Razing a mansion

If the property is paid for (no mortgage) he can absolutely raze it. He will need a permit, and some items (air conditioners, refrigerators, etc) will need to be disposed of in accordance with statutes. If there is asbestos, that will have to be carted away. He could theoretically turn it into the ground, but that would make the property unsalable. He would need a wrecking ball or large backhoe to tear it down, then run over it with a big bulldozer to grind it up. The large backhoe or bulldozer could be used to dig it into the soil. It would have to be a REALLY big hole, or scattered over most of the 200 acres to bury it all.

One of the essential rights of ownership is to destroy something.

The exact method of razing it would depend on the size and type of construction. He should strong ly consider fire or explosives. It could also be crushed by a very large bulldozer or similar piece of equipment. There are shovels used in mining that could pick up a few houses at a time.

Disposal might be the most difficult part and a powerful reason to consider burning. If he didn't burn the place but used his extra large sized loaderto pick it up, he could simply drop it into a hole that he had dug earlier, then another load of dirt could hide the house rather well.

Check out some of these:
http://www.bucyrus.com/shovels.htm
135 ton, etc. One of them would work.

wittyusernamehere said:

PeterL - Thank you for the input! I love the idea of shovels used in mining -what a great visual. I am concerned about burning that the EPA would be able to bring charges (everyone is going to want to punish this guy, but I want him to escape most penalty).

Click to expand...

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]
Depending on exactly how he handled it, I think that he could get away with burning. The EPA would not be involved in any case, because it would be a local issue. The smoke from a single house, even a very large house, would not be much smoke.

A further question, if you don't mind: If there is a wine cellar below ground level, would it be a hazard to big demolition equipment (like would they fall through like a make-shift pit)? Could they roll over it and crush it with no hazard to the equipment?

Click to expand...

A wine cellar could be a trap for a big shovel, but I think that the operator could avoid it. The biggest machines are picking up material that is a fair distance away, and keep in mind that the largest one on that page holds 135 cubic yards. It wouldn't hold the whole house, but it probably could take the house in two or three shovelsful.

There are even larger shovels, but moving them is a real pain. They have to be disassembled, hauled in in many pieces, then reassembled.

Burning is the most effecient method. What is left could then be put into a pit and buried. Foundations could be covered over and being in a rural area, more than likely he has septic and well water. The well would have to be capped and the septic could either be left in the ground, or hauled off and recycled for crushed stone.

He will need demolition permits in most cases, and the dwelling will have to be deleted from the county land records. Once the dwelling is gone, he only pays taxes on the land which is generally way less than the dwelling unless it is an extremely large estate of several hundred acres.

Once all this is done, he is ready to rebuild or repopulate the area of the dwelling with whatever vegatation he desires. If he wants it to return to forest, he will even have to pull up whatever drives are there.

Now, it sounds like you want him doing this for some type of spite or personal vengance. If he does not get the permits, about the worse he is going to get is a fine from the local gov. No jail time unless he starts a forest fire or someone dies or is injured during the demo process.

Demolition by heavy equipment is going to draw notice and he might be stopped before he can complete the process. Explosives also require permit and could get him into serious federal trouble besides the local fines.

Just some thoughts...

Although I agree that burning is the easiest, most thorough, and quickest method, the OP has this set in California. My guess is anyplace in California is going to require permits. Lots and lots of permits. You have air pollution concerns and forest fire concerns. Now if this was set in Iowa, I'd drop a match without thinking about it.

You need to look at state laws on something like this. To give you an example, as a firefighter I took part in burning houses for training. In New Hampshire, we have to remove the windows, the shingles, any asbestos, appliances, furniture, and the list goes on. In Tennessee, where I took part in a burn, I get there, windows still in the building, shingles on the house. Laws are a bit different, and they could do a lot less work.

Any decent size dozer or bucket can destroy a house. The bigger it is, the faster you can do it. But if you've got enough patience, a pickup and a chain will rip the place apart sooner or later (mainly later).

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

Call your local firedepartment. They usually handle derelict buildings that are a public hazard, and have specific methods and procedures. Tell them you're writing a book (no need to make them think you're an arsonist studying up...) and they should be willing to give you the specifics.

jclarkdawe said:

Now if this was set in Iowa, I'd drop a match without thinking about it.

Click to expand...

No you wouldn't. Iowa has very clean air and soil (unlike CA) and wants to keep it that way.

http://www.iowadnr.gov/waste/recycling/cndiowa.html



But as for your story, when I was living in 'the bad part of town,' the city came by and demolished a two-story wooden house less than 10 feet from mine. They used a hydraulic backhoe excavator on it*. The operator could tear the sink off the wall without touching the towel rack next to it. Once they had torn the house apart, they took a mini-version of one of these** and squashed that sucker flat.

I sat in my bedroom and watched all of this through the 2nd story window. It was like a ballet. These guys really knew their stuff. We didn't even have a stray scrap of wood fall in our yard.

The next day, they took the pieces and hauled them away, then dug out the foundation and filled it in with fill dirt.

You could do this and it would be a lot more satisfying than simply burning it down.

* http://myconstructionphotos.smugmug.com/gallery/2213405#155383506_MdhFF

** http://myconstructionphotos.smugmug.com/gallery/2213123#41819334_rXho5

wittyusernamehere said:

Can a person raze their own property? Can he turn it into the ground, or must it be carted away? .

Click to expand...

If he owns it, he can tear it down, but the manner of demolition can be subject to laws.

Depends on city, state and county law. Some of them require permits, and require inspection to make sure demolition won't create hazards for the surrounding area. It's just like a construction project, OSHA, workman's comp, etc all take effect unless he does it himself.

He can't just burn it down - even if you own it, it's still arson unless you get the permits and have fire control teams standing by.

If he lives in unincorporated land, could he go to jail for doing this, or just pay a fine? .

Click to expand...

Depends ... look up the laws in CA about demolition and permits.

The demolition debris has to be disposed of according to law

I'd bring in the Loiseaux family and implode it.

Stephaniefox, that's exactly what I had in mind. Those pix are so cool!