Is there more to the story behind this, given all the negativity above? You sound like the jealous kid who couldn't stand his friend building a better treehouse ;-) It's an awesome creation, kudos to him for trying to figure out a way to preserve it.
Actually I thought it was quite interesting until it became a plea to save it because he built it where he shouldn't have. If I were to go build something in the Town Forest up the street should I be surprised that it will eventually be taken down? The person obviously has money, he should have bought a little patch of land and he never would have had to worry about it.
It doesn't sound like he's surprised though. He says clearly that he knew the price for making it public was that it would likely be taken down (although I'm not sure he has revealed the exact location yet). So now he's asking for suggestions on how it can be saved. The site has a poll with these options:
# Play it safe, and take it down
# Make a fun geo-caching game out of it
# Make it a public camp site (involves legal hoops)
# Try to buy the land the tree is on (about nine square feet)
From what I gather. nobody has asked him to take it down yet. He sounds alright by me. Sure, he shot first and asked later, but he's aware of, and seemingly accepting, the consequences.
How about doing the intelligent thing, and that would be if you were going to build anything that has merit (structural/architectural/cultural/sentimental) that you would put in on land that the "threat" of losing it wouldn't exist
It would indeed be unintelligent if he didn't consider the threat when he built it, just assumed he wouldn't loose it, or refused to comply when confronted about it. From the sound of it, that's not the case. He made something beautiful and enjoyable, enjoyed it, let others enjoy it (well, only to some extent so far), and - assuming he didn't make significant, irreparable damage to anything - he's perfectly able to undo it.
Now, I'll agree that principally, people shouldn't just start building shit on others' land. I just don't think that necessarily makes this guy, who built a 9m² beautiful treehouse in crown land, "a typical idiot" or "seriously bitching".
Viscera: To think it's categorically so - yes. To think it's excusable if it's an insignificant, non-intrusive treehouse in the wilderness and one accepts the consequences of doing it - no.
skitzy: Lost in translation for a poor Norseman, my apologies :-)
I would imagine that when you build something on someone else s property, you lose the ability to determine what is insignificant, non-intrusive. I guess that was really my point. But it is a cool piece of architecture. Me being more Dwarf-like in temperament, would rather have a cave
The crown will want it down because it is on their land, and if someone hurts themselves on it, they are liable. Its cool, but he should have built it on his land, where he is responsible for it.
And while I agree with that, my point is that it doesn't necessarily make someone an idiot, as long as they accept the consequences. Imagine driving just a little too fast on an empty highway. The police officer stopping you will certainly tell you it's not up to you to determine what insignificant speeding is. I would still argue that not everyone who breaks the speed limit is an idiot.