Your Tax Dollars at Work

[Boxlicker101]

This may not be all that typical, but it is a good example of bureaucracy at work:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/city-may-sue-developer-spent-20k-remove-40-200922350.html

Or, to put it another way: No good deed would go unpunished if it were up to government agencies.

 

[sr71plt]

Interesting that you find this erotic.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Interesting that you find this erotic.

I just find it interesting.

 

[sr71plt]

You like to torture yourself with life's little idiocies? You seek the perpectual mad at the world?

The guy messed with someone else's property without their permission. The legal precedent of this is pretty clear no matter what the circumstances--beyond the fact that the property belonged to someone who didn't give permission to someone else to mess with it.

Whether or not he improved the property, this is an excuse for anarchy and negating the right to ownership.

Life is full of complex situations. Get over it.

 

[CeasarBoobage]

Just another example of retarded government in action!

First they fine him for the garbage saying it's his lot, then they get mad that he improved the area. They really need to STFU. If they don't have the decency to say 'thanks' they should at least call it a draw.

 

[sr71plt]

First they fine him for the garbage saying it's his lot,

Where does it say this? I swear you reactionaries just have to make things up to be mad about.

 

[gentledemands]

I think the logical thing for him to do would be go to City halls lot, tear out their benches dig up the ground in front of it and put the garbage there... where it belongs.

 

[sr71plt]

Oh, god. You folks really want to hate, don't you?

He would wind up in jail--deservedly.

Everybody's got the vigiliante gene now.

Chances are all he had to do was go to the local newspaper.

 

[FallingToFly]

It says in the article that he received a citation for the trash in the lot adjoining HIS property (the one he then spent his own time and money cleaning up) in 2011.

 

[sr71plt]

Ah, yes. I see where he claimed that he'd been cited. I missed that. Of course it doesn't say a fine was actually levied--that he didn't just inform them it wasn't his lot and the citation went away. Ergo a clerical error fixed.

The major point here, though, is the idiocy of people who just have to have something to be mad about (and post to an erotica forum, no less). The minor point is that, no matter what, it wasn't his property to mess with without permission.

And it looks to me like he's led with the chin for the publicity because the city wasn't getting it cleaned up fast enough for him--because he knew that people who just wanted to be outraged by something, like those posting this here, would put him in the spotlight.

It doesn't say he went to the papers about the lot. They are famous for embarrassing the authorities to get off their rumps and do something (which usually means turning resources from competing priorities because they weren't given the resources needed to covering all priorities). But then he wouldn't get his moment in the sun and those bouncing the story around the net couldn't get there "everyone's stupid but me" jollies.

 

[FallingToFly]

I'm a big fan of community gardens and improvement projects, so I'm biased and admit it. I think he did a good thing. I think it's a shame if he gets sued because of it. I wish more people did good things just because they saw a problem and wanted to help solve it.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm a big fan of community gardens and improvement projects, so I'm biased and admit it. I think he did a good thing. I think it's a shame if he gets sued because of it. I wish more people did good things just because they saw a problem and wanted to help solve it.

If you owned the lot, what would you think of someone illegally installing a garden for the public and denying you your choice of how to use the lot?

I don't consider this real deep thinking here. Sort of woo woo pie in the sky, isn't it?

Is that where the world is going? Everyone doing just what they damn well please no matter whose rights they stomp on?

 

[FallingToFly]

If I owned a lot that had collected 40 tons of garbage and crap, I'd probably never notice it had been cleaned up. And it wouldn't be interference with any plans I had for the lot- I could quite easily still build a house or business on it with the improvements- hell, it would be EASIER to build on it, and more profitable, as I wouldn't have to pay for the clean-up! Even if I had to say.. pay for the improvements that were made (which would have had to be made in any case to build) by my neighbor- which I very likely would NOT have to pay for as it was a voluntary act- I'd still be coming out ahead, as the property is arguably more valuable to me as a clean, level, freshly sidewalked park space than as a junk-filled lot.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

Oh, god. You folks really want to hate, don't you?

ummm....

BL just posted a kinda interesting article. You're the one getting all pissy and in his face about it.

Chill man. Don't you have some stories to write?

 

[Boxlicker101]

If you owned the lot, what would you think of someone illegally installing a garden for the public and denying you your choice of how to use the lot?

I don't consider this real deep thinking here. Sort of woo woo pie in the sky, isn't it?

Is that where the world is going? Everyone doing just what they damn well please no matter whose rights they stomp on?

If and when the city wants to use the lot for something, they can and will. Meanwhile, this guy has cleaned up an eyesore and health hazard, and the bureaucrats are telling him to return the garbage and trash to where it was. Does that sound rational to you?