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.

(Philly.com)   Sir, we WILL sue you if you don't replace the 40 tons of trash and broken glass to the vacant lot you cleaned and landscaped   (articles.philly.com) divider line 168
    More: Asinine, vacant lots  
•       •       •

19923 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Sep 2012 at 10:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-18 11:53:49 PM

JesseL: 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?


You can sue them for it. That's the civil equivalent.
 
2012-09-18 11:58:04 PM
ninjamonkey.us
 
2012-09-18 11:58:57 PM

Chevello: SnakeLee: They pretty much have to or they're inviting random people to start messing around on the other 1,499 lots they have. If some dumbass hurts themselves on another lot while cleaning or whatever, then the city is liable for more than it would cost to clean up every lot in the city.

If I were the city manager, I'd go to the guy that cleaned it in private and go "thanks, but you'll never hear me say it again, though. I'm going to make some real threatening comments in public, just ignore them but I really need to do it or every dumbass in the city will be playing with power tools in every vacant lot for 100 miles. Sorry but people are dumbasses. Seriously, thanks though"

Who is to say that this isn't exactly what is happening?

Or they could be serious and upset because he didn't use the approved junk removal company.

It will be fun to see just how long it takes for this lot to return to its previous state of trash filled and overgrown. The city sure isn't going to spend any funds maintaining the landscaping.


Philly? Yeah they're p.o. because the wrong "family" trucking company got the cash. That guy better watch his kneecaps.
 
2012-09-19 12:00:52 AM

untaken_name: JesseL: 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?

You can sue them for it. That's the civil equivalent.


I suppose you could, but I kinda doubt you'll win.

More likely the city will just fine you if you don't get it cleaned up yourself fast enough.
 
2012-09-19 12:07:07 AM
No good deed goes unpunished.
 
2012-09-19 12:12:32 AM
Well actually, the city can come in and clean your property if it wants to.
 
2012-09-19 12:13:19 AM
I hate to say it but I think Mr. Feibush rattled their cages just enough. I mean, the fact that they assessed fines against him for non-removal of snow,etc. - and that he's now spent $20,000 on it means he owns it. If I were him I'd file liens against the city on this one.
 
2012-09-19 12:17:02 AM

loonatic112358: shouldn't this sort of garbage be on the politics tab, and refuse'd from the front page?


Not really a politics thing, is it?
 
2012-09-19 12:21:16 AM

SnakeLee: They pretty much have to or they're inviting random people to start messing around on the other 1,499 lots they have. If some dumbass hurts themselves on another lot while cleaning or whatever, then the city is liable for more than it would cost to clean up every lot in the city.

"


According to the article, the guy is being asked to put the shiat back. Talk about liable. If he hurts himself after being told to put it back, jackpot.
 
2012-09-19 12:26:21 AM
TFA: The Redevelopment Authority owns 1,500 lots 

The Redevelopment Authority needs 1,500 landowners to seek adverse possession.
 
2012-09-19 12:33:48 AM
Obviously the City's reaction to this is pretty stupid, but if you had a yard that your neighbors thought was an eyesore and one day they entered your property to fix it up, you'd probably be pretty freaking mad.
 
2012-09-19 12:38:56 AM

SilentStrider: Go right ahead. Good luck finding a jury to convict.


yep
 
2012-09-19 12:39:08 AM

thornhill: Obviously the City's reaction to this is pretty stupid, but if you had a yard that your neighbors thought was an eyesore and one day they entered your property to fix it up, you'd probably be pretty freaking mad.


Sure, but I'd previously been trying to fine them for not cleaning up my yard wouldn't I look a bit silly?
 
2012-09-19 12:41:50 AM
Good luck having this go through any court on any part of this planet. These so called Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority has now informed everyone in the world that they don't deserve a penny form anyone or any support in anything after this blunder. I would go ahead and say they should be sued out of existence for negligence to the neighborhood. 1,500 properties! What do the others look like? Same? That would make them ineligible as property owners if this is the same kind of land care they maintain.
 
2012-09-19 12:45:32 AM

thornhill: Obviously the City's reaction to this is pretty stupid, but if you had a yard that your neighbors thought was an eyesore and one day they entered your property to fix it up, you'd probably be pretty freaking mad.




upload.wikimedia.org
This property was owned by the Redevelopment Authority, not a pensioner with a heart of gold. 
 
2012-09-19 12:58:33 AM

thenateman:
This property was owned by the Redevelopment Authority, not a pensioner with a heart of gold.


Tyler Perry's Adverse Possession
 
2012-09-19 01:01:59 AM

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


You know, while I'd be likely to make someone disappear who tried adverse possession on a house I was having trouble selling, there is a point where it makes sense. If it really was not only not being used, but actually being a problem, and if the people saying it had been undeveloped since the 1970s are correct, then that is probably a good case for adverse possession.

Of course, the people with the real right to adverse possession would be the hobos living in cardboard boxes on the property ...
 
2012-09-19 01:04:22 AM

JesseL: untaken_name: JesseL: 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?

You can sue them for it. That's the civil equivalent.

I suppose you could, but I kinda doubt you'll win.

More likely the city will just fine you if you don't get it cleaned up yourself fast enough.


Just because the city issues fines doesn't mean that the courts will agree that you have to pay them. It's just like how just because you sue the city doesn't mean that a judge will agree that they have to pay you. Of course, if either party just gives in and pays without a fight, then there's no problem. That's what most people do when the city issues them fines. It's not what the city usually does when someone sues them. Funny how the behavior expected of Joe Q. Public is completely opposite to Joe's best interests, and opposite to the behavior of the government in the same situation.
 
2012-09-19 01:08:47 AM

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. 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.


There are two problems with that argument, one legal and one of principle. First of all, your rights are usually limited legally if they interfere with other rights. You really don't have a lot of rights on your property which is why you need permits, must adhere to zoning, can be forced to clean up vermin, etc. Secondly, a city (or any government) is supposed to represent the people it governs, and at some point they can be considered sufficiently inept to lose the right to govern. In this case they seem to have failed to develop the property (if there was an issue of gentrification they could have developed it into a homeless shelter or something), failed to make money for the citizens off the property, and failed to protect the interests of the neighbors of the property.
 
2012-09-19 01:12:54 AM
The article said the guy was told, " both verbally and in writing that a) he did not have permission to undertake any such work and b) he ran the risk of losing whatever funds he expended on the work." If a landowner tells you that you don't have permission to access or change a piece of property. Don't be surprised if you get sued when you do it anyways. Is it a fairly silly situation? Yes.
 
2012-09-19 01:13:00 AM

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 for an Alice's restaurant reference, laughing my ass off and will shortly be leaving satisfied.

What happened with this case shows what utter assholes people in government are. The city has owned the lot for years. They ignored it for years allowing 40 tons of trash to accumulate there. This guy offered to buy the lot several times. Each time the city ignored him. They hold him responsible for shoveling snow on the sidewalk in front of the lot. IT'S NOT HIS FARKING LOT! I think Feibush is right. He cleaned the lot, this embarrassed the city. Now they're going to try and punish him. If he's going to the press, he's doing the right thing. The city will back down when they realize they will get more bad publicity from the media attention the longer they harass Mr. Feibush.
 
2012-09-19 01:18:47 AM

SnakeLee: They pretty much have to or they're inviting random people to start messing around on the other 1,499 lots they have. If some dumbass hurts themselves on another lot while cleaning or whatever, then the city is liable for more than it would cost to clean up every lot in the city.

If I were the city manager, I'd go to the guy that cleaned it in private and go "thanks, but you'll never hear me say it again, though. I'm going to make some real threatening comments in public, just ignore them but I really need to do it or every dumbass in the city will be playing with power tools in every vacant lot for 100 miles. Sorry but people are dumbasses. Seriously, thanks though"


To avoid that, all there needs to be is an easy waiver system: Anyone who wants to preemptively clean up a lot has to go to the city and sign an Assumption of Risk form. Then he can clean the lot all he wants, and if he gets hurt, the city isn't liable...but he can't subsequently bill the city for work done. Sign, stamp, file it, end of story.
 
2012-09-19 01:18:50 AM

jabelar: 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. 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.

There are two problems with that argument, one legal and one of principle. First of all, your rights are usually limited legally if they interfere with other rights. You really don't have a lot of rights on your property which is why you need permits, must adhere to zoning, can be forced to clean up vermin, etc. Secondly, a city (or any government) is supposed to represent the people it governs, and at some point they can be considered sufficiently inept to lose the right to govern. In this case they seem to have failed to develop the property (if there was an issue of gentrification they could have developed it into a homeless shelter or something), failed to make money for the citizens off the property, and failed to protect the interests of the neighbors of the property.


Your first argument varies in applicability by locale. For example, the city of Houston has no zoning and planning requirements. Many rural counties also have none. You are right that since the passing of the Federal Land Bank Act, most property rights have been reserved for government. Your second argument is one of principle, as you stated, and thus has no place in a legal argument. "Right" and "legal" are often completely unrelated. Although I agree with you that the city should have done more, they had no legal obligation to do more as far as I can tell. If that's incorrect, show me the law, and I'll concede the argument.
 
2012-09-19 01:20:57 AM

djh0101010: Enema Man: Is it Thanksgiving already?

I can't bring myself to mentally replay the whole thing, but, can you please tell me why this is a Thanksgiving tradition?

/taught myself the guitar riff in college - it seemed more useful at the time than actually studying.
//er, my FIRST college, who kicked me out for, um, not studying.


The story took place on Thanksgiving. It shows the idiocy among those in the establishment. It also has an anti war component. It was written in the 60s when it was popular to make fun of the establishment and protest the war in Vietnam. These factors may have something to do with this song becoming a tradition on rock stations on Turkey day.
 
2012-09-19 01:24:26 AM

bdub77: Sounds like the government officials involved have a power complex. That and they didn't want to have to maintain the lot or have any liability for it so they put up big barriers and kept the weeds there to keep people from trespassing on it. Now that people can and will use the space, they have some liability for it which they have to pay for so they are pissed. They should just deal with it and sell the lot to the guy, but the guy has backed them into a corner to get the lot and now they would prefer to f*ck him over than work with him.


All the city has to do is pass a law saying "If we put up a no trespassing sign, you can't sue us if you trespass and get hurt." There, problem solved. Also if the city really wants the lot restored to its original condition, all they have to do is get the Occupy crowd to protest there for a month or so. This will cause great harm to Mr. Feibush's business. So that should make the city happy. Also if and when the Occupy crowd leaves, there will be several tons of trash and several large piles of shiat. The lot should then be in it's original condition.
 
2012-09-19 01:32:49 AM

SnakeLee: If some dumbass hurts themselves on another lot while cleaning or whatever, then the city is liable for more than it would cost to clean up every lot in the city.


Citation? I think you might be confusing trademark law with propery law here.
 
2012-09-19 01:40:29 AM
The abandoned state of the lot and the citation to clean up the trash on it are tantamount to possession by law.

The city gave him the lot by assigning it to his liability.
 
2012-09-19 02:00:51 AM
This is why Detroit can't have nice things.

/don't you dare renovate that factory/church/opera house
//it's my property and I want it to ROT
 
2012-09-19 02:08:39 AM

loonatic112358: simplicimus: Nah, nobody takes out the trash on the politics tab.

of course, it's late the dumps closed, just go throw it over a cliff


That just gets you thrown in with the mother rapers and the father stabbers and the father rapers.
 
2012-09-19 02:09:37 AM
Hire goats to eat it.
 
2012-09-19 02:19:25 AM
Philly.com : Controller blasts city for dispute over Point Breeze lot


And it's heading out to the national news:
ABC NEWS: Philadelphia Officials Disapprove of Man Who Spent $20,000 to Clean City Lot 


Regarding "gentrification", so is it not possible to have low-income subsidized housing in a nice neighborhood? Or is it assumed all poor people are slobs that live in ratholes and they can't be expected to maintain nice things?
 
2012-09-19 03:00:52 AM
The result (a nice lot) is irrelevant. If my neighbor comes into my house when I am at work, I don't care if he does my dishes and my laundry, I'm calling the cops on him. It wasn't his property. The issue of should the town have done something to the lot is separate from this one. He was told to leave it alone, he didn't.
 
2012-09-19 04:07:39 AM
If they're being honest about being upset about liability issues, wouldn't submitting an action plan and signing an indemnity agreement before the work was done clear the whole thing up? People who want to pay for the work the city won't do get a nicer area to live in, the city gets to have input on the planning stages, and they can't be sued if some idiot stubs his toe on a sidewalk or hammers his thumb.
 
2012-09-19 05:20:13 AM

stonicus: The result (a nice lot) is irrelevant. If my neighbor comes into my house when I am at work, I don't care if he does my dishes and my laundry, I'm calling the cops on him. It wasn't his property. The issue of should the town have done something to the lot is separate from this one. He was told to leave it alone, he didn't.


This is why people need to vote Libertarian.

From the Libertarian Party Platform: "We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law." Allow a case like this to go before a jury who can decide what is the RIGHT or JUST thing to do, and even if the guy is a sleazy selfish developer, he will be awarded the property. Which result best serves the people of the community?

Not only was he not causing harm, he was not even a threat. Someone doing your dishes and laundry is a threat to your person and property, if that person is not invited or allowed onto your property.

One more item from the Libertarian Party Platform: "Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property." Note, that is individual property, not government property. Government does not exist to protect or defend itself or its own property. It is an agency of human beings for protection of human beings. Yes, in the real world, governments own and maintain properties. Their laws about their properties still should not contravene the well-being of a community and the people that compose it. I would like to hear examples from other times and places in which the government acted to maintain run-down properties instead of improving them or allowing them to be improved. Bonus if you can argue persuasively for benevolent public interest.
 
2012-09-19 05:27:19 AM

BoxOfBees: I would like to hear examples from other times and places in which the government acted to maintain run-down properties instead of improving them or allowing them to be improved. Bonus if you can argue persuasively for benevolent public interest.


Easy. They're called "National Parks."
 
2012-09-19 07:42:42 AM

stonicus: The result (a nice lot) is irrelevant. If my neighbor comes into my house when I am at work, I don't care if he does my dishes and my laundry, I'm calling the cops on him. It wasn't his property. The issue of should the town have done something to the lot is separate from this one. He was told to leave it alone, he didn't.


But what if your spouse was going to the same neighbor saying that if he didn't do your laundry and clean your dishes, he was going to have to pay a fine?
 
2012-09-19 08:21:03 AM

HaveBeerWillTravel: 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!


My dislike of forced unionization has absolutely no effect on the protection I provide to employees. Every union I've worked with loves me because I'm pretty much exclusively on the worker's side when it comes to safety disputes (ultimately my decisions are based on the facts of the situation, but I start assuming that the worker is being honest with me) So go fark yourself.
 
2012-09-19 09:05:25 AM

untaken_name: BoxOfBees: I would like to hear examples from other times and places in which the government acted to maintain run-down properties instead of improving them or allowing them to be improved. Bonus if you can argue persuasively for benevolent public interest.

Easy. They're called "National Parks."


He said "run-down."
 
2012-09-19 09:09:02 AM

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


If the city had given him permission to clean it up (I know, they hadn't), wouldn't that prevent an adverse possession claim? If he had had permission, it wouldn't be "adverse", right?

I'm just curious about the point.
 
2012-09-19 09:11:29 AM
 
2012-09-19 09:17:55 AM

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

If the city had given him permission to clean it up (I know, they hadn't), wouldn't that prevent an adverse possession claim? If he had had permission, it wouldn't be "adverse", right?

I'm just curious about the point.


I don't know, I was just guessing the city was trying to prevent any claim of adverse possession, regardless if it was possible or not, that's a legal suit they don't have to worry about now.
 
2012-09-19 09:20:51 AM
The lot was probably polluted to hell and having a veritable *park* there makes the city not only liable when people start getting sick, but in willful violation if they didn't pitch this shiat-fit.
If he just cleaned up the trash, I'm guessing they wouldn't much care. But inviting people in and, in particular, planting in that soil doesn't leave them much choice.

Otherwise some kid's going to eat a few of those cherries and the city is going to get sued.
 
2012-09-19 09:58:05 AM

SockMonkeyHolocaust: I must be old because the first thing I thought of when I saw the improvements was "who gets sued when someone gets hurt falling off one of the benches"?

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.


Same person that gets sued for a person stepping on shards of glass or a nail in the foot.
 
2012-09-19 10:24:20 AM

Chevello: SnakeLee: They pretty much have to or they're inviting random people to start messing around on the other 1,499 lots they have. If some dumbass hurts themselves on another lot while cleaning or whatever, then the city is liable for more than it would cost to clean up every lot in the city.

If I were the city manager, I'd go to the guy that cleaned it in private and go "thanks, but you'll never hear me say it again, though. I'm going to make some real threatening comments in public, just ignore them but I really need to do it or every dumbass in the city will be playing with power tools in every vacant lot for 100 miles. Sorry but people are dumbasses. Seriously, thanks though"

Who is to say that this isn't exactly what is happening?

Or they could be serious and upset because he didn't use the approved junk removal company.

It will be fun to see just how long it takes for this lot to return to its previous state of trash filled and overgrown. The city sure isn't going to spend any funds maintaining the landscaping.


That is not what is happening. Public Works justifies its budget by the number of cleanups it has listed. If the sites are cleaned up, Public Works loses its budget. Therefore, their goal is to maximize the number of sites that need to be cleaned up and minimize the number that they actually clean up.

A stranger cleaning up one of their sites is a double whammy: it takes away from their budget AND it embarrasses them.
 
2012-09-19 10:55:11 AM

BuckTurgidson: 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!


Yeah, I chalked up the first one to maybe everything prior to that also appearing in a brief lead-in on some other page, or something... But, then they pulled the same shiat on page two! So, I don't know WTF it's for... Maybe they get a lot of bored/stupid readers who give up reading partway through a page, because they can't figure out where to locate the rest of the text?
 
2012-09-19 11:07:48 AM

wingnut396: stonicus: The result (a nice lot) is irrelevant. If my neighbor comes into my house when I am at work, I don't care if he does my dishes and my laundry, I'm calling the cops on him. It wasn't his property. The issue of should the town have done something to the lot is separate from this one. He was told to leave it alone, he didn't.

But what if your spouse was going to the same neighbor saying that if he didn't do your laundry and clean your dishes, he was going to have to pay a fine?


She wouldn't have the authority to actually levy a fine. Apples and oranges.
 
2012-09-19 11:25:26 AM

stonicus: wingnut396: stonicus: The result (a nice lot) is irrelevant. If my neighbor comes into my house when I am at work, I don't care if he does my dishes and my laundry, I'm calling the cops on him. It wasn't his property. The issue of should the town have done something to the lot is separate from this one. He was told to leave it alone, he didn't.

But what if your spouse was going to the same neighbor saying that if he didn't do your laundry and clean your dishes, he was going to have to pay a fine?

She wouldn't have the authority to actually levy a fine. Apples and oranges.


Your spouse is on the board of the HOA and she is very petty and the HOA has power to levy such fines.

/he adapted your original incorrect comparison after all
 
2012-09-19 11:32:50 AM

JesseL: 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.


Moreover, that is the job of the RDA. They're supposed to be taking property which is blighted and selling it to someone who will do something with it. Instead, they take land and hold it for political donors.

A few months ago, Ori did buy some property from the RDA, two lots that were in the middle of 5 lots that he owned (all of which are vacant). Then, in the same meeting, they condemned the lots again because he hadn't done anything with them.

He doesn't donate to councilman Kenyatta Johnson, so the city employees mess with him. This entire issue is because he doesn't play ball with our local council person.
 
2012-09-19 11:55:54 AM

Palvar: JesseL: 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.

Moreover, that is the job of the RDA. They're supposed to be taking property which is blighted and selling it to someone who will do something with it. Instead, they take land and hold it for political donors.

A few months ago, Ori did buy some property from the RDA, two lots that were in the middle of 5 lots that he owned (all of which are vacant). Then, in the same meeting, they condemned the lots again because he hadn't done anything with them.

He doesn't donate to councilman Kenyatta Johnson, so the city employees mess with him. This entire issue is because he doesn't play ball with our local council person.


Sounds just like DC politicians. farking east coast, so glad I moved away.
 
2012-09-19 12:17:50 PM
I don't get the adverse possession talk. What he did wouldn't qualify as adverse possession.
 
Displayed 50 of 168 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report