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

[maxwell]

In any event, I am thankful to know exactly what sort of characters I'm dealing with.

Yeah but do you really?

[CharacterCounts]

Somewhere around post 300 a poster who could come up with no better decided it was God's law. That must be it in this case too.

[bvw]

Good summary.

[ET(end tyranny)]

You seem to think you have rights to my property. If you attempt to exercise them, I will disabuse you of that misconception, as I have done with those who felt as you do.

My placing a deck in/on my property in no way interferes with your property. So, you mislead when you accuse me of think I have rights to your property.... what Clintonian doublespeak!

No, you do not have "equal rights" to my property. You have precisely no rights to my property. I am surprised you are having such a difficult time grasping the concept.

See above... it is YOU that would DENY me the right to build a deck. You seem to think you are the only one with property rights. Perhaps you live elsewhere than the US... Cuba perchance? C'mon Fidel, level with us. You seem to be having a hard time with the concept that others have property rights. NEVER said I had rights to your property, only that I have the right to build a deck on MY property.

You really are remarkably arrogant. Remarkably!

You are the arrogant one, thinking that just because you put up a fence that you can deny your neighbors the right to put up decks if they choose. What a bunch of baloney.

First, I must again inform you that my rights to my property are indeed quite superior to yours. Given the fact that I have any rights to it at all, and you have none , even a one-fingered chimpanzee must realize that my rights are therefore superior to yours. I am shocked that this simple fact eludes you.

Didn't realize that you only had one finger to type with, do you have only one eye to read with? Is this why you keep mis-reading and mis quoting? Again, I never said I had rights to your property, only that I had the right to build a deck on MY property.

Secondly, and I cannot sufficiently emphasize the seriousness of the matter, I must sternly warn you against attempting to act out your fantasy (the "and so will I" part of your "You do with your land as you will, and so will I" threat). The price you pay will likely be much higher than you will find cost effective for the brief moment of enjoyment you gain from the illicit use of my land.

Ho hum... once, I would not be using your land. Must be only one ear, too.

I have already stated what I will do if you violate my property rights. I will make you regret it. You have my word on that, hot head. I would again advise you to tread carefully, because you are evidently possessed of a level of arrogance that will not serve your own long-term interests.

I'm not a hothead, just defending my rights as a property owner. If I don't, who will? You're the one making threats...

[the bottle let me down]

The county failed to protect the homeowners property rights. It should have offered them the first rights to purchase rather than let this adventurer swoop in and buy the lake.

Actually, the laws governing tax sales almost certainly required notice to the public-at-large (usually by publication of a notice in the local paper). That way anybody can bid, the county gets a higher price, and insider and sweetheart deals are prevented.

The type of offer you're suggestion can easily be abused to funnel sweetheart deals to the politically connected.

[ET(end tyranny)]

To: You are here

JEEZUS! Have a beer or three, dude..

LOL... more like a keg!

[maxwell]

I wonder why no one on this entire thread mentioned the word libertarian or tried to make a lame connection to it before you dolts showed up. Could it be just another attempt to turn another thread into an anti-libertarian screed? Man you guys are boring. Why Robinson allows you to continue on with this disruption is anyone's guess.

Touchy, are we? Damn, you're worse than tp.

No offense tp, just hollerin' atcha... To make sure I ain't on yer no-post list... ;)

FReegards,
Max

\_/ \_/ \_/

[palo verde]

thank you

[Lazamataz]

I merely stated that as practiced, it is an abomination, and when challenged on that assertion, I substantiated it -- to which I was met with a barrage of personal attacks.

I have conceded that it can be misused in the following locations:

• ..... 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.....

• I'm sure there are [injustices of application of Emindent Domain]; just as there are misuses of firearms. However, both are morally-neutral tools that are reasonable in terms of their possession. I would fight the misuse of this law, not its existence.

• This misuse [of the application of Emindent Domain] should be fought, prosecuted, and the corrupt politicians brought under the State Atty. Generals close examination. People should be sent to jail for such things.

...among many other places. I think you are completely out of control. You certainly have no decorum or composure required for earnest debate in a forum such as this.

[maxwell]

broken-glass Republican

A Repub who would crawl through broken glass to vote against Gore, in particular... I think that's where that started... Maybe comparable to a yellow-dog Dem...

[Lazamataz]

Correction on my first link.

[bvw]

That way anybody can bid, the county gets a higher price, and insider and sweetheart deals are prevented.

Selling to a neighbor, by first rights, is NOT a "sweetheart" deal, it is good public policy.