[Tennessee_Bob]

So, the city was mad at him for not keeping up his property the way they wanted him to.

Read it and spin it the way you want - I couldn't stop you from doing it anyways. Seems to me they were probably also upset about the court hearings and subpoenas he missed as well. As far as the concept of private property, should we also consider the concept of social responsibility - i.e., maintaining your house and property within certain health and safety standards?

Nah, forget that.

[wideawake]

Let's put it this way, Tennessee_Bob: if someone tells how, when and under what conditions you are allowed to use something (in this case land and a house) then you don't own it. It is owned by whoever has the power to control it.

In this case it was the government, and the government was expropriating Mr. Wolk's property.

You're talking about spin? Let's talk hard facts.

Why do you believe the government has the power to seize someone's property? At what point does that power begin? When the paint on your house begins to peel? When your porch loses a few boards? When your lawn becomes overgrown? When one window is broken? What is the standard? And who makes the decision to seize someone's property?

[gatex]

"Ald. Vilma Colom (35th) said her office tried for more than a year to deal with Wolk. She said she tried to tell him about city programs that could have provided money for repairs."

Since they had city money for such repairs, why didn't they just repair the porch, instaed of breaking down his door at 10 pm ?

[Hard Case]

social responsibility

Hell, why stop there, why not rally social correctness too?