• 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

justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...
Essentially yes, but without the selective terminology. I also said that we don't know what actions (if any) the citation demanded of him.

justabubba said:
then what is your point; that you do not have one?
Click to expand...
No, my point is that you shouldn't leap to "obvious" answers to situations like this, especially if their coloured by prejudice, such as some of the anti-authoritarian/anti-government tendencies demonstrated on this thread.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

Sounds like the city is posturing. Making a mini-park is an invitation to people to use it which could lead to liability if someone breaks their neck on the new mini-park. My guess is they are being over the top to leave room to settle by having him remove that stuff.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

Fisher said:
Sounds like the city is posturing. Making a mini-park is an invitation to people to use it which could lead to liability if someone breaks their neck on the new mini-park. My guess is they are being over the top to leave room to settle by having him remove that stuff.
Click to expand...
I don't think to many people realize a behind-the-scenes complication to this story: the city had to issue him a permit to do the work. No licensed contractor for the trash removal, heavy equipment, or landscaping would have moved on this without reserving a copy of his permit for their own records.

This permit is literally the city's permission to do the project.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

I don't know the backstory, but I still think the city is posturing. An inspection guy working a nearby lot saw a bunch of trash around a ditch on a piece of property my dad owned and sent him this big nasty letter about it. His response was to send them a series of photos that that showed this ditch was an unpiped city storm drain from a street along with a note to clean up their own mess and put in their own pipe, and he never heard from them again.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

Jerry said:
I don't think to many people realize a behind-the-scenes complication to this story: the city had to issue him a permit to do the work. No licensed contractor for the trash removal, heavy equipment, or landscaping would have moved on this without reserving a copy of his permit for their own records.

This permit is literally the city's permission to do the project.
Click to expand...

Do you know that the city did issue this man a permit for the work though?
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

Jerry said:
I don't think to many people realize a behind-the-scenes complication to this story: the city had to issue him a permit to do the work. No licensed contractor for the trash removal, heavy equipment, or landscaping would have moved on this without reserving a copy of his permit for their own records.

This permit is literally the city's permission to do the project.
Click to expand...
Depends on the city. In my city you don't need a permit for things like sidewalks, fences, etc. (Yes, I have asked) But I know some cities do.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

Jerry said:
Where's the Occupy movement when we actually need them?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't they just make it worse? They have a piss poor record when it come to keeping a place clean.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

Donahue said:
Do you know that the city did issue this man a permit for the work though?
Click to expand...
It's my experience as a contractor, that no licensed contractor will touch any project without all the standard paperwork in order. Part of that paperwork is a copy of all related permits. This is a condition of the contractor license. There had to be not only a permit for the site itself, but it appears the street would have had to be at least partially blocked off for the equipment to move, and that requires yet another permit.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

radcen said:
Depends on the city. In my city you don't need a permit for things like sidewalks, fences, etc. (Yes, I have asked) But I know some cities do.
Click to expand...
Very true. My city is a penny pinches and will permit you for everything. The trash removal, heavy equipment on the road, a partially blocked road, the sidewalk...if you sneeze in the wrong direction an official might want you to get a dig permit for something like this, too.

I would go dig up what permits were and were not actually issued and link to the directly, but I need to make my Shammy playable after the 5.05 patch for Mists of Pandoria.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

Jerry said:
It's my experience as a contractor, that no licensed contractor will touch any project without all the standard paperwork in order. Part of that paperwork is a copy of all related permits. This is a condition of the contractor license. There had to be not only a permit for the site itself, but it appears the street would have had to be at least partially blocked off for the equipment to move, and that requires yet another permit.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any indication that he needed a permit for any of the work or that he hired a contractor much less a licensed contractor who wouldn't dream of starting a project without all the paper work in order. It just seems unlikely that the city would issue a permit for his actions then make statements in the media about legal action against the man. It seems at least reasonable that he may have rented a dumpster and picked up a few day laborers from Home Depot.

The city may very well have laws against properties that become eyesores but that doesn't give him the right to dispose of it. The article isn't exactly clear on what he cleaned up either or what he did with it. It states there was "more than 40 tons" of debris and trash but I don't know how they arrived at the amount and there is an awfully lot of subjectivity in calling something trash. I'm also not quite sure how they arrived at the "more than $20,000" figure.

You can't get too caught up in sloppy journalism when you're talking about a blog but it is pretty sloppy journalism.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

Donahue said:
I haven't seen any indication that he needed a permit for any of the work or that he hired a contractor much less a licensed contractor who wouldn't dream of starting a project without all the paper work in order. It just seems unlikely that the city would issue a permit for his actions then make statements in the media about legal action against the man. It seems at least reasonable that he may have rented a dumpster and picked up a few day laborers from Home Depot.
Click to expand...
It's also unlikely that the city would oppose him in the first place. It's also unlikely that the city would fine him for trash on the finished lot while ordering him to put all the original trash back.

A lot of things which are unlikely actually came true in their story, so 'unlikely' doesn't mean much here.

Donahue said:
You can't get too caught up in sloppy journalism when you're talking about a blog but it is pretty sloppy journalism.
Click to expand...
It's a good thing I didn't, then.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

An update:

City aims to end stink over Point Breeze lot cleanup - Page 2 - Philly.com


City officials said Friday that a formerly trash-strewn, city-owned vacant lot in Point Breeze that was cleaned and landscaped by a neighboring businessman can stay as it is.

That is, until the city sells it.

Edward Covington, executive director of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority, spoke to reporters at the lot in the 1100 block of South 20th Street to address what has been a growing controversy for the city.

Covington said that four parties - including the businessman who cleaned the lot, real estate developer Ori Feibush - have expressed interest in buying the lot.

The authority will take steps in the coming weeks to sell it, Covington said.
Click to expand...

Seems that someone wants this controversy to go away.

The business owner Ori Feibush has a history of controversy in the neighborhood of Point Breeze.

He wants to build in Point Breeze; not all residents like the plans - Philly.com



Basically one of the Councilmen, Kenyatta Johnson, appears to be behind the issue with the lot and the inability for the developer to purchase it.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

He made that lot look really nice too. Apparently the city wants squalor.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

Jerry said:
It's also unlikely that the city would oppose him in the first place. It's also unlikely that the city would fine him for trash on the finished lot while ordering him to put all the original trash back.

A lot of things which are unlikely actually came true in their story, so 'unlikely' doesn't mean much here.
Click to expand...

I think you're just choosing to see those things as unlikely because you like the narrative of the government oppressing the people.

It seems extremely likely that they would oppose cleaning up the lot to me. Most cities are strapped for cash these days and $20,000 to clean up an empty lot was probably a pretty low priority for the city.

I don't really understand the whole littering thing from your perspective. He was cited for littering. The fact that the city may choose to dump their own garbage on this lot does not automatically mean it becomes a public dumping ground.
 
Re: City may sue developer who spent $20,000 to remove 40 tons of trash from vacant l

Donahue said:
I think you're just choosing to see those things as unlikely because you like the narrative of the government oppressing the people.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's why I've already taken the private developer's side on this thread, sure buddy, whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom