baby.me:

My bad. Thot the picture came with the story. Now can you smile for me?

babapupa:

“They say my house is not beautiful? They are mad. Who dem be sef? Wey dem? They sef don build house? Abegi, make I hear word. If na poverty dey worry dem, make dem talk to me, I go settle the baggers. This na Lagos, nothing wey settlement nor fit settle.”

Kilode?!:

There is no way you can have a new born baby inside that structure and it will not become an Abiku! no way!!

Danni2:

THIS IS MY HONEST TAKE ON THIS: Nobody who has attained a university-level education would build that kind of structure. I don't know the guy in question who built that house, but i bet he lacks sound mind. I suspect lack of proper education." PEOPLE SHOULD GO TO SCHOOL. ITS NOT JUST ABOUT GETTING A DECENT JOB, IT'S GOOD FOR A SOUND MIND.

fafie02:

Strange Building  , the owner probably felt it was of high ingenuity.
As regards the tax, the government could also adopt proactive means, by checking all plans and architectural designs before implementation (i guess that's one of the reasons for a town planning division)

10cirenoh:

Gosh, this house should be converted to a rehab house asap, i mean rehab for mentally deranged people.

luizworld:

This has got to be moved to the joke section The writer of this wonderful article was obviously bored and decided to spice it up with some humour.
This is a brilliant masterpiece

spyder880:

I dont know why the world have a problem of accepting we are the happiest people on planet earth. In some countries, that structure will make a lot of people depressed, some will have to take anti-depressants while others will go to rehab. But see as we dey laff like obj here! I dey laff o. Lolll.

Pifa:

   
       
Legally, the tax levy may be treading on “dangerous” grounds because it is difficult to argue for state-sanctioned architectural vanity in court. I suspect that the tax penalty would not survive constitutional challenge. Who defines beauty and who defines what constitutes aesthetic blight? Should “unattractive” people be considered a public nuisance? Should we confine such folks to their homes so they would not “injure” our eyes, if they come out in public? It is one thing to legislate community standards on public nuisance such as street prostitution, public hygiene or panhandling, but legislation based on subjective view of beauty?

Suppose I tell you that I find some African art to be shockingly ugly because they over-exaggerate African features and tend to invoke images of horror. Should the state legislate against displaying them in public? Suppose the building owner had placed such a piece of art in front of his house. Would the state deem it not to its aesthetic standard?

I don’t know if newspapers in Nigeria have architectural critics on staff, but this is their domain: to critique buildings on their architectural significance, aesthetics, pedigree, functionality and latterly, “green” imprimatur. It should never be the place of the state to dictate to us what is beautiful.

This ordinance stinks.



Post script: If the knock against the building were related to safety (the elephant structure could break from its anchor and come crashing down on people’s heads), that might be a legitimate concern of the state.
 
     

spyder880:

@pifa the lawyer, can you define satire?