It's a bird! It's a plane! It's ... a grown-up?

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Thursday, April 1, 2004 | Mike Seate

[Willie Green]

It's a shame superheros don't exist. If they did, city officials could turn in times of crisis to a hero whose powers are distinctly suited to our region.

I'm speaking, of course, of The Grown-Up.

His adult reasoning and mature negotiating skills are needed on the North Side. At the intersection of Brighton Road and Beech Avenue, mild-mannered resident and first-time real estate developer Andy Wolfinger has been toiling away attempting to transform vacant office space into upscale condominiums.

[Willie Green]

Slumlords like Mistick and Androtsakis should be tarred, feathered and have their properties confiscated for recycling back into the private sector for use by somebody willing to make beneficial community improvements.

[Willie Green]

ping

[xsmommy]

neener, neener

[martin_fierro]

	It's a 'Burgh Thing.TM
Send FReepmail if you want on/off BPT list
Learn Pittsburghese!

Although $400K would get you a castle in Washington or Butler counties, with a reasonable commute and lower taxes.

[TopQuark]

have their properties confiscated for recycling back into the private sector for use by somebody willing to make beneficial community improvements.

More socialist propaganda from Willie Green, a unionist plant.

[January24th]

"should be tarred, feathered and have their properties confiscated for recycling back into the private sector "

Confiscation is a truly "facist" idea... in the real sense of the word, not as the ubiquitous pejorative it has become for anything that makes someone uncomfortable. Why Mr. Green, you sound like a facist! Are you a facist? Cuz, you sound a lot like other facists I've read about. You sure you're not a facist?

[IYAS9YAS]

The grown-up solution is for Wolfinger to offer to buy Mistick's property. If it's a no sale, then tough. Build your condos so they do have a view of the dilapidated property and shut up or look for a new place to build.

[IYAS9YAS]

Whoops "do have a view" should have been "don't have a view".

[Willie Green]

Why Mr. Green, you sound like a facist! Are you a facist? Cuz, you sound a lot like other facists I've read about.

Are you an adolescent troll?
Cuz you post a lot like all the other adolescent trolls I've seen on this forum.
Yep, you sure look like an adolescent troll to me.

[January24th]

Does the term facist offend you? I thought I made it clear that I was using it in its correct form, not as a slur. You see, words mean things. You posted a topic with a dilemma,and then you had the temerity to post your solution.

To me, your solution reads as a very facist view. Maybe you are unaware of what facism is? Because if you really believe what you posted, and have thought it through to its logical and heavy-handed conclusion, then your solution comes across as facist.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...unless you think so. Do you think so? But I used your post (I admit it) to point out two things:

1. First, that property ownership is both a very serious right and a very serious responsibility.

2. That people are surprised to learn that there is a name for their world-view or belief system.

[Willie Green]

Does the term facist offend you? I thought I made it clear that I was using it in its correct form, not as a slur.

Yes, I do find it intellectually offesive in the same vein as all the other superficial, ad-hominem attacks strewn about on this forum. IMHO, your efforts to differentiate yourself are disingenuous at best.

You posted a topic with a dilemma,and then you had the temerity to post your solution.

Heaven forbid that anybody should ever have a firm opinion as to how to resolve a dilemma.

1. First, that property ownership is both a very serious right and a very serious responsibility.

Yes. It is the responsibility part that you apparently don't understand.
And I have established my position in firm opposition to those irresponsible property owners whose actions (or inactions) directly contribute to community stagnation and decay.

2. That people are surprised to learn that there is a name for their world-view or belief system.

I am not at all surprised that you can come up with a derogatory label of some sort to superficially flame anybody you want.

[freeeee]

And I have established my position in firm opposition to those irresponsible property owners whose actions (or inactions) directly contribute to community stagnation and decay

Surely you have heard of the numerous emminent domain abuses where perfectly good property is being stolen under precisely those pretenses, simply because the new tenants will pay higher taxes?

Through its repeated abuse of eminent domain, it is abundantly clear that government cannot be trusted to wield it responsibly any more than an alcoholic can be trusted to have just one drink.

So the choice becomes, does Bob Mistick keep his old A&P grocery store, or does government tear down people's house so they can get tax kickbacks when a high powered developer puts in a golf course or parking garage?

I'll take the A&P, every time.

[January24th]

Facism apprarently is not a legitimate form of government or political thinking, then? It is not a legitimate descriptor of a political belief?

People toss the word "facist" around like it is an epithet or ad hominem attack. I don't, but will sincerely apologize for using you to make my point. I meant no personal attack on you as a fine human being.

An ad hominem attack example would be you calling me an adolescent troll because I labeled your social beliefs about property rights as, "facist." So, on that point I WILL apologize because I was really trying to focus you in on what you were positing as a solution to the dilemma, not you as a person. For that, I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

However, when your home is taken by imminent domain, or your neighbors object to the color of your house paint and force you to change it against your will, or others don't like where you are conducting business even though it is protected by law, then these offending folks---government employees, neighbors and upstanding citizens---will be participating in a form of facism. It doesn't make them bad people. It just makes their particular solution to their perceived "problem" a facist one instead of capitalist one.

You may not like the facist viewpoint designation for your original post, but I think it holds water in the case of your posited solution.

[Lopeover]

Ahhhh, a intellectual superhero! Thanks for posting.

[Willie Green]

However, when your home is taken by imminent domain

The proper term is "eminent" domain, lefty.
And there are other policies that can be pursued to encourage irresponsible property owners to turn over their holdings to more productive citizens.
For instance, current methods of property taxation currently discourage property improvements that increase the market value (and thus the tax liability) of the property. Property tax reform can reverse this by rewarding those who improve their property with lower taxes while penalizing those who allow their property to deteriorate and degrade with higher taxes.

You may not like the facist viewpoint designation for your original post, but I think it holds water in the case of your posited solution.

Yadda, yadda, yadda....
Contributed nothing positive and constructive to discussion...
Merely another superficial attack on someone who had the "temerity" to propose a resolution to a dilemma.

[January24th]

"For instance, current methods of property taxation currently discourage property improvements that increase the market value (and thus the tax liability) of the property. Property tax reform can reverse this by rewarding those who improve their property with lower taxes while penalizing those who allow their property to deteriorate and degrade with higher taxes."

Now that's a much more creative solution than your first. It's very results oriented, but leaves responsibility with the indidvidual owner. The only negative would be to the elderly or poor who may not be able to fix their property, nor pay the higher taxes. Using taxes either as punishment or enticement is a slippery slope to go down, and once again, seeks a wide solution to a local problem.

For free people, there is another solution: buy them out. Let the condo association as a group go into an agreement to buy out the lot. If the guy doesn't want to sell, then let them offer to set up a privacy fence and do minimal upkeep on the property...and get on with their lives.

This very thing happened near where I live. A wetlands-protected area was being released for development, to the dismay of the local community. It was a very lucrative area in the fastest growing county in the Eastern U.S. So, we all got together and bought the land for a perpetual wetlands heritage. THAT's the AMERICAN way. No zoning fights, no invocations of new laws, old laws, whatever. Just pure old Capital spending. Nothing like it!

On my mostly Republican street, of which I am a proud member, when the neighbor can't afford to cut his grass, or is too sick or elderly to care for his property, the rest of us pitch in to help...because we know it will help us, too...being good capitalists, we understand return on investment. And they were there first. We have a vested interest in helping them keep their property, and as far as I know, no one is petitioning the city for a new ordinance or new taxes in order to fix the problem. We look to ourselves. Let the condo association do the same, if they want to live there.

But geeze Lou-eeze not another ordinance, tax, or law that seeks to strip property owners of their true American inheritance. At least, not for the convenience of a single developer, Republican capitalist though he may be. Let the developer suck it up...not the property owner.

And thanks for the correction on eminent, btw. Corrections don't hurt, but calling me "lefty" was definitely an ad hominem low!

[Badray]

Willie,

You may not be a fascist, although I've seen you called that and 'socialist' before.

Your solution would definitely find favor with socialists and fascists who believe that people do not have the right to own and control their own property. I agree that each right has a concomittant responsiblilty, but your solution in this case is dead wrong.

If "A" is holding property, (as an investment or whatever), but "B" finds it a detriment to himself, then "B" should buy "A"'s property. For the government to 'take' it, violates the rights of "A" and the capitalist system we enjoy here.

I'm sure that I wouldn't be pleased with "B" either, but that doesn't give me any 'right' to go to an agency of force to get what I want from him. That's just wrong.

[Willie Green]

For the government to 'take' it, violates the rights of "A" and the capitalist system we enjoy here.

That's odd....
I've read our Constitution countless numbers of times,
and I don't recall ever seeing mention of the NYSE or NASDAQ anywhere in it.

"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed... It is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state."

 --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

"A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant."

 --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:45

[Willie Green]

The only negative would be to the elderly or poor who may not be able to fix their property, nor pay the higher taxes.

Property zoned residential could be taxed differently than that zoned commercial or industrial. That should provide relief for the elderly and poor while still addressing the aforementioned incentives for commercial properties.