• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant lot

Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

Other than it appears he added structure (the rear fencing?) and put picnic tables on it, see nothing wrong in what he did. However, since he didn't own the property he had no business putting anything on it.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant lot

City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant lot | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News

Ya' know....? This is just stupid, isn't it? Not only do I hope this gets tons of publicity, but I hope the complete ass**** that wants the lot returned to its previous condition and has threatened a lawsuit is fired. We've got to stop the stupidity, folks. It's a virus. It's rampant.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

Hmm...So the guy cleans the place up, makes it look good and the city is considering sueing him. *sigh* Why am I not surprised?
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

Hmm...So the guy cleans the place up, makes it look good and the city is considering sueing him. *sigh* Why am I not surprised?

I am not surprised that someone gets sued for building stuff on property they don't own.

Yes, the city was wrong to deny his offer.

But they denied his offer and he decided he's above the law.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

It wasn't his property so he really couldn't do this without the permission of the property owner. But I like the idea of reverse eminent domain. If the city refuses to clean up its property, perhaps we should sell it to someone who will.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

He went too far in building anything. While he did a nice job, that was too much.

I have no problem with him cleaning it up. In fact, I applaud him for it. Being the city's property, it's also his property, IMO, and a trashy lot negatively affects his business. makes it less desirable to visit.

And to make it even better...
From the linked article:
And the situation is not without irony. Feibush says he received a citation in August 2011 from the city for litter on the same lot that the city now points out is not his property.
...not only did the city know it needed to be cleaned up, they WANTED it cleaned up.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

let the city sue him

especially after issuing a citation to him telling him to clean up the mess on the city's property

let's see how that works out
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

Hmm, I wonder if hostile occupation would work in this situation.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

Very simply he exceeded his legal rights in regards to the piece of property. It can be very frustrating dealing with local governmental agencies. I deal with them on a daily basis at times, and they drive me nuts as well. He would have been better off to organize a group in the neighborhood to bring a larger voice to the agency, and make his offer known publicly. then let the neighbors bring the pressure on the City to allow him to do this.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

Hmm, I wonder if hostile occupation would work in this situation.

That is an interesting concept. Government entities are generally exempt from adverse possession, but the reverse is not true. If you have a path through your property that the public uses openly for a period of time, then the government can step in and prevent the closing of the path.

At any rate, it is the bureaucracy that failed in this case. It is also the bureaucracy that is arguing that they would rather have a field of junk next to a restaurant than the park that the neighbor built.

Our homeowners association has regular clean up days along the roads leading to the subdivision. We get full cooperation of the DOT since they recognize the inherent value. Seems like a thank you is in order, not a citation.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

That is an interesting concept. Government entities are generally exempt from adverse possession, but the reverse is not true. If you have a path through your property that the public uses openly for a period of time, then the government can step in and prevent the closing of the path.

At any rate, it is the bureaucracy that failed in this case. It is also the bureaucracy that is arguing that they would rather have a field of junk next to a restaurant than the park that the neighbor built.

Our homeowners association has regular clean up days along the roads leading to the subdivision. We get full cooperation of the DOT since they recognize the inherent value. Seems like a thank you is in order, not a citation.
I think what the city is really arguing, albeit unknowingly and subconsciously, is that their power is beyond question, and no matter how absurd must be obeyed.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

I'd tell them I'd see 'em in court. They're just butt hurt. If he can afford the $20k to rehab the plot, I'm sure he can afford whatever it'll cost to pacify those idiot officials.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

I think what the city is really arguing, albeit unknowingly and subconsciously, is that their power is beyond question, and no matter how absurd must be obeyed.

I like to call my Building & Zoning Department the Nazi Fringe. They rule beyond all reason, punish the homeowner/do-it-yourselfer and act like Little Napoleans when they knock on a neighborhood door. Old drywall at the curb for pick-up? Here comes the Nazi Fringe!! ;)

I think you're absolutely right.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant lot

City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant lot | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News
The city should be thanking him for the free trash removal and area beautification. Not threatening to sue him to put trash back on the lot.

If I was Ori Feibush I would run ads stating that Paul D. Chrystie( and or whoever else is threatening the lawsuit )wants to dump 40 tons of trash in their neighborhood. If certain city officials want to act like dirt bags then that is what they should be treated as.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

Yep, he technically broke the law. I don’t care. I applaud him. I hope this gets a lot of press and I hope it is good for his business. If the city is going to do something with the land then I am fine with them ordering him to remove any constructs he put there, but they should change their mind on fining him.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

The government is not your friend. The government does not exist to help you. The government has no public servants. I realize I might be generalizing and there might be some people working in government who are your friend, do want to help, and consider themselves public servants but they're marginalized in the system and eventually destroyed.
 
Last edited:
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

I don't think there is a straight forwards answer to this situation, despite a number of people's instinctive reaction.

The basic principal some people are supporting is that anyone can enter private property, remove anything they determine "trash" and build anything they want. If anything went wrong with that, the property owner would still have some if not all legal responsibility for it. While there is an obvious common sense argument to congratulate rather than punish this guy, there is a risk of setting a legal president that could bite them all on the ass later. For example, would the response be as positive if it was local government entering, clearing and building on someone's private property without any kind of legal backing?

It'd be relevant to know what general legal responsibilities property owners have in that locality around visual impact and the like. If someone want to keep a pile of rubble on their property, is it anyone else's business? What level of responsibility is there to keep your property beatified? You can certainly argue a social/moral duty but how far should that be enforced? Again, remember that in principal, any action deemed legitimate in this case could be deemed legitimate regarding your property too.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

I don't think there is a straight forwards answer to this situation, despite a number of people's instinctive reaction.

The basic principal some people are supporting is that anyone can enter private property, remove anything they determine "trash" and build anything they want. If anything went wrong with that, the property owner would still have some if not all legal responsibility for it. While there is an obvious common sense argument to congratulate rather than punish this guy, there is a risk of setting a legal president that could bite them all on the ass later. For example, would the response be as positive if it was local government entering, clearing and building on someone's private property without any kind of legal backing?

It'd be relevant to know what general legal responsibilities property owners have in that locality around visual impact and the like. If someone want to keep a pile of rubble on their property, is it anyone else's business? What level of responsibility is there to keep your property beatified? You can certainly argue a social/moral duty but how far should that be enforced? Again, remember that in principal, any action deemed legitimate in this case could be deemed legitimate regarding your property too.

all of that argument is undermined by the fact that the city had issued a notice to the business owner to police the debris - on the city's property
clearly, the city notified the business man that the items lying on that lot was debris
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

all of that argument is undermined by the fact that the city had issued a notice to the business owner to police the debris - on the city's property
I'm not sure it's that clear cut from the report linked. That just has a single statement about "a citation in August 2011 from the city for litter on the same lot" without any further detail. Regardless of those details, I don't think it alters the basic principals involved or the complexity surrounding them.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

I'm not sure it's that clear cut from the report linked. That just has a single statement about "a citation in August 2011 from the city for litter on the same lot" without any further detail. Regardless of those details, I don't think it alters the basic principals involved or the complexity surrounding them.
certainly it does
the city has gone on record to assert that the debris on that lot was debris
the city has gone on record directing the business man to remove said debris
any litigation against him would fail as a result
but i am open to another opinion; tell us why litigation such as you recommend would be likely to prevail
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

certainly it does
the city has gone on record to assert that the debris on that lot was debris
the city has gone on record directing the business man to remove said debris
That's all assumption. The only statement in the OP article is that he received a citation for litter on the same lot. If doesn't say what that litter was (so you don't know it was the material he ultimately removed) and it doesn't say what action the citation demanded of him.

tell us why litigation such as you recommend would be likely to prevail
That would be a little difficult since I've not recommended any litigation at all. All I've done is point out that the situation is more complicated that some people seem to give it credit and that any of the "easy" answers could come with unintended consequences.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

That's all assumption. The only statement in the OP article is that he received a citation for litter on the same lot. If doesn't say what that litter was (so you don't know it was the material he ultimately removed) and it doesn't say what action the citation demanded of him.
so, your argument is that we do not know that the debris that the business man moved was the same debris that the city directed him to remove from the adjoining lot

That would be a little difficult since I've not recommended any litigation at all. All I've done is point out that the situation is more complicated that some people seem to give it credit and that any of the "easy" answers could come with unintended consequences.
then what is your point; that you do not have one?
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

I would very much like to see this developer counter-sue the city and I would be willing to donate to any sort of ChipIn he has to help pay his legal fees to do so.
 
Back
Top Bottom