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.

(CNN)   Americans: 1 EPA: 0   (cnn.com) divider line 144
    More: Hero, Little Guy, EPA, Idaho Panhandle  
•       •       •

9646 clicks; posted to Business » on 21 Mar 2012 at 1:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-21 01:11:28 PM
FTA: The Sacketts property did not border Priest Lake, but the EPA determined gravel on the lot amounted to a pollutant into "waters of the Untied States."

WTF is an untied state?
 
2012-03-21 01:11:31 PM
But Alito, in a concurring opinion Wednesday, said for "a nation that values due process," the bureaucracy the Sacketts endured was "unthinkable."

It's completely thinkable, Samuel. This is no different from dealing with any government agency.

They'll probably lose at the hearing.
 
2012-03-21 01:15:09 PM
The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.
 
2012-03-21 01:15:29 PM
This all could have been avoided if the original permit process included a check with the EPA to see if the land was protected or not. chances are, had the owners known up front, they would not have chosen that specific parcel.

Now, should the "process" allow for them to have a hearing or redress of some kind with the EPA to try and work out a solution? Absolutely. Should any fines be scaled to the level of the offense? Definitely.

Are they likely to prevail at a hearing? No, at least not outright.
 
2012-03-21 01:19:30 PM

Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.


Damn time machine!
 
2012-03-21 01:20:10 PM

Creoena: FTA: The Sacketts property did not border Priest Lake, but the EPA determined gravel on the lot amounted to a pollutant into "waters of the Untied States."

WTF is an untied state?


Dunno, but maybe we can use the fact that Florida and Arizona are "unglued" states and work from there...
 
2012-03-21 01:22:46 PM

Pardon Me Sultan: Creoena: FTA: The Sacketts property did not border Priest Lake, but the EPA determined gravel on the lot amounted to a pollutant into "waters of the Untied States."

WTF is an untied state?

Dunno, but maybe we can use the fact that Florida and Arizona are "unglued" states and work from there...


Oklahoma and Mississippi are unhinged.
 
2012-03-21 01:25:40 PM

Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.


That's what reality would like you to believe, isn't it?
 
2012-03-21 01:28:43 PM

Yakk: Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.

Damn time machine!


I was really confused by the author's inclusion of this "defeat for the Obama administration" phrase.

the dispute began in 2005 or 2006. oh well, i guess you just have to have a little ffun when you're a journalist, Tebow is an excellent quarterback and will the superbowl if the EPA wins.
 
2012-03-21 01:32:25 PM

Yakk: Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.

Damn time machine!


Does this socialist knows no bounds?.
 
2012-03-21 01:32:49 PM
How did Alito, Roberts Scalia...come down on the Eminent Domain ruling? They are only on the side of the little guy here because the little guy is not up against a corporation.

If WalMart wanted to build a superstore on these peoples' land, the SCOTUS would tell them to bend over and grab their ankles.
 
2012-03-21 01:37:40 PM
The agency still maintains the land is a wetland, and says the couple passed up the chance to work with federal officials for an "after-the-fact" permit, which may have resolved the situation quickly and cheaply, a remedy the government says it uses often for individual homeowners.

So basically, they bought a lot without having it properly checked out and started building on the lot - again - without having it properly inspected. The EPA said in their haste the couple ruined a wetland and offered the chance to fix it cheaply and quickly after the fact, but the couple decided they don't like the EPA on principle so they spent tens of thousands of dollars in court and still haven't built their house close to ten years later. The only sure fire prediction anybody can make right now is that their basement will be flooded every time it rains.
 
2012-03-21 01:41:19 PM
So basically, they bought a lot without having it properly checked out and started building on the lot - again - without having it properly inspected. The EPA said in their haste the couple ruined a wetland and offered the chance to fix it cheaply and quickly after the fact, but the couple decided they don't like the EPA on principle so they spent tens of thousands of dollars in court and still haven't built their house close to ten years later. The only sure fire prediction anybody can make right now is that their basement will be flooded every time it rains.

Why do you hate the American dream?
 
2012-03-21 01:43:06 PM

Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.


How about the farking truth? It's not a Democrat or Republican issue. It's the U.S. government against the people. While everyone is busy arguing about which party is better/worse and who did what to whom...everyone is missing the farking point. BOTH parties are part of the same bureaucracy that increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of Individual liberty. NEITHER party gives a damn about you personally, only increasing their power over you.
 
2012-03-21 01:44:00 PM

CygnusDarius: Yakk: Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.

Damn time machine!

Does this socialist knows no bounds?.


I'm just curious why the Starfleet Department of Temporal Investigations hasn't lowered the boom on him yet.
 
2012-03-21 01:45:10 PM

SnakeLee: The agency still maintains the land is a wetland, and says the couple passed up the chance to work with federal officials for an "after-the-fact" permit, which may have resolved the situation quickly and cheaply, a remedy the government says it uses often for individual homeowners.

So basically, they bought a lot without having it properly checked out and started building on the lot - again - without having it properly inspected. The EPA said in their haste the couple ruined a wetland and offered the chance to fix it cheaply and quickly after the fact, but the couple decided they don't like the EPA on principle so they spent tens of thousands of dollars in court and still haven't built their house close to ten years later. The only sure fire prediction anybody can make right now is that their basement will be flooded every time it rains.


This article sucks. Paragraph after paragraph about property rights, and these people fighting against bureaucracy. A few big quotes from Alito about how unfair this is. Like, maybe two sentences about the fact that this land was protected.

Hey cnn. How about you discuss why you can't build on wetlands? That seems relevant.
 
2012-03-21 01:45:46 PM

slayer199: Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.

How about the farking truth? It's not a Democrat or Republican issue. It's the U.S. government against the people. While everyone is busy arguing about which party is better/worse and who did what to whom...everyone is missing the farking point. BOTH parties are part of the same bureaucracy that increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of Individual liberty. NEITHER party gives a damn about you personally, only increasing their power over you.


That's a valid point in general, but I don't see how this applies to this case. I don't see anyone's liberties being violated
 
2012-03-21 01:46:09 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: How did Alito, Roberts Scalia...come down on the Eminent Domain ruling? They are only on the side of the little guy here because the little guy is not up against a corporation.

If WalMart wanted to build a superstore on these peoples' land, the SCOTUS would tell them to bend over and grab their ankles.


Scalia was in the dissent in Kelo (along with Thomas). Neither Alito or Roberts were on the court then.
 
2012-03-21 01:46:09 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: How did Alito, Roberts Scalia...come down on the Eminent Domain ruling? They are only on the side of the little guy here because the little guy is not up against a corporation.

If WalMart wanted to build a superstore on these peoples' land, the SCOTUS would tell them to bend over and grab their ankles.


You mean Kelo v New London? It was 5-4 in favor of the city taking land for whatever they darn well wanted. The five were Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. The four were O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.
 
2012-03-21 01:46:54 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: How did Alito, Roberts Scalia...come down on the Eminent Domain ruling? They are only on the side of the little guy here because the little guy is not up against a corporation.

If WalMart wanted to build a superstore on these peoples' land, the SCOTUS would tell them to bend over and grab their ankles.


Lol. Better check yourself on what judge was on what side for kelo. The leftist jurists hold that bag.
 
2012-03-21 01:47:24 PM
*lights up, puffs*

Was it good for you ChubbyTiger?
 
2012-03-21 01:48:34 PM

Creoena: WTF is an untied state?


Idaho.
 
2012-03-21 01:48:38 PM

Dafatone: SnakeLee: The agency still maintains the land is a wetland, and says the couple passed up the chance to work with federal officials for an "after-the-fact" permit, which may have resolved the situation quickly and cheaply, a remedy the government says it uses often for individual homeowners.

So basically, they bought a lot without having it properly checked out and started building on the lot - again - without having it properly inspected. The EPA said in their haste the couple ruined a wetland and offered the chance to fix it cheaply and quickly after the fact, but the couple decided they don't like the EPA on principle so they spent tens of thousands of dollars in court and still haven't built their house close to ten years later. The only sure fire prediction anybody can make right now is that their basement will be flooded every time it rains.

This article sucks. Paragraph after paragraph about property rights, and these people fighting against bureaucracy. A few big quotes from Alito about how unfair this is. Like, maybe two sentences about the fact that this land was protected.

Hey cnn. How about you discuss why you can't build on wetlands? That seems relevant.


Did you know that the EPA has no clear definition on what defines a wetland? Or are you just a ranting idiot. Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland.
 
2012-03-21 01:48:51 PM

slayer199: Wellon Dowd: The Supreme Court gave an Idaho couple another chance Wednesday to challenge a government ruling barring construction of their "dream house," an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.

It was the Bush EPA that began this.

How about the farking truth? It's not a Democrat or Republican issue. It's the U.S. government against the people. While everyone is busy arguing about which party is better/worse and who did what to whom...everyone is missing the farking point. BOTH parties are part of the same bureaucracy that increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of Individual liberty. NEITHER party gives a damn about you personally, only increasing their power over you.


No you are missing the point and that is "an important property rights defeat for the Obama administration.", this is a Repuglican propaganda piece designed to make the EPA and Democrats look bad. Why? Because Mitt Romeney, the Republican candidate for President, has promised to abolish the EPA if elected.

I'm guessing that we will see many more of these EPA bad propaganda articles, posing as real journalism, before the election is over.
 
2012-03-21 01:49:01 PM

Fish in a Barrel: *lights up, puffs*

Was it good for you ChubbyTiger?


Niiiiiice.
 
2012-03-21 01:51:16 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: How did Alito, Roberts Scalia...come down on the Eminent Domain ruling? They are only on the side of the little guy here because the little guy is not up against a corporation.

If WalMart wanted to build a superstore on these peoples' land, the SCOTUS would tell them to bend over and grab their ankles.


I hate to rain on your parade of ignorance, but you might want to try reading up on Kelo v. City of New London. That's the case where the city took land from home owners to hand it over to Pfizer so they could build a new corporate office on it. The dissenters (those on the side of the home owners) were Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor (replaced by Alito) and Rehnquist (replaced by Roberts). The majority (those on the side of the corporation) were Stevens (replaced by Kagan), Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter (replaced by Sotomayor), and Kennedy.

So to say that the outcome would be different if the land was going to be handed over to a corporation is to be ignorant of the history of eminent domain law in the US.
 
2012-03-21 01:51:35 PM

MyRandomName: Did you know that the EPA has no clear definition on what defines a wetland? Or are you just a ranting idiot. Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland.


Nobody cares, until they find themselves up against the EPA.
 
2012-03-21 01:53:04 PM
My brother bought a house that had a portion of his backyard dedicated to a small wildlife refuge. "Don't build there, don't fill it in, don't disrupt the plants, etc." It was all clearly laid out before he bought the house and he got a pretty, small wild pond out of it. These cases don't always have to resort to "little guy" vs. the "big bad government" or partisanship as long as the buying party is clearly informed beforehand.
 
2012-03-21 01:53:58 PM

ChubbyTiger: Kelo


MyRandomName: kelo


Damn me and my slow typing.
 
2012-03-21 01:54:44 PM

Slaves2Darkness: Because Mitt Romeney, the Republican candidate for President, has promised to abolish the EPA if elected


(citationneeded.jpg)
 
2012-03-21 01:54:45 PM
i301.photobucket.com
 
2012-03-21 01:55:23 PM
Aryan hicks in the Idaho panhandle do not represent Americans, subby.
 
2012-03-21 01:57:10 PM

max_pooper: Pardon Me Sultan: Creoena: FTA: The Sacketts property did not border Priest Lake, but the EPA determined gravel on the lot amounted to a pollutant into "waters of the Untied States."

WTF is an untied state?

Dunno, but maybe we can use the fact that Florida and Arizona are "unglued" states and work from there...

Oklahoma and Mississippi are unhinged.


Texas is unstable
 
2012-03-21 01:57:23 PM

MyRandomName: AdolfOliverPanties: How did Alito, Roberts Scalia...come down on the Eminent Domain ruling? They are only on the side of the little guy here because the little guy is not up against a corporation.

If WalMart wanted to build a superstore on these peoples' land, the SCOTUS would tell them to bend over and grab their ankles.

Lol. Better check yourself on what judge was on what side for kelo. The leftist jurists hold that bag.


That's why I asked the question. I didn't know who voted which way and didn't feel like looking it up. I still believe if this was a case against a corporation, the SCOTUS would side with the corporation, especially Roberts.
 
2012-03-21 01:59:10 PM
Sound pretty clear cut to me.

Couple bought land that they knew was wetland and tried to build on it before anyone found out. Couple got caught and was told fix the mess they created.

Just because you buy land doesn't mean you have the right to do with it whatever you please. It's your responsibility to know what you can do with it, and to follow the laws.

Hell, if they went thought he proper process 9/10 times they'll get a ruling saying the wetland is instead a vernal pool and be allowed to fill it in, less some rare creature is found in it.
 
2012-03-21 01:59:18 PM

Dafatone: This article sucks. Paragraph after paragraph about property rights, and these people fighting against bureaucracy. A few big quotes from Alito about how unfair this is. Like, maybe two sentences about the fact that this land was protected.

Hey cnn. How about you discuss why you can't build on wetlands? That seems relevant.


Maybe they could add a sentence or two about the fact that all the land owners wanted was a hearing regarding whether or not their property actually met the definition of a wetland, instead of just having to take the EPA's word for it. That's all this case was about, whether or not they were entitled to a hearing. That doesn't seem too unreasonable, especially considering that the EPA has a history of going out of its way to avoid defining 'wetlands' so that they can use the power at their discretion to screw over some land owners and not others, even when the land at issue is nearly identical.
 
2012-03-21 02:00:09 PM

SnakeLee: The agency still maintains the land is a wetland, and says the couple passed up the chance to work with federal officials for an "after-the-fact" permit, which may have resolved the situation quickly and cheaply, a remedy the government says it uses often for individual homeowners.

So basically, they bought a lot without having it properly checked out and started building on the lot - again - without having it properly inspected. The EPA said in their haste the couple ruined a wetland and offered the chance to fix it cheaply and quickly after the fact, but the couple decided they don't like the EPA on principle so they spent tens of thousands of dollars in court and still haven't built their house close to ten years later. The only sure fire prediction anybody can make right now is that their basement will be flooded every time it rains.


They bought a lot in a designated subdivision. A subdivision that already had other homes and had gone through the County Planning and Zoning process.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't consider checking on the wetlands designation for a lot in a subdivision.
 
2012-03-21 02:01:53 PM
MyRandomName:
Did you know that the EPA has no clear definition on what defines a wetland? Or are you just a ranting idiot. Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland.


there's a ranting idiot in this thread, but it ain't the guy you quoted...
 
2012-03-21 02:04:20 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: I still believe if this was a case against a corporation, the SCOTUS would side with the corporation, especially Roberts.


Most people wouldn't admit that they hold onto their prejudices despite solid evidence to the contrary. I applaud your honesty.
 
2012-03-21 02:05:48 PM
Talondel: Dafatone: This article sucks. Paragraph after paragraph about property rights, and these people fighting against bureaucracy. A few big quotes from Alito about how unfair this is. Like, maybe two sentences about the fact that this land was protected.

Hey cnn. How about you discuss why you can't build on wetlands? That seems relevant.

Maybe they could add a sentence or two about the fact that all the land owners wanted was a hearing regarding whether or not their property actually met the definition of a wetland, instead of just having to take the EPA's word for it. That's all this case was about, whether or not they were entitled to a hearing. That doesn't seem too unreasonable, especially considering that the EPA has a history of going out of its way to avoid defining 'wetlands' so that they can use the power at their discretion to screw over some land owners and not others, even when the land at issue is nearly identical.


Thats fine and all, but that's something you do before construction.

They wanted a hearing and they wanted the fines to stop until that hearing. The EPA told them rightfully to DIAF. They tried using the dog ate my homework logic.

They were also offered help restoring it to not be fined.
 
2012-03-21 02:07:36 PM

MyRandomName: Did you know that the EPA has no clear definition on what defines a wetland? Or are you just a ranting idiot. Having a small puddle 1 day a year qualifies as a wetland.


Hey did you know that there are guidelines? The easiest way to tell is checking to see if there are a bunch of plants that only grow in wetlands there. You can also take soil samples and compare them to a set of swatches like you would have for house paint. The swatches have the colors of different soils that have been seeped in water to varying degrees. All you have to do is compare really quickly. It's not really that complicated and there are clear indicators.
 
2012-03-21 02:07:58 PM

weiserfireman: They bought a lot in a designated subdivision. A subdivision that already had other homes and had gone through the County Planning and Zoning process.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't consider checking on the wetlands designation for a lot in a subdivision.


There are subdivisions here in Utah that should have NEVER been built in parts of the Salt Lake Valley. Many homeowners in these areas get farked when the water table rises, basements flood out, two year old homes that have cracks in the walls from heavy machinery driving by to grade the next set of lots...
Palms were greased, and city officials signed off for the developers. Homeowners can't sue since the developer in broke or out of business.

Some of these "lake front" Idaho properties might have been built the same way... Hurry up and build before someone actually checks it out. Guaranteed that local officials are holding some prime lots as gifts.
 
2012-03-21 02:08:08 PM

ChubbyTiger: You mean Kelo v New London? It was 5-4 in favor of the city taking land for whatever they darn well wanted. The five were Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. The four were O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.


Yep, all to build luxury condos.

Did I say luxury condos? I meant a dump (new window).
 
2012-03-21 02:08:24 PM
A picture of the "wetlands" in question, notice the lake in the background. EPA said this was wetlands because runoff from the lot might carry the fill into the lake.
www.pacificlegal.org Homeowners just wanted a hearing on whether it was a wetland or not. EPA didn't want to allow a hearing on this issue. The EPA feels that it will open a whole can of worms that they don't want to deal with if people can challenge the designation of what is wetland or what isn't without going through the permit process.
 
2012-03-21 02:08:51 PM

weiserfireman: They bought a lot in a designated subdivision. A subdivision that already had other homes and had gone through the County Planning and Zoning process.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't consider checking on the wetlands designation for a lot in a subdivision


A.) I would absolutely check, but that is because I know about this stuff and B.) This is a good lesson for you.

Where is the party of personal responsibility on this?
 
2012-03-21 02:10:39 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: How did Alito, Roberts Scalia...come down on the Eminent Domain ruling? They are only on the side of the little guy here because the little guy is not up against a corporation.


They voted *AGAINST* the majority in Kelo, at least Scalia did. Alito and Roberts weren't on the court at the time. O'Connor authored the dissent, which was signed by Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. Thomas also authored a separate dissent.

Those who voted for the majority, and thus approved of government taking private property via eminent domain in order to transfer it to corporations (and not for public use, like a library or a highway) were the liberal wing of the court: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer.

Kelo v. City of New London Wikipedia page.

Yes, the conservatives thought it was an abuse of eminent domain, but the liberals were fine with it.
 
2012-03-21 02:11:58 PM

weiserfireman: A picture of the "wetlands" in question, notice the lake in the background. EPA said this was wetlands because runoff from the lot might carry the fill into the lake.
[www.pacificlegal.org image 550x367] Homeowners just wanted a hearing on whether it was a wetland or not. EPA didn't want to allow a hearing on this issue. The EPA feels that it will open a whole can of worms that they don't want to deal with if people can challenge the designation of what is wetland or what isn't without going through the permit process.


Right, it's a seasonal wetland and is directly in the line of where all the run off for the area flows into the lake. There are ways to divert the water, they could have addressed that after the fact. Trust me, you don't want a house built in the line of that. It is going to cause major structural damage, flood all the time and it will pollute the lake that everyone is using. The yard will be an ice field all winter. It only doesn't look like a seasonal wetland in that picture because they dumped gravel all over it.
 
2012-03-21 02:12:16 PM

weiserfireman: A picture of the "wetlands" in question, notice the lake in the background. EPA said this was wetlands because runoff from the lot might carry the fill into the lake.
[www.pacificlegal.org image 550x367] Homeowners just wanted a hearing on whether it was a wetland or not. EPA didn't want to allow a hearing on this issue. The EPA feels that it will open a whole can of worms that they don't want to deal with if people can challenge the designation of what is wetland or what isn't without going through the permit process.


Looks like they filled it as fast as they could so it would look dry. Even from that pic, you can tell that the building, center left towards the lake is sitting on a pretty thick base!
That lot was a low marshy spot before the fill.
 
2012-03-21 02:15:16 PM
FTFA: "If you related the facts of this case -- as they come to us -- to an ordinary homeowner," Justice Samuel Alito asked the government's attorney, "don't you think most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thing can't happen in the United States?"

Um, since they didn't yet build the house, how do they qualify as 'homeowners' to Alito? Landowners, sure, but not homeowners.
 
2012-03-21 02:17:22 PM
One other tidbit, EPA said that the only solution, besides restoring the "wetlands", and applying for a permit, was to wait until the EPA lost patience and initiated a lawsuit. Then there would be the huge fines for violation of the Clean Water Act and additional fines for ignoring their demand letters.

EPA said the Homeowners don't have the right to initiate the legal proceedings.

I don't know if this was a wetland or not. I don't know if the EPA was acting appropriately or not.

But I did agree with the SCOTUS, I didn't think it was appropriate, if the homeowner didn't agree with the wetlands designation, for them to have to spend thousands of dollars to restore the property, apply for a wetlands permit and have to wait for the permitting process to finish, and have the EPA to say "oh sorry, the wetlands designation was inappropriate, you don't need a permit"

There should be a process that the Landowner can use to challenge the designation, besides the permit process. If they lose the challenge, the fines will be enforced to the day of the letter, as they should be. But not being able to challenge the letter without complying with it first? That is just wrong.
 
Displayed 50 of 144 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report