If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(My Fox DC)   Before sending inmates out to mow a lot after complaints of high weeds, first make sure the land is not a protected wetland   (myfoxdc.com) divider line 70
    More: Asinine, wetlands  
•       •       •

9286 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Feb 2012 at 12:43 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-18 11:17:24 AM
Responding to a complaint of high weeds, the city sent inmates slaves on work detail to mow property in Denbigh in the summer of 2010. Then the city found out that the land was protected wetlands.
 
2012-02-18 12:25:12 PM
Mow Job

OW OW OW OW OW OW OW OW OW
 
2012-02-18 12:46:16 PM

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Mow Job

OW OW OW OW OW OW OW OW OW


That's what you call it when she drags her teeth.
 
2012-02-18 12:47:45 PM
What are you going to do to them? Put them in jail?
 
2012-02-18 12:50:58 PM

Mentalpatient87: That's what you call it when she drags her teeth.


I woke up this morning with multiple bite marks and a huge smile on my face, so I'm getting a kick out of this reply...

/csb
//hellz yah
///problem solved problem staying solved
 
2012-02-18 12:51:12 PM

Mentalpatient87: That's what you call it when she drags her teeth.


i210.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-18 12:51:59 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: Responding to a complaint of high weeds, the city sent inmates slaves on work detail to mow property in Denbigh in the summer of 2010. Then the city found out that the land was protected wetlands.


All of them political prisoners, no doubt. Fight the powah!
 
2012-02-18 12:53:42 PM
I guess you could call that...

a maux pas.

/YEAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!
 
2012-02-18 12:54:07 PM
So in order to protect the wetland, the city bought the property which they will use to build a road.....cuckoo !
i3.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-18 12:54:22 PM
on a side note...

www.motifake.com

/just sayin
 
2012-02-18 01:00:42 PM
Caught in their own trap.
 
2012-02-18 01:01:02 PM
orangecow.org

My name is Mowalot.
 
2012-02-18 01:01:25 PM
Dear City of Newport News.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Signed,
Environmental Protection Agency
 
2012-02-18 01:04:33 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: Responding to a complaint of high weeds, the city sent inmates slaves on work detail to mow property in Denbigh in the summer of 2010. Then the city found out that the land was protected wetlands.


Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
 
2012-02-18 01:05:41 PM
I'd send a nice, sizable tax bill to the schmuck who complained about the high weeds in the first place.
 
2012-02-18 01:12:25 PM
Mow weeds around and around a swamp. It's a swamp, breeds mosquito's and stuff. A disease ridden swamp.
 
2012-02-18 01:17:17 PM
If it was wetlands then the mowers would have sunk. If it was dry land and mowable there should be no fine or other monitoring requirement. This wetland crap is getting out of hand. I just recently received a notice in the mail from the city that the drainage ditch in the easement at the back of my property is now a wetland.
 
2012-02-18 01:18:25 PM
If only they could somehow someway grow back.
 
2012-02-18 01:18:42 PM
"
at least $7,000 per year for wetlands monitoring

"

7k for watching the grass grow?
 
2012-02-18 01:19:54 PM
a million bucks? Really??? Is it too much to just suggest they just give it a little time and let it grow back? farken idiot environmentalists!
 
2012-02-18 01:20:21 PM

rikkidoxx: Mow weeds around and around a swamp. It's a swamp, breeds mosquito's and stuff. A disease ridden swamp.


That reminds me of subbys mom.
 
2012-02-18 01:20:41 PM
The Daily Press reports the city was then on the hook for at least $7,000 per year for wetlands monitoring, in addition to other costs. So the city went ahead and purchased the 37-acre property for $950,000.

Now we can mow that shiat whenever we want! Suck it, ecologists!
 
2012-02-18 01:25:56 PM

jjorsett: Because People in power are Stupid: Responding to a complaint of high weeds, the city sent inmates slaves on work detail to mow property in Denbigh in the summer of 2010. Then the city found out that the land was protected wetlands.

All of them political prisoners, no doubt. Fight the powah!


If they weren't political prisoners before then they are now.

ArkAngel: Because People in power are Stupid: Responding to a complaint of high weeds, the city sent inmates slaves on work detail to mow property in Denbigh in the summer of 2010. Then the city found out that the land was protected wetlands.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Which gives the state a financial incentive to incarcerate people.
 
2012-02-18 01:33:41 PM
Actually checking to see if it's a wetland is going to be pretty far down the list of things you should be concerned about when sending the inmates out.
 
2012-02-18 01:41:22 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: slaves


Wah, prison life's not fair.
 
2012-02-18 01:41:38 PM
Fines? The people who did the cutting should be put in jail.

Oh wait...
 
2012-02-18 01:44:30 PM

ArkAngel: Because People in power are Stupid:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Whoa!!!

Well boy, you shouldn't have pitched your tent in a public park when you went to protest. What am I bid for this fine young slave?
 
2012-02-18 01:47:16 PM
All things considered. if they just mowed and didn't pull weeds, the plants will be better off from it.

Topping, FIMing, and Supercropping are all ways to strengthen plants and promote growth.
 
2012-02-18 01:52:00 PM

Ravage: If it was wetlands then the mowers would have sunk. If it was dry land and mowable there should be no fine or other monitoring requirement. This wetland crap is getting out of hand. I just recently received a notice in the mail from the city that the drainage ditch in the easement at the back of my property is now a wetland.


You clearly don't understand the devastation this caused. You see, there was the species of snail that lived there, it was genetically indistinguishable from other snails, but it had a SPOTTED SHELL.

Why do you hate spotted-shelled snails?

Or, maybe it was just dirt.


I was stationed at McGuire AFB in the mid-90s. NJ DEP was, shall we say, a little aggressive. Standing orders were that if you spilled a bottle of water on the flightline, you mop that shiat up quick, before the enviro-nazis showed up and declared it a protected wetland.

/csb
 
2012-02-18 01:53:17 PM

Mildot: a million bucks? Really??? Is it too much to just suggest they just give it a little time and let it grow back? farken idiot environmentalists!


The million dollars is only because they decided to buy the land instead of pay for monitoring for a few years. At $7,000/year it would only take 143 years to recoup the initial cost, opportunity costs ignored, so it was a sound investment on the city's part.

(OK, there were "other costs" in there. But I still suspect the city said "oh no! I gave myself a paper cut! Let's amputate!")
 
2012-02-18 01:59:39 PM
So they could have just paid $7k a year? But instead they bought it for what they would have spent in 135 years? Did I read the article wrong, or is somebody in Newport News being completely retarded with public money?
 
2012-02-18 02:00:23 PM
Anywhere that has or at one time had standing water - no matter how small - is apparently considered wetlands. The government uses wetlands rules as a weapon to confiscate private property and constantly expand the percentage of the US owned by the government (currently, over half of all land in the US). Either that or block development for people who haven't paid sufficient bribes.
 
2012-02-18 02:12:42 PM
1 Landowner sick of paying for wetlands monitoring on that little 37 acre parcel after completing that new mall on the other 1100 acres

2 Get five (5) of you buddies at the Country Club to call in complaints

3 Profit!!!!!!
 
2012-02-18 02:12:55 PM

FigPucker: What are you going to do to them? Put them in jail?


Isn't the important question, what are you going to do to respond to the people who complain about protected wetlands? That seems like a serious political problem.

j0ndas: Anywhere that has or at one time had standing water - no matter how small - is apparently considered wetlands. The government uses wetlands rules as a weapon to confiscate private property and constantly expand the percentage of the US owned by the government (currently, over half of all land in the US). Either that or block development for people who haven't paid sufficient bribes.


I seriously doubt your buillshiat whining. Oh look, so does my government and yours (new window). I guess you are one of the people who complain about tall weeds in protected wetlands.
 
2012-02-18 02:29:20 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: Responding to a complaint of high weeds, the city sent inmates slaves on work detail to mow property in Denbigh in the summer of 2010. Then the city found out that the land was protected wetlands.


Yeah. I was a slave for 424 hours. Blows. I believe it's gonna get out of hand to the point that they will start doing skilled jobs therefore killing even more jobs and subjecting more people to slavery.
 
2012-02-18 02:36:26 PM

evaned: Mildot: a million bucks? Really??? Is it too much to just suggest they just give it a little time and let it grow back? farken idiot environmentalists!

The million dollars is only because they decided to buy the land instead of pay for monitoring for a few years. At $7,000/year it would only take 143 years to recoup the initial cost, opportunity costs ignored, so it was a sound investment on the city's part.

(OK, there were "other costs" in there. But I still suspect the city said "oh no! I gave myself a paper cut! Let's amputate!")


There will be a mall on that land in less than 10 years.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-02-18 02:41:15 PM
Wetlands can be more than swamp. Wetland regulations in my area cover land within 100 feet or so of water, including suburban lawns. You might not be able to clear land for a lawn now, or you might need a special permit.
 
2012-02-18 02:46:22 PM
Seasonal wetlands! You can has them in the desert! Try ranching/farming sometime.
 
2012-02-18 02:52:12 PM
I hate the wetlands. They're stupid and wet, and there are bugs everywhere.

1.bp.blogspot.com
/there, that's better
 
2012-02-18 03:03:27 PM

Bennie Crabtree: FigPucker: What are you going to do to them? Put them in jail?

Isn't the important question, what are you going to do to respond to the people who complain about protected wetlands? That seems like a serious political problem.

j0ndas: Anywhere that has or at one time had standing water - no matter how small - is apparently considered wetlands. The government uses wetlands rules as a weapon to confiscate private property and constantly expand the percentage of the US owned by the government (currently, over half of all land in the US). Either that or block development for people who haven't paid sufficient bribes.

I seriously doubt your buillshiat whining. Oh look, so does my government and yours (new window). I guess you are one of the people who complain about tall weeds in protected wetlands.


www.humanevents.com

thepercolatorblog.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-02-18 03:06:01 PM

Ravage: If it was wetlands then the mowers would have sunk. If it was dry land and mowable there should be no fine or other monitoring requirement. This wetland crap is getting out of hand. I just recently received a notice in the mail from the city that the drainage ditch in the easement at the back of my property is now a wetland.


It was probably part of a wetlands mitigation. anytime they build on a wetlands area they have to replace it by "creating" wetlands somewhere else. Drainage ditch means problem solved.
 
2012-02-18 03:53:30 PM
I was a slave for 1082 hours. I cant wait to start using "our" word.
 
2012-02-18 04:02:36 PM
I guess they aren't protected any longer. Build the road!
 
2012-02-18 04:14:49 PM
So they had the notion to build a road on 5 acres of the land before it was cut. I wonder who's gonna profit from this "accident."
 
2012-02-18 04:17:01 PM
Throw them in jail!
Who?
I don't care, anybody. just lock them up! We just need to keep the jail full.
 
2012-02-18 04:23:06 PM

hasty ambush: Bennie Crabtree: FigPucker: What are you going to do to them? Put them in jail?

Isn't the important question, what are you going to do to respond to the people who complain about protected wetlands? That seems like a serious political problem.

j0ndas: Anywhere that has or at one time had standing water - no matter how small - is apparently considered wetlands. The government uses wetlands rules as a weapon to confiscate private property and constantly expand the percentage of the US owned by the government (currently, over half of all land in the US). Either that or block development for people who haven't paid sufficient bribes.

I seriously doubt your buillshiat whining. Oh look, so does my government and yours (new window). I guess you are one of the people who complain about tall weeds in protected wetlands.

[www.humanevents.com image 612x792]

[thepercolatorblog.files.wordpress.com image 499x410]


I know right??? Dang those dang marxists with that Louisiana Purchase thing
 
2012-02-18 04:41:19 PM

hasty ambush: Bennie Crabtree: FigPucker: What are you going to do to them? Put them in jail?

Isn't the important question, what are you going to do to respond to the people who complain about protected wetlands? That seems like a serious political problem.

j0ndas: Anywhere that has or at one time had standing water - no matter how small - is apparently considered wetlands. The government uses wetlands rules as a weapon to confiscate private property and constantly expand the percentage of the US owned by the government (currently, over half of all land in the US). Either that or block development for people who haven't paid sufficient bribes.

I seriously doubt your buillshiat whining. Oh look, so does my government and yours (new window). I guess you are one of the people who complain about tall weeds in protected wetlands.

[www.humanevents.com image 612x792]

[thepercolatorblog.files.wordpress.com image 499x410]


In case it wasn't obvious, the federal government was the original owner of the entire unsettled area of the country west of the Appalachians, but somehow California still manages to be the most populous state in the union. It's not like they came in and disenfranchised millions of people all over the west to take over the land; even the national parks had huge chunks carved out for existing communities. Most of the areas they've kept land has been areas where virtually no one wants to live, mountain or high desert, and most of them still allow grazing, resource harvesting, and of course living.

The only conflict is on a few zones on the edges civilization of where people feel they should have the right to stomp over nature to make a quick buck or live the way they want. That's ideological, and not an argument I can about, but trying to pretend that every federal owned acre is a contentious battleground of hippies vs people is asinine.
 
2012-02-18 04:42:17 PM

dwlf: hasty ambush: Bennie Crabtree: FigPucker: What are you going to do to them? Put them in jail?

Isn't the important question, what are you going to do to respond to the people who complain about protected wetlands? That seems like a serious political problem.

j0ndas: Anywhere that has or at one time had standing water - no matter how small - is apparently considered wetlands. The government uses wetlands rules as a weapon to confiscate private property and constantly expand the percentage of the US owned by the government (currently, over half of all land in the US). Either that or block development for people who haven't paid sufficient bribes.

I seriously doubt your buillshiat whining. Oh look, so does my government and yours (new window). I guess you are one of the people who complain about tall weeds in protected wetlands.

[www.humanevents.com image 612x792]

[thepercolatorblog.files.wordpress.com image 499x410]

I know right??? Dang those dang marxists with that Louisiana Purchase thing


If you would look at the maps much of the original Louisiana Purchase is not in Federal hands a this time.

bpwusa.files.wordpress.com

thepercolatorblog.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-02-18 04:58:29 PM

hasty ambush: dwlf: hasty ambush: Bennie Crabtree: FigPucker: What are you going to do to them? Put them in jail?

Isn't the important question, what are you going to do to respond to the people who complain about protected wetlands? That seems like a serious political problem.

j0ndas: Anywhere that has or at one time had standing water - no matter how small - is apparently considered wetlands. The government uses wetlands rules as a weapon to confiscate private property and constantly expand the percentage of the US owned by the government (currently, over half of all land in the US). Either that or block development for people who haven't paid sufficient bribes.

I seriously doubt your buillshiat whining. Oh look, so does my government and yours (new window). I guess you are one of the people who complain about tall weeds in protected wetlands.

[www.humanevents.com image 612x792]

[thepercolatorblog.files.wordpress.com image 499x410]

I know right??? Dang those dang marxists with that Louisiana Purchase thing

If you would look at the maps much of the original Louisiana Purchase is not in Federal hands a this time.

[bpwusa.files.wordpress.com image 561x353]

[thepercolatorblog.files.wordpress.com image 499x410]


Doh. You got me there. Dang those wasteful federal giveaways, and those welfare cheat Homesteaders! As to the rest of the map, we earned that fair and square through the butt-kicking we laid out in the Mexican-American War, but yeah, other than that, you got me.
 
2012-02-18 04:58:35 PM
Supreme Court poised to end homeowners' nightmare story of alleged EPA abuse (new window)


"In 2005 Mike and Chantell Sackett paid $23,000 for a small piece of land on Priest Lake in Idaho. The vacant lot was zoned for residential construction, and they planned to build a modest home there."

"But construction was halted shortly after it began. After they filled in their lot with rocks and gravel in order to grade it, EPA officials arrived on the property and declared that it was a protected wetlands area."

"The government ordered the Sacketts to restore the land by removing the gravel, and then apply for a wetlands permit before beginning to build again. That process could take years and typically costs thousands of dollars, but the EPA said they would incur a fine of $37,500 for every day they failed to comply. The gravel-removal estimate alone was more than the couple paid for the property."

"The Sacketts dispute that their home site is a protected wetland, but finding a court willing to consider that possibility was a tall order. Federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, have ruled not only that the Sacketts must comply with the EPA's orders, but that they may not challenge the government agency in court at all."

"The Supreme Court is expected to rule this summer on the EPA's apparent immunity from the judicial system."

"Mike Sackett and his attorney were both pleasantly surprised by the line of questioning the government had to face from several Supreme Court justices on Jan. 9."

"Don't you think most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thing can't happen in the United States?" Justice Samuel Alito asked Stewart during oral arguments."

"You buy property to build a house. You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: You have filled in wetlands, so you can't build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to."

"Alito was also critical of the government's contention that "there is no way you can go to court to challenge [EPA's] determination that this is a wetland until such time as we choose to sue you."

"Justice Stephen Breyer implied that the EPA was thumbing its nose at 75 years of judicial precedent, during which "the courts have interpreted statutes with an eye towards permitting judicial review, not the opposite."
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report