The story:
"Since the treehouse was built on crown land, I don’t technically own it, and so its fate is uncertain. For three years I kept the HemLoft secret, but now that I’m finished, I’ve found myself wanting to share it. I even shared it with a big glossy magazine! Coming out of the bush about the HemLoft is fun, however it poses a few problems; if people know about it, they might try to find it. And if the wrong people find it, they may make me take it down."
"It took a lot of work to build it, and I’d rather not take it down, just yet. So I’ve been thinking of ways to expose the HemLoft, while somehow making it legal. To the best of my knowledge, Squatting on Whistler Mountain, beneath some of Western Canada’s most luxurious mega-homes would not be looked favourably upon. However, I’ve thought of a few ideas that might be… I’d like you to read the ideas below and vote on the one you think I should do!"
Meh, it is a nice place, neat looking, but I don't see a strong reason to classify it as a national monument or art project worthy of preserving.
What happens in 5 years after the creator has moved to a new thing? Just let it sit there as a derelict building in the middle of a national forest? Why not let people put mobile homes up there then?
I think the quotes you've selected are probably some of the most uninteresting quotes in the whole piece. They certainly don't seem like "the story" to me.
I read it as a story about someone who had a passion to build something that was unconventional, or at least outside of existing support structures, and managed to actually do it. Managed to do it really beautifully and really well.
Why instantly reduce a story about someone doing something so potentially inspiring to a question of its marginal legality?
If I was in charge I'd congratulate the guy, then seize the building and make it a rest stop for hikers and stuff. It's definitely neat enough (in my opinion) to dedicate a little bit of time to provided it's publicly accessible.
It's not on or even really near any existing trail that would make it useful as a rest stop for hikers. It's about 300m from the road up to a bunch of the most expensive houses in whister, and anybody who can find it can stop in.
There's no need to 'seize' it, just leave it as is. which is exactly what's happening - it's been sitting there for a couple years now and nobody has torn it down, seized it, vandalized it, broken it, or hurt it in any other way. It just sits there as an interesting artifact for anybody who wants to stop by and take a look.
I would think that the 'permanent structure' is probably the defining thing done here that makes it incontrovertibly illegal.
Generally speaking, camping on lands like this requires permits (though not always) and are generally overlooked because 1) they aren't as heavily patrolled (because there isn't the expectation of campers) and 2) the campers generally leave little trace of their comings and goings.
>Generally speaking, camping on lands like this requires permits
Nah. Places that require permits are typically developed camping sites. The vast majority of public land in the US (and Crown land in Canada) requires no permits to camp on. BLM land (1/8 of the US) is free to camp on unless local regulations say otherwise.
Thank you for the correction. That's what I get for using anecdata to assert a claim.
Edit: Now that you've pointed that out though, I did a quick search and found that while free, there is a "14 day limit per calendar year" on camping on BLM land (it doesn't specify if this is confined to a single piece of land or all land in general), and for periods longer than 14 days, a permit is required.
Some things are illegal as a formality, and some things are illegal based on social morality, but other things are illegal because society as a whole is sacrificing some freedoms in order to provide for a better future. In that case, I've very little concern for legality.
Well it's not really public land it's Crown Property. Not sure of the specifics of BC law wrt structures[1] but in most places anything you build on Crown Property becomes the property of the Crown and whatever minister is in charge of that can do whatever they want with it.
Honestly it wouldn't be hard for them to say "Yeah that's nice" and let it slide, obviously he doesn't have any rights to the structure so I could go and take it over and he couldn't really do anything about it.
While they could let it slide, they won't, because that could trigger adverse possession from him. He could wait ten years, then sue to gain ownership of the land, arguing that because they didn't kick him off when they found out, they were implicitly granting him ownership. He'd win, too. You have to make a positive defense against adverse possession, meaning if you know about it you have to do something about it.
I don't think anyone has suggested looking the other way. They should work with the builder and find a way to make it legal.
This isn't any more egregious than the numerous abuses of our public land system (e.g. the sale Tim DeChristopher was protesting, which was later deemed illegal).
"Personal use of public lands of this nature can almost always be classified as 'misuse,' no matter how cool or ingenious the project."
Actually our national forests were specifically created for personal use. They are designed to meet the needs of a variety of stakeholders who have interest in using the forest, including the construction and paper industries, skiers, hunters, backpackers, fisherman, wildlife conservation groups, etc.
Clearly they should have gotten permission first, because the job of the national forest service is to mediate between the needs of the different groups who each want to use the forest in their own way, and that can't happen if people just go off and do their own thing. But this would actually potentially be a legitimate use of the national forest system had they gone about it the right way.
The "right way" is buying land from the Crown. That's the thing here, this isn't "public" land it's Crown land. The governor general owns it and lets people hike and bike and stuff but you can't build stuff there because it's not yours.
Hmm. That he planned to get others to pay for his retirement through fundraising is quite depressing/worrying.
Building the tree house was a nice story, but I'm waiting for the 'fundraising' to buy the land and obviously plenty of err... administration costs for doing so.
He said he intended to crowdsource his retirement. That's really no different than what every HN-inspired startup-jockey is doing.
Plenty of people have incredibly inane or uninspiring startups that end up bringing in enough money to retire on. The way things work (perhaps unfortunately) is that any individual subjective or objective measure of someone's idea is not what matters. What matters is if people pay or not.
If he can entice people to pay for his retirement directly, it's no different than enticing people to pay for a customer loyalty or group discount startup. Perhaps you're right that this is "quite depressing/worrying," but I think a critique of his methods would need to include something much larger.
he paid for the bits of the treehouse (that he didn't get free on craigslist) with his carpentry jobs in Whistler, right? so no. he paid for it.
On what he does next, who's to say. In his own words:
"I now feel like I want to create something new, something of value that also doesn’t belong to anyone. It will be radically different in form and function than the Hemloft, however, it will have some similar characteristics: it will be remote, it will have a minimal footprint, it will be built mostly out of used materials, and it will push the boundaries of design."
Maybe he's lying. But the dude can at least build cool treehouses.
I recall a reddit thread about this (which I cannot find) on which a commenter explained that this tree house design would, over time, kill the tree it is attached to. If that is the case, I think the house should be taken down.
If you do the research and are not tied to "the perfect spot" that happens to be on public land, there are (not expensive) remote lots of land for sale where the only problem is access.
>A person who does anything that is an offence under section 60, or who directs or causes an offence to be committed under section 60, is liable to compensate the government or the person against whom the offence is committed for loss or damage suffered by the government or by that person because of the contravention.
"It took a lot of work to build it, and I’d rather not take it down, just yet. So I’ve been thinking of ways to expose the HemLoft, while somehow making it legal. To the best of my knowledge, Squatting on Whistler Mountain, beneath some of Western Canada’s most luxurious mega-homes would not be looked favourably upon. However, I’ve thought of a few ideas that might be… I’d like you to read the ideas below and vote on the one you think I should do!"
Also, I had to find a mirror to see it (http://solarburrito.com/blog/2012/04/09/the-hemloft-secret-t...) just to get some ideas on what it was, as well as a map (http://goo.gl/maps/iof7T) of where it was located.
Meh, it is a nice place, neat looking, but I don't see a strong reason to classify it as a national monument or art project worthy of preserving.
What happens in 5 years after the creator has moved to a new thing? Just let it sit there as a derelict building in the middle of a national forest? Why not let people put mobile homes up there then?