Reptile & Amphibian Forums

By order of the City of Austin, the Cathedral of Junk is to be closed down.

City is no longer "Keeping Austin Weird". When an individual's artistic preferences and personal tastes, as well as personal property rights are deemed inappropriate and conformity is dictated by Power. When big money and corporate interests are at odds with the individual's right to personal expression, taste and discretion. We're all in the same boat.
Pretty soon the only thing weird about Austin will be that boondoggle of a train that they just had to have.

jsc

http://austinist.com/2010/03/24/cathedral_of_junk_may_be_junked.php
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/7816
http://www.yelp.com/biz/cathedral-of-junk-austin
http://www.travelistic.com/video/show/8735/Tour-of-the-Cathedral-of-Junk---Austin,-TX
http://www.myspace.com/83920605
http://www.facebook.com/Cathedral.of.Junk
http://www.keepaustinweird.com/current.html
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

No surprises there at all. Nothing to gripe about.

If he'd kept it to basic code and not opened to the public, he'd be able to keep it.

When you open to the public, you cross a line out of the domain of strictly 'private property' and into the public property arena, where one must play by the rules...

I would have expected no less from you, Steph.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Gutting your arguments with one statement of the obvious isn't rocket science.

John, I thought you were refering to my garage.

You are the only one that believes what you say. You have proven nothing, as usual. All you have proven is that you favor government decisions that limit personal freedoms.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

John, you're being stalked. Don't encourage. Remember, one hand clapping.

I was going to say that I was sure most people were ignoring her, but I thought that presumptuous. Her statement was ridiculous and it needed a response.
The whole point of my post was the unfortunate and unsettling change in the philosophy of good governance. These are the same people that give the illegals a free pass. That's just criminal.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

"Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!"

Or: Much Ado About Nothing.

The guy is working to be in compliance and won't have to dismantle.

Funny that the 'personal responsibility' aspect of this situation was ignored.

Nowhere in that story did I see it say he was going to have to be in compliance of codes. All he's being required to do is have an outside engineer vouch for it's stability and limit public access to the ground floor.

I think that you should read more carefully: he needs confirmation from an outside engineering firm that the structure meets basic safety standards (codes), he'll be required to limit the number of visitors allowed (code) and he will have to get a building permit (code).

One of the articles linked by the OP states this:

Austin is about to become a little less weird. After spending nearly 22 years towering in Vince Hanneman’s South Austin lawn, the cultural landmark Cathedral of Junk is in danger of getting dismantled due to code violations. After a complaint was filed with the city, Austin sent code compliance officers out to investigate the famed Cathedral and found the structure of scrap metal and old electronics in violation of various codes. According to Cathedral of Junk creator Vince Hanneman, the city has given him until March 31st (an extension from the original deadline of March 25th) to bring the structure up to Austin city standards or risk them “turning off the electricity and bulldoz(ing).”

And now, on the path to compliance and resolution:

Now, Hanneman said he has agreed to submit a letter from an engineer confirming the structure's safety. He said he also will apply for a building permit early next week.
Once that's all done, city officials said they will issue him a certificate of compliance in the following weeks — to be tacked onto the ever-mounting pile of junk.

See, no big deal. He complies, he keeps his art. Of course, if the structure doesn't pass the engineering test, he'll probably be required to make changes, by either bolstering the structure or limiting public access or some combination of both.

If you read carefully, he is going to submit a letter from an engineer to the effect that the structure is safe. Being safe is not synonomous with being in code.

Since you said that the codes were prexisting I assume you must know what codes were violated specifically and when they were written. If you could post that information I would appreciate it. However it is my guess that you don't really know.

To me it looks like the city is basicly making this up as they go along. A significant portion of the public seems to adore the structure and it appears the city wants to find a way to allow it to exist. I would think the city would be worried about lawsuits and as a result it looks like they are shifting resposibility to a private engineer. The city probably doesn't know how to catagorize the structure, it it a residence, an amusment park or a piece of art? Or is it just a pile of trash? There are likely several ways the city could decide to regulate it.

My conclusion is that it's likely that whatever the city calls it, the guy could take them to court and claim it was something else so I think the verdict is still not in yet as to how useful the codes actually were in this case.

*SIGH*

Have you never owned real estate or a business? That may explain why you aren't clear on some of these basic principles of zoning and code. In this case the code was most assuredly pre-existing, or the structure would simply be grandfathered in. Bringing it up to code will be challenging because in it a work in progress ad it it not made of traditional building materials.

The letter that is requires from an engineer confirming that the structure is safe is indeed synonymous with 'being up to code'. Why? Think about it for a minute....how is it determined that something is 'safe'? What are the standards that must be met? TADA!!! Code!

Maybe you would benefit from doing a bit of reading about the history and principles of building code and zoning ordinances before drawing any conclusions as to what is fair or not.

Another helpful hint I can give is for you to do some more research on the subject matter at hand: the Cathedral of Junk, that is, and the zoning/code issues.

This problem arose several months ago, there are several articles that you can access online that aren't so slanted in their perspective, and which even explain the part about the engineers and architects involvement.

http://theaustintimes.com/2010/05/cathedral-of-junk-condemned-art/

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6932287.html

http://www.good.is/post/cathedral-of-junk-threatened-with-demolition-for-code-violations/

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6984564.html

The artist ignored pretty standard set-back codes and residential zoning. I'll re-iterate: if he hadn't decided to open to the public this wouldn't be much of an issue.

What I asked was if you actually knew which codes were violated. None of the references you supplied actually say which codes were violated. Some of the news articles you cited do go a little bit into some things he did to attempt to bring the structure up to code but that isn't what I asked. The whole point of my asking you was to determine whether you were basing your opinion on factual knowledge of the actual codes that were violated, or whether you were just relying on general principles.

I do think it's ok to take sides based only on principles and generalities but if you are then it's misleading to portray yourself as having specific factual knowledge. That was all I was trying to prove.

Hmmm. So you think that I've been *misleading* you by making generalized statements about building codes based on experience and knowledge?

How is that in anyway misleading? As someone who has leased, owned, built out, renovated, re-habbed, restored many properties over the years, I do have a fairly basic understanding of building code requirements. I have to. Requirements are MUCH more stringent for properties that are open to the public.

The code violations likely pertained to load carrying capacity of the structure, sufficient safety features on upper portions of the structure such as railings, structural integrity overall, adequate means of egress in case of emergency, adequate set back from the property line, and on and on.

This is all standard stuff that you'd be aware of if you'd ever owned real estate, or even just leased commercial property for your business.

This is the statement you made which I am talking about:

"The artist CHOSE to ignore or not comply with some basic, pre-existing codes."

If you don't know which codes were violated and you don't know when he violated them and you don't know when the codes he violated were written then you could not possibly have known whether or not the codes were pre-existing. Since I asked you for that information several posts ago and you have so far been unable to provide it I am left to assume you did not have that information at the time you made that statement. That means the statement was misleading to your audience because it indicated to them them you had certain knowledge specific to this case which you didn't have. Your general knowledge and experience with codes and code enforcement may be extensive, I don't dispute that. That still doesn't support the specific claim you made in the statement I quoted above.

The codes MUST have been pre-existing or he would not have been cited....his structure would have been "grandfathered in" if the code was newly written and his art pre-dated the code. Simple fact.

By opening to the public, he subjected himself to a different set of rules and has had to meet those requirements, which he's doing with nominal effort and LOTS of help.

You'll find out about this stuff when you become a property owner yourself.

"You'll find out about this stuff when you become a property owner yourself."

You have got to be the most arrogant self righteous person I've ever come across. You just never let up.

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Hehe. I am a property owner but I didn't think that had anything to do with the point I was making so I just let her think I wasn't. Not to mention I read the newspaper almost every day and property issues are a frequent local topic. My town is currently involved in a sewer battle and there is no grandfather clause for the residences being required to hook up to the new sewer.

"The codes MUST have been pre-existing or he would not have been cited"

That is circular reasoning and is simply not true in all cases. Grandfather clauses are not universal and they are not universally applied. Furthermore citation is just that, a citation. It is not a conviction. You don't have the specifics of this case and I don't know why you would want to pretend you do. You may very well be right but the fact is you made a claim that exceeded your factual knowledge. You could present a perfectly valid arguement by simply admitting this and preceeding your statements with somthing to the effect of, 'usually' or 'in most cases' or 'the way it usually works is...', etc. Personally I think you were just playing the odds and didn't think anybody would question you.
You are right that him opening up to the public changed the standards he must be held to but I acknowledged that in my first, or one of my first posts.

One of the things that makes this case interesting is that he does not charge money for entry and so the city seems to be having a hard time deciding whether to consider the visitors more like guests of a private residence, or more like patrons of a public establishment. This is a case with some uncommon elements and that is why I think specifics are more important than they usually are. Usually the generalities you are talking about would suffice but here they may not be so useful.

Circular reasoning? LOL, no it's how the system works.

Maybe you should take that up with zoning officials then, instead of me...

"it's how the sytem works."
Not always.

Just some of my experience with the Code Enforcement people at the City of Austin.

See if this link works.

jsc

Link

-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

I see we're still feeding the animals.

"I'm just trying to find the bridge... Has anybody seen the bridge?

(Have you seen the bridge?)
I ain't seen the bridge!

(Where's that confounded bridge?) [spoken by Robert Plant]"

Not the same bridge? Oh well...

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

I think you are missing the symbolism. This was a unique and interesting creation that must be destroyed because it doesn't conform to building codes. The creation being symbolic of individual expression and the code being symbolic of a monocultural society.
Also the fact that the public seems to like the thing kinda illustrates how "the code" sometimes has unintended consequences. We create the code for our safety but it ends up taking the joy out of our lives.

As far as I know, the cathedral existed long before the code was enacted. The code with all the compliance officers buzzing around writing citations was a recent creation.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

I'm not missing the point at all. The artist CHOSE to ignore or not comply with some basic, pre-existing codes.

He had plenty of room (literally and figuratively) for creativity within the parameters of the zoning laws. There are many many examples of such creative expression across the country that persist quite happily and in some cases gain landmark status.

This guy is not the first and he won't be the last.

Do a web search for Watts Towers sometime.

That's all good to know.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/cathedral-of-junk-saved-for-now-austin-chooses-756690.html

As usual, you read it somewhere and that makes you an instantly knowledgeable stakeholder and preeminent authority.

At least it's a stay for now, from minds like...

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

John, I think that you may be confusing restrictive covenants with building codes.

Covenants are put in place by PRIVATE developers (NOT the Government) and are the rules by which the neighborhood association can dictate things like what color you can paint your house, whether or not you can have a flag pole, how often you have to water and mow your lawn, require you to garage your vehicle overnight and/or other absurd requirements to assure conformity. PRIVATE companies put those rules in place.

Building codes are put in place by the Government, and are the framework by which safety standards are enforced. Residential code requirements are actually the lowest, business and commercial are higher, meaning that there are more requirements one must meet. Within that framework, however, there is actually ALOT of room for creativity.

So, before you direct your anger at the Government in this particular instance, you may want to acquire a better understanding of the facts surrounding building codes. It's really not very complicated.

"John, I think that you may be confusing restrictive covenants with building codes."

No. I am not confusing the two. I do know the difference. On a side note, I just love the way you talk down to me and others here on this forum. Keep on schoolin' us. Your message is coming across loud and clear!

"As someone who has leased, owned, built out, renovated, re-habbed, restored many properties over the years, I do have a fairly basic understanding of building code requirements. I have to. Requirements are MUCH more stringent for properties that are open to the public."

I can see why you would necessarily have a slant towards the investor/developer take of properties for personal gain, as you say you have done considerable work in that regard. Or was your work Non-profit?

Have you ever been to Austin, TX? Do you have any first hand knowledge of the personality and character of that town? Or are you simply speaking from an economic/legal perspective?

jsc

-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

I'm speaking from a rational perspective. And pardon me for offending you in any way, but when one repeatedly makes ignorant mistakes, one should expect to be schooled in some way or another. Playing the victim card at every turn doesn't help you either.

BTW, the vast majority of properties I've leased/owned have been for personal or personal business use, so I'm not a big bad developer by a long stretch. LOL.

You leap to conclusions so readily...very judgmental of you, and it is clouding your judgment, your ability to reason, and more. Unless of course it's a deliberate attempt to obfuscate or distort the facts, get people wound up over nothing, and generally shout FIRE in a crowded theatre.

If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Back at you, since that is indeed your stock in trade. How many times have you exclaimed as fact unproven allegations, and how many straw man arguments have you put forth on this very forum?

By the way, Given a set of facts, simply because one comes to a different conclusion than you, does not mean that they are ignorant. In other words, one with an opposing viewpoint probably does not need to be "schooled" by you. Certainly a philosophy and legal scholar such as yourself should know that.

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

The problem with that argument is that in this case most certainly your opinion has no basis in actual fact, and therefore is wrong.

You want to blame the big bad government for everything, even when it is not to blame.

Maybe you should ask yourself what it is that you are REALLY angry about.

"Unless of course it's a deliberate attempt to obfuscate or distort the facts, get people wound up over nothing, and generally shout FIRE in a crowded theatre."

You mean like blaming pet owners for the Everglades python population? You mean like causing hysteria by claiming the feral burms in Florida are wreaking havoc on the delicate ecosystem?
You mean like publishing a ridiculously flawed study showing Burms can survive as far north as Washington DC and southern Delaware now, and even further north based on a 100 year climate prediction?

LMAO.

*SIGH*

All of the above mentioned assertions have a basis in fact....that territory has been covered before.

I guess you don't really have much of anything to contribute to the discussion of basic code and zoning requirements...

goes a long way:
Link

Did you ever really know what codes were violated and wether they were really preexisting? I didn't. That's why I didn't take sides. Instead I looked at the sybolism, ie. why it was a good story. If the structure really was dangerous to visitors then of course it either needs to be made safe or visiting prohibited.

The public seemed to like the Cathedral. Probably mostly for it's uniqueness, because it looks cool and because it serves no real purpose other than to be explored. I think there is also a subconcious attraction because it represents the melting pot that this country is. The Cathedral is made up of all sorts of things that don't normally belong together yet joined they create a whole that is, as the expression goes, greater than the sum of it's parts.

It is interesting that it appears it's not actually even going to be brought up to code. All that is going to happen is that an outside engineer is going to vouch for it's general stabitly. That's not the same thing as being brought up to code. It appears that in this case public opinion and the Cathedral's unofficial landmark status is it's saving grace.

As was stated in news reports a neighbor(s) complained to the Conformity Police that the Cathedral of Junk violated their aesthetic sensibilities. And like the Conformity Police, the neighbor was doing their part to destroy the long renowned and well documented icon to the uniquely eclectic character of Austin, TX.

In the end, the Conformity Police have bowed to public opinion, saving face as best as possible, in light of the overwhelming citizen support for the Cathedral of Junk.

jsc

-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Too bad you didn't do any follow up on the issue.

Keep using alarmist tactics a la PETA and HSUS to call attention to non-existent problems....very boy-who-cried-wolf-chicken-little-sky-is-falling. Way to be taken seriously, pal!

very boy-who-cried-wolf

If you know anything about wolf behavior towards humans the boy who cried wolf probably saw one everytime and the minute he screamed it split. In the end one came after him.

I'm just saying.

"Give it a rest."
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Here is/are but a few examples of the Johnny Come Lately code enforcement strategy. Nothing but a Government assisted take by the private sector. In other words, burden the property owners' with encumbering legalities the property owner's cannot possibly afford. City condemns property. Crony investor buys property at bargain price. Crony Investor/Developer redevelops land. Reaps windfall profits and City is rewarded with higher tax base.

They passed a law here in Texas. It is illegal for Government to take land through eminent domain proceedings and to then place the same land with private developers. This is nothing but a strong-arm attempt by city leaders to bypass the law.

http://impactnews.com/southwest-austin/144-news/8037-city-hits-south-austin-neighborhood-with-76-code-violations

I personally have been at the front door of Code Enforcement's brand new building, built with taxpayers dollars, at 9:00am in the morning, WITH WEEDS 5 FEET HIGH, while at the same time, Code inspectors filed out with coffee cups in hand, following their morning meeting, fired up and ready to go out into the community to issue citations for noncompliance, as in -- "your grass is too high". If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

I personally expressed my shock and disbelief to them, asking them how in the world could they possibly go out and about their business judging others, while their very own house was so out of order.

Oh yeah, where did they go? About half of them made a beeline to the local taco shop as their first order of business.

jsc

-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

I disagree: the symbolism angle was a non-starter because that characterization was not accurate.

Funny thing was that the artist was probably in more danger of losing his landmark to a personal injury lawsuit than he was to city code enforcement. Complying with code will help him in the long run: he'll be able to insure the structure and protect it and himself from ruin.

You guys still haven't learned, eh?

What do you mean non-starter? I can't have an interpretation of art? Or did you talk to the artist and he said I was wrong? Sheesh.

Can't vouch for the veracity of this story. Check it out for yourself.

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/toxic-oil-spill-rains-warned-could-destroy-north-america/

Here is the telling part:

"To the greatest lesson to be learned by these Americans is that their government-oil industry cabal has been just as destructive to them as their government-banking one, both of which have done more to destroy the United States these past couple of years than any foreign enemy could dare dream was possible.
But to their greatest enemy the Americans need look no further than their nearest mirror as they are the ones who allowed these monsters to rule over them in the first place."

I have to agree...so, lets go tear down the Cathedral of Junk and while we're at it we might consider banning private ownership of certain if not all animals.

jsc

-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Settle down.

This isn't about freedom of personal creative expression, this is about that expression crossing a line and entering the arena of public access, safety and so forth.

If he hadn't decided to open to the public he wouldn't have these problems. THAT is the issue.