Court Rules Off-The-Grid Living Is Illegal

[jeffrey]

Living off the grid is illegal in Cape Coral, Florida, according to a court ruling Thursday.

Special Magistrate Harold S. Eskin ruled that the city’s codes allow Robin Speronis to live without utility power but she is still required to hook her home to the city’s water system. Her alternative source of power must be approved by the city, Eskin said.

As previously reported in Off The Grid News, Speronis has been fighting the city of Cape Coral since November when a code enforcement officer tried to evict her from her home for living without utilities. The city contends that Speronis violated the International Property Maintenance Code by relying on rain water instead of the city water system and solar panels instead of the electric grid...

http://www.offthegridnews.com/2014/02/22/court-rules-off-the-grid-living-is-illegal/

[bjl584]

The International Property Maintenance Code is something concocted by the UN I think. She should fight the ruling. The UN shouldn't have jurisdiction on local code enforcement. They aren't a sovereign government body. I'd guess she would win if she fought the ruling hard enough.

[GrimJack]

Where does her grey water and sewage go? Water coming in is not the whole of the issue; the issue could be where does the water go when she is done with it.

[bUU]

The UN shouldn't have jurisdiction on local code enforcement. They aren't a sovereign government body.

That's a red herring. Municipalities adopt the IPMC (just like they adopt other, similar codes, national, international, and even non-governmental). The municipality's decision to adopt the code legitimizes the application of the code for municipal purposes.

I'd guess she would win if she fought the ruling hard enough.

I'm not sure if she would win or not. I suppose it depends on the political perspective of the area in question. The issue here is the right of a jurisdiction to establish standards and principles of conduct for land owners - effectively the right of society to establish rules by which those who wish to be part of the society must abide. There are a lot of people these days who work hard to try to defend their preference for defiling the structural requirements of people living in community with each other - it's very sexy to put such ideas forward, and even sexier to claim that such literally antisocial leanings have legitimate bases. In some places, those leanings will have precedence. In other places, they'll be treated as antisocial leanings have been treated for hundreds of years, as rationalizations for self-serving intentions, and violations of the public interest.

[JoeP]

Before today's alternatives, a house not attached to utilities would have been easy to define as uninhabitable, hence the quote: "A code enforcement officer designated Speronis’s home as uninhabitable and gave her an eviction notice a day after the piece aired."

Part of the rationale might also be the case that a house that is not connected to utilities might end up being difficult to sell, and would sell at a lower price. This could have an effect on property taxes.

Finally, how can a municipality be sure this house is not introducing anything into the sewer system, unless they somehow capped the line? I imagine they could to this, but it would likely require the homeowner to foot the bill.

[bUU]

Good points. Another angle involves working against how society has decided to distribute the costs of its critical infrastructure. For vital services, such as electricity, viability of the grid itself is a matter of public interest. Personal selections that work against the means by which society had determined to divide up the costs of maintaining that viability need not be placated. Society doesn't pay all its costs through taxes and public services. Society deliberately and with intention leaves some things in the private sector, establishing regulations and tariffs to foster those things. Some folks may not like having a privately-owned service effectively mandated, but that's just their preference, and again, that preference need not be placated.