are not.

Over the years, we have heard a variety of different messages from the various governmental departments on this subject. The Department of Agriculture chimes in with their $.02., which turns out to be more like $155 billion (proposed 2013 budget). Then, there’s the other huge department offering their advice as well, the Department of Health and Human Services, which has 14 agencies under its umbrella (Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Aging, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Food and Drug Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration, Indian Health Service, Medicaid, Medicare, National Toxicology Program, and Substance Abuse and Mental health Services Administration).

Yet, all of this money and all of these agencies collecting and dispensing information don’t end up giving us clear information. Instead, they often try to influence public policy and private behavior through mandating in various ways that we, the citizenry, behave in a healthful manner.

We are left with what we already knew — we should make our own health decisions because there is conflicting information on health. Some people will tell you never to eat butter (see example here), and other people will tell you to find ways to add it into your diet (see example here). The bottom line is that nobody knows exactly how every substance will affect the human body. Our bodies are complicated. Even doctors and nutritionists disagree about these things, and they’ve dedicated their professional lives to this topic. So, you should never trust someone in government to make your nutrition decisions for you.

If you think nutrition is an exact science, think again. Even being obese isn’t always bad.

Kahlon says the research supports the ‘obesity paradox’ — that in some circumstances being obese may be better for your health, even though obesity is associated with an increased risk of diabetes, hypertension, death and catching infections like pneumonia.

“The thinking usually is obesity equals bad and this research demonstrated something different. It shows that perhaps we’re not looking at obesity in the right way. Is all fat bad? Is all fat equal? For acute illnesses, maybe we’re not looking at the right indicators for body mass index and obesity.”

That quote is from a study where overweight patients had higher survival rates than those of regular weight after being hospitalized for pneumonia.

So, while that goes against what we might have believed about obesity, it just goes to show you that we don’t know everything, and we certainly don’t know enough about it to start taking away private food choices.

Though not related to nutrition, please check out my podcast episode about how we’re constantly discovering new things: We Aren’t As Smart As We Think We Are.

The post Nanny State on Your Plate appeared first on Technically, That's Illegal.

Related posts:

1. Government Fail
2. The Rx Threat
3. Salt Puns Welcome
4. Dumb Lunch Guidelines
5. Illegal Nutrition Blog

Everyone can find something they like at Amazon, right? Then, what’s not to like about this contest?

The post Giveaway! appeared first on Technically, That's Illegal.

Related posts:

1. Follow-up and a GIVEAWAY

Now that women are allowed in combat, it was only a matter of time before someone suggested it — require them to be part of the Selective Service registration. This registration is required by law of all male residents of the United States within 30 days of their 18th birthday. The registration allows for the possibility of a draft situation in a time of war.

The penalties for failing to register include being denied eligibility for federal student aid, federal job training, and federal employment (including the post office). Another penalty is the difficulty in obtaining citizenship. This does not include the actual legal penalty:

Failure to register is a violation of the Military Selective Service Act. Conviction for such a violation may result in imprisonment for up to five years and/or a fine of not more than $250,000.

So, while the United States discontinued the draft in 1973, the Selective Service obviously remains the back-up plan in times when volunteer forces are not available.

With that landscape in mind, please be aware that at least one congressman is calling not only for women to be part of Selective Service, but for the draft to be reinstated.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) on Friday said he plans to introduce legislation that would bring back the military draft and extend it to women for the first time.

Rangel, who has pushed for years to bring back the draft, said the Pentagon’s decision to allow women to serve in combat means that they too should register for the Selective Service.

“Now that women can serve in combat they should register for the Selective Service alongside their male counterparts,” Rangel said in a statement. “Reinstating the draft and requiring women to register for the Selective Service would compel the American public to have a stake in the wars we fight as a nation. We must question why and how we go to war, and who decides to send our men and women into harm’s way.”

He went on to say that most Americans make “no real sacrifice” when the country goes to war.

We do need to question why and how we go to war, but that certainly doesn’t mean sending more of us into it.

The post Getting Drafty in Here appeared first on Technically, That's Illegal.

Related posts:

1. Helping Kids Register to Vote
2. Illegal Kidney Sales
3. Take a Number
4. Always Give The Benefit of the Doubt
5. Not Illegal, But Not Allowed