MovieChat Forums > Still Mine (2013) Discussion > Following rules

Following rules

posted 10 years ago by lukn4frnz
16 replies | jump to latest

Movie really got me to thinking.

I agreed so many times with the husband, he was more than enough skilled to make a sound home. So the rules and laws were not necessary.

And yet not everybody does it right, either due to ignorance or due to cutting corners to make a profit.

Like the strawberries, sure he did it right. So should he have been allowed to transport w/o using refrigeration? If he can, why can't someone else, and perhaps that someone else let their berries sit long enough that they were possible unsafe to eat.

It's a part of life I hate a lot, that so many are inconvenienced and financially obligated due to a few rotten apples.

One person speeds through a parking lot, next thing ya know the lots is full of those darn speed bumps.

If we'd just be tougher on the ne'er do wells, maybe we wouldn't all have to suffer for the actions of a few.

[–] andrewsk8s 10 years ago

I agree.

Sure I sympathized and empathized with the protagonist, and the message of the movie was about modern bureaucracy meddling in our lives. I personally do believe "that government is best that governs least". And yet, I can also see why building codes are necessary (having seen unstable foundations, electrical fires, sewage contamination, gas explosions, outright collapses, etc).

It's hard to imagine it when you're standing in a queue to pay a permit fee, but the codes are designed to keep unqualified DIYs from erecting 5-story Taj Mahals in their back garden and eliminating themselves from the gene pool (or burning down the surrounding neighbours' houses) when the electrics go haywire.

In this case, the court correctly used common sense appropriate to this circumstance. I just wish the faceless, mindless, uncaring bureaucracy had at least mentioned the reasoning and wherefores for balance.

[–] MrBlondee 10 years ago

In a world today that is so insanely and absurdly over regulated, I do not agree. It's about controlling the masses and taking freedom away. The film clearly stated that.

[–] MrBlondee 10 years ago

Rules MAKE people dumb, didn't you get that from the film?

[–] anne-michaud 10 years ago

I think you make a good assessment here of how a few rotten apples create rules for all of us. However, this movie struck me like a temper-tantruming toddler that can't make peace with any limitations. I had to turn it off after the scene about the lumber not being stamped. The James Cromwell character is supposedly based on a real person. He must have been a real cuss of a man to have the local government people come down on him as hard as it's portrayed in this film. That aspect of "Still Mine" was completely unrealistic and self-indulgent. Maybe it ended well ... but I didn't stick with it long enough to see that ending.

[–] denise1234 10 years ago

"He must have been a real cuss of a man to have the local government people come down on him as hard as it's portrayed in this film."

'Government people' are just like anyone else.

Some okay and some churlish.

~~ Truth exists; only lies are invented. ~~ G. Braque

[–] mel-morris 9 years ago

Though I agree with having building codes, common sense should also come into play, but hey the government likes to let the laws dictate over common sense at times..

[–] mel-morris 9 years ago

It's true. We live 45min away, very small town. Only takes one man in power to be bored and decide he doesn't like another. If he technically has the law on his side he can make others miserable.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jimprideaux2 9 years ago

Got me thinking as well.

The unresolved violations were never stated. Being a former Federal Labor Investigator it had been my experience that the Dept never took anyone to court except for real substantive violations that were unresolved.

Those violations which were stated, building permit, plans, graded lumber, and proper trusses were all resolved. At least that was my take from the movie.

Cromwell's character states they have been resolved then asks what needed to be fixed so he could fix it. As an experienced builder I'm sure he could understand what the Building Dept was getting at in their report.

Yet the audience is not brought in as the building inspector just replies that Cromwell's character is to read his report.

Another thing was that apparently the Building Dept had the authority to bulldoze a house that was not up to code. Is this true in Canada? What about all those Holmes on Homes episodes where Mike Holms complains that construction was not up to code and he would have to rip it out and do it right?

In Kentucky I recall a friend building a house for himself where some sort of "this house cannot be occupied" sign was posted by the building inspector. Something about support posts not being properly spaced in the unfinished basement. As my friend was going to live in it himself he threw the notice away. The problem would come in if he want to sell the house, in which case he could easily address the post spacing. Regardless the building inspector would not have the authority to bulldoze the house.

Don't mean to nit pick. I'm willing to chalk it all up to dramatic license in order to heighten conflict and move the plot along.

[–] ficoce 9 years ago

I know of a county here in the states that has a minimal building permit process. The permit is one sheet for a few bucks, no plans. The site must be signed off by a licensed electrician and plumber, but other than that - if you own the land you can build. I did a job there that lasted a few weeks and I took a good look at a lot of construction. I figured I would find shoddy work, but it was just the opposite - the materials and construction was actually better than what I was used to, working developments that finished a house a week. I was told that a single house could be built using trees from the site without paying lumber tax on the trees cut. This abundance of lumber made the framing of these places well over engineered by normal code standards.

This couldn't work everywhere. There's too many safety concerns, but I wonder if the safety concerns are more for the contractors that like to cut corners, not the self builders that over do everything.

[–] Haverchuck_Is_King 9 years ago

The movie makes a big deal about the guy knowing about wood, but what about the electrical and plumbing? You do electrical wrong and people die. If he kills himself and his wife, big deal. But there are people that come to his house, his kids and grandkid, neighbors. Completely irresponsible.

If he was a 20-year old snot trying to pull that nonsense the judge would have smacked him.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mel-morris 9 years ago

From what I've heard from family in that area, we live 45min away, it was all about the wood not being stamped. In the end they wanted to kick them out, but the judge finally let them stay, but once they die no one can live there. And yes, here the law states if it's not up to code it can be condemned.

[–] mel-morris 9 years ago

To elaborate, saying its condemned means the government has given many chances for you to fix it. If it doesn't get fixed then it's condemned, and thus can be destroyed. It's a process to get to that point. Holmes on Homes is like the first stages. Once aware of said problem it must get fixed.

[–] davidwile 9 years ago

Hey folks,

For crying out loud, the man was building a house on his privately owned property of 2,000 acres. There is no way his house would harm any neighbors. Even if his house had an outhouse, it still would not have harmed anyone else. For those who scream that an outhouse would be terrible for the environment, tell me why an outhouse is bad but having 1,000 head of cattle on his 2,000 acres is fine for the environment.

What is it with people who worship the nanny state? This man was living on 2,000 acres; he was not living in a cramped little suburb. If he were to build something that was unsafe and killed him, so be it. It should be his choice to accept the risk. Yes, government is beast which governs the least.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

[–] rebbacchus-1 9 years ago

Thank you Dave. If he wants to sell the house, the buyer needs to be able to find out what problems might exist. I can see the need for codes in that case. But if I'm building on my land for me, the the government can go to Hades. They have no business and no right.

It is only if I'm creating a problem that might get off my land that gov should be involved. . Could it start s fire that burns down a neighbor? Then maybe, but my taxes also pay for a fire department. If the house if for me then the burden should be on them to prove I'm a danger to others. Otherwise live free or fight like hades. It's why we have a 2nd Amendment.

It kills me to see all the kids wearing bike helmets because so few folks understand statistics. Last time I was I the ER a sign that said 50,000 preventable accidents a year. I highly doubt the number, (how many might not be helped by said helmet, and just how much are we forced to spend for such a minor problem? Aldo, how many were a little cut needing nothing more than a bandaid. We are training our young that even minor risks are to be avoided at all cost, and it's Big Govs jobs to say what we need, and of course it's not our responsibility to keep safe. If I'm wearing a helmet and get hurt SUE!

Our ancestors are spinning in their graves at how timid and fearful we've become. How many today would set of to a frontier knowing you'd have to live in a sod house just to be able to gamble you could find land to make a living.

I did build my house, and because it was on
My land and far from town. I didn't have even have a code to meet. Oh, there's a code now, but they'd have to raise standards a ton to bring them up to mine. I lived here 45 years and I'm still happy with my work. I feel sorry for those timid souls that feel safe because the Gov is protecting them. All it costs is a heck of a lot of money and even more personal freedom.