• 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!

Portland says federal government owes nearly $200,000 over courthouse fence

D

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
21,094
Reaction score
6,286
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Portland says federal government owes nearly $200,000 over courthouse fence

Officials in Portland, Oregon, said that the federal government owes the city nearly $200,000 over a federal courthouse fence that's become the scene of nightly protests.

The city Bureau of Transportation filed a cease and desist order over the fence, which obstructs a downtown street, and is assessing the federal government $500 for every 15 minutes that it remains in place, Portland Commissioner Chloe Eudaly said Tuesday.

“As of yesterday, the federal government owes us $192,000 and counting,” Eudaly said. “We intend to collect.”

“Typically, we would send a maintenance crew or contractor to remove such an obstruction, but I will not send workers into harm's way,” she added.
Click to expand...

Every time I think the city officials in Portland can't be more petty and moronic, they surprise me. I'm embarrassed for the good citizens of Portland.
 
We all know Trump doesn't pay his bills, so good luck collecting.

lol
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Why are you posting off topic? This is about the Feds' placement of the fence violating the law.
Click to expand...

The fence was erected to protect the federal courthouse from the violent mob enabled by the local government. If the city doesn’t like it they can lump it or do their civic duty to stop the mob from destroying federal property.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Why are you posting off topic? This is about the Feds' placement of the fence violating the law.
Click to expand...

If, as you say, it is violating the law then they can take this into a court and have a judge order the fence be taken down.

That is how things are done.

Charging an arbitrary amount for an arbitrary time frame to the federal Government isn't the way things are done.
 
Napoleon said:
The fence was erected to protect the federal courthouse from the violent mob enabled by the local government. If the city doesn’t like it they can lump it.
Click to expand...

The fence was erected and placed in violation of local law. The feds should have asked for a permit to block the street but they did not. If the feds want to erect a fence then they should either obtain the proper permits and approvals from the local government who has jurisdiction over the public space being utilized, or erect the fence on Federal property where the feds have jurisdiction.

You're promoting the blatant violation of local laws by the federal government.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Trump should tell them to bill the "protesters." :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

It's not 'Trump' - it's the DOJ.

The DOJ should bill the city for both the cost of the fence and the personnel to guard the courthouse, necessary because the local government is failing to do it's job.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The fence was erected and placed in violation of local law. The feds should have asked for a permit to block the street but they did not. If the feds want to erect a fence then they should either obtain the proper permits and approvals from the local government who has jurisdiction over the public space being utilized, or erect the fence on Federal property where the feds have jurisdiction.

You're promoting the blatant violation of local laws by the federal government.
Click to expand...

The Federal Government does not require permission from the local government to establish a perimeter to protect Federal property. The only party involved that requires a permit are the protestors.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
They got exactly what they voted for... as do we all.
Click to expand...

After witnessing that nasty piece of work Jayapal representing Seattle in yesterday's Barr hearing, I have to agree.
 
Ikari said:
We all know Trump doesn't pay his bills, so good luck collecting.

lol
Click to expand...

Actually President Trump doesn't pay the feds bills. That would be the House.

But well done working President Trump into the convo by Post 2.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The fence was erected and placed in violation of local law. The feds should have asked for a permit to block the street but they did not. If the feds want to erect a fence then they should either obtain the proper permits and approvals from the local government who has jurisdiction over the public space being utilized, or erect the fence on Federal property where the feds have jurisdiction.

You're promoting the blatant violation of local laws by the federal government.
Click to expand...

Napoleon said:
The Federal Government does not require permission from the local government to establish a perimeter to protect Federal property. The only party involved that requires a permit are the protestors.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the part where he said "If the feds want to erect a fence then they should either obtain the proper permits and approvals from the local government who has jurisdiction over the public space being utilized, or erect the fence on Federal property where the feds have jurisdiction" accidentally, or did you do it intentionally?

Calling the nature of an obstruction on state/local property a "perimeter" does not magically cause the property to not be state/local. Claiming that calling the obstruction a "perimeter" changes whose property that obstruction is an absurd use of weasel words.



Or is there perhaps a controlling case that says the federal government may build on state/local property so long as it calls what it has built a "perimeter" that it claims is necessary to protect other stuff it built on federal property?
 
Last edited:
It'll wind up in the courts.

Portland will probably win.
 
Napoleon said:
The Federal Government does not require permission from the local government to establish a perimeter to protect Federal property. The only party involved that requires a permit are the protestors.
Click to expand...

The Feds would most certainly require a permit to block off property under the jurisdiction of state and local governments. The Feds can place a fence on their own property if they want to "establish a perimeter".
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The fence was erected and placed in violation of local law. The feds should have asked for a permit to block the street but they did not. If the feds want to erect a fence then they should either obtain the proper permits and approvals from the local government who has jurisdiction over the public space being utilized, or erect the fence on Federal property where the feds have jurisdiction.

You're promoting the blatant violation of local laws by the federal government.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it could easily be justified as an emergency measure. We're in a state of emergency. The fence is there to protect not just the courthouse, but the officers and the protesters. Blocking a bike path is a small price to pay. The building has been under siege every night, with rioters throwing projectiles. If the city doesn't want the fence, they need to shut down the nightly attacks.

AP20205504109823-e1595601232806.jpg


AP20206396705180.jpg
 
Napoleon said:
The Federal Government does not require permission from the local government to establish a perimeter to protect Federal property. The only party involved that requires a permit are the protestors.
Click to expand...

Charge the protesters $500 a minute for trespassing in the public street surrounding the courthouse.
 
dcsports said:
I'm sure it could easily be justified as an emergency measure. We're in a state of emergency. The fence is there to protect not just the courthouse, but the officers and the protesters. Blocking a bike path is a small price to pay. The building has been under siege every night, with rioters throwing projectiles. If the city doesn't want the fence, they need to shut down the nightly attacks.
Click to expand...

No, the feds can't just "declare an emergency" and do whatever they want. That's not how the law works, despite how badly you want the Federal government to come in and destroy state and local rights.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The fence was erected and placed in violation of local law. The feds should have asked for a permit to block the street but they did not. If the feds want to erect a fence then they should either obtain the proper permits and approvals from the local government who has jurisdiction over the public space being utilized, or erect the fence on Federal property where the feds have jurisdiction.

You're promoting the blatant violation of local laws by the federal government.
Click to expand...

Actually, they didn't identify any laws broken in the letter, nor any basis for the fine, other than that they failed to get a permit. It's a cease and desist letter. They'll have to go to court to enforce it - possibly in one of the buildings being protected.

https://www.portland.gov/sites/defa...3.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
 
Is Portland responsible for the clean up of the graffiti and damage to the courthouse?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom