Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RobRoy

What argument for condemnation? The government does not even compensate the owner for demolishing the building. It simply tears it down, bills the owner to haul it away, and leaves the land worthless.


8 posted on 08/03/2010 10:05:00 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: Captain Kirk

I guarantee they don’t just walk up and start tearing homes down, these people were probably given years to bring their place up to code and ignored all the warnings. I have lived next to property that was condemned for being considered severe blight, there are times when nothing else will work with some people.


10 posted on 08/03/2010 10:09:02 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Captain Kirk

Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying the government was right. I am saying that of the few buildings I saw I could see, at a cursory glance, that a case for condemnation could be made.

When one lives in city limits, one accepts that there is a minimum standard of maintenance. Nobody wants to live next to a house that is a rat ranch. I remember a neighbor a couple blocks from me that got in trouble with the city for this sort of thing. They finally cleaned up his property and sent a bill.

If you want something closer to total freedom, you need to live in an unincorporated area. Even then, one must remember we do not live in total anarchy ANYWHERE in the US. There are very basic minimal rules.


16 posted on 08/03/2010 10:36:59 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson