It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Philly man practices reverse Eminent Domain on city and they are PISSED!

page: 2
56
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
His best bet would have been to sue the city and also sue the city officials individually. or at least name them in the primary suit.
We had to do this in Romeoville, Ill when the city refused to issue final building permits after we purchased property and paid for the permits. Once the suits were threatened against the city and we threatened to sue the officials personally, the permits were miraculously granted and all obstacles magically disappeared.
I think what this guy did was honorable, but it just wasn't wise considering the legal ramifications.




posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Sorry, but just because the guy did a good thing, it still doesn't give him the right to do it on somebody else's property.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Sorry, but just because the guy did a good thing, it still doesn't give him the right to do it on somebody else's property.



It was the city's property and technically belongs to all the taxpayers. He was a taxpayer and he decided to take action where the city would not.

He tried everything in his power to go the legal and proper route and was blocked by the city bureauracracy the whole way. After exhausting all other avenues, he finally took matters into his own hands.

Also, I think I should clarify; when I say he took possesion of the land, I do not mean that he claimed it as his own, I mean that he took responsibility for it as if it was his own, cleaning it up and maintaining it in a neat and orderly fashion.

He does not wish to take real possession of the property without paying for it properly. He wasn't even looking for recognition or even to get paid back his expenses. He just wanted to get rid of a blight in his neighborhood and the city has fought him every step of the way.

When government fails in its duties for its citizens, someone has to step in and do what is right.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 





It was the city's property and technically belongs to all the taxpayers. He was a taxpayer and he decided to take action where the city would not.


I do not agree with this sentiment.

Because, that means that technically, we can go one to any government owned property, because they are really being paid by the taxpayers so that makes them taxpayers' property, and do what we like.

So try pulling that one on a Military installation, or try using that on places like Area 51.

If something belongs to somebody else then that means nobody has the right to trespass.

And there's another problem too, if it belongs to everybody, then that means that somebody else has the right to take over the property and do with it what they want.

So let's say they didn't like what he did and turned it into a big fish tank.

What then?

According to you another taxpayer has the right to do this because it belongs to him too.

And hat if another taxpayer decides they don't like the fish tank and decides to take it down, and put up a big billboard with a pro-atheist ad on it?

Then what if another taxpayer doesn't like that and decides to tear down that billboard and put up a pro-gangster mural on the walls and the put in a cement floor so the children can draw with chalk on it?

What happens then?

If he has the right to just go on to that property and do what he wishes, so too, does everybody else.

And all that creates is chaos because somebody will want to tear down somebody else's work.

He should have just gotten in touch with lawyers to help him get the property properly, rather than jsut unilaterally decide to go and do something with it.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
There is a difference between what is morally correct and what is legally correct (ironic though that may sound.)

Since the corporation explosion where every city, town, and practically every government institution incorporated, they have become "entities with rights" ... which means the property in question was legally the "property" of the city....

The spirit of the law is often ignored when it comes to the interpretation of law in regards to government power (for example, secret rendition, classified expenditures of tax-payer dollars, what is and isn't illegal, etc.)

Were this a case of eminent domain, our local hero would have failed to compensate the city (and thus the state) of it's rightful control of the property in question. However, he claims no ownership of the property, so that avenue of legal attack is lost to the government. Criminal trespass is their only strong prosecutorial tactic; however, as I stated in my opinion above, that path is political suicide.

All it will take is for some civil activist organization to enter an amicus brief which highlights the state of the property and the potential hazards it represented to the community, along with the current state of the property (ostensibly, they followed all safety and regulatory ordinances) and the judge would have to rule based upon the intent of the accused AND the "if not for" aspect of leaning the place as a pile of long-untended rubbish.

I don't know what kind of civic community lives in Philly; if they are willing to accept that if the city can't maintain and police the field of garbage and the fire or health hazards it may represent; over spontaneous civic philanthropy.

It's not like the guy didn't try to work with the officials... apparently it simply wasn't a priority to them to take care of the city's own property... which I'm willing to bet was a specifically chartered responsibility of the city in the first place... I have a feeling this guy will be befriended by many an aspiring activist or "new" politician who can leverage this as one reason for his or her election over the incumbents who frankly, screwed this up royally by being intransigent and unresponsive to a citizen's repeated calls for them to do their duty.


edit on 20-9-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


That's the problem with some of our major Urban cities, they would rather things rot than have "someone else" step in and fix them. The city wants to be the one in control even though they can't seem to manage what they currently have. In a sad way, I'm glad it's not just Detroit that is having this kinda issue.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Where is the church of climatology on this one?

Come on now he did his part to "save the planet"!

What?

Nothing but silence and now return it to its "natural condition".

Seems the city of Philly practices infinite stupidity.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by MrSpad
Not his property and he did not have permission to do anything with it so its pretty cut and dry. You can like what he did all you want but, this would be no different than somebody not liking your yard, then trying to buy your house, then just coming on to your property and doing with it as they wish. Was the city screwing up? Yes. Still you can just do as you wish with property that is not yours.


Wow the stupidity here never ceases to amaze me... Geeze It's not like he built apartments on it or something. He cleaned up a bio-hazard and direct threat to the community and himself. I bet with some research I could find a half dozen laws at least that give him authority to do so and charge the city for his trouble.


It does not matter what he did or did not do, it was not his property to do it on. It is very simple. If someone did not like the way your yard looked they do not have the right to come on your property and clean it up. As I said you can like it or not but, the facts are very simple.
edit on 20-9-2012 by MrSpad because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
There is a difference between what is morally correct and what is legally correct (ironic though that may sound.)

Since the corporation explosion where every city, town, and practically every government institution incorporated, they have become "entities with rights" ... which means the property in question was legally the "property" of the city....

The spirit of the law is often ignored when it comes to the interpretation of law in regards to government power (for example, secret rendition, classified expenditures of tax-payer dollars, what is and isn't illegal, etc.)

Were this a case of eminent domain, our local hero would have failed to compensate the city (and thus the state) of it's rightful control of the property in question. However, he claims no ownership of the property, so that avenue of legal attack is lost to the government. Criminal trespass is their only strong prosecutorial tactic; however, as I stated in my opinion above, that path is political suicide.

All it will take is for some civil activist organization to enter an amicus brief which highlights the state of the property and the potential hazards it represented to the community, along with the current state of the property (ostensibly, they followed all safety and regulatory ordinances) and the judge would have to rule based upon the intent of the accused AND the "if not for" aspect of leaning the place as a pile of long-untended rubbish.

I don't know what kind of civic community lives in Philly; if they are willing to accept that if the city can't maintain and police the field of garbage and the fire or health hazards it may represent; over spontaneous civic philanthropy.

It's not like the guy didn't try to work with the officials... apparently it simply wasn't a priority to them to take care of the city's own property... which I'm willing to bet was a specifically chartered responsibility of the city in the first place... I have a feeling this guy will be befriended by many an aspiring activist or "new" politician who can leverage this as one reason for his or her election over the incumbents who frankly, screwed this up royally by being intransigent and unresponsive to a citizen's repeated calls for them to do their duty.


edit on 20-9-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)


How can they give him a trespassing charge if he never stepped foot on the property and used hired hands

for the job. I pay you to break into someones house, you get caught. Tell the cops you was payed by me

for it, who gets prosecuted>?
edit on 20-9-2012 by popcornmafia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
He only cleaned up? I was hoping he would've taken the ownership of the property for a "true reverse eminent domain". That would be justice.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
He lives in the hood and is trying to make his little piece of hell liveable. Gentrification was the key the residents are low income and don't want their life disturbed. Afraid they might have to conform they will eventually burn him out. You have to understand these people think if the government doesent do it then the person is an evil rich person who wants them all gone. Happens alot people have a vision and try to improve but the locals like their trash heap. Look into Benton Harbor Michigan sometime. Nearly 1/2 billion in inprovements and the local leaders say the money should have been given to the residents and it was private money not the government
edit on 20-9-2012 by mikellmikell because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one
reply to post by FortAnthem
 



Playing Devil's advocate here but:


Would you like it if I went onto your property and revamped it to my opinion of beautiful? I don't think anyone would...




Are you kidding me? If I had a run-down, defunct lot, I would LOVE someone to come in and fix it up with their own time and money. That's a good fiscal decision.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
The man could have also used Adverse Possession to claim the property as his own. With nobody to contest the possession (except for the Owner of ths disputed land), it seems to me that he would have prevailed. All he had to do is use the land. Even just walking on it daily would have lead to his taking possession via Adverse Possession. Just show that you are using the land and not having the Owner contest it, would have been sufficient.

-E2



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
The reason he is in trouble is because he raised the property value of the lot, thus raising the values of surrounding lots.

This went against the Government and their buddy property developer's wishes, because they wanted it to be a garbage pit thus decreasing the values of all properties within proximity.

This is all about money $$$, you can bet your bottom dollar.

They want America to be a garbage heap, and will take action against anyone cleaning it up.
Apparently that's how it works, I didn't make it up, they showed me publicly and openly how this works. I am just articulating the message they are sending to me.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
There is a difference between what is morally correct and what is legally correct (ironic though that may sound.)


What did Martin Luther King Jr tell us?


"There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all... One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly...I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."


From his ""Letter from the Birmingham Jail," where he was imprisoned for opposing unjust laws.

And who can argue with such eloquence?



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by popcornmafia

How can they give him a trespassing charge if he never stepped foot on the property and used hired hands

for the job. I pay you to break into someones house, you get caught. Tell the cops you was payed by me

for it, who gets prosecuted>?
edit on 20-9-2012 by popcornmafia because: (no reason given)


They would both be charged. One for burglary, the other as an accessory before the fact.

accessory before the fact - a person who procures or advises or commands the commission of a felony but who is not present at its perpetration.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

I think the better questions would be:

Does this lot have the same public openess as a public park? Or are city lots different from city parks in regards to who can access them?



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
I hope he fights it to the death. I hope others join in and do the same damn thing. If more folks werent scared little bunnies when it comes to these morons who think they can run a city..maybe we would get somewhere. I wont get into details (just due to me sounding like a vicious old woman if I did! LOL!), but we had a sort of similar issue here.. and I can tell you with enough money and tenacity he will get his way. I did. Of course it took too much money, a few yrs, a few new enemies and I now have high blood pressure, but I at some point some moron who thinks they can blabber and baffle him with BS will slip up. He just has to have the patience and intestinal fortitude to attack it and not let go. They all want it to be a little "village" and be in everyones business and demand everyone to live communally, until you take it into your own hands and not hand them money to screw around with. If they TRULY cared about the area, neighborhood, city, property values and a plethora of other real world worries.. then they would be aiding him and not being whiners because they didnt get a dime out of it.

They now backtrack and say he never made an offer to buy it in the first place. Well the first thing anyone here needs to know if they are going to take on these morons is : Registered or certified mail is your BEST friend .. because they will lie, lie, lie.

Kudos to him and give 'em hell!



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


SnF, so I will contribute by stating, the following doesn't really mean sh#t:





VACANT LOT PROGRAM


There are approximately 40,000 vacant lots in the City of Philadelphia and over 74% of these vacant lots are privately owned. It is the responsibility of the vacant lot owner to secure and maintain their property. Unfortunately not all property owners take the necessary steps to protect and care for their property. Property owner neglect combined with careless tossing of trash and illegal dumping of bulk trash (such as construction debris) exacerbates the problem. Overtime, the high weeds, trash and otherwise unsanitary conditions of the lot will lower property values and can attract large scale illegal dumping operations which adds to the overall perception of blight in the neighborhood.

The City's Vacant Lot Program was created in 2001 to address the problem of nuisance vacant lots. Since then, tens of millions of pounds of trash and debris have been collected and removed from these lots. The main objective of the program is to promote clean neighborhoods by enforcing the City's property maintenance codes. Before any punitive action is initiated by the City, the property owner is issued a warning notice which states that their property needs to be maintained. If the warning fails to compel the owner to comply and maintain their lot, City abatement crews have the authority to clean those lots and bill the owner for the clean up cost. Either way, the lot will be cleaned.

HOW TO REPORT A VACANT LOT THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEANED:

www.phila.gov...

Residents can call 311 to request a vacant lot clean up. If calling 311 by cell phone or from outside the city, please call (215) 686-8686.
Please provide the 311 operator with your name, address and phone number so we can contact you if we have additional questions.
Missing or incorrect information may delay the clean up process.
Remember all information is kept confidential.


Do as I say, not as I do.....tch tch tch
edit on 20-9-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
He should have never admitted to doing it. They couldn't prove otherwise unless someone had him on video, which I doubt.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


this is typical city hall for philly. lived there for 13 years.

they are beyond corrupt. i often said as i would drive highways cutting

through northeast or west philly that the best urban development would

be to napalm those sectors and build anew. like this poor guy did, without

the fire, and he's in trouble now. sad, sad, sad.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join