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

[tacticalogic]

You are forgiven my son. :-) < /Sarcasm>

No problem. At any rate, I have a pretty good idea where Roscoe would weigh in on this, and he can be as anti-libertarian as any. Kevin just painted him neon libertarian with that broad brush he's flailing around with.

[bvw]

That's more reasonable -- and better PR on his part. This is all about being neighborly. But he mooted that by "demanding" $30K from each now, didn't he?

[RWG]

So I see you are a staunch supporter of property rights.

[Protagoras]

This is as simple a case as I've ever seen. The guy did absolutely zero Legally wrong.

My added word.

I think he was within his property rights, but I think the way he is doing this makes him a moral slob. Which is not to say that people who own the homes are angels or even innocent victims. They are guilty of ignorance, perhaps stupidity, and if they try to use force to "fix" the situation, moral slobs themselves. IMO

[Protagoras]

Heh heh heh heh.... I run people over with that vehicle all the time.

I deserved it. But I learned

[lewislynn]

Then why would he remove the fence for $30k?

He's not going to remove the fence for 30K, he's going to sell them the parcel the fence is on. Then THEY can do what ever they want with THEIR fence.

[Lazamataz]

It's scary listening to the thugs here who would have his fence burned down, have him beaten up or even shot, all because he doesn't do what THEY want. And then they have the gall to accuse HIM of "extortion". Do these people even listen to what they're saying? This is what's on the other side of the Thin Blue Line -- a bunch of "civilized" thugs who only behave so long as they get what they want.

You are accurate. We must work within the system, bearing in mind, however, that certain systems can corrupt and tend towards criminality -- such as the Soviet or the German Nazi or the Italian Fascist system. In those cases, bloodshed to throw them off is warranted. We are not there yet.

[Always Right]

For 10 years the developer of their Tarpon Woods subdivision had let the taxes lapse on the 4-acre lake and a thin band of land around it.

Why did the developer still own that land? That land should have been owned by the Homeowner's Association. Regardless, the developer should have been notified, and given a year to pay the back taxes before he lost the property. The developer should be held liabile here.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Well I'd wager there's nothing to prevent the greedy homeowners from erecting their own fence to block the view of his fence. They could even paint placid waterfront scenes on it. (And they could paint ugly things on the side facing his fence too.)

Anything to prevent them from building decks 'overlooking' his fence????

[Lazamataz]

Roscoe would weigh in on this, and he can be as anti-libertarian as any. Kevin just painted him neon libertarian with that broad brush he's flailing around with.

Kevin's hatred of Libertarianism blinds him.

[bvw]

Speaking of "burning down the fence", let me ax ya this: If a neighbor mounted a giant lens (on the neighbor's very own property, mind you) that focused the sun's rays on this pest's fence, what say you?

[1rudeboy]

Amen. My parents were about to purchase a 1.5 acre lot north of Chicago (to build), and their agent (I'm not sure if it was an attorney or not) "discovered" a large underground natural gas pipeline running through the center of the property. The Realtor just shrugged his shoulders and said "I didn't know about it." Yeah, right.

I am mystified that so many homeowners in one location neglected to determine the extent of their rights to this land. While painting the fence pink with sparkles (nice touch) would make a decent case under nuisance law, the act of merely building the fence would not. These homeowners were getting something for nothing. Now they're screwed because they didn't do their homework. Sad.

[NittanyLion]

That's more reasonable -- and better PR on his part. This is all about being neighborly. But he mooted that by "demanding" $30K from each now, didn't he?

It would seem he did moot it. By my reckoning, this guy is a Grade A Clymer, who is nonetheless completely within his rights to erect the fence.

[Spin]

Not a bad idea but with this guy they will probably get into a heigth contest resulting in the world's tallest fence.

[Protagoras]

He did not build the house solely to punish you or extort money from you.

So the laws should be written to determine intent? Kinda like hate crime laws?

Pappy, your moral compass is right on target when it comes to this guy, but I don't trust a bunch of people with guns to always make the right decisions about such things. It's a bad path to go down when we look to government (or personal violence like some of the goofier people here have advocated) to govern such things. Caveat Emptor is a better way for people to conduct themselves and societal shame and shunning is a better way to deal with these kinds of goofs.

There are ways to resolve this without violence IMO.