Really? This guy wanted to purchase the lot next to his business and when he couldn't get anywhere with the city for the last 4 years, he used his own money to clean it up. Technically he was trespassing, but I can understand the guy getting frustrated with being jerked around.
Well I guess it is Philly. 
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/philadelphia-officials-disapprove-man-paid-20000-clean-vacant/
You stay classy, Philadelphia.
can't have that one lone guy making the rest of the city look like a E36 M3hole..
Well, there's also the bit about adverse posession, aka squatters rights.
Seriously, the story isn't as simple as the OP makes it sound.
He should move to Detroit and he could clean up entire neighborhoods that have been abandoned, not just one silly lot.
logdog wrote: He should move to Detroit and he could clean up entire neighborhoods that have been abandoned, not just one silly lot.
the solution for Detroit is a bulldozer.. you plow over all the empty houses and push them to a central location and have one hell of a bonfire.. then you take some grass seed and just spread it around everywhere.
novaderrik wrote:logdog wrote: He should move to Detroit and he could clean up entire neighborhoods that have been abandoned, not just one silly lot.the solution for Detroit is a bulldozer.. you plow over all the empty houses and push them to a central location and have one hell of a bonfire.. then you take some grass seed and just spread it around everywhere.
Totally agree. One of the guys I work with swears Detroit will return to its former glory because hipsters have moved in to a couple areas.
"the solution for Detroit is a bulldozer.. you plow over all the empty houses and push them to a central location and have one hell of a bonfire.. then you take some grass seed and just spread it around everywhere."
That's what they are starting to do, but it's a daunting task. They've identified 30,000 buildings that should be knocked down.
Though it can be done. I was there when Portsmouth Virginia did it.
Had a clue something was up a few days earlier when lots of heavy equipment and big bulldozers started showing up. One day, they all lined up and started rolling forward.
People screamed and hollered, but the deed was done. Crime dropped like the proverbial rock. Vagrancy dropped as well. Place almost became nice.
DeadSkunk wrote: That's what they are starting to do, but it's a daunting task. They've identified 30,000 buildings that should be knocked down.
The real problem is the process is not free. Neighbors are clamoring to tear down burnt up hulks, but the city can't afford it. It cost a wage and gas if you already own the equipment to tear down homes. And if there are only so many sets of equipment available, well....
They should auction the rights to operate the bulldozer. I'm sure lots of people have dreamed about tearing buildings down with giant equipment. Isn't it most boys' dreams to play with giant bulldozers and dump trucks?
Working in this field, I can tell you that he didn't follow the process, and he paid the consequences.
The system is a burden, but its there to be consistent. If you break from that consistency, people will find loopholes, exploit them, and piss people off and/or cost them lots of money. The process is there to make sure that everyone is playing fair.
This guy is a good guy, doing the right thing, but what worries the city is that because he just went out and did it, that it may inspire others to do the same thing. Who's to say that the next guy couldn't clean up the property next to mine, build a skate-park, little Jimmy breaks his neck, Jimmy's Mom sues that property owner, good intentions neighbor sneaks away without liability? It's happened.
Government today acts just like business, everyone is out to get them. Everyone will try to sue someone else whenever they get the chance. Most local government regulations are put in place to protect property owners and the government from liability.
This guy obviously wasn't building something dangerous, but the city can't pick and choose what type of "vacant lot improvements" are good and bad. Well it could, but that would need a ordinance.
One thing that really makes a difference in local government is showing up, being a pest, and ASKING what forms/documents/fees are necessary to make something happen. Don't point fingers, don't raise your voice, just ASK what the process is and we'll be sure to help you through it. If you have concerns, put them in a letter, make lots of copies, and bring them to your local officials.
foxtrapper wrote: Well, there's also the bit about adverse posession, aka squatters rights. Seriously, the story isn't as simple as the OP makes it sound.
Agreed, and now the property is basically inviting people to hang out on it, which if you want to get down to it, whoever owns it now has some liability were anything bad to happen there.
Still though, good for the guy that cleaned it up. Sometimes its good to say berkeley you to the "authorities". Sounds like he did put forth some effort to find out how to acquire the property and was given the runaround for years.
scardeal wrote: They should auction the rights to operate the bulldozer. I'm sure lots of people have dreamed about tearing buildings down with giant equipment. Isn't it most boys' dreams to play with giant bulldozers and dump trucks?
you should propose that to city council. if people really would pay to do that, enough to operate the equipment- I'm sure they would entertain ways to make money.
failboat wrote: Sounds like he did put forth some effort to find out how to acquire the property and was given the runaround for years.
If there is anything that needs to change in local government, it is this.
The fact that only very folks who are very specialized and experienced in Tax Sales, Sheriff Sales, etc are those who are able to purchase vacant property is a bit ridiculous. HUD has an online bidding process, why can't it be expanded to offer the same service to local government? There is lots of land out there that cities, municipalities, counties, and states own only because someone died and no-one ever bought it.
foxtrapper wrote: Well, there's also the bit about adverse posession, aka squatters rights. Seriously, the story isn't as simple as the OP makes it sound.
there may also be issues with "assumed property lines"- I know here in Michigan, there are ways to assume ownership of property, or define a property line that's not the same as the deed due to a well known historical line.
It's never really straight forward.
The article that I read yesterday said that he had been ticketed by the city previously for not shoveling snow from the sidewalk on the vacant lot. What does the city want?
He was ticketed in error, but for some reason, chose not to fight it. This sort of error does happen, and it's an easy thing to deal with.
His decision to pay the fine for failing to clear land he doesn't own and isn't responsible for I though was rather odd. Almost like he was trying to establish ownership by assuming responsibility.
alfadriver wrote:scardeal wrote: They should auction the rights to operate the bulldozer. I'm sure lots of people have dreamed about tearing buildings down with giant equipment. Isn't it most boys' dreams to play with giant bulldozers and dump trucks?you should propose that to city council. if people really would pay to do that, enough to operate the equipment- I'm sure they would entertain ways to make money.
I would pay $50 to get to crush a house with a bulldozer if i got to use the big bucket thing to tear the roof off!
foxtrapper wrote: He was ticketed in error, but for some reason, chose not to fight it. This sort of error does happen, and it's an easy thing to deal with. His decision to pay the fine for failing to clear land he doesn't own and isn't responsible for I though was rather odd. Almost like he was trying to establish ownership by assuming responsibility.
I think that was what he was trying to do. He did try to acquire the property several times.
PHeller wrote: Who's to say that the next guy couldn't clean up the property next to mine, build a skate-park, little Jimmy breaks his neck, Jimmy's Mom sues that property owner, good intentions neighbor sneaks away without liability? It's happened.
so if little Jimmy trips on a curb and breaks his neck skating on a CITY sidewalk ... can Mommy sue the city .. since they're the property owner ?
wbjones wrote: so if little Jimmy trips on a curb and breaks his neck skating on a CITY sidewalk ... can Mommy sue the city .. since they're the property owner ?
I certainly expect she will try...
do you NOT think so?
oh I do think she would ... but PHeller indicated ( if I read it correctly ) that she could be expected to win ....
wbjones wrote: oh I do think she would ... but PHeller indicated ( if I read it correctly ) that she could be expected to win ....
Ok...I see what you're saying. I'll just point out that I assume even successfully defending itself costs the city money.
foxtrapper wrote: He was ticketed in error, but for some reason, chose not to fight it. This sort of error does happen, and it's an easy thing to deal with. His decision to pay the fine for failing to clear land he doesn't own and isn't responsible for I though was rather odd. Almost like he was trying to establish ownership by assuming responsibility.
Hi Fox,
I don’t know anything about this particular situation but in a general sense, I’ve paid for lots of stuff I didn’t have to just to achieve closure.
How much time will it take me to fight something, what is the probability I’ll accomplish my objective, what is the opportunity cost associated with messing around with the problem rather than doing my job.
If there’s significant complexity and/or I’m not confident I’ll get resolution and I can make the problem go away for under a few hundred bucks, I’ll probably just cut a check.
You'll need to log in to post.
