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 68
    More: Asinine, vacant lots  
•       •       •

19925 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Sep 2012 at 10:02 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-09-18 08:53:52 PM  
16 votes:
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 10:09:12 PM  
11 votes:
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 10:27:59 PM  
7 votes:

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 10:11:26 PM  
7 votes:
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 09:56:05 PM  
7 votes:
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 08:52:40 PM  
6 votes:
Go right ahead. Good luck finding a jury to convict.
2012-09-18 09:07:26 PM  
5 votes:
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 10:51:42 PM  
4 votes:
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 10:18:09 PM  
4 votes:
this is why we can't have nice things
2012-09-18 10:15:14 PM  
4 votes:

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 11:17:38 PM  
3 votes:

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 10:27:33 PM  
3 votes:
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 10:17:24 PM  
3 votes:

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 09:43:04 PM  
3 votes:

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.
2012-09-19 01:18:47 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:01:59 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:13:19 AM  
2 votes:
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 12:12:32 AM  
2 votes:
Well actually, the city can come in and clean your property if it wants to.
2012-09-18 11:46:52 PM  
2 votes:
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 10:56:46 PM  
2 votes:
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 10:51:35 PM  
2 votes:
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 10:47:23 PM  
2 votes:
Seriously philly? he saved you money cleaning up the lot. you should be thanking him.
2012-09-18 10:41:42 PM  
2 votes:
Better yet, FIND THEM, FIRE THEM, fark THEM!
2012-09-18 10:20:51 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:19:19 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:14:05 PM  
2 votes:
Can't imagine why people distrust the bureaucracy.
2012-09-18 10:12:16 PM  
2 votes:
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 10:05:48 PM  
2 votes:
Is it Thanksgiving already?
2012-09-18 10:05:42 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2012-09-19 01:40:29 AM  
1 votes:
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 01:24:26 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:08:47 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:45:32 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:41:50 AM  
1 votes:
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 12:39:08 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:21:16 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:07:07 AM  
1 votes:
No good deed goes unpunished.
2012-09-18 11:58:57 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-09-18 11:58:04 PM  
1 votes:
ninjamonkey.us
2012-09-18 11:49:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:38:55 PM  
1 votes:
images.wikia.com
2012-09-18 11:37:42 PM  
1 votes:

OpieTaylor: Kid, have you rehabilitated yourself?


You gotta lotta damn gall...
2012-09-18 11:36:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:36:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:31:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:28:55 PM  
1 votes:
"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 11:28:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:18:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:13:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:10:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:03:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:54:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:54:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:51:26 PM  
1 votes:

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


You can't adversely possess government land.
2012-09-18 10:44:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:43:45 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:39:53 PM  
1 votes:
Who in the city pushed it? FIND HIM, FIRE HIM, fark HIM!
2012-09-18 10:38:09 PM  
1 votes:

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


You got a lotta nerve...
2012-09-18 10:37:34 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:25:21 PM  
1 votes:
("KID, HAVE YOU REHABILITATED YOURSELF?")
2012-09-18 10:22:35 PM  
1 votes:

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


"They don't like nice things,"
2012-09-18 10:17:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:17:45 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:14:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:14:02 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:13:54 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:07:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:41:43 PM  
1 votes:
Put. Ze garbage. Beck.
 
Displayed 68 of 68 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report