New London property thieves demanding rent. (Kelo)

[The Freeholder]

Buzz replied to my missive on finding some toxic waste on the property:

Actually, anyone who dumped on the property or ever owned the land is at risk for the cleanup. So the former owners would still be on the hook. So this is a really bad plan.

Which is true enough. However, few illegal waste dumpers are ever caught, fewer prosecuted. Who's to say that all that motor oil was dumped out behind the garage 50 years ago or 50 hours ago?

Also, many of the things we took for granted 25 years ago are considered toxic waste now. For an example, if Grandpa had been into casting bullets out back of the garage "way back when", what do you figure the odds are that the soil in that area will have elevated lead levels, requiring some expensive remediaton to remove? Or 50 years worth of spraying for weeds? I remember as a kid my Dad using old motor oil to kill grass in places he didn't want it.

The creative uses for all the laws that have been passed are nearly endless, both for the government and the proles, assuming the proles can obtain a bit of legal help.

One of the best ways to fight them is to force them live up to their own standards. Take as much of the profit out of it as possible, and their motivation decreases significantly.

 

[Art Eatman]

Numerous cases abound where EPA has held current owners responsible for cleanup of pollution. That's the main reason that the $30 billion anti-pollution Superfund has disappeared into lawyers' pockets and very few cleanups have been done.

That's why banks won't lend money for purchase of a filling station, particularly where underground tanks have been in the ground for a number of years. A buyer could be liable for removing polluted soil from beneath streets and neighboring multi-story buildings, and if the bank had to repo, it would then be liable...

There is one case of pollutants leaching BENEATH a tract and into a river. EPA ordered the riverside landowner to stop the leaching. The owner did not have the money to do that; the cost was estimated at some $300,000. The owner went to jail for (IIRC) two or three years.

Art

 

[buzz_knox]

Which is true enough. However, few illegal waste dumpers are ever caught, fewer prosecuted. Who's to say that all that motor oil was dumped out behind the garage 50 years ago or 50 hours ago?

That's why current owners and the gov't sue all prior owners, who pretty much have to prove that they had no involvement in the dumping. And the law is expansive enough that if you dumped anything at all, you can be on the hook for the whole.

They don't need to catch the illegal dumpers. All they need is the owners of record during the time the dumping occurred. The owners are the ones who have to find the dumpers or pay.

 

[Art Eatman]

And when the owner of record is a defunct corporation, the taxpayer pays.

Same for shell corporation, or foreign limited-purpose corporation formed for protection against prosecution of individuals.

Lucky taxpayers...

Art

 

[miko]

I'm not so sure that it is.

Before our civil war, slaves were held legally. The only legal standard being the laws enacted by the lawfully elected legislature of the day.

Again, you are confusing the terms “law” and “legislation”. In some context they are used interchangeably but that does not mean those words are synonyms.

Slavery in ante-bellum US was legal but not lawful.

Legislation is created by people and enforced by force.
Law exists independently and is discovered.
Of course every governments and politicians would try to persuade people that legislation is the same as law.

What the heck does enactment by legislature have to do with the laws of nature (God)? An elected legislature can enact a legislation that 2 x 2 = 5. That will not change the natural law that 2 x 2 = 4.
An elected legislature can declare that God (or nature) have not given blacks free will. Do the nature (and God) care?

miko

 

[buzz_knox]

The laws of nature and the laws of man are wholly distinct things.

 

[Fletchette]

The laws of nature and the laws of man are wholly distinct things.

True, but if the laws of man do not align with the laws of nature, the law of nature eventually wins, often with dire consequences for civilization.

 

[buzz_knox]

True, but if the laws of man do not align with the laws of nature, the law of nature eventually wins, often with dire consequences for civilization.

Because of the conflict, or because some of the laws of nature are exceedingly detrimental to civilization?

 

[deanf]

Legislation is created by people and enforced by force.
Law exists independently and is discovered.

This is not according to Webster.

When we are discussing and evaluating words and their meanings, we have to have some common standard to judge the words by. I would say the dictionary is the best. According to Webster, we are both right.

 

[buzz_knox]

Context defines which definition. A law when applied to nature is something that, as far as our current understanding of physics goes, is immutable, and will occur in a given set of circumstances every time. The laws of nature have their greatest application to physics.

By contrast, a law when applied to human civilization is a very different thing. It is exceedingly malleable, and can be changed at a whim of those in power.

 

[james481]

1 stolen cellular phone: $0
1 five gallon water jug: $2
5 gallons of gasoline: $15
1 battery and igniter: $1
Watching these bastards hotels, convention center, and profits going up in smoke: priceless

If the insurgency in Iraq has taught us anything (has it?), the lesson is that full scale revolt by the people is not needed to defeat a government power. We don't need everyone in the country to stand up to the full force of the NG or military. Only a few "domestic terrorists" (government label) need apply. Are there people in this country motivated enough to fight government seizure of their property and rights? If the government goes far enough, I think there are.

 

[buzz_knox]

I'd be cautious about the language and the suggestion of criminal activity.

 

[Sindawe]

Remember, its a crime to to throw the East Indian Company's tea in the harbor.

 

[james481]

Hmm, well, as far as I can tell, I have neither commited or conspired to commit any crime. Also, I believe that free speech is still one of our protected rights (hopefully). If we feel the need to discuss, hypothetically, the overthrow of the United States government, that is within our constitutionally protected rights. However, if I have violated the policies of THR, I apologize. These thugs just make me so ...

 

[Brett Bellmore]

THR: Firmly dedicated to the proposition that Claire Wolf's "awkward stage" is eternal.

 

[buzz_knox]

james481, you get no argument from me. At all. The language thing is the Art's grandma standard which you'll learn to know and love. We might suspect the parentage of the people involved, but we won't discuss it in terms Art's grandma would object to. My grandmother would have called them that (and possibly worse) but won't discuss it.

As for the potential criminal acts, discussing acts of civil disobedience (including one that while criminal and destructive of property is given the blessing of history) is one thing, discussing the implements of arson is another. I'm not saying you can't wish the buildings would burn, but for the sake of posterity, discussing how such a catastrophe might come about is a bad thing.

 

[james481]

Ahh, I see, and apologize. As you can see, I am really new here, and haven't quite gotten a feel for what is acceptable or not. I'm used to GlockTalk, which is kinda the "wild-west" of gun message boards. As for discussing implements used in a crime, it was really more of a poor attempt at humor than anything else. Again, my apologies... :banghead:

 

[buzz_knox]

Forget the apologies. We've all been there and done that. The fact that you admit shows your ahead of the curve. Someday I'll have to tell you about the time that I got behind the curve and got a personal note suggesting I not come back to a board.

 

[spartacus2002]

Ahh, I see, and apologize. As you can see, I am really new here, and haven't quite gotten a feel for what is acceptable or not. I'm used to GlockTalk, which is kinda the "wild-west" of gun message boards.

heh heh heh, I"m sure GlockTalk is a Miss Manners party compared to AR15.com

 

[Crosshair]

How long until this city council is up for re-election? I really hope they get put on their asses. Also, I don't think this will be good PR for the Hotel Complex. Mabee we could get together and put up a bilboard near it asking people to boycot it. To be really honest james481 If someone where to do that and I was on the jury, I would have a hard time convicting them. You reap what you sow.

 

[publius]

How long until this city council is up for re-election?

I read just after the decision was announced that they have already been re-elected since the redevelopment plan was started. I guess "loot thy neighbor" has some appeal.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Whatever the ethics or the utility of committing homicides or arson or other hostile acts, talking about them in a public forum in detail is unwise.

 

[Beethoven]

Disgusting.

 

[longrifleman]

If someone where to do that and I was on the jury, I would have a hard time convicting them

Situations like this is why jury nullification was invented.


Situations like this is why the govt is trying to eliminate any knowlege of jury nullification.

 

[buzz_knox]

longrifleman, my thoughts exactly.