>Mauro cited a 2000 San Francisco case, in which courts ruled a $663,000 fee for ongoing code violations was not constitutionally excessive, as precedent.
The world has gone mad.
The world has gone mad.
If it's not criminal, and all you can do is fine, and no action is taken to prevent the the fine incurring - I'm not really sure what option there is.
Do you cap it? Send in the bailiff's to remove the offending thing at a certain point? Just write it all off, setting a precendent?
I've genuinely no idea.
As a hypothetical, imagine a polluting plant poisoning the neighbourhood. You want them to know once their fine gets to $1M it's capped? You've suddenly presented a clear choice to the plant - fix it if it'll cost less than $1M, if it'll cost more keep ignore.
If you're going to fine anybody "per unit of time", you have to keep it open-ended (as otherwise the only people who'll ignore you, are those making more profit per day, than the per day cost)
Owning property lets you do a lot of things, but not everything i.e. making such a mess or danger that you affect your neighbors, like never cleaning up dog shit causing a fly problem, or making a neighborhood unseemly by turning a house into a junkyard.
I’m sympathetic to the man, that’s a massive fine, but it seems self inflicted when he could have obeyed the ruling, and sued the city at his leisure, avoiding the penalty costs.
My instinct is to support the old man who fixes things, but I'm cautious in coming to conclusions. He might have been doing real harm to his neighbor, or to the environment. He may have had reasonable outs and been stubborn and not taken them. We don't know enough, and I think that's a failure in journalism.
Property Owner maintains vehicles: check
Property owner owns propane and and gas powered generator for tools, keeps them within back yard: Check
Californian having an aneurysm because someone uses their personal space in a way they don't like or understand: Check
The absurdity is strong with this one.
Oil is only an issue when changing or leaking, and even then only the once. If you've changing it, or have leaks, use a pan. If he's not doing that, charge him with that. It's not like simply having a car on the grass emits a wave of environmental destruction? Stop harassing the man.
And if they're citing people for fruit on the grass, I want to see citations for leaves in autumn, yard furniture, hoses, sprinklers, bicycles, children's toys, planter boxes, and landscaping materials. Y'all would probably have a fit over composting.
You shouldn’t just be allowed to do what you want just because you own a block of suburban land. We live in a society.
It's also possible that the complainers are stuck up pricks. I suppose we will never know since we aren't their neighbors.
"You shouldn’t just be allowed to do what you want just because you own a block of suburban land."
True. What actions did he do that negatively impacted his neighbors? Fruit falling off his trees? Working on a car and having some cars in just back lot? Mind you all of this was reasonably hidden as well as it is practical to do so (behind a fence).
I suspect it was more of a bureaucratic, "you will respect my authorit-a" type thing and the judge didn't keep them in check.
That is not my experience at any mechanic's shop ever! And even without all the fancy tools, my neighbor was banging on their engine for hours just last weekend. Maybe they don't know what they're doing, and therefore it doesn't count as work, but it sure was loud.
It’s over half a million dollars for fixing a car, man (woman; I wish there was a gender neutral term that had the same flexibility, since “bud” just sounds aggressive).
Reading between the lines here, the most likely course of events is pretty obvious: he let non-operational vehicles sit in his backyard indefinitely while 'working' on them (i.e. thinking about working on them and putting it off until next week every time), those turned into rats' nests (fed, at least in part, by the uncollected fruit from the trees on the same property), and the neighbors started complaining about rats everywhere that they couldn't do anything about because most of them were living on the guy's unmaintained property.
It’s about 90k per year.
There are then penalties for continuing the violation.
So should the state have just given up? At what point? If there were a maximum, what would it be?
He was 75 when he was first cited, not 83.
He was given a chance to mitigate the code violation and he refused, which incurred a 250 per day penalty which he refused to pay.
He dragged it out for 7 years by being his own lawyer and and presumably has also not rectified the code violation.
As an aside, if he had actually fixed these cars they would not be in his back yard. He’s a hoarder.
I’d be willing to bet that he could settle this for less than the full amount.
There’s just something about this mindset of (a) he’s too old to be held accountable (b) free will/it’s his property to do what he wants with it (c) he’s just a hacker and we should be encouraging people to ignore civil law when it’s inconvenient.
It’s also likely that his dragging this through the court system for so many years has probably cost more than he owes - and when he dies or abandons the property the state will likely have to pay to clean up after him.
Sorry, bad mood rant today. All that being said, I have no skin in this game, it just touched a raw nerve.
Is the cruelty of our state a reflection of our own cruelty, or do you think it's the other way around? Perhaps cruelty feeds cruelty. Maybe if we weren't so cruel all this horrible shit on the news would stop happening so much.
There's not an insignificant chance he will catch a warrant then be jailed for inability to pay the fine and if that happens, he'll probably die in prison. I guess we get to execute him after all, just not so directly. That'll teach him?
> neighbors complaining that [the yard] had become a harborage for rats.
Being friends with a diverse range of people helps with this.
Next time you feel it’s okay to refer to a woman as a dude, just remember that you wouldn’t date a dude unless you were into dudes.
If you’d like to discuss further, I’d be willing, since it’s an important topic to me. But we have to keep it high quality and substantive.
I don't recall any of my female friends ever getting offended by being called a "dude." I imagine they would get annoyed by some random person presuming to "protect" them from people on the internet, as if they were unable to speak up for themselves. Perhaps a bit misogamist when you think about it, no?
>Being friends with a diverse range of people helps with this.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice here if all the women you know get offended by being called "dude."
Let me translate. "Hi, I'm a volunteer member of the thought police in good standing, and I feel you've committed a crime, which means you have. You are resisting, and I've already explained to you the facts about your crime, and even in a polite manner (which is not required; you're welcome), and now you have the temerity to resist. Resistance to my authority is, of course, an even greater crime. Before you ignore me, realize that the penalty for both crimes is total ostracism from every part of society in which thought police have sway. Which is a lot of it."
Delusion doesn't frighten me, but shared delusion does because it can turn delusion into reality. You and your fellow thought police have amassed remarkable real power, which means your threats are not empty (interestingly, the same holds true for your empty-headed conspiracy monger counterparts on the right). The smart thing to do is to cave, at least outwardly, and beg forgiveness. But I feel this is dishonest and cowardly, and frankly it goes against every fiber of my being. I have always stood up against injustice as I perceived it, even as a child, and I'm not about to stop now just because I'm old and wise enough to see it's in my best interest.
I refuse your offer. Your interaction with me has not been "high quality and substantive" up to this point, it has been smug, close-minded, judgemental, and aggressive and without basis. The power to judge others for their speech is a valid one within a limited range. We all should act to protect those being actively abused. But judgement, and self-restraint, and real victims, are critical to maintaining the validity of that power. When there are no victims, when the word is not an epithet, when the speaker has no malice, your actions are not then to protect anyone, but to flex your newfound power and cow others to your will. With the added twist that you get to speak down to your victim "But we have to keep it high quality and substantive".
I don't recognize the kangaroo court you've devised, and to you, officer of the thought police, I say: GFY.
Also, don't call me dude. You've lost the right.