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

[palo verde]

I agree with you
I think the guy is a scoundral
Laws designed to protect rights of private property were not designed to protect guy whose intent is to fleece his neighbors
Calling it sharp business tactics doesn't change its unsavory nature
I think it's crooked, and he's a crook
He just found way for law to be on his side
I think judge should come down hard on him, to discourage him from continuing this anti-social behavior
Love, Palo

[Black Agnes]

OOps, left off the sarcasm tag. However, setting two nasty dogs against one another can sometimes be productive.

[E Rocc]

Anti-social behavior may lead to the development of corrective legislation. Pretty simple.

-Maxine Waters, circa 1992.

[Southack]

"Hmmm...since it's their property, they don't collect property taxes either, do they?"

That one they figured out and tried to get our contract changed back, however, I prevailed on that point as well.

There was much shouting, but it was a small price to pay for beating them like a drum.

[Area51]

Quite the lesson you are teaching your kid! "Them Bastards, how dare they keep us out!"

Do yourself and your kid a favor and teach him something. Do a little research and find out who owns the land and ASK instead of being a slob and inviting yourself with out permission.

Sorry to rant, but Tresspassers are SLOBS. I have dealt with them for 30 years and I am tired of it. BTW-In Michigan we no longer have to waste OUR money to post OUR land to inform idiots that like to tresspass to STAY OFF!

[Protagoras]

You can't have it both ways. You can't say there's no private property but then say you own private property. You "own" but you do not own, or you own and "own" is tin foil hat nonsense. It's all in how you say what you say as to why you say it.

It occurred to me when I wrote that that it could me taken the wrong way, but I thought, nah, everyone will know that when I said "my property" I was referring to what is commonly thought of as private property.

So you are right, I really don't own this property. I have certain advantages to holding title but it has only some of the aspects of ownership. Not enough to qualify it as really mine. I have use of it at government pleasure and to a lesser extent my neighbor's pleasure. If you want to know the hoops I had to jump through to have the fence built on the property which most people would agree I own, I will send you to a thread which I recently posted here. I'm guessing that wouldn't interest many.

[tacticalogic]

Actions have consequences.

True enough. But the tax system and laws were the enabling mechanism that give this man the tools and opportunity to do this, and the law will protect him from the wrath of the adjacent owners, shielding him from the consequences of his own actions and ultimately imposing those consequences on all of us.

[NittanyLion]

I think he's free to sell at whatever price he chooses, or not at all. My point is, these homeowners would be better served to form a coalition and negotiate with him than to try to employ the force of government. He is free to turn their offer down or accept it, but faced with the prospect of NO ONE buying the land, he may become more amenable to their offer.

[Lazamataz]

If you really believe that's how it goes down in this country you're living in dream land.

You haven't shown me one statute or BoR amendment guarenteeing a 'right to privacy', nor have I ever seen Eminent Domain abused. Southack has; I trust his story to be true. So it does happen, but we write laws for the ideal. To write laws dedicated towards corruption is insanity.

And the use of these laws is very local. I personally would make it a point to ensure they are used justly.

You are sounding a lot like the gun control people -- "Eminent Domain might be abused, BAN IT, for the children! If it saves ONE PLOT of land, it's worth it!".

Eminent Domain is a morality-neutral tool. Make sure your local lawmakers do not abuse it. I have never personally seen it abused.

[Roscoe]

Maxine Waters, circa 1992.

Backwards.

Maxine thought the Los Angeles riots were a justifiable "uprising."

[Protagoras]

I think judge should come down hard on him, to discourage him from continuing this anti-social behavior

What do you suggest palo?

[Crusher138]

Had an interesting one happen in my neighborhood.

Understand, the standard lots in my neighborhood are about 70' by 100'.

Seems we had a neighbor who enjoyed sunbathing in the nude. To facilitate her privacy, she erected a fence as tall as the zoning laws allow, six feet.

Add to this a neighbor of hers that is a bit of a voyeur, not to mention a jerk. His backyard backs up to her back yard. His back patio ends about 6 feet from her fence and is topped by a flat roof. He decides, after discovering her little hobby, to turn his patio roof into a sundeck, complete with stairs and handrails. Completely within code.

This, of course, gives him a prime view of her backyard. She decides to make a case of it. She goes out back, takes off her top, and waits. Sure enough, within a few minutes, the nosey neighbor is on his "sundeck" enjoying the view. She grabs her cordless phone, dials 911 and complains about a peeping tom.

Bad move. The cops arrive. One is sympathetic, but the other doesn't approve. He sites her for public indecency and for filing a false report (or some such thing).

She takes it to court and loses! Seems that since his outpost was legal, she had no assumption of privacy. Fined and community service!

Since her fence is as tall as the law allows, she is now planting areka palms, which grow tall and bushy, and will have to wait a few more years for them to grow until she can indulge in her hobby once more.

[Kevin Curry]

Since the homeowners paid nothing and never obtained title while the speculator did, the law will be on his side.

Until the law gets changed. That's what happens when dolts such as this push beyond reason and good sense. The soccer moms and socialized elderly rise up, agitate for new legislation, the law gets changed and we end up with more--not less--socialism.

Gloat on his behalf all you want. Live it up now, because within a few years neither he nor any other property owner in his neck of the woods will have the law on their side.

[Protagoras]

I have never personally seen it abused.

There are lots of cases, I can tell you about some if you're bored.

[E Rocc]

Maxine Waters, circa 1992. Backwards. Maxine thought the Los Angeles riots were a justifiable "uprising."

In other words, she thought it was antisocial behavior with the goal of changing things to suit the misbehavers.

-Eric

[Roscoe]

But the tax system and laws were the enabling mechanism that give this man the tools and opportunity to do this, and the law will protect him from the wrath of the adjacent owners, shielding him from the consequences of his own actions and ultimately imposing those consequences on all of us.

Like KC said, "This is the kind of stupid-libertarian-trick behavior that generates new laws restricting the use of private property."

[A. Pole]

The Speculator purchased the property for $1,000. He now enjoys a windfall.

"The Speculator" should be pushed into the lake. I hope that the aligator is not too picky.