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: 4
56
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Sanity in the US is melting like an ice cube in the sun; a looney land in a terminal death spiral. No wonder the remaining few sane ones are leaving if they can.




posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 

the city cited him for not cleaning up the site also for not cleaning up the pavement of snow

so now he has done the cleaning the city wants to sue him .

the city has no grounds for a court case because the citations that they issued ACTUALLY GAVE HIM PERMISSION TO DO SO .



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
"Another news source (which I can't find now) even went on to tell of how this business owner had been cited by the city 3 times for not removing snow on the vacant lot he didn't own and was even cited once for the trash on the lot he just cleaned up. "



There comes a time when you have to put aside the apathy and realize that some "governments" -- federal, state or local -- simply have decayed too far and are not salvageable.




edit on 21-9-2012 by jcarpenter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Despite the improvements he made there is one truth that cannot be denied.

The property was not his.

Does not matter if the land owner was public or private or what he did. He was a trespasser and he should pay for the crime.

That being said there should be compromise of sorts that should be worked out. Like pay a fine of a dollar or something...



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Sad to see some people defend the city in this case, though understandable (but still not right...).

Good on him, in the end, the people is where it needs to come from anyway, it's the bureaucrats that try to prevent them from doing so.

As an added case against the man though; He designed it the way HE liked it, this doesn't mean everyone in the city will like it as much as him, and I think this is why cities try to prevent people from doing things on their own. HOWEVER, he did spend his own money on it, so yeah... It's not like the city was going to get involved in the first place, so "something not everyone likes" still beats "something nobody likes" (aka garbage in an overgrown piece of land)

Reminds me of something that used to bother me to no end, where I live (maybe this is the case in the US as well?), you can't just build on your property whatever you like, there are rules, the house has to "fit in" with the rest of the houses on the street etc etc. Doesn't matter if you keep it all on your own property (which we all know is still not actually yours), if the plans are not OK'd, you simply can't build it, or they will come tear it down after you're done...


EDIT: Wow, just now I read that he was cited for not cleaning the snow and the trash on the piece of land he didn't own?? But when he does he gets in trouble too? What was he supposed to do then, just pick up the trash like a good boy and for the rest mind his own business, or risk getting another citation??
edit on 21/9/12 by ThisIsNotReality because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   

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.



Well, shoot...If my yard looked like a slum area I'd be ecstatic to have someone clean it up for me.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
In my neck of the woods all you have to do is prove you've maintained a piece of property for seven years or more and you can legally claim ownership.
I personally know of one person who actually took possession of a portion of a public roadway years ago and still has a grass lawn growing there.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Here is the part I have a problem with:

1. The property was like that for years.
2. The city calls it public property which is not true. The city is a private corporation, that is how hey can chard him with a common law crime of trespass.
3. The public are not stakeholders in the city owned property.
4. Government may demand and take from you what you think you own by decree.
5. You trying to enrich you community on your own dime is frowned upon because the Government knows best.

You see government call themselves "pubic servants" when they do nothing to serve nor submit to their true bosses, we the people. They are Psudopublic officials. They masquerade as something they are not. They do not serve the people at all they make up rules that best suit them and strongly enforce and punish anyone that disobeys their rule.

We are not free. Even if we don't do anything to harm anyone if the Government doesn't approve we are fined, detained, threaten and arrested for non-compliance. The idea of a fair and just government is a real possibility, however as long as they remain unaccountable for their actions it will never happen. We the People must demand that they are open, fair, and just. Some time that requires force which has occurred in the past in Athens TN.

However in this day and age people have been slowly conditioned to look the other way and never question their new slave masters. Until that changes and we have accountability it will only get worse. We must take the lead and change things for the better.

If they really say the land is publicly owned then he should have a petition signed giving him the authority to maintain it and reduce the burden on the tax payers. Legally speaking he did notify them that he would clean it up and he followed through. Imagine if the situation was reversed which 99% of the time it is. Government tells you to clean up a lot you own and when you don't they do it for you and then force you to pay for it. if you don't they will seize (steal) the property and in a few years it will likely be worse than it was before. I am sure that if someone researched the parcel in question you would find that it was likely taken from an individual and then neglected.

Its ok for Government to lie, cheat and steal, but it is not ok to try to make this world a better place unless it is their Idea.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

The city is now considering legal action against him for his good deed of course.



Well, under the law, if you take over a piece of land, and squat on it, and nobody complains for 7 years, that land becomes yours.

So, unless the city wants to give him the land, it has to take legal action. By improving the land, the man has taken possession, and in 7 years the land would become his. That is, unless the city claims that it still owns the land, which it can prove if it succeeds in getting a court to force the man to remove his improvements.

So, it's all about who has and keeps "title" to the land.


edit on 21-9-2012 by GreatOwl because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-9-2012 by GreatOwl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
This is happening in my hometown.

I worked for Philly goverment for a spell. And from the start, I was instructed to "slow down". Stop making so much documentation and improving processes. I left 8 months later.

The bar to work for Philadelphia government is set so indescribably low, I tripped over it and blamed my shoes. It should be an embarassment to every taxpayer in the city.

This OP is vintage Philly. I've come to expect nothing more.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69


They'll prolly sue him then tear it up on some sort of BS about it not meeting city safety codes/ordinance, if it does meet them then instead of acknowledging his hard work they'll create some sort of bogus ordinance and still tear it apart.



Big government is so dumb that it can't even chase it's own tail because it can't find said tail. Miles and miles of red tape and too many departments and members involved to figure out who is responsible for what, and nothing gets accomplished or resolved or changed for the better. It's just sickening really.

Hey I know, let's make more government; create a committee, appoint some people to have oversight of that lot. That should help. It will cost taxpayers $500,000 to figure out if the shop owner should be fined $10,000 or not. Brilliant.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by AngryAlien

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.


That is you though man, not everyone sees "ugly" like you do...its all relative and its no different then when the city makes a judgement call to implement codes in the first place...They say a garden in the front yard is a code violation mostly because "its not pretty" and "lowers real estate value"...that's a judgement call that limits freedom etc.

I wasn't justifying how the city is handling this anyway I premised my post with "devil's advocate" which means I'm pointing out a perspective that I don't necessarily agree with...

Judgement calls that end up as laws end up in oppression for someone, usually its minorities or people who have taboo lifestyles etc...

City code laws are judgement calls, the guy beautifying the property was a judgement call.

Having said that I agree with what the guy did and I agree with how he handled it, he made attempts to do everything appropriately and was ignored. His issue wasn't addressed and he took matters into his own hands, which is completely understandable and I probably would have done the same thing.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I'm not defending the city though.

I'm defending the true owners of the property, who ever they are.

It is their property, and a person simply doesn't have the right to come onto your land and take it over to their liking.

Not even Homeowner's Associations have that right. they just have the legal power which should be stripped from them.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


LOL Good for him!

And who's the nitwit in the City running this show? Where's the Mayor?



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
tough to say from the article and photos but cities have long term plans, very long term. Property values are destroyed, areas are left to rot on purpose, often by certain agencies distributing drugs etc. When the values go to nothing, the process of buy and fix and sell is started. Could be, the trash was there to keep that process in place as they are not ready to gentrify.

As for their efforts, my guess is they fear him sending them a bill. What he should do is file a mechanics lien on the property for the money he spent. This would lock the property up. I expect they don't want to pay him for the effort, so they demand he pays them. The idea that they want it "returned" to the original condition is beyond ignorant, beyond childish, beyond even animalistic thinking, it is simply the response of a computer system with an "iq" of 10 and is not a tenable situation even under Soviet Style Bureaucracy.

If I were him, after filing the lien, I'd hire the best local PR firm and have a much fun as possible.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69


They'll prolly sue him then tear it up on some sort of BS about it not meeting city safety codes/ordinance, if it does meet them then instead of acknowledging his hard work they'll create some sort of bogus ordinance and still tear it apart.



Wait till some inebriated / stoned homeless type takes a fall off that pretty bench during a substance induced coma and hurts themselves. They'll go after the city who will turn on the guy who cleaned up the lot. The city should be glad they now have a third party to go after in case of injury to whomever "trespasses" on their property.

What really gets me is that all levels of government are voted in by the "people" to do things for the "people" not go after them for the stupidest things one can imagine. One day, hopefully sooner than later, there's going to be a stupidity revolution where the brain-dead hired to serve the public will [insert appropriate form of punishment].



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


So let me get this straight, no one would answer his calls and the city played dumb like no one knew what was going on, but then when he spent his own money to clean it up, then they all of a sudden have everyone at City Hall on board for a law suit. wtf!



A bunch of paper pushing nothings are now trying to justify their worthless existence by doing something destructive?

Seriously folks this is surreal.

edit on 21-9-2012 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 




even went on to tell of how this business owner had been cited by the city 3 times for not removing snow on the vacant lot he didn't own and was even cited once for the trash on the lot he just cleaned up.


With proper legal representation, the man could claim Adverse Posession, especially since the city issued him citations for snow removal and trash cleanup. That, in and of itself, indicates that the city "saw" him as the proper "owner" of the land.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
A few thoughts:

Was the property allowed to rot and be a blight so that the redevelopment organization that owns it could apply for federal and/or state funds with which to clean it up?

Was one of the issues the city had with the man cleaning up the lot to do with his not using union labor and paying the prevailing wage? Is this the reason they want him to mess it back up?

I've seen this same sort of nonsense in my neighborhood where parents wanted to help clean and paint at the public schools but were denied because the work must be given to union members.

He needs to hire a good lawyer. I sincerely hope he prevails. Shame on the city for such willful neglect.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I can't help but feel sad about how far this country has fallen into political correctness. Kids can't sell lemonade from their own sidewalk without having a permit to do so. People can't grow gardens, nor give away the excess capacity to neighbors without the government coming in and telling them what they can and can't do. This man can't clean up his local community because a vacant lot polluted with 40 tons of trash because of red bureaucratic tape.

This would have never happened in 1950's-60's America... (where common sense was far more prevalent in our society) This man should be congratulated. It sounds like he did the local city counsel a HUGE favor by fixing up an environmental hazard as well as an eye sore. America, what has happened to you?
edit on 21-9-2012 by rock427 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join