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  
•       •       •

19921 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
 
2012-09-18 08:52:40 PM
Go right ahead. Good luck finding a jury to convict.
 
2012-09-18 08:53:52 PM
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"
 
2012-09-18 09:07:26 PM
Here's what Feibush finds funny about the situation: In the past few years, he's received three citations from the city fining him for not removing the snow from the sidewalk in front of this lot. Last August, he received a citation for the trash on the lot.

Sounds like they considered the trash and the lot his responsibility to me.
 
2012-09-18 09:41:43 PM
Put. Ze garbage. Beck.
 
2012-09-18 09:43:04 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 09:46:51 PM
It actually is an interesting issue.  Make a community livable by creating a garden BAM up goes a condo on said garden.
 
Lower East Side was a case in point.  I can't afford to live there anymore.  Shiate got fixed.
 
2012-09-18 09:56:05 PM
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?
 
2012-09-18 10:05:42 PM
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.
 
2012-09-18 10:05:48 PM
Is it Thanksgiving already?
 
2012-09-18 10:07:12 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.


They're probably trying to prevent adverse possession.
 
2012-09-18 10:08:21 PM

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?


Damn, beat me to it.
 
2012-09-18 10:08:54 PM
That sounds just like Filthydeathia to me.
 
2012-09-18 10:09:12 PM
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.
 
2012-09-18 10:09:37 PM
clean-up and leave a group-W bench
 
2012-09-18 10:10:12 PM
You didn't build that.

/good on ya
 
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!
 
2012-09-18 10:12:01 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 10:12:16 PM
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.
 
2012-09-18 10:13:54 PM
So Joe Sixpack, then Pizza Brain and now Ori? Glad to have a Philly Trifecta this week. Even cooler that I know 2/3 personally and support them all.
 
2012-09-18 10:14:02 PM
Welcome to Philly. They'd be ecstatic if he did that in Detroit, or at least until they figured out a way to make money by citing him like Philly has. They get paid and the work is done, that's a great deal for them. Hence the apathy toward lots like this. When the people around it get sick of its condition they win no matter what, and all they had to do was nothing.
 
2012-09-18 10:14:05 PM
Can't imagine why people distrust the bureaucracy.
 
2012-09-18 10:14:28 PM

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


Kid, What'd you get?
 
2012-09-18 10:14:54 PM

Girion47: Chevello: SnakeLee: T

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


They're probably trying to prevent adverse possession.


This: We've been maintaining the property while the city hasn't, it's our right under blah,blah, blah that we attain ownership of the property!
 
2012-09-18 10:15:14 PM

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."


Right, except the city doesn't shovel sidewalks or maintain any of their property, so they are already opening themselves up to lawsuits. I'm not sure about the city itself, but our transit authority gets sued over 3,000 times a year. Imagine being the solicitor for SEPTA and being served more than 10 times a day, every day of the year.

Ori has been trying to buy this property for years, but the councilperson is saving it for a favored campaign donor. 

Also, the city controls over 15,000 lots through various agencies.
 
2012-09-18 10:17:24 PM

Palvar: 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."

Right, except the city doesn't shovel sidewalks or maintain any of their property, so they are already opening themselves up to lawsuits. I'm not sure about the city itself, but our transit authority gets sued over 3,000 times a year. Imagine being the solicitor for SEPTA and being served more than 10 times a day, every day of the year.

Ori has been trying to buy this property for years, but the councilperson is saving it for a favored campaign donor. 

Also, the city controls over 15,000 lots through various agencies.


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.
 
2012-09-18 10:17:45 PM
The city could have just kept their yaps shut and been happy one thing has been crossed of the to-do list without ANY cost to the city or taxpayers. Instead, they want the trash back. The stupid -- it's strong in the council.
 
2012-09-18 10:17:46 PM

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 trash got thrown into the ravine because the dump was closed.

It being Thanksgiving Day.

in the song
 
2012-09-18 10:18:09 PM
this is why we can't have nice things
 
2012-09-18 10:19:19 PM

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.


Well, if you have 23 minutes to waste, Link. Just wait for it to come around again on the guitar.
 
2012-09-18 10:20:23 PM
shouldn't this sort of garbage be on the politics tab, and refuse'd from the front page?
 
2012-09-18 10:20:51 PM

Relatively Obscure: Here's what Feibush finds funny about the situation: In the past few years, he's received three citations from the city fining him for not removing the snow from the sidewalk in front of this lot. Last August, he received a citation for the trash on the lot.

Sounds like they considered the trash and the lot his responsibility to me.


I concur. Any decent lawyer will turn this into his Get Out of Lawsuit Free card. If they make him put it back, he can use this to bill the city for it.
 
2012-09-18 10:21:50 PM

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


Nah, nobody takes out the trash on the politics tab.
 
2012-09-18 10:22:23 PM

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
 
2012-09-18 10:22:35 PM

darkone: this is why we can't have nice things


"They don't like nice things,"
 
2012-09-18 10:23:57 PM
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.
 
2012-09-18 10:24:50 PM

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


If only we could. The politics tab, that is.
 
2012-09-18 10:25:21 PM
("KID, HAVE YOU REHABILITATED YOURSELF?")
 
2012-09-18 10:27:33 PM
I'd hope that since the city had cited him for the trash on the lot, estoppel prevents them from suing him for fixing the condition
 
2012-09-18 10:27:59 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 10:29:50 PM

simplicimus: 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

If only we could. The politics tab, that is.


well, one could always get drew drunk again in hopes he does so
 
2012-09-18 10:30:27 PM

simplicimus: Well, if you have 23 minutes to waste, Link. Just wait for it to come around again on the guitar.


I don't think I'd heard this version before
 
2012-09-18 10:31:27 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 10:32:43 PM

simplicimus: 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.

Well, if you have 23 minutes to waste, Link. Just wait for it to come around again on the guitar.



Got a timestamp? I seriously can't bring myself to listen to the whole thing.
 
2012-09-18 10:33:32 PM

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.


What's the difference?
 
2012-09-18 10:33:34 PM
Insert link to Bill Burr comedy routine here.
 
2012-09-18 10:34:42 PM
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.
 
2012-09-18 10:37:20 PM

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


s3.vidimg.popscreen.com
 
2012-09-18 10:37:34 PM

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.


/Maybe the city gov't wanted to knock down the value of the area so that their developer buddies could get in there and do something, thus providing a kickback?

//friggin jerks they are.
 
2012-09-18 10:38:09 PM

Donnchadha: ("KID, HAVE YOU REHABILITATED YOURSELF?")


You got a lotta nerve...
 
2012-09-18 10:39:53 PM
Who in the city pushed it? FIND HIM, FIRE HIM, fark HIM!
 
2012-09-18 10:40:16 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.


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.
 
2012-09-18 10:41:42 PM
Better yet, FIND THEM, FIRE THEM, fark THEM!
 
2012-09-18 10:42:51 PM

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?
 
2012-09-18 10:43:45 PM
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.
 
2012-09-18 10:44:41 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 10:47:23 PM
Seriously philly? he saved you money cleaning up the lot. you should be thanking him.
 
2012-09-18 10:48:24 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 10:51:26 PM

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


You can't adversely possess government land.
 
2012-09-18 10:51:34 PM

theodopolis13: 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?


That depends on whether you're talking about the shelf life of a Twinkie or the age of a mountain. ;-)
 
2012-09-18 10:51:35 PM
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
 
2012-09-18 10:51:39 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 10:51:42 PM
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.
 
2012-09-18 10:52:10 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 10:53:54 PM
just think of all the vermin & critters that once called the polluted lot home. so sad.
 
2012-09-18 10:54:02 PM

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?
 
2012-09-18 10:54:15 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 10:56:46 PM
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.
 
2012-09-18 10:57:16 PM
"...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.'"
 
2012-09-18 10:59:14 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 11:01:20 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 11:03:06 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 11:04:47 PM

drayno76: "...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.'"

I break out the vinyl every Thanksging. Don't want a pickle... will be on my tombstone.
 
2012-09-18 11:05:11 PM
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.
 
2012-09-18 11:10:00 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 11:13:03 PM

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."
 
2012-09-18 11:13:52 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 11:17:38 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 11:18:00 PM

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!
 
2012-09-18 11:20:37 PM

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?
 
2012-09-18 11:23:45 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 11:25:28 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.


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.
 
2012-09-18 11:28:04 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 11:28:23 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 11:28:55 PM
"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.
 
2012-09-18 11:29:36 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 11:30:48 PM
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!
 
2012-09-18 11:31:28 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 11:36:01 PM
Kid, have you rehabilitated yourself?
 
2012-09-18 11:36:30 PM

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..
 
2012-09-18 11:36:39 PM

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.
 
2012-09-18 11:37:42 PM

OpieTaylor: Kid, have you rehabilitated yourself?


You gotta lotta damn gall...
 
2012-09-18 11:38:55 PM
images.wikia.com
 
2012-09-18 11:39:10 PM
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.
 
2012-09-18 11:42:07 PM

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.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
2012-09-18 11:43:21 PM

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.

?
 
2012-09-18 11:44:28 PM
Fark the Authority

images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-09-18 11:44:34 PM

Fark Angelic Choir: 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.


Oddly enough, so do I.
 
2012-09-18 11:45:56 PM

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?
 
2012-09-18 11:46:52 PM
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.
 
2012-09-18 11:49:37 PM

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.
 
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.
 
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 168 of 168 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report