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)   Do not get between Chris Christie and the sand which is here   (philly.com) divider line 54
    More: Followup, Chris Christie, Ocean City, Army Corps of Engineers, eminent domain  
•       •       •

1675 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Oct 2013 at 2:20 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-08 01:03:04 PM
We support the governor's efforts to establish such a system along the entire coastline. A handful of property owners are not going to disrupt or delay this project

If it were a Democrat instead of Christie, the howl would be deafening.
 
2013-10-08 01:06:02 PM
Ok subs, I laughed pretty hard. Thanks for that.
 
2013-10-08 01:51:59 PM
I wish the article had some comments from the holdouts.  Not that I agree with them.  But it would be interesting to hear their perspective.
 
2013-10-08 01:58:43 PM
Took me a minute, but that was funny.  Good work subby.
 
2013-10-08 02:07:12 PM
I don't think that there is much public disagreement on the importance of artificial sand dunes in New Jersey as a storm mitigation technique.

wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net

Remember Sandy when dramatic pictures of the Atlantic City Boardwalk was washed into the city streets by the storm surges?

The vast majority of the Atlantic City Boardwalk survived completely intact, thanks to a stretch of artificial Sand Dunes that have been in place since the late 90s/early 2000s. The section of boardwalk that was destroyed and washed away were the portions that weren't protected by those dunes.

The difference between the unprotected areas and the protected areas are dramatic. Atlantic City itself, despite being the place where the storm actually made landfall, survived a lot better than most coastal towns up and down the Jersey coast because it had such a sophisticated sand dune system that is in place that protected much of the city from the most damaging parts of the storm surges.

www.washingtonsblog.com
 
2013-10-08 02:23:13 PM
The homeowners could be given a choice (but they would have to be unanimous) sand dunes in New Jersey as a storm mitigation or no federal flood insurance and no relief money.
 
2013-10-08 02:23:36 PM
Relevant:

www.vosizneias.com
 
2013-10-08 02:26:27 PM

RexTalionis: I don't think that there is much public disagreement on the importance of artificial sand dunes in New Jersey as a storm mitigation technique.

[wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net image 630x355]

Remember Sandy when dramatic pictures of the Atlantic City Boardwalk was washed into the city streets by the storm surges?

The vast majority of the Atlantic City Boardwalk survived completely intact, thanks to a stretch of artificial Sand Dunes that have been in place since the late 90s/early 2000s. The section of boardwalk that was destroyed and washed away were the portions that weren't protected by those dunes.

The difference between the unprotected areas and the protected areas are dramatic. Atlantic City itself, despite being the place where the storm actually made landfall, survived a lot better than most coastal towns up and down the Jersey coast because it had such a sophisticated sand dune system that is in place that protected much of the city from the most damaging parts of the storm surges.

[www.washingtonsblog.com image 713x389]


But but but SOSHULISM!!!!
 
2013-10-08 02:30:10 PM

monoski: The homeowners could be given a choice (but they would have to be unanimous) sand dunes in New Jersey as a storm mitigation or no federal flood insurance and no relief money.


Screw that. If the homeowners don't give an easement to the government to build the dunes, they impact hundreds of people that are in the shore community behind them. No, condemnation proceedings are the right way to go. Their decision doesn't just limit the consequences to themselves.

By the way, do you know why a lot of these homeowners are holdouts? They have been trying to sue the state for financial compensation for the strip of land that the easement will be on, some of the homeowners asking the state to pay them tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars for their property. State courts rightly dismissed most of these claims.
 
2013-10-08 02:34:09 PM
Was watching This Old House this weekend where they are going to cover the remodeling of a few of these Jersey houses. They went to a beach that had a good dune system and explained how it prevented all the beautiful houses behind it from getting damaged by the storm.
 
2013-10-08 02:41:29 PM
Do not get between Chris Christie and the sand which is here

www1.grotecompany.com
 
2013-10-08 02:45:54 PM

RexTalionis: monoski: The homeowners could be given a choice (but they would have to be unanimous) sand dunes in New Jersey as a storm mitigation or no federal flood insurance and no relief money.

Screw that. If the homeowners don't give an easement to the government to build the dunes, they impact hundreds of people that are in the shore community behind them. No, condemnation proceedings are the right way to go. Their decision doesn't just limit the consequences to themselves.

By the way, do you know why a lot of these homeowners are holdouts? They have been trying to sue the state for financial compensation for the strip of land that the easement will be on, some of the homeowners asking the state to pay them tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars for their property. State courts rightly dismissed most of these claims.


The one I saw make the local news was awarded $1
 
2013-10-08 02:46:41 PM

Serious Black: Do not get between Chris Christie and the sand which is here

[www1.grotecompany.com image 340x251]


I think Chris Christie would like something that is a little bit more quintessentially New Jersey.

www.seriouseats.com
 
2013-10-08 02:47:17 PM

monoski: The one I saw make the local news was awarded $1


Yeah, i saw that one too. The judge gave them too much.
 
2013-10-08 02:47:27 PM

RexTalionis: By the way, do you know why a lot of these homeowners are holdouts? They have been trying to sue the state for financial compensation for the strip of land that the easement will be on, some of the homeowners asking the state to pay them tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars for their property. State courts rightly dismissed most of these claims.


The one problem that some of these homeowners will have is that even though the town is granted an easement on the property, the homeowner may still have liability for the land. There's a case in my town where that is a significant issue because the land that was taken has been added to the road. Sadly, I can't find a good article that discusses the issue, so you'll have to settle for a one-sided discussion with some pictures here.
 
2013-10-08 02:51:24 PM
Nice, subby
 
2013-10-08 03:08:55 PM
Fark you Supreme court and the kelo decision which allows this.
 
2013-10-08 03:14:25 PM

RexTalionis: Serious Black: Do not get between Chris Christie and the sand which is here

[www1.grotecompany.com image 340x251]

I think Chris Christie would like something that is a little bit more quintessentially New Jersey.

[www.seriouseats.com image 500x337]


I have no idea what is in that edible edifice, nor what it is called, but I want one. With a side of fries.
And a defibrillator.
 
2013-10-08 03:16:14 PM

Warlordtrooper: Fark you Supreme court and the kelo decision which allows this.



This kind of situation is exactly what eminent domain was created for, and it has no parallels to the  Kelo decision.
 
2013-10-08 03:21:07 PM

give me doughnuts: Warlordtrooper: Fark you Supreme court and the kelo decision which allows this.


This kind of situation is exactly what eminent domain was created for, and it has no parallels to the  Kelo decision.


Honestly,  ANY government taking of privately owned land should be unconstitutional.  The fact that it's for a good cause should not matter.
 
2013-10-08 03:21:20 PM

Warlordtrooper: Fark you Supreme court and the kelo decision which allows this.


So just to be clear, you'd rather allow a single home to create a gap in the defensive dunes, thereby allowing water to flood in and destroy the neighborhood - because freedom?
 
2013-10-08 03:22:01 PM

give me doughnuts: RexTalionis: Serious Black: Do not get between Chris Christie and the sand which is here

[www1.grotecompany.com image 340x251]

I think Chris Christie would like something that is a little bit more quintessentially New Jersey.

[www.seriouseats.com image 500x337]

I have no idea what is in that edible edifice, nor what it is called, but I want one. With a side of fries.
And a defibrillator.


http://millburn.patch.com/groups/opinion/p/battle-of-the-nj-style-sl op py-joe-sandwiches
 
2013-10-08 03:23:01 PM

LasersHurt: Warlordtrooper: Fark you Supreme court and the kelo decision which allows this.

So just to be clear, you'd rather allow a single home to create a gap in the defensive dunes, thereby allowing water to flood in and destroy the neighborhood - because freedom?


If the sellers of the land should be forced to sell their land that they own it should be done at a price which the sellers feel reasonable.  The government doesn't come and set prices for things you sell in your store, why should it get to set the price of your land.
 
2013-10-08 03:24:07 PM

Warlordtrooper: LasersHurt: Warlordtrooper: Fark you Supreme court and the kelo decision which allows this.

So just to be clear, you'd rather allow a single home to create a gap in the defensive dunes, thereby allowing water to flood in and destroy the neighborhood - because freedom?

If the sellers of the land should be forced to sell their land that they own it should be done at a price which the sellers feel reasonable.  The government doesn't come and set prices for things you sell in your store, why should it get to set the price of your land.


So the sellers should be able to extort the government, and therefore everyone, for an unfair price, just in order to establish a safety system?
 
2013-10-08 03:33:44 PM

Misch: RexTalionis: By the way, do you know why a lot of these homeowners are holdouts? They have been trying to sue the state for financial compensation for the strip of land that the easement will be on, some of the homeowners asking the state to pay them tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars for their property. State courts rightly dismissed most of these claims.

The one problem that some of these homeowners will have is that even though the town is granted an easement on the property, the homeowner may still have liability for the land. There's a case in my town where that is a significant issue because the land that was taken has been added to the road. Sadly, I can't find a good article that discusses the issue, so you'll have to settle for a one-sided discussion with some pictures here.


It's not a new concept.  The curb and sidewalk is your responsibility (except for shade trees in my experience) but an automatic easement is given to the municipality for public use.  For example, you don't get to decide whether or not to have a sidewalk, and you must maintain the sidewalk in a serviceable manner.
 
2013-10-08 03:37:46 PM

LasersHurt: Warlordtrooper: LasersHurt: Warlordtrooper: Fark you Supreme court and the kelo decision which allows this.

So just to be clear, you'd rather allow a single home to create a gap in the defensive dunes, thereby allowing water to flood in and destroy the neighborhood - because freedom?

If the sellers of the land should be forced to sell their land that they own it should be done at a price which the sellers feel reasonable.  The government doesn't come and set prices for things you sell in your store, why should it get to set the price of your land.

So the sellers should be able to extort the government, and therefore everyone, for an unfair price, just in order to establish a safety system?


This is why I'm a socialist these days. I used to be a conservative, then I realized that the big lessons I've learned in life is "What I do impacts what you do, and we can't trust each other to act for each other's benefits so we make rules."

THIS is what emminent domain is for, to make something that improves the area as a whole. Should the property owners be compensated? Yes, for something close to a market value of the property being domain'd. Should they set the prices? Nope. By the time it gets to ED, you didn't negotiate at all, so too bad.
 
2013-10-08 03:50:56 PM
God I hate NIMBYs.
 
2013-10-08 03:52:21 PM

Warlordtrooper: Fark you Supreme court and the kelo decision which allows this.

Nope.
hiphoptraphouse.com
 
2013-10-08 03:56:29 PM

Warlordtrooper: LasersHurt: Warlordtrooper: Fark you Supreme court and the kelo decision which allows this.

So just to be clear, you'd rather allow a single home to create a gap in the defensive dunes, thereby allowing water to flood in and destroy the neighborhood - because freedom?

If the sellers of the land should be forced to sell their land that they own it should be done at a price which the sellers feel reasonable.  The government doesn't come and set prices for things you sell in your store, why should it get to set the price of your land.


The land owners were offered the value of their property, more or less. At least first. Then they went "NO!", so the government said "Fark you then, eminent domain biatches."

Not to mention, most of these people don't have to give up ALL their property. Just a small piece on the beach front so that proper protection can be built.

Really, this is just a bunch of NIMBY bullshiat. They had a chance to be fairly compensated, and they passed it up. So fark them.
 
2013-10-08 03:56:59 PM

Warlordtrooper: LasersHurt: Warlordtrooper: Fark you Supreme court and the kelo decision which allows this.

So just to be clear, you'd rather allow a single home to create a gap in the defensive dunes, thereby allowing water to flood in and destroy the neighborhood - because freedom?

If the sellers of the land should be forced to sell their land that they own it should be done at a price which the sellers feel reasonable.  The government doesn't come and set prices for things you sell in your store, why should it get to set the price of your land.


FTFA:

The towns can use eminent domain, a legal process in which land that is needed for publicly beneficial projects can be seized from owners, who would be paid fair market value as compensation.

So then, what's the problem again?
 
2013-10-08 03:57:57 PM

Diogenes: I wish the article had some comments from the holdouts.  Not that I agree with them.  But it would be interesting to hear their perspective.


From an article about a month back:

Holdouts say that they are within their rights and that efforts at persuasion have become abusive.

"I am almost tempted to say, does this guy have kids or grandkids, and I'll hack their school's computer and publish their grades," said Ken Burkhardt, alluding to Mayor Joe Mancini of Long Beach Township, who published Mr. Burkhardt's name along with other holdouts' on the town Web site. "It's an invitation for whackos to give you a hard time. It's my business whether I sign it or not."


{snip}

Officials say the easements strictly prohibit the government from doing anything more than building and maintaining the dunes, similar to the easements owners everywhere give to sewer utilities and cable companies for lines under their properties. Opponents have warned against a government takeover, some fearing that signing easements will give towns permission to erect boardwalks or bathrooms, too.

"It almost sounded like by signing the easement, you were giving all the rights to your private property," said Tom Cangialosi, the treasurer of Surf Cottages Homeowners Association in Ortley Beach, where the storm flooded all the houses with more than four feet of water. "You can't swallow that."
 
2013-10-08 04:02:09 PM

give me doughnuts: This kind of situation is exactly what eminent domain was created for, and it has no parallels to the Kelo decision.


This.
 
2013-10-08 04:03:33 PM

Lydia_C: From an article about a month back:


Also notable from that article:

The corps had completed some dunes before Hurricane Sandy hit, but stopped when they could not get enough easements. Where there were dunes, the storm left relatively minor damage. Where there were not, homes - even many seemingly safely inland - were destroyed.

In some areas, homes with dunes were damaged because of gaps left by neighbors without them. In Surf City, for example, the corps had built dunes along all but two blocks of oceanfront, where six homeowners would not grant easements. The storm surge flooded the neighborhood.
 
2013-10-08 04:18:28 PM

RexTalionis: Lydia_C: From an article about a month back:

Also notable from that article:

The corps had completed some dunes before Hurricane Sandy hit, but stopped when they could not get enough easements. Where there were dunes, the storm left relatively minor damage. Where there were not, homes - even many seemingly safely inland - were destroyed.

In some areas, homes with dunes were damaged because of gaps left by neighbors without them. In Surf City, for example, the corps had built dunes along all but two blocks of oceanfront, where six homeowners would not grant easements. The storm surge flooded the neighborhood.


Please tell me FEMA told them to get farked when they applied for assistance.
 
2013-10-08 04:22:43 PM

Lydia_C: Officials say the easements strictly prohibit the government from doing anything more than building and maintaining the dunes, similar to the easements owners everywhere give to sewer utilities and cable companies for lines under their properties. Opponents have warned against a government takeover, some fearing that signing easements will give towns permission to erect boardwalks or bathrooms, too.

"It almost sounded like by signing the easement, you were giving all the rights to your private property," said Tom Cangialosi, the treasurer of Surf Cottages Homeowners Association in Ortley Beach, where the storm flooded all the houses with more than four feet of water. "You can't swallow that."


I love that wording.

"It ALMOST sounded like..." is code for "It doesn't sound like that at all, but I'm a sniveling, selfish crybaby that only cares about myself, so I'll look for any far-fetched excuse to screw other people."
 
2013-10-08 04:30:58 PM

Summercat: LasersHurt: Warlordtrooper: LasersHurt: Warlordtrooper: Fark you Supreme court and the kelo decision which allows this.

So just to be clear, you'd rather allow a single home to create a gap in the defensive dunes, thereby allowing water to flood in and destroy the neighborhood - because freedom?

If the sellers of the land should be forced to sell their land that they own it should be done at a price which the sellers feel reasonable.  The government doesn't come and set prices for things you sell in your store, why should it get to set the price of your land.

So the sellers should be able to extort the government, and therefore everyone, for an unfair price, just in order to establish a safety system?

This is why I'm a socialist these days. I used to be a conservative, then I realized that the big lessons I've learned in life is "What I do impacts what you do, and we can't trust each other to act for each other's benefits so we make rules."

THIS is what emminent domain is for, to make something that improves the area as a whole. Should the property owners be compensated? Yes, for something close to a market value of the property being domain'd. Should they set the prices? Nope. By the time it gets to ED, you didn't negotiate at all, so too bad.


MArket price is whatever the buyer and seller agree on. I the seller doesn't agree why should they be forced to sell. If I had nice property and the government was forcing me to sell it I would be pissed off as all hell and demand proper compensation
 
2013-10-08 04:33:33 PM

Warlordtrooper: MArket price is whatever the buyer and seller agree on.


I see you don't know what market prices are.
 
2013-10-08 04:36:26 PM

Job Creator: RexTalionis: Lydia_C: From an article about a month back:

Also notable from that article:

The corps had completed some dunes before Hurricane Sandy hit, but stopped when they could not get enough easements. Where there were dunes, the storm left relatively minor damage. Where there were not, homes - even many seemingly safely inland - were destroyed.

In some areas, homes with dunes were damaged because of gaps left by neighbors without them. In Surf City, for example, the corps had built dunes along all but two blocks of oceanfront, where six homeowners would not grant easements. The storm surge flooded the neighborhood.

Please tell me FEMA told them to get farked when they applied for assistance.


Many of the NJ coastal communities have a high percentage of vacation properties, and all those people are SOOL as far as FEMA is concerned. Don't know if that applies to the holdouts mentioned in the NYTimes article, though.
 
2013-10-08 05:04:48 PM

Warlordtrooper: give me doughnuts: Warlordtrooper: Fark you Supreme court and the kelo decision which allows this.


This kind of situation is exactly what eminent domain was created for, and it has no parallels to the  Kelo decision.

Honestly,  ANY government taking of privately owned land should be unconstitutional.  The fact that it's for a good cause should not matter.


Except that when you purchase your land, there are already easements built in for situations exactly like this. You don't actually own the first 6 feet or so next to the road, for example. You get to use it as you see fit, but when it comes to expand the road, you just have to shut up and accept what living in a society is all about.
 
2013-10-08 05:09:44 PM
Misch:

The one problem that some of these homeowners will have is that even though the town is granted an easement on the property, the homeowner may still have liability for the land. There's a case in my town where that is a significant issue because the land that was taken has been added to the road. Sadly, I can't find a good article that discusses the issue, so you'll have to settle for a one-sided discussion with some pictures here.


I think thats part of the issue. Instead of the state offering to buy the land in question (which sounds like thats what some homeowners are looking to do, which in that case would have just left to be a negotiation to find the right dollar amount), the state instead is looking for easements, which basically means "we get to come onto your property at any time, do whatever the fark we like, limit what *you* can do with it, and you still have the obligation to take care of that property and you will receive no payment for your efforts and likely lose you money because easements = lower property values"

Now, setting easements before the land is occupied is great. For example, when a sub development plots places for sewer and power lines in the deeds before selling units. Slapping easements onto existing property owners is a burden placed on an existing owner without due process.
 
2013-10-08 05:09:47 PM
Fine. Fark 'em. I'm sure gaps in the dunes aren't as bad as not having them there in the first place. But as a result, these assshats don't get a fraction of a percentage of a goddam penny in storm relief. Ever. If they can't participate in the community, then the community won't participate with them, it's that simple. Hell, let's take it a step further, if they're gonna be this uptight, then nobody access their beach for anything. That means if uncle Bob is having a heart attack on the beach, the beach patrol(Or whatever they're called) can just sit there at the property line and watch him die. Also, when any improvements get implemented, erosion control, anything like that, these people can fark off as well. Eventually, their little strips of beach will be about 3 feet from their homes, and the best they can hope for is that the place will float.

In other words, I'm getting tired of selfish assholes. Does it show?
 
2013-10-08 05:11:44 PM

give me doughnuts: This kind of situation is exactly what eminent domain was created for


Much better than a farking shopping mall, a Bass Pro Shop, or a goddam stadium, that's for sure.
 
2013-10-08 05:13:27 PM

Mikey1969: But as a result, these assshats don't get a fraction of a percentage of a goddam penny in storm relief


Speaking as a person who grew up on the Jersey shore and someone whose parents had their house damaged from Sandy -

1) The storm relief is usually not sufficient to cover your damages.
2) Your insurance will probably not cover all of your damages, either, and they'll fight you tooth and nail to deny you.
3) If there are gaps and the entire neighborhood floods or is damaged, they're going to get f*cked either way compared to if there is a complete dune system.
 
2013-10-08 05:17:56 PM

Misch: The one problem that some of these homeowners will have is that even though the town is granted an easement on the property, the homeowner may still have liability for the land. There's a case in my town where that is a significant issue because the land that was taken has been added to the road. Sadly, I can't find a good article that discusses the issue, so you'll have to settle for a one-sided discussion with some pictures here.


That's why you don't actually OWN that land, if the road needs to be widened, there's nothing you can do about it, and it's already spelled out that way when you buy the land. I don't own the 'Green Strip' between the sidewalk and the road. Sure, I have to mow it and keep it decent, but i don't own it, and never have.

Well actually, my landlords don't own it, but the concept is the same. It's also why you have to have a certain setback between your house and the property line, these are all legally established, they're there for a reason, and nobody "hides" them... People try and get around them all of the time, but nobody has any excuse.
 
2013-10-08 05:24:51 PM

RexTalionis: Mikey1969: But as a result, these assshats don't get a fraction of a percentage of a goddam penny in storm relief

Speaking as a person who grew up on the Jersey shore and someone whose parents had their house damaged from Sandy -

1) The storm relief is usually not sufficient to cover your damages.
2) Your insurance will probably not cover all of your damages, either, and they'll fight you tooth and nail to deny you.
3) If there are gaps and the entire neighborhood floods or is damaged, they're going to get f*cked either way compared to if there is a complete dune system.


If there is almost complete coverage, then the places that will get the most damage are the places that refused to play ball, and there is a slim chance that they will be the only ones to get damage. I still say fark 'em. Besides, that's a little more money that can be split up between everyone else. Then you leave in an option to get the dunes when they realize that they're the only house on the beach to get damaged. Of course, it all hinges on the storm that teaches them their lesson not being as devastating as Sandy, but we can always hope.I still think it's the ONLY way they'll learn.
 
2013-10-08 05:29:15 PM
The holdouts are unhappy about two things - the loss of the view from their first floors, and the possibility that the easements will allow other infrastructure that will attract day trippers. No beach in New Jersey is privately owned, but the locals try their hardest to limit access where they can. They're holding out for purely selfish reasons, and the government should've ended the negotiation long ago.
 
2013-10-08 05:38:43 PM

MsStatement: The holdouts are unhappy about two things - the loss of the view from their first floors, and the possibility that the easements will allow other infrastructure that will attract day trippers. No beach in New Jersey is privately owned, but the locals try their hardest to limit access where they can. They're holding out for purely selfish reasons, and the government should've ended the negotiation long ago.


This right here.

There's well established records of these people putting up "No trespassing" signs on public beach fronts.
 
2013-10-08 05:39:15 PM
I'm curious... The people who have cooperated have merely 'granted access' while the others will have their property 'siezed' is this just colorful use of language, or does that mean that the holdouts will lose that land permanently? T would be a hell of a way to learn how society works, wouldn't it?
 
2013-10-08 05:45:36 PM

Mikey1969: I'm curious... The people who have cooperated have merely 'granted access' while the others will have their property 'siezed' is this just colorful use of language, or does that mean that the holdouts will lose that land permanently? T would be a hell of a way to learn how society works, wouldn't it?


Christie ordered the Attorney General to coordinate legal actions to acquire all easements and property interests necessary to finish the dune system.
 
2013-10-08 06:09:13 PM

Misch: RexTalionis: By the way, do you know why a lot of these homeowners are holdouts? They have been trying to sue the state for financial compensation for the strip of land that the easement will be on, some of the homeowners asking the state to pay them tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars for their property. State courts rightly dismissed most of these claims.

The one problem that some of these homeowners will have is that even though the town is granted an easement on the property, the homeowner may still have liability for the land. There's a case in my town where that is a significant issue because the land that was taken has been added to the road. Sadly, I can't find a good article that discusses the issue, so you'll have to settle for a one-sided discussion with some pictures here.


That's a big problem with easements. It's not a change of ownership. The property owner won't be assessed for the improvements, but it's still their land. Oftentimes the easement will be included in the total acreage. Homeowners may have to perform "reasonable and customary maintenance" on the easement. If someone gets hurt in the easement not conditional to its purpose, the homeowner may be liable (you can't sue the homeowner for injuries sustained in an ingress/egress/regress while walking/driving, but if you trip in a chuck hole in a utility easement you can).

The only reason to make this an easement instead of the state purchasing the land would be setback requirements. Sounds like the state is trying to avoid jostling the collective omelets of the freeholders regarding variances.
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report