rooftop235: Philly, another dumbass town I won't be visiting. I cannot believe that this guy is in trouble.

What got me more is that people objected to the 'gentrification' of that area. Do they WANT to be ghetto???

/wow. just wow.

A lot of places object to gentrification, it's claimed as racist because it raises property values and drives poor people out since they can't afford new lease rates or the higher property taxes. Of course in this sense, improving an area means you hate black people. Look at U Street, or H Street in DC, and soon Anacostia once the St. Elizabeths West Campus opens up to the DHS and Coast Guard.

Better yet, FIND THEM, FIRE THEM, fark THEM!

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: beefoe: Yes, the city owned the lot for 40 years and let it become a trash dump.

Please provide a citation to a source that says the city owned the lot for forty years.

FTA: "The one at 20th and Annin has been available "for a significant period of time," Chrystie said."
40 years is a significant period of time, is it not?

They weren't talking about returning the trash to the lot, you obtuse douchebag. They're talking about you building your garden on their property.

p51d007
2012-09-18 10:11:26 PM

Once again....a PRIVATE person (or company) comes in and does something nice,
something the "government" should have done, and the government doesn't like it.
See, we can get along just fine, if the flippin' government would just get the hell out
of the way!

^ this.

Seriously philly? he saved you money cleaning up the lot. you should be thanking him.

Girion47:
They're probably trying to prevent adverse possession.

You can't adversely possess government land.

It's Philly.

Typical Philly or for that matter, most any urban US area anymore.

The old "blockbusting" was progressive & good, the gentrification is regressive & racist.
(yes, they do have that newsletter somewhere)

/the joys of a Pyrrhic victory anyone?
//once we've won The War on Terrorism, let's hope we don't run out of ramen for the big holiday dinners

Girion47: rooftop235: Philly, another dumbass town I won't be visiting. I cannot believe that this guy is in trouble.

What got me more is that people objected to the 'gentrification' of that area. Do they WANT to be ghetto???

/wow. just wow.

A lot of places object to gentrification, it's claimed as racist because it raises property values and drives poor people out since they can't afford new lease rates or the higher property taxes. Of course in this sense, improving an area means you hate black people. Look at U Street, or H Street in DC, and soon Anacostia once the St. Elizabeths West Campus opens up to the DHS and Coast Guard.

Simple solution to that property tax argument: Don't. There are thousands of other taxes to fill that bill.

In a just world he'd have a legal claim on the property. If a private land owner kept their property in that shape the city would condemn it.

There needs to be some sort of reverse eminent domain to deal with this kind of issue.

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: I think the neighbors should counter-sue the city for failing to maintain its property, thereby causing a direct harm to their own property values.

Yeah, 'cept the article mentioned that the neighbors of the guy that cleaned the lot don't like him because they worry that he's "gentrifying" the 'hood. They're worried that they're going to get forced out by higher property values and/or the area becoming clean and trendy.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: YouSirAreAMaroon: What's the difference?

Because when the first sentence of a reply starts off with a blatant lie, I can't be bothered to respond.

So you can provide a citation that the city has owned it for some amount of time other than 40 years? Or does the post I'm responding to lead off with a blatant lie in the first sentence?

SockMonkeyHolocaust: Apparently, the lot was bought by the city in the late 70s and then it just sat on it. That's not very good development there, Lou.

Hey you don't get government handouts by running a successful business.

Not to mention this guy probably didn't clean up using union labor, Pennsylvania won't let you blow your nose without accepting a tissue from a union worker.

"...we decided that one big pile is better than two little piles, and rather than bring that one up we
decided to throw our's down.

That's what we did, and drove back to the church, had a thanksgiving
dinner that couldn't be beat, went to sleep and didn't get up until the
next morning, when we got a phone call from officer Obie. He said, 'Kid,
we found your name on an envelope at the bottom of a half a ton of
garbage, and just wanted to know if you had any information about it.' And
I said, 'Yes, sir, Officer Obie, I cannot tell a lie, I put that envelope
under that garbage.'"

beefoe: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Real estate guy owns property adjacent to the trash lot, says that he offered to buy it multiple times. The government has no records of any attempt to purchase or lease the property. He goes out to the local government and claims that the lot is a threat to him, and told not to do anything because he doesn't own the property, responding to him both verbally and in writing. He does so anyway. When confronted with this action, he responds:

"They don't like nice things," he said. "For a private developer to create a garden, it's a question of who gets credit. To do it without their blessing, you're basically insulting them."

Yes, truly that's what they cared about. Not that you were some sleazy real estate guy trying to lay free claim to a valuable adjacent lot.

Yes, the city owned the lot for 40 years and let it become a trash dump. Some guy fixes it up so his adjoing property looks better. How is that a problem? I'm sure you were just as upset with the occupy folks.

You're adorable!

He was trying to take the lot by Adverse Possession.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: YouSirAreAMaroon: So you can provide a citation that the city has owned it for some amount of time other than 40 years? Or does the post I'm responding to lead off with a blatant lie in the first sentence?

Burden of proof isn't on my shoulders. The other guy made the claim that the lot had been owned by the city for forty years. The article itself said that the city had owned the property "for a significant period of time," so given the evidence there's nothing to indicate that this significant period of time was forty years.

The slimy developer cleared forty tons of debris off the lot, so I guess that's where the mistake and/or lie was formed, but the OP disappeared so I don't have a good beat on what his intentions were.

So you lied. Got it.

City doesn't want to disrupt the trash heap and neither do the vermin that call it home. I say let them be.

They'll be removed soon enough once the exterminations start.

President Merkin Muffley: beefoe: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Real estate guy owns property adjacent to the trash lot, says that he offered to buy it multiple times. The government has no records of any attempt to purchase or lease the property. He goes out to the local government and claims that the lot is a threat to him, and told not to do anything because he doesn't own the property, responding to him both verbally and in writing. He does so anyway. When confronted with this action, he responds:

"They don't like nice things," he said. "For a private developer to create a garden, it's a question of who gets credit. To do it without their blessing, you're basically insulting them."

Yes, truly that's what they cared about. Not that you were some sleazy real estate guy trying to lay free claim to a valuable adjacent lot.

Yes, the city owned the lot for 40 years and let it become a trash dump. Some guy fixes it up so his adjoing property looks better. How is that a problem? I'm sure you were just as upset with the occupy folks.

You're adorable!

He was trying to take the lot by Adverse Possession.

I think he's got a good argument. He may yet succeed.

bdub77: He's not playing the game right then. He would have been better off spending $20000 on winning election against the councilperson involved, then getting government money to pay for cleaning up the property followed by a shady deal in which he claims possession of the property for a minimal amount.

I think you're absolutely right. He would have been better off. And we wouldn't be reading about it because no one would know that's what happened.

Sadly, that kind of underhanded game is the current "American Way."

simplicimus: WTP 2: clean-up and leave a group-W bench

Kid, What'd you get?

I didn't get nothin'. I had to pay fifty dollars and pick up the garbage.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: YouSirAreAMaroon: So you can provide a citation that the city has owned it for some amount of time other than 40 years? Or does the post I'm responding to lead off with a blatant lie in the first sentence?

Burden of proof isn't on my shoulders. The other guy made the claim that the lot had been owned by the city for forty years. The article itself said that the city had owned the property "for a significant period of time," so given the evidence there's nothing to indicate that this significant period of time was forty years.

The slimy developer cleared forty tons of debris off the lot, so I guess that's where the mistake and/or lie was formed, but the OP disappeared so I don't have a good beat on what his intentions were.

Personally I'd rather him try to claim it and keep it clean than the city keep it and let 40 tons of garbage sit on the lot for any period of time. As someone said up thread had this land already been his and he left 40 tons of garbage on it they would have fined him until he cleaned it and paid up or they would take it from him.

Girion47: Not to mention this guy probably didn't clean up using union labor, Pennsylvania won't let you blow your nose without accepting a tissue from a union worker.

Not for nothing, but I'm pretty sure the guy randomly shiatting on unions in a totally unrelated conversation is probably the last person I'd be contracting out to for consulting on government employee safety.

But, go on!

President Merkin Muffley: beefoe: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Real estate guy owns property adjacent to the trash lot, says that he offered to buy it multiple times. The government has no records of any attempt to purchase or lease the property. He goes out to the local government and claims that the lot is a threat to him, and told not to do anything because he doesn't own the property, responding to him both verbally and in writing. He does so anyway. When confronted with this action, he responds:

"They don't like nice things," he said. "For a private developer to create a garden, it's a question of who gets credit. To do it without their blessing, you're basically insulting them."

Yes, truly that's what they cared about. Not that you were some sleazy real estate guy trying to lay free claim to a valuable adjacent lot.

Yes, the city owned the lot for 40 years and let it become a trash dump. Some guy fixes it up so his adjoing property looks better. How is that a problem? I'm sure you were just as upset with the occupy folks.

You're adorable!

He was trying to take the lot by Adverse Possession.

Let me guess, you have a GED in law?

rooftop235: Philly, another dumbass town I won't be visiting. I cannot believe that this guy is in trouble.

What got me more is that people objected to the 'gentrification' of that area. Do they WANT to be ghetto???

/wow. just wow.

Improving the neighborhood isn't going to improve the lot in life of people that live there. When the area becomes "gentrified," the values go up. Then the rent goes up. Then wealthier, trendy urbanites start moving in and rent goes up more. Then the original residents have to move out as their leases expire. Someone in that type of situation is more likely to walk or bus to work. They're likely to have a neighborhood support network that will be broken up. They're not likely to have excess money for moving expenses.

Not to say that cities shouldn't be renewed, but you can't blame poor people for worrying about being forced out of their neighborhood by economics. If they could afford a place that wasn't next to a vacant lot filled with garbage, they probably wouldn't be living next to a vacant lot filled with garbage.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Real estate guy owns property adjacent to the trash lot, says that he offered to buy it multiple times. The government has no records of any attempt to purchase or lease the property. He goes out to the local government and claims that the lot is a threat to him, and told not to do anything because he doesn't own the property, responding to him both verbally and in writing. He does so anyway. When confronted with this action, he responds:

"They don't like nice things," he said. "For a private developer to create a garden, it's a question of who gets credit. To do it without their blessing, you're basically insulting them."

Yes, truly that's what they cared about. Not that you were some sleazy real estate guy trying to lay free claim to a valuable adjacent lot.


You'd have a point it weren't for you ignoring the whole part about the city citing and fining him for not cleaning up the lot or removing snow from the sidewalks around it.

JWideman: President Merkin Muffley: beefoe: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Real estate guy owns property adjacent to the trash lot, says that he offered to buy it multiple times. The government has no records of any attempt to purchase or lease the property. He goes out to the local government and claims that the lot is a threat to him, and told not to do anything because he doesn't own the property, responding to him both verbally and in writing. He does so anyway. When confronted with this action, he responds:

"They don't like nice things," he said. "For a private developer to create a garden, it's a question of who gets credit. To do it without their blessing, you're basically insulting them."

Yes, truly that's what they cared about. Not that you were some sleazy real estate guy trying to lay free claim to a valuable adjacent lot.

Yes, the city owned the lot for 40 years and let it become a trash dump. Some guy fixes it up so his adjoing property looks better. How is that a problem? I'm sure you were just as upset with the occupy folks.

You're adorable!

He was trying to take the lot by Adverse Possession.

Let me guess, you have a GED in law?

No. I have a PHD in My Asshole Neighbors Tried to Take My Unimproved Lot By Adverse Possession.

fark yourself.

"Like any property owner, [the authority] does not permit unauthorized access to or alteration of its property.
But dumping 40 tons of trash was perfectly OK.
If this had been a private property owner they would have been find for letting get that way.

lizyrd: rooftop235: Philly, another dumbass town I won't be visiting. I cannot believe that this guy is in trouble.

What got me more is that people objected to the 'gentrification' of that area. Do they WANT to be ghetto???

/wow. just wow.

Improving the neighborhood isn't going to improve the lot in life of people that live there. When the area becomes "gentrified," the values go up. Then the rent goes up. Then wealthier, trendy urbanites start moving in and rent goes up more. Then the original residents have to move out as their leases expire. Someone in that type of situation is more likely to walk or bus to work. They're likely to have a neighborhood support network that will be broken up. They're not likely to have excess money for moving expenses.

Not to say that cities shouldn't be renewed, but you can't blame poor people for worrying about being forced out of their neighborhood by economics. If they could afford a place that wasn't next to a vacant lot filled with garbage, they probably wouldn't be living next to a vacant lot filled with garbage.

Anyone who really cares about the poor will dump their garbage in vacant lots in order to provide more affordable housing.

and to limit taxpayer liability."
*blank line*
Story continues below.
*blank line*
Ori Feibush, the real-estate developer who cleaned the lot and whose coffee shop backs onto the now-controversial plot

YOU DON'T SAY!

President Merkin Muffley: No. I have a PHD in My Asshole Neighbors Tried to Take My Unimproved Lot By Adverse Possession.

Were your neighbors being forced to pay fines for the condition of your unimproved lot? If they had been, I'd be on their side.

Kid, have you rehabilitated yourself?

simplicimus: Well, were there 27 8x10 glossy photos with circles and arrows on the front and a paragraph on the back explaining what each one was?

Came here for this. Leaving satisfied.

//you can get, anything you want..

simplicimus: Fark Angelic Choir: simplicimus: WTP 2: clean-up and leave a group-W bench

Kid, What'd you get?

I didn't get nothin'. I had to pay fifty dollars and pick up the garbage.

I'm impressed at the number of us who remember that song.

Well of course! It's the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacree Movement...and all you gotta do to join is sing it the next time it comes around on the guitar.

/with feeling
//start just about every long road trip I take by listening to this.

OpieTaylor: Kid, have you rehabilitated yourself?

You gotta lotta damn gall...

If the city can't come on to your property and cover it with glass and garbage, you can't clean up the city's property, either. It's a trade-off. You really want to start messing with property rights? Really? Cause I guarantee you the city has more time, effort, energy, and money to spend bothering you than you have to spend bothering them.

GoldSpider: Can't imagine why people distrust the bureaucracy.

In my old neighborhood a guy that lived next to the public lake access put up a playground and fenced it in so his kids could play there. Plus he dumped a few tons of white sand on the shore.

Oh then he planted Cyprus trees in the middle of one of the canals to prevent people on the smaller lake from getting to the large lake.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Fark the Authority

untaken_name: If the city can't come on to your property and cover it with glass and garbage, you can't clean up the city's property, either.

Can you fine the city for failing to clean up your property for you when a third party dumps garbage on it?

One guy is being kinda paranoid about the adverse possession gambit.

That has to occur without challenge, and that was never going to happen in this case and certainly isn't happening now.

He notified the government he was going to do this, so it's not like he was flying under the radar.

However, why not give him the property? It's being wasted right now. A lot full of garbage probably promotes crime and disease. If the transit authority won't keep it straight, why not give it to someone who wants to use it?

Gentrification? The entire concept is racist. I don't think a lot of trees is really going to have such an effect anyway.

It's a shame adverse possession is off the table. The city should give the guy the property... he's earned it more than they have.

Arcanum: However, why not give him the property? It's being wasted right now. A lot full of garbage probably promotes crime and disease. If the transit authority won't keep it straight, why not give it to someone who wants to use it?

Bingo. All they've got right now is a liability. If they gave it away they'd at least be able to tax it.