Posted on 05/05/2010 11:14:35 AM PDT by nickcarraway
A former Marine in San Diego County who refused to pay the bill after authorities had what they called fire-prone weeds cleared could lose his land. He says the plants were fire-resistant native flora.
For three decades, former Marine-turned-Rastafarian Joseph Diliberti has lived on his three acres of paradise deep in rural eastern San Diego County: building clay dwellings, playing his flute, reading Thoreau ("I went into the woods because I wished to live deliberately") and radiating peace and harmony.
But six years ago when the local fire district sent him a bill for $27,552 for cutting down what firefighters characterized as fire-prone weeds on his property, he declined to pay, just as Thoreau refused to pay his delinquent poll taxes.
Diliberti resented that a private company hired by the fire district came onto his property while he was not there. Also, he says that what the fire department calls combustible weeds were actually fire-resistant, native California plants.
With penalties and interest, the bill has grown to more than $62,000. Diliberti, who was injured in Vietnam, lives on a monthly disability check and says he cannot afford to pay the county.
"A Rasta-man doesn't worry about these things," he said.
Maybe not, but the taxman does. The county tax collector is threatening to auction off Dilberti's property sometime after July 1 to pay for back taxes,.
David Nissen, division chief of the San Diego Rural Fire Protection District, wishes it had never come to this. But he said Diliberti did not respond to warning notices and later did not attend a governing board hearing where his bill was discussed. Records show that more than 800 cubic yards of brush were removed.
Diliberti filed a lawsuit but lost. He blames his attorney.
"This whole thing is tragic," said Nissen, who said a
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Well he sounds harmless, but this is the type of situation that leads to unfortunate headlines and people asking why such a thing happened.
No, I didn't. The public claim for charges resulting from work performed to mitigate private risks socialized by a publicly-funded firefighting industry is entirely within the legitimate powers the States retain under the Tenth Amendment. Therefore "should" is not an objective valuation, but a personal preference, only. Stated as an opinion, it would have been fine; stated as fact and it is in error.
Put a couple of goats on your property.
Ok, so he is a scruffy guy who live out in the middle of nowhere making “art objects” - so? I didn’t see any pictures of weeds.
Pay for the goats to get martial arts lessons?
I’m imagining wee, tiny dreds; no more than 1/16” long.
You ought to take a look at the pic of him in the article. For me this guy is indeed just like Thoureau.... living off of other peoples’s wealth and not giving a crap.
This guy seems to be doped up all the time. Living on ‘disability’ ( most likely state provided otherwise they would have said he was on a Vet pension/disability). Let him rot.
Was it retained by the states or the people?
Did they cut down the brush on the surrounding property? No. Do we actually OWN property that we buy? Or not?
*The .223 or even the .17 works on the yotes.
An Army of I and I.
That is dependent upon how they choose to govern themselves via their respective State constitutions. What muddied those waters was the 14th Amendment, as we saw with the Kelo decision.
In most instances, property has become a split estate, which goes for both nominally private property as well as Federal Lands (as we saw in Hage v. US).
It's a very tangled legal mess. I don't like it a bit.
Could you show me the enumerated power in the california state constitution that gives the state the power to regulate the type and density of brush as it pertains to fire safety?
You don’t like it but you’ll defend it? Like I said, the Founders would not recognize America.
I’m actually surprised that wasn’t the first reply..
So when can we expect them to bill the owners for permitting crack shacks to be ran on their property? The city should eat the fines.
Perhaps you should consult the distinctions between criminal and civil law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.