Did they shoot any dogs?

Scott Brown: "Do you think the owner is due an apology?"

DeGeorge: "Nobody wants to see this type of situation happen. We certainly feel bad for anybody in that situation. The department will do anything it has to do to make sure it doesn't happen again."

So, your answer is no. Asshole.

Largest Street Gang in America at its finest!

He's just lucky they didn't "find" anything while conducting their training exercise. . .

But the Common Council refused to give the owner permission to reopen the building because of objections from neighbors.

"I would not like to see it become a rooming house, the neighborhood is not conducive to that, we've got some small children here and unless they develop it with college students in mind," said Kelly Shaw who lives across the street from the building.

This is more interesting, why does it matter what the people around the building think about it? They don't own or it or have any rights to it whatsoever. But the cry of the stupid "think of the children."

nmemkha: Largest Street Gang in America at its finest!

Came here to say this. Linky pops (new window)

Thisbymaster: But the Common Council refused to give the owner permission to reopen the building because of objections from neighbors.

"I would not like to see it become a rooming house, the neighborhood is not conducive to that, we've got some small children here and unless they develop it with college students in mind," said Kelly Shaw who lives across the street from the building.

This is more interesting, why does it matter what the people around the building think about it? They don't own or it or have any rights to it whatsoever. But the cry of the stupid "think of the children."

This. Guy spends $200k renovating a building and making it a nice rental property, without a doubt raising the property value and the value of surrounding real estate, and is shunned by neighbors for doing so.

Idiots. I'd beef up the insurance policy and rent out to crack dealers just out of spite.

Gang-related vandalism?

Another "cops suck" thread already? Must be some kind of trend.

Buffalo is going to earn its own tag soon....

Why did I move here again?

How can they just use a building they don't own for training? I would think that would be a huge violation of rights. What if there were contractors in there at the time? Would the police dogs attacked them?

I wonder if the city is paying for the repairs, or if they are saying, too bad, so sad, and making this guy pay for it himself.

From the tone of the article, and the police spokesman, I'll go with the second one.

His insurance probably won't cover it either, since the cops did it.

roadmarks: Buffalo is going to earn its own tag soon....

Why did I move here again?

Cheap place to live?

Me and a roommate once lived in this real shiathole duplex. We rarely cleaned, old food on the tables, dog crap on the floor, cigarette butts wherever they landed. We used to crack each other up when we'd get home at the same time (usually loaded), enter the house and act shocked "Dude, the pigs trashed our place! Pack your crap, we gotta get outta here, like NOW!"

I guess that's more of a you had to be there type thing.

dudemanbro: Another "cops suck" thread already? Must be some kind of trend.

Sounds fishy:

1. Guy buys burned down building, invests to make it a rental property.
2. Building is brought up to code, city council signs off.
3. Neighbors complain to city council.
4. City council orders building boarded up by court order.
5. Owner fights, has order rescinded.
6. Police trash building the day after as a "training exercise."
7. Owner is run out of town, puts building up for sale.

Corrupt local government at its most efficient.

I know some LEO's in need of some frontier justice.

EvilEgg: How can they just use a building they don't own for training? I would think that would be a huge violation of rights. What if there were contractors in there at the time? Would the police dogs attacked them?

That's the part I found very strange. The owner does not forfeit his property rights just because the city or county boards it up.

EvilEgg: How can they just use a building they don't own for training? I would think that would be a huge violation of rights. What if there were contractors in there at the time? Would the police dogs attacked them?

It's done all the time inside condemned buildings--but then this wasn't condemned. A judge ordered it temporarily boarded.
I guess that's enough to give them carte blanche to come in and destroy the place. And not compensate the owner in any way, of course.

FTFA: "I would not like to see it become a rooming house, the neighborhood is not conducive to that, we've got some small children here and unless they develop it with college students in mind," said Kelly Shaw who lives across the street from the building.

Incomplete quotes aside, this woman has clearly never lived anywhere near college students. Transients and hobos would be quieter and probably cleaner, as well.

devildog123: I wonder if the city is paying for the repairs, or if they are saying, too bad, so sad, and making this guy pay for it himself.

From the tone of the article, and the police spokesman, I'll go with the second one.

His insurance probably won't cover it either, since the cops did it.

They may have to, if he sues the city. That ought to really make those NIMBY F*cktards in the neighborhood happy when their taxes go up, to cover the lawsuit.

"I would not like to see it become a rooming house, the neighborhood is not conducive to that, we've got some small children here and unless they develop it with college students in mind," said Kelly Shaw who lives across the street from the building.

Unless they develop it with college students in mind what?

Thisbymaster
This is more interesting, why does it matter what the people around the building think about it? They don't own or it or have any rights to it whatsoever. But the cry of the stupid "think of the children."

Yes, they do have rights to it. When you buy a property you're not just buying the spot it's on, you're paying for the surroundings. Unless you think a half-acre in South Central LA is exactly the same as a half-acre in Manhattan.
Anyway, zoning, motherfarker, do you speak it?

Isolated incident.

ReverendJasen: It's done all the time inside condemned buildings--but then this wasn't condemned.

But even a condemned building might get hit with a bulldozer at some point. I don't think the police would want to be inside when the owner decides to rebuild.

RanDomino: Unless they develop it with college students in mind what?

The last thing I would want is college students moving into my neighborhood. At least the addicts are quiet.

RanDomino: "I would not like to see it become a rooming house, the neighborhood is not conducive to that, we've got some small children here and unless they develop it with college students in mind," said Kelly Shaw who lives across the street from the building.

Unless they develop it with college students in mind what?

Thisbymaster
This is more interesting, why does it matter what the people around the building think about it? They don't own or it or have any rights to it whatsoever. But the cry of the stupid "think of the children."

Yes, they do have rights to it. When you buy a property you're not just buying the spot it's on, you're paying for the surroundings. Unless you think a half-acre in South Central LA is exactly the same as a half-acre in Manhattan.
Anyway, zoning, motherfarker, do you speak it?

Zoning? Residential property is zoned residential whether its rental or owned.