|
|
| |
Topic: Montana boys build spectacular treehouse, but can it be saved? |
Montana boys build spectacular treehouse, but can it be saved?
Los Angeles Times, by Kim Murphy
|
|
Original Article
|
|
Posted By:JoniTx, 12/1/2012 6:41:37 PM
|
| When 8-year-old Logan Olson told his family he wanted a treehouse for his birthday, his grandfather was determined to make it not just any treehouse, but a grand one — a treehouse the whole neighborhood could admire. The tan, barn-like structure sprawls 80 square feet atop a graceful old linden tree on the front lawn of the family’s single-story tract home in Billings, Mont. It has a deck on three sides, with a door that looks like a barn entry, a tire swing suspended from the floor and a pulley to hoist up lunch.
|
Reply 1 - Posted by:
smidgen, 12/1/2012 6:49:17 PM (No. 9043544)
The neighbors don´t object to this? Seriously???
|
Reply 2 - Posted by:
tomanderson61, 12/1/2012 7:07:11 PM (No. 9043557)
Usually zoning and ordinance stories irritate me...this one, sorry, the folks are wrong.
That is not a treehouse, but a standalone that looks self-supporting.
I built a "space ship" mounted on 6 4x4s for my sons. It is just as big as this house, with lots of mechanisms, noisemakers and things inside. When we moved, I took it completely apart, labeled all the parts, then transported all the wood and parts to my new house. 5 months later during spring I rebuilt it.
This little house could be easily disassembled, 4x4s in concrete in the backyard, and reassembled.
My God who are they kidding.
|
| |
|
Reply 3 - Posted by:
BadgerBill, 12/1/2012 7:29:22 PM (No. 9043583)
That´s not a tree house--unless the family is named Robinson....
Hopefully, the outlets in the bathroom are GFI grounded.
What was left for the boys to do? install the doorbell?
|
Reply 4 - Posted by:
maggie2u, 12/1/2012 7:37:26 PM (No. 9043591)
I thought I would be the only poster who thinks this ´treehouse´ is not a treehouse. It´s a tool shed you buy at Home Depot or Lowe´s then stuck up on poles, If it was on my block, I wouldn´t have signed the petition to let them keep it.
|
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Coy860, 12/1/2012 7:41:31 PM (No. 9043600)
Treehouses are nice, IF they are in the BACKyards. Very poor choice of location and contempt for neighbors. Who in their right mind wants something like this on their front lawn?
|
Reply 6 - Posted by:
TheMotherCO, 12/1/2012 7:44:25 PM (No. 9043607)
Wbat a bunch of grumps - I think it is darling and would not care if he painted it bright orange and pink. What fun for the kids in the neighborhood - well, maybe not considering the dolts that live there and are so picky with playhouses. bah humbug time!
|
Reply 7 - Posted by:
noddy, 12/1/2012 7:57:04 PM (No. 9043617)
Scrooge here. I can see the value of a discussion round the dinner table about erecting such a structure. If the adults had acted like, well, adults, they could have taught a great lesson to the boys. Imagine if all the neighbors on the street built various structures in their front yards right next to the place where people walk. Things like planes, storage sheds (like theirs), above ground pools, dinosaurs. And even a very old rusted car decorated with lights. But the adults chose to act like friends, kids, and eventually caused the disappointment for the boys. If it´s allowed, and it seems it is, then the backyard would be appropriate for a shed on stilts. Bad parents and grandpa.
|
| |
|
Reply 8 - Posted by:
uno, 12/1/2012 8:00:20 PM (No. 9043621)
#5 - That was exactly my first thought - don´t they have a back yard? Yeah, it´s neat and all, but it really belongs in a back yard. If I were a neighbor, I´d pitch in to help them move it rather than tear it down.
|
Reply 9 - Posted by:
MsMontana, 12/1/2012 8:11:33 PM (No. 9043635)
You know what...unless you crabby people are inconvenienced by it, shove off. They gathered signatures from their neighbors and the neighbors said they were fine with it, but for some reason you crabs still are not happy.
Pretty much everyone in the area WHERE IT IS and on the council are in agreement and yet you people still have to be negative.
Seriously, WHAT is your problem?
|
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Manitouman, 12/1/2012 8:29:37 PM (No. 9043650)
Seems not many Americans are American freedom loving individuals anymore.
Good thing the neighbors are sticking up for the kids - few here are.
|
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Garage Logician, 12/1/2012 8:39:37 PM (No. 9043659)
Glad I´m not stuck living on a street with that presumptuous, inconsiderate jerk for neighbor. It´s apcray like that that zoning and setback rules are made for. Oh, they´re passing around a petition? No pressure, huh? Tyranny of the majority, anyone? What an eyesore.
|
Reply 12 - Posted by:
NJVol, 12/1/2012 8:51:33 PM (No. 9043666)
Totally agreeing with the majority of the posters here. This "treehouse" is totally intrusive and not so considerate of others´ front yards and of their neighborhood. I too always thought of a treehouse as being in the backyard (and fairly small). These people are pushing the envelope. Narcissism writ large. Just because ya can doesn´t mean ya should.
|
| |
|
Reply 13 - Posted by:
neanderthal, 12/1/2012 8:53:43 PM (No. 9043669)
When the majority of Ldotters side with the government bureaucratic gestapos, the country truly is lost.
|
Reply 14 - Posted by:
K620, 12/1/2012 9:05:14 PM (No. 9043680)
Dear Neanderthal, being against the treehouse has nothing to do with "siding with the government" but rather with manners and being (oh how quaint) classy. One does not impose on one´s neighbors. Has nuttin´ to do with the gubmint. But has a lot to do with knowing one´s bounderies and with respecting others. That´s conservatism.
|
Reply 15 - Posted by:
veritas, 12/1/2012 9:23:02 PM (No. 9043686)
Given the earlier story on micro-mini "homes," I wonder if this isn´t a multi-family dwelling?
|
Reply 16 - Posted by:
LoneVoice, 12/1/2012 9:29:07 PM (No. 9043692)
There´s just something in the air tonight making people grouchy. I think it´s a bad omen when good people start acting mean.
|
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Penney, 12/1/2012 9:47:41 PM (No. 9043705)
Looks like a So. Texas deer blind. ...Maybe it could be moved to the back yard?
|
| |
|
Reply 18 - Posted by:
tedinmich, 12/1/2012 9:48:40 PM (No. 9043707)
The response to this story and the Ohio man sent to jail has me wondering about some of the posters here!Mean spirited and contrary come to mind. Some of the words being used are in my opinion worse that some words banned here.Ted in Michigan
|
Reply 19 - Posted by:
Udanja99, 12/1/2012 9:49:22 PM (No. 9043708)
Good luck to any neighbor who might want to sell his own house with that thing perched across the street.
|
Reply 20 - Posted by:
iamtinman, 12/1/2012 10:04:40 PM (No. 9043719)
I guess Grinches are alive and well! Maybe you all want your houses to be exactly alike and all the same color too. Mind you that if the same tree house had been built 14 feet over, it would have been legal and you would still have to look at it. Lighten up just a bit and enjoy life instead of continually fretting. You´ll live longer and who knows people might like you!
|
Reply 21 - Posted by:
4Justice, 12/1/2012 10:31:11 PM (No. 9043738)
Listen, I am the biggest proponent of freedom and getting the government out of our lives. But let me ask a few questions. 1) Let´s say most of the neighbors sign the petition to keep it, but the people next door and across the street don´t like it. Is it right to push mob rule on them? 2) What if your next door neighbor wanted to paint his house purple with pink polka dots, string lots of garrish lights and decorations all over and dig out his lawn to put his favorite sculpture (an old rusted 63 chevy with fake flowers on it). Would you still say, oh how quaint? Would you be happy and accepting? 3) What if your neighbor decides to open a drive-through store with water slides and big clowns on the roof on his residentially zoned property? Oh, is that evil government intrusion to uphold zoning laws?
Before attacking people, maybe you should think of all the consequences first and remember that a lot of "accepting" folks tend to change their tune whenbit comes to their own property being affected.
|
Reply 22 - Posted by:
secondtimelucky, 12/1/2012 10:31:22 PM (No. 9043739)
I´m thinkin´ that there may have been a few neighbors who really didn´t appreciate a shed in a tree on the front lawn, but after all the hoohaa and petitioning (and seeing other signatures on the petition) the ones who may have voted NO just quietly shut up and sat down. I´d like to know how/if this affects comps and if any of the neighboring homes have sold in the meantime. As much as I truly HATE HOA´s, this might just be one of the best reasons why they were formed...
|
| |
|
Reply 23 - Posted by:
bogeegolf, 12/1/2012 11:20:43 PM (No. 9043790)
This is such a small problem in light of what is going on in the world it is hard for me to take seriously. I think it is for the people that actually live in the area to work out. Ideally we would all live a 100 miles apart.
|
Reply 24 - Posted by:
The Maggster, 12/1/2012 11:27:40 PM (No. 9043796)
Location, location, location..this "tree house" belongs in the back yard not out on the front lawn.
|
Reply 25 - Posted by:
sgtfox of the jarhead clan, 12/2/2012 12:35:08 AM (No. 9043853)
I live in the sticks for a reason. I can´t even see any neighbors. What they build is their business and what I build is mine. Nobody here signs petitions.
|
Reply 26 - Posted by:
ColonialAmerican1623, 12/2/2012 12:51:10 AM (No. 9043867)
If they love it, and the neighbors don´t care, not my dog.
I just wondered how many illegals knocked on the door wanting to rent it.
|
Reply 27 - Posted by:
smcchk, 12/2/2012 1:17:33 AM (No. 9043894)
I think that they picked this location because of the tree and perhaps there are no trees in the backyard. Good grief, it´s a nice structure that is not going to be there forever. In my neighborhood, semi-rural, we have treehouses and lots of ittle houses for the kids to wait in for the bus on cold winter mornings, all in the front yards. No one´s griping! Especially if it gets kids outside and away from video games.
|
Reply 28 - Posted by:
Kansas Conservative, 12/2/2012 1:44:41 AM (No. 9043913)
This is total white trash. Thank you God that I live in a homes association neighborhood where the value of my home will never be brought down by hillbilly architects and their Home Depot 2x4s.
|
Reply 29 - Posted by:
Twiggy, 12/2/2012 1:58:11 AM (No. 9043923)
OMG- what an eyesore! There goes the property values. That´s not really built in a tree as most tree houses are. It looks like a free standing building on stilts. Pick it up and move it to the backyard.
|
Reply 30 - Posted by:
HisHandmaiden, 12/2/2012 2:37:51 AM (No. 9043948)
Seriously folks, this is Montana... not Middleburg, VA [where training arena lights are not welcome] or Chevy Chase...
This family sounds focused and neighborhood-friendly... If I had eight-year-old sons again, much rather them be here reenacting than local mall...
|
Reply 31 - Posted by:
mamafrog, 12/2/2012 4:37:53 AM (No. 9043965)
The yard also seems to contain a canoe, and the driveway seems to be home to a permanently parked storage trailer and a large amount of building materials. I wonder if the reason they put this structure in the front yard is that the back yard is already filled. It seems out of character with the neighborhood.
|
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "JoniTx"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
|
Most Recent Articles posted by "JoniTx"
|
|
Obama admits he’s a socialist
|
|
New York Post, by Kyle Smith
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: JoniTx- 5/19/2013 3:59:42 PM
Post Reply
|
|
You may be forgiven if you missed it during last week’s tsunami of scandals, but President Obama finally let slip that he is a socialist. Buried in the 17th paragraph of one of those mewling New York Times pieces on the woes of Obama — can we start calling him Woe-bama yet? — appeared these two words: “going Bulworth.” Obama himself, the Times explained, has been “longingly” telling his inner circle that what he’d really like to do is what Sen. Jay Bulworth, played by Warren Beatty in his 1998 movie “Bulworth,” did: to go public as
|
Candy Crowley: Is it Possible This Isn´t Political and IRS Didn´t Intend to Harass the Tea Party?
|
|
Newsbusters, by Noel Sheppard
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: JoniTx- 5/19/2013 3:54:02 PM
Post Reply
|
|
"Can you see in your mind´s eye a way that this might not have been political, that this was a misguided stupid way to sort, but that they didn´t intend it to be some kind of political attempt to harass the Tea Party?" So actually asked CNN´s Candy Crowley of her guest Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) concerning the Internal Revenue Service scandal Sunday (video follows with transcript and commentary):CANDY CROWLEY, HOST: Moving on to the IRS problem at this moment, which is really sort of in its infancy. There will be lots more hearings coming up this week
|
WH: Legality of IRS Action Against Conservatives ´Irrelevant´
|
|
Breitbart Big Government, by Staff
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: JoniTx- 5/19/2013 3:43:10 PM
Post Reply
|
|
Appearing on Sunday morning on ABC News’ This Week, White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer told a credulous George Stephanopoulos that the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups was “inexcusable,” and that the law with regard to the activity was “irrelevant.” “I can’t speak to the law here,” he said. “The law is irrelevant. The activity was outrageous and inexcusable, and it was stopped and it needs to be fixed so we ensure it never happens again.” When asked for clarification, Pfeiffer expounded: “What I mean is, whether it’s legal or illegal is not important to the fact
|
WH: ´Irrelevant´ Who Edited Benghazi Talking Points
|
|
Breitbart Big Government, by William Bigelow
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: JoniTx- 5/19/2013 3:40:46 PM
Post Reply
|
|
Appearing on CBS’ Face the Nation, White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said that it was “largely irrelevant” who edited the talking points the Obama administration trotted out in the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Host Bob Schieffer asked, “That was just a PR plan, to send out somebody who didn’t know anything about what had happened. Why did you do that? Why didn’t the Secretary of State come and tell us what they knew, and if they knew nothing, say ‘We don’t know yet?’ …. Why are you here today?
|
WH: ´Irrelevant´ Where Obama Was During Benghazi Attacks
|
|
Breitbart Big Government, by Ben Shapiro
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: JoniTx- 5/19/2013 3:37:54 PM
Post Reply
|
|
On Fox News Sunday this morning, White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer was asked by Chris Wallace where in the White House President Obama was during the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans. “Question,” asked Wallace. “What did the President do the rest of that night to pursue Benghazi?” Pfeiffer answered, “Look, the President was kept up to date on this as it was happening the entire night, from the moment it started until the very end …. I recognize that there’s a series of conspiracy theories Republicans have been spinning about it
|
Non-deportation rate drops — to 99.2 percent
|
|
Washington Times [DC], by Stephen Dinan
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: JoniTx- 5/19/2013 3:28:53 PM
Post Reply
|
|
The Homeland Security Department has granted legal status to 99.2 percent of all illegal immigrants who have applied under President Obama’s new non-deportation policy for young adults, according to the latest numbers released Friday. That’s a slight drop from the 99.5 percent approval rate reported last month. The policy, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, grants legal status to most illegal immigrants under the age of 31 who came to the U.S. before age 16 — usually brought by their parents. They are allowed to remain in the U.S. without fear of deportation, and are given work
|
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
|
Analyze this
|
|
Power Line, by Scott Johnson
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: MissMolly- 5/19/2013 11:33:33 AM
Post Reply
|
|
What did President Obama do on the evening of 9/11/12 when our men were under attack in Benghazi? The invaluable Andrew McCarthy reminds us that Obama and Secretary Clinton had a 10:00 p.m. phone call of which many (including, I think, Chris Wallace) have lost sight. This morning when Wallace asked Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer what Obama was up to that evening, Pfeiffer declared the line of inquiry “offensive.” Translation: Obama and his minions would prefer to “move on” and are warning the likes of FNC off:(Snip for video)The Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper has posted the rush transcript
|
Evidence emerges that Obama administration official knew of IRS targeting during 2012 campaign
|
|
CBS News, by Margaret Brennan
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: earlybird- 5/18/2013 9:01:39 PM
Post Reply
|
|
WASHINGTON - There were new questions Saturday night concerning if anyone in the White House was aware of the IRS´ targeting of conservative groups. Inspector General Russell George said he informed a deputy at the Treasury Department in June of 2012 about the probe into the IRS. The Treasury Department confirmed the timeline but said they did not know the details of the investigation until last week.(Snip)Marcus Owens ran the tax-exempt division at the IRS for 10 years. He said it isn´t difficult to figure out who´s doing what at the agency.
|
Obama: "As An African American You Have To Work Twice As Hard As Anyone Else If You Want To Get By"
|
|
Real Clear Politics, by Staff
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: Desert Fox- 5/19/2013 6:55:47 PM
Post Reply
|
|
PRESIDENT OBAMA: You are the mantle of Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington and Ralph Bunche and Langston Hughes and George Washington Carver and Ralph Abernathy and Thurgood Marshall and, yes, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. These men were many things to many people and they knew full well the role that racism played in their life. But when it came to their own accomplishments and sense of purpose, they had no time for excuses. Every one of you has a grandma or an uncle or a parent whose told you at some point in life
|
Camelot Is Burning
|
|
Breitbart´s Big Government, by Christopher Burton
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: mitzi- 5/18/2013 8:16:11 PM
Post Reply
|
|
It began in earnest last Friday. A flash mob of latte drinking, tofu eating media that has done its best to quell, rather than fan the flames of truth, turned on one of their own. Jay Carney lay bludgeoned at the base of the podium, a victim of friendly fire. Ironically, the attack was reminiscent of the one in Benghazi he has repeatedly denied the Administration he represents bears any responsibility for. “Changed twelve times?!” came the cries. And with good reason. We were misled; no, lied to.
|
Watergate 2.0 -- why the IRS scandal is far worse
|
|
Fox News, by Matt Kibbe
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: StormCnter- 5/18/2013 5:59:17 AM
Post Reply
|
|
In the wake of one of the worst abuses of government power in recent history, many are rushing to frame the Internal Revenue Service scandal as simply an attack on conservative activists. That view risks creating a partisan political football and misses a fundamentally scarier abuse that exceeds the scandals of Watergate or any other prior government abuse. The IRS has admitted that since May 2010 it targeted grassroots-conservative organizations that had applied for tax-exempt status, unfairly subjecting them to rigorous scrutiny due to their political leanings. Such groups were told they were required to comply with IRS requests,
|
Lew asks Congress for debt increase, says it’s ´not open to debate´
|
|
The Hill, by Peter Schoeder
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: DW626- 5/18/2013 6:12:33 PM
Post Reply
|
|
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew on Friday urged congressional leaders to raise the debt limit and insisted that the White House is not going to negotiate over the increase because lawmakers have "no choice." "We will not negotiate over the debt limit," Lew wrote. "The creditworthiness of the United States is non-negotiable. The question of whether the country must pay obligations it has already incurred is not open to debate." Lew said that while President Obama is willing to discuss plans to reduce the nation´s deficit with Congress, those talks must be kept separate from any effort to raise the nation´s debt cap.
|
McCaskill Calls For Firing Of All Involved In IRS Targeting Scandal
|
|
KMOX [St, Louis], by Staff
Original Article
|
|
Posted By: BuckeyeRon- 5/18/2013 2:46:31 PM
Post Reply
|
|
Washington – Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-MO, issued a video statement Friday in response to reports that the Internal Revenue Service unfairly targeted conservative nonprofit groups. (Snip) “There’s a reason Lady Justice wears a blindfold in America. That is because in America, we don’t apply the law based on who you are, who you know, or what you believe. We apply the law equally.” “We should not only fire the head of the IRS, which has occurred, but we’ve got to go down the line and find every single person who had anything to do with this and make sure
|
|
|

Home Page | Latest Posts | Links | Must Reads | Update Profile | Register | Rules & FAQs | Search | Post | Contact | RSS | Contribute | Logout | Forgot Password
© 2013 Lucianne.com Media Inc.
~~~c~~~
|