Skip to comments.
View for sale: $30,000 New owner of a lake fences it off when homeowners wouldn't pay.
St. Petersburg Times ^
| May 14, 2002
| ROBERT FARLEY
Posted on 05/14/2002 5:05:40 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 1,141-1,147 next last
To: AppyPappy
You cannot purposefully build an ugly fence in order to hurt your neighbor's resale value. Why not? Because it doesn't make you feel good? That's a nice basis for law.
101
posted on
05/14/2002 6:29:29 AM PDT
by
Sloth
To: AppyPappy
The fence was built purposefully to DENY people the use of their property (ie a view they previously enjoyed).
The view was never theirs. It was the p[roperty of the developers, and now it is the property of this opportunist. They can purchase and secure ownership of the view for one-tenth what they paid for the property and view they DO own.
To: freedomcrusader
He had to pay to erect the fence so he could deny people the right to their view of the lake. He had to pay someone to pay it pink. He acted with malice to hurt the people around the lake in order to extort money from them.
Comment #104 Removed by Moderator
To: You are here
Man, that sounds familiar. Where have I heard it before? Oh, right -- Karl Marx.
Yeah, whatever.
To: freedomcrusader
He doesn't own the view of the lake, just the lake. He can't charge airplanes flying over the lake for looking at it.
To: NittanyLion
Incidentally, this guy bought the lakeside property at a delinquent sale for $1000. The homeowners could have each coughed up $75 and done the same, if they had been a bit more vigilant. They missed their opportunity. I'm wondering if the author of the piece got it right. Did he pay only $1000 or did he pay $1000 plus the outstanding taxes?
To: Poohbah
It's called PRIVATE property for a reason. Yes, give it back to the rightful owners - Indians!
108
posted on
05/14/2002 6:32:28 AM PDT
by
A. Pole
To: You are here
If you act with malice, you can expect malice in return.
To: AppyPappy
He can't charge airplanes flying over the lake for looking at it. No, but he can build a roof over it, which is the whole point.
110
posted on
05/14/2002 6:32:52 AM PDT
by
Sloth
To: AppyPappy
You can build a fence to keep your dog in. You cannot build one to purposefully hurt your neighbor. "Purposefully hurt your neighbor"? What kind of standard is that? What if he plants a row of trees to "purposefully hurt his neighbor"? Is that okay, and who gets to decide? You?
To: Wolfie
The respect for private property rights seems to be a fickle thing 'round here, doesn't it?How d'ya mean? So far it seems everybody agrees that ol' boy is a bit of an ass but he's within his legal rights so folks will just have to bite the bullet and get used to pink.
I think he should put up some plastic flamingoes too.
112
posted on
05/14/2002 6:32:58 AM PDT
by
maxwell
To: luckyluke
Landlocked parcels are not permitted in any county in the United States. If the man has purchased a parcel that is not reachable by any access or easement, it can easily be condemned by the county.
To: AppyPappy
He had to pay to erect the fence so he could deny people the right to their view of the lake.
Yes, he had to pay for the fence, so what? What 'right' did these people have to a view of the lake? They enjoyed that view based on the good will of the developer. They never had a right to it. If they want a right to it, it now costs $30K.
To: A. Pole
Yes, give it back to the rightful owners - Indians!Bwahaha...
115
posted on
05/14/2002 6:33:35 AM PDT
by
maxwell
To: Cincinatus' Wife
How about take one of the boards off the fence and get Mr. Connelly by the collar and then just beat the dog crap outa him with the board - it works.
To: Cincinatus' Wife
NIMBY! bwaahahahaha makes me lol to an extreme!!! |-D something tells me Mrs."Beaner" would go right along with the "fence" on something like the BWCA or any other "park" to keep people out,but when her sewage pond view is blocked,it's an outrage!!! heee heee,snicker,I love nimby's when they whine!!!
as far as the property owner vs. the lake owner,I'll stay on the fence on that part....(groan);-)
To: Sloth
Yes but if the roof blows off in a windstorm, he can't charge people to view the lake.
To: AppyPappy
He acted with malice to hurt the people around the lake in order to extort money from them. Malice, maybe, but the fact is, he owns the land. If there are no restrictions that came with the land preventing his building a fence, then the reason he built it is immaterial. It may be a nuisance that lowers property values, and there may be some legal basis there on which they can act. I don't know.
But the fact remains, he can build a fence on his property to raise the value of it.
To: freedomcrusader
italics off - sorry!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 1,141-1,147 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson