sam12six Hatfield

dale hodgins wrote:
There will be a rooftop deck, and I intend for it to be surrounded by a vegetable garden.

    I don't post my plans with a view to being talked out of them. Instead, I seek constructive ideas on how it can be done better.  The rooftop aquaponics thing is a done deal for me. It's how I plan to construct at least one roof. I won't start off with a 10,000 ft.² roof  and I won't invest my life savings into it. But I do intend to build a roof in this manner. That's a given for me, when I have a good idea I carry it through to some sort of conclusion.   

No one's said, "That's crazy!! It'll never work!!", just that going with the green roof you originally planned and searching for a plant that would be useful to you might make more sense than shifting to a different system altogether.

dale hodgins wrote:

   I was saving this for my gravestone, but have decided to share it here.

     "The most abundant and easily accessible information available to us are all the reasons why it can't be done". Dale Hodgins - Inventor.         

While I agree with thinking outside the box, if I had to pen a quote in rebuttal, it'd be something like:

"The people least likely to process new information are the ones convinced they already know it all." sam - rebutter

Anyway, philosophical people can exchange "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." and "Look before you leap!!" all day. The point of people posting possible concerns isn't to keep you from doing it. It's just to be sure you've thought of a solution before those concerns become a problem. Good luck with it.

My major concern would be the fact that the relatively thin, loose layer of soil would not provide enough support for plants exposed to wind and rain.

Because of that, if it were me, I'd probably opt for a traditional sod type roof, just one that incorporated plants that can do the job of binding the roof and are useful to my personal situation.

creteman wrote:
@solarguy2003:
"On the other hand, many local government bodies are desperate for money and will tax anything they think they can.  Hey, they like to pay their bills too I guess."

- Well then maybe they would like like to lose their jobs and homes like so many of the people they overlord, eh?... Increasing taxes on people in this economic climate should result in immediate petition for recall of any involved elected official, or being fired, if not elected.

True enough. The thing is: Our elected government officials are loyal to the people who get them elected - campaign contributors. It's a sad thing that in our broken system, the guy with the biggest advertising budget is almost always the winner, so "vote him out" doesn't really work because the candidates that get enough air time to be recognized are never the guys who uphold the people over their corporate contributors.

The simple fact of the matter is that if certain government officials decide to go after you, your life is ruined or ended:

The IRS choosing to prosecute you for tax evasion will probably devastate you financially whether you are guilty or not.

You get declared a domestic terrorist and you're screwed or dead.

The only silver lining in this situation is that the levels of government (local, state, federal) don't have  a lot of loyalty to each other. In the OP's case, if the tax rises out of line with comparable situations, there's probably an option to appeal to a higher authority. On the other hand, if the local authorities just taxes everyone in the area at ridiculous levels, the only options are pretty much pay or move.

To an extreme, maybe I could build the first "Simple?" house, and then, after building what else I wanted, say, "Oops, it fell down! I have to now build another!" - or what I wanted to build in the first place - also means a lot of extra time, work and expense, but in the end, might be the best that I can do.

In a worst case scenario, you might have to do this.

I was thinking something more along the lines of telling them you're dissatisfied with the current structure as a home and want it legally converted from house to barn so you can start a new one. Obviously, whether this is an option depends on whether you're dealing with one of the a-holish inspectors who do things like insist you tear down your mailbox before he'll issue you a permit to put it back up.

Local regulations vary, but generally the primary difference between seasonal and all year dwelling is size. Codes for electrical/plumbing may differ between the 2, but no one says you have to have either. What I'm saying is if you have electrical and plumbing, you might be forced to install the systems to the more stringent code requirement, but not having them at all might be OK.

Anyway, I still think this line of thought is your best bet. Moving in a mobile home probably won't save money since they don't allow you to move the really old trailers you can get for next to nothing.

If repurposing the building is not feasible, I'd say build the absolute cheapest thing they'll accept as a home, build your other structures, then burn that sucker down.

I'm not advocating insurance fraud, just saying that sometimes you have to do something outrageous to comply with a bureaucracy.

For example:

Once I had a cell phone that was a lemon. The antenna would come off after a couple of days - it was insured and they would repair it free. After the 4th trip to have it repaired, I told them, "I don't want it repaired. I want it replaced since the previous repairs didn't fix the problem." (My insurance also covered free replacement for any reason).

After getting the runaround because the guy insisted that their regulations would not allow them replace a phone that it was possible to repair. I walked out the door, threw the phone up against the wall, picked up the pieces, and went back in and told him, "I need this phone replaced. It got destroyed."

The guy says, "Sir, that wasn't necessary!!"

My response: You wouldn't replace it before when I asked. You're going to go in the back and get me a replacement now, right? Apparently it was necessary.

Just throwing out an idea, but would it be possible to build a 600+ "house" with no interior walls, have it inspected and signed off on, then just fill it with the stuff you need for the other buildings instead of living in it?

If they'll let you go with a simple cabin like this, just build it with where you know you want a barn and add your REAL house to the property whenever you feel like it.