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  
•       •       •

19920 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
 
2012-09-19 12:30:06 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: I don't get the adverse possession talk. What he did wouldn't qualify as adverse possession.


If he continued to improve and maintain the city owned lot, publicly, and the city did not contest his actions, wouldn't adverse possession apply?

Link

Looks like adverse possession could have been in play
 
2012-09-19 12:50:16 PM
FATHER RARERS right there on the group w bench
 
2012-09-19 12:52:06 PM
sorry its FATHER RAPERS
 
2012-09-19 01:02:24 PM
Why does this RDA exist?

Since it does exist, why doesn't it condemn, demolish, and auction (with alacrity) all of the falling-down rowhouses I easily see from my train ride in every day? What exactly is it doing?
 
2012-09-19 01:09:43 PM

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.


People object to gentrification all the time. And vociferously. There are multiple reasons with varied validity in different markets.

1) Increasing property taxes and other increased local costs (i.e. mom and pop diners and shops driven out by expensive boutique places) make it unaffordable for long time residents, most sympathetically elderly ones.

2) Razing of smaller older homes (usually described as having "character") to build large new improvements that push the boundaries of the sites and dwarf the neighbors.

3) Whites/Gays/Asians/whatever drive out whatever the predominant minority might have been before.

All things being equal making an area cleaner and safer is self evidently better, but the fact that this goes hand in hand with increased property values has other implications that are not a clear cut good. Note also that the criminal or simply seedy elements (strip clubs, liquor stores, 24 hour gaming shops etc.) driven from these areas do not disappear but invariably coalesce in some new area and the long term residents of that area naturally object to this as well. 

//Having previewed the above I now know I'll be accused of being a racist because it even reads that way to me. I cannot in good conscience change it to be nicer though because I've seen this in so many local markets here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area over the years; I am a real estate appraiser. I don't know or care what the media says about it this is just my anecdotal experience. YMMV if you live elsewhere.
 
2012-09-19 01:22:38 PM

notatrollorami: 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.

People object to gentrification all the time. And vociferously. There are multiple reasons with varied validity in different markets.

1) Increasing property taxes and other increased local costs (i.e. mom and pop diners and shops driven out by expensive boutique places) make it unaffordable for long time residents, most sympathetically elderly ones.

2) Razing of smaller older homes (usually described as having "character") to build large new improvements that push the boundaries of the sites and dwarf the neighbors.

3) Whites/Gays/Asians/whatever drive out whatever the predominant minority might have been before.

All things being equal making an area cleaner and safer is self evidently better, but the fact that this goes hand in hand with increased property values has other implications that are not a clear cut good. Note also that the criminal or simply seedy elements (strip clubs, liquor stores, 24 hour gaming shops etc.) driven from these areas do not disappear but invariably coalesce in some new area and the long term residents of that area naturally object to this as well. 

//Having previewed the above I now know I'll be accused of being a racist because it even reads that way to me. I cannot in good conscience change it to be nicer though because I've seen this in so many local markets here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area over the years; I am a real estate appraiser. I don't know or care what the media says about it this is just my anecdotal experience. YMMV if you live elsewhere.


It's sad that wanting a safe clean environment is considered "racist." Is it more of a paranoia that your culture is seen as unclean, so by yelling racism you're able to divert the attention back to the person trying to make the world a cleaner, safer place?
 
2012-09-19 01:47:15 PM

Girion47: notatrollorami: 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.

People object to gentrification all the time. And vociferously. There are multiple reasons with varied validity in different markets.

1) Increasing property taxes and other increased local costs (i.e. mom and pop diners and shops driven out by expensive boutique places) make it unaffordable for long time residents, most sympathetically elderly ones.

2) Razing of smaller older homes (usually described as having "character") to build large new improvements that push the boundaries of the sites and dwarf the neighbors.

3) Whites/Gays/Asians/whatever drive out whatever the predominant minority might have been before.

All things being equal making an area cleaner and safer is self evidently better, but the fact that this goes hand in hand with increased property values has other implications that are not a clear cut good. Note also that the criminal or simply seedy elements (strip clubs, liquor stores, 24 hour gaming shops etc.) driven from these areas do not disappear but invariably coalesce in some new area and the long term residents of that area naturally object to this as well. 

//Having previewed the above I now know I'll be accused of being a racist because it even reads that way to me. I cannot in good conscience change it to be nicer though because I've seen this in so many local markets here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area over the years; I am a real estate appraiser. I don't know or care what the media says about it this is just my anecdotal experience. YMMV if you live elsewhere.

It's sad that wanting a safe clean environment is considered "racist." Is it more of a paranoia that your culture is seen as unclean, so by yelling racism you're able to divert the attention back to the person trying to mak ...


Well, it's sad but true that the effect of gentrification is generally to drive out some significant proportion of the previous population and that this previous population is almost invariably predominantly minority. It's also true that many of the minority people in these markets are thrilled at the tangible improvements in the market, but the loudest voices are always the ones complaining.

When your job is to routinely inspect the interior of homes, often interacting/conversating with the homeowners for 30-45 minutes, you get an interesting and personal insight into a lot of people. There's no getting around the fact that poor people are much more likely to live in unclean conditions, smoke in the house with small children, be at home glued to trash TV during the day, etc. And there's no denying that a signficant percentage of these poor people are minorities.

It is equally true, though, that a large percentage of these people (i.e. a majority) are generally good hearted people clearly doing their very best by their family. If you are around these people much you cannot help but sympathise with their plight; when your neighborhood is a ghetto or barrio or trailer park there's only so much you can do to fight it. The scum (whatever portion that is.....10%? 30%? I don't know) can do more damage to your property, your children, your neighborhood, your kids school environment, etc. than you can fix. I see it all the time. And it sucks.
 
2012-09-19 01:57:37 PM

notatrollorami: Girion47: notatrollorami: 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.

People object to gentrification all the time. And vociferously. There are multiple reasons with varied validity in different markets.

1) Increasing property taxes and other increased local costs (i.e. mom and pop diners and shops driven out by expensive boutique places) make it unaffordable for long time residents, most sympathetically elderly ones.

2) Razing of smaller older homes (usually described as having "character") to build large new improvements that push the boundaries of the sites and dwarf the neighbors.

3) Whites/Gays/Asians/whatever drive out whatever the predominant minority might have been before.

All things being equal making an area cleaner and safer is self evidently better, but the fact that this goes hand in hand with increased property values has other implications that are not a clear cut good. Note also that the criminal or simply seedy elements (strip clubs, liquor stores, 24 hour gaming shops etc.) driven from these areas do not disappear but invariably coalesce in some new area and the long term residents of that area naturally object to this as well. 

//Having previewed the above I now know I'll be accused of being a racist because it even reads that way to me. I cannot in good conscience change it to be nicer though because I've seen this in so many local markets here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area over the years; I am a real estate appraiser. I don't know or care what the media says about it this is just my anecdotal experience. YMMV if you live elsewhere.

It's sad that wanting a safe clean environment is considered "racist." Is it more of a paranoia that your culture is seen as unclean, so by yelling racism you're able to divert the attention back to the person try ...


I won't argue the effect drives them out, but I will argue the object is to drive them out. I'm sure there are some instances that are motivated by less than altruistic designs, but I'm willing to bet the majority of gentrification efforts are good-hearted attempts at creating a better society.
 
2012-09-19 02:07:37 PM
I'd love to be the judge of the countersuit. Oh, you took $40 large from the good citizen? Ok, you need to pay him $80 large AND, by the way, the property is now HIS as you do not seem to be able to perform upkeep on it.
 
2012-09-19 02:08:19 PM

Girion47: notatrollorami: Girion47: notatrollorami: 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.

People object to gentrification all the time. And vociferously. There are multiple reasons with varied validity in different markets.

1) Increasing property taxes and other increased local costs (i.e. mom and pop diners and shops driven out by expensive boutique places) make it unaffordable for long time residents, most sympathetically elderly ones.

2) Razing of smaller older homes (usually described as having "character") to build large new improvements that push the boundaries of the sites and dwarf the neighbors.

3) Whites/Gays/Asians/whatever drive out whatever the predominant minority might have been before.

All things being equal making an area cleaner and safer is self evidently better, but the fact that this goes hand in hand with increased property values has other implications that are not a clear cut good. Note also that the criminal or simply seedy elements (strip clubs, liquor stores, 24 hour gaming shops etc.) driven from these areas do not disappear but invariably coalesce in some new area and the long term residents of that area naturally object to this as well. 

//Having previewed the above I now know I'll be accused of being a racist because it even reads that way to me. I cannot in good conscience change it to be nicer though because I've seen this in so many local markets here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area over the years; I am a real estate appraiser. I don't know or care what the media says about it this is just my anecdotal experience. YMMV if you live elsewhere.

It's sad that wanting a safe clean environment is considered "racist." Is it more of a paranoia that your culture is seen as unclean, so by yelling racism you're able to divert the attention back t ...


Different motivations for different people, but good hearted types of efforts by government, church groups, and charities are ineffective in my experience here in DFW. These are driven by supply rather than demand (i.e. give people down payment assistance of $25,000 on $100,000 homes and try to vet the buyers in some benevolent way) and every one I've ever seen takes just a few years to be littered with foreclosures which become uninhabited residences which become drug houses etc. Real gentrification (that I've seen firsthand, and many times) is driven by proximity to the central business district/medical district/arts district or appealing geophysical factors (body of water, hilly terrain) that make people with some level of means begin to move in and improve properties in the hopes of living well for less or of making a profit.
 
2012-09-19 02:09:10 PM
Yeah, this sounds exactly like something a municipality would pull. At least with us, we issue "beautification permits" for people who want to clean up and make something pretty. Unbelievable that they would actually look into legal recourse against the guy.
 
2012-09-19 02:13:18 PM

redmid17: 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


Well, if it's my wife, it's her house too, and she can invite people in if she wants.
If you're trying to find some legitimate, legal reason for you to enter my house uninvited, then I would say in the case of life and death. You see through the window that my wife is laying on the floor in a pool of blood (stop looking in my windows btw), that would be cause. Or, if someone breaks into your house, and in a panic, you run to mine for safety and to call the cops, I can give ya a pass. But, if you come into my house and redecorate my living room because you like the style better, you going to jail.
 
2012-09-19 02:41:50 PM

stonicus: redmid17: 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

Well, if it's my wife, it's her house too, and she can invite people in if she wants.
If you're trying to find some legitimate, legal reason for you to enter my house uninvited, then I would say in the case of life and death. You see through the window that my wife is laying on the floor in a pool of blood (stop looking in my windows btw), that would be cause. Or, if someone breaks into your house, and in a panic, you run to mine for safety and to call the cops, I can give ya a pass. But, if you come into my house and redecorate my living room because you like the style better, you going to jail.


You live on private property owned by a private citizen. You are 100% right about someone illegally entering your property, but that has zero to do with the issue at hand. Philly levying fines for not maintaining the property assigns him responsibilities that he should not legally have. The city done farked up.
 
2012-09-19 02:48:41 PM

redmid17: stonicus: redmid17: 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

Well, if it's my wife, it's her house too, and she can invite people in if she wants.
If you're trying to find some legitimate, legal reason for you to enter my house uninvited, then I would say in the case of life and death. You see through the window that my wife is laying on the floor in a pool of blood (stop looking in my windows btw), that would be cause. Or, if someone breaks into your house, and in a panic, you run to mine for safety and to call the cops, I can give ya a pass. But, if you come into my house and redecorate my living room because you like the style better, you going to jail.

You live on private property owned by a private citizen. You are 100% right about someone illegally entering your property, but that has zero to do with the issue at hand. Philly levying fines for not maintaining the property assigns him responsibilities that he should not legally have. The city done farked up.


And he should have taken them to court over it. City sending him a citation is as good as them sending him the deed to the land? IANAL, but I find that hard to believe. If he wants to take them to court and try to claim the land as his or whatever because the city abandoned it, fine, but he didn't do that. Sending him invalid fines doesn't just give him the authority to break the law.
 
2012-09-19 03:03:45 PM

stonicus: And he should have taken them to court over it. City sending him a citation is as good as them sending him the deed to the land? IANAL, but I find that hard to believe. If he wants to take them to court and try to claim the land as his or whatever because the city abandoned it, fine, but he didn't do that. Sending him invalid fines doesn't just give him the authority to break the law.


So it's all his fault for doing what the city told him to do. Riiiight...

Maybe that's not an adequate basis for transferring ownership, but it should certainly justify cleaning up the lot.
 
2012-09-19 03:21:36 PM

JesseL: stonicus: And he should have taken them to court over it. City sending him a citation is as good as them sending him the deed to the land? IANAL, but I find that hard to believe. If he wants to take them to court and try to claim the land as his or whatever because the city abandoned it, fine, but he didn't do that. Sending him invalid fines doesn't just give him the authority to break the law.

So it's all his fault for doing what the city told him to do. Riiiight...

Maybe that's not an adequate basis for transferring ownership, but it should certainly justify cleaning up the lot.


The city never sent him a letter saying "clean up the yard". He was sent a letter saying "pay this fine".
If the fine is invalid, then go through the proper channels to fix it. He did not do this.
 
2012-09-19 03:32:22 PM

stonicus: The city never sent him a letter saying "clean up the yard". He was sent a letter saying "pay this fine".
If the fine is invalid, then go through the proper channels to fix it. He did not do this.



Whatever. The city can't have it both ways.
 
2012-09-19 10:01:01 PM

CheapEngineer: [images.wikia.com image 250x275]


Pick up that can.
 
Displayed 18 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