Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)treehouse poll - should homeowner be allowed to keep this? [View all]


Homeowner Fights to Keep Treehouse
City says it's a public hazard, but Washington state resident disagrees
(Newser) Zeb Postelwait of Washington state always wanted to build a treehouse for his sons. He got the chance last summer after moving into a Wenatchee home with a big tree in the front yard. Two months later he received his first notice from the city to tear it down. Authorities say the treehouse overhangs the sidewalk and thus threatens public safety, but Postelwait disagrees, reports the Wenatchee World. City officials say he can keep it if he takes out a $1 million insurance policy, but Postelwait says no way. The city is prepared to seek a court order to remove the treehouse and send Postelwait the bill. He feels the city is harassing him.
http://www.newser.com/story/183731/homeowner-fights-to-keep-treehouse.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=united&utm_campaign=rss_lifestyle
18 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
homeowner should be allowed to keep his cool treehouse as is | |
5 (28%) |
|
homeowner should be allowed to keep his treehouse if he gets the $1M insurance policy | |
1 (6%) |
|
treehouse is a danger to the public and should be torn down / i wouldn't want it next to my home | |
12 (67%) |
|
Other | |
0 (0%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
34 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

i'm pretty sure the codes don't let you build a building in a tree... but i'm not an expert.
dionysus
Mar 2014
#4
If it doesn't meet code, and a variance isn't approved, it's a dangerous attractive nusance
HereSince1628
Mar 2014
#20
"City officials say he can keep it if he takes out a $1 million insurance policy"
dionysus
Mar 2014
#2
If it falls over on the sidewalk it could crush someone or damage adjacent property
Aerows
Mar 2014
#5
I don't see any tie downs, either. I just see support structures to keep it to the tree.
Aerows
Mar 2014
#8
What a godawful thing. Unsightly and probably dangerous. Make him remove it. (nt)
Nye Bevan
Mar 2014
#7
And it's built in a softwood tree that both he and the city say is basically a "weed." n/t
pnwmom
Mar 2014
#10
If it wasn't so poorly constructed, I might be inclined to agree that it should stay.
Gravitycollapse
Mar 2014
#18
Municipalities have "Rights of Way," and his tree-house IS encroaching that zone.
WinkyDink
Mar 2014
#27