This seems about right.........

A business developer in the Philadelphia neighborhood of Point Breeze is facing legal action after voluntarily cleaning up more than 40 tons of trash from a vacant lot neighboring his local business.

As the old adage goes, no good deed goes unpunished. Ori Feibush says he visited the local offices of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority four times, sent in seven written requests and made 24 phone calls to the agency asking them to take care of a major eyesore: an empty lot next to his coffee shop was home to more than 40 tons of debris.

Not only did the agency fail to act but it also denied Feibush's offer to clean up the mess himself.
But the Daily News reports that Feibush went ahead with his plans anyway, reportedly spending more than $20,000 of his own money not only to remove the trash but also to level the soil; add cherry trees, fencing and park benches; and repave the sidewalk.

"This was a lot of garbage," local resident Elaine McGrath told the paper. "Now it's gorgeous. I'm excited."
However, the city agency was less excited, demanding that Feibush return the vacant lot to its previous condition and saying it is considering legal action against him.
"Like any property owner, [the authority] does not permit unauthorized access to or alteration of its property," Paul D. Chrystie, director of communications at the Office of Housing and Community Development told the paper. "This is both on principle (no property owner knowingly allows trespassing) and to limit taxpayer liability."
And the situation is not without irony. Feibush says he received a citation in August 2011 from the city for litter on the same lot that the city now points out is not his property.

Nonetheless, the city's request puts Feibush in an unusual position. In theory, he committed a good deed, investing his own time and money to improve the condition of his neighborhood when city authorities refused to step up to the plate. But he also knowingly did so after the city refused his request to intervene.

Originally posted by: the wierdo
Just because the lot is unoccupied doesn't make it unowned; the city owns it. He violated their property rights. That's equivalent to rape. Any decent libertarian court would jail him immediately.

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: the wierdo
Just because the lot is unoccupied doesn't make it unowned; the city owns it. He violated their property rights. That's equivalent to rape. Any decent libertarian court would jail him immediately.

excellent point. and what if that was Iranian Sovereign soil? according to our resident libertarian fact-checker, this would be a-ok. why would he support what is essentially and act of war against private property?

very strange. very very strange.

Originally posted by: the wierdo
Just because the lot is unoccupied doesn't make it unowned; the city owns it. He violated their property rights. That's equivalent to rape. Any decent libertarian court would jail him immediately.

Feibush says he received a citation in August 2011 from the city for litter on the same lot that the city now points out is not his property.

Originally posted by: Mockery
Leave it as someone elses property.......you get a citation from the city fining you for blight.

Try to get the city to clean the property up .........the city ignores your request and dispenses you red tape.

Try to get the permit to clean it up yourself.........the city ignores your request and dispenses you red tape.

You spend your own money/time to clean it up yourself.......the city punishes you, fines you, and threatens legal litigation against you.



I guess I would be sarcastic too if I thought a moronic, do nothing, system was sound. So keep it up......your statist song and dance is adorably in unison.

All your act needs is a pair of tower tall top hats......but good luck getting a permit for that wardrobe accessory in the time it takes for this thread to expire.

Originally posted by: Mockery
Agreed, except in the article above.......

Feibush says he received a citation in August 2011 from the city for litter on the same lot that the city now points out is not his property.

Soooo it was his enough to be cited for not cleaning it up.

Well defined property rights would have resolved all of this. Unfortunately the city was too busy placing undue blame, sticking their thumb up their asses, to act on anything other than punishment and threats.

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: Mockery
Leave it as someone elses property.......you get a citation from the city fining you for blight.

Try to get the city to clean the property up .........the city ignores your request and dispenses you red tape.

Try to get the permit to clean it up yourself.........the city ignores your request and dispenses you red tape.

You spend your own money/time to clean it up yourself.......the city punishes you, fines you, and threatens legal litigation against you.



I guess I would be sarcastic too if I thought a moronic, do nothing, system was sound. So keep it up......your statist song and dance is adorably in unison.

All your act needs is a pair of tower tall top hats......but good luck getting a permit for that wardrobe accessory in the time it takes for this thread to expire.

i don't believe we are proposing the situation was sound. however it is well within the rights of the property holder to change their mind about their own private property if they feel like it.

really not sure why you are so against property owners doing their thing with their property.

statist.

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: Mockery
Leave it as someone elses property.......you get a citation from the city fining you for blight.

Try to get the city to clean the property up .........the city ignores your request and dispenses you red tape.

Try to get the permit to clean it up yourself.........the city ignores your request and dispenses you red tape.

You spend your own money/time to clean it up yourself.......the city punishes you, fines you, and threatens legal litigation against you.



I guess I would be sarcastic too if I thought a moronic, do nothing, system was sound. So keep it up......your statist song and dance is adorably in unison.

All your act needs is a pair of tower tall top hats......but good luck getting a permit for that wardrobe accessory in the time it takes for this thread to expire.

i don't believe we are proposing the situation was sound. however it is well within the rights of the property holder to change their mind about their own private property if they feel like it.

really not sure why you are so against property owners doing their thing with their property.

statist.

Who owns the property?

The city said this guy did.......and provably so (as being government = always being right) when they fined him for the blight on this property in August 2011.

This guy took action, being told it was his property..........and couldn't get the city (trying to fine him and hold him responsible) to respond.

So he took action, on what I can only assume he thought was his property (since the city is never wrong) and remedied all of this for everyone (including the city) with 20k of his own money and god knows what of his own time.

Now you two chowder monkeys are in here saying he doesn't own the property (making the city wrong, but that's impossible) or are in here congratulating the city for rightfully punishing a guy for doing something he couldn't do with property that wasn't his (implying they are right now, but wrong before).

It's hard being so inconsistent in your criticisms.......and upholding only what you want to believe while disregarding everything else.

I'm merely pointing out how fucked it is to do anything. I have no idea whose property it was and it would be up to the PROPERTY OWNER to sue this guy and not the government anyways.

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: Mockery
Agreed, except in the article above.......

Feibush says he received a citation in August 2011 from the city for litter on the same lot that the city now points out is not his property.

Soooo it was his enough to be cited for not cleaning it up.

Well defined property rights would have resolved all of this. Unfortunately the city was too busy placing undue blame, sticking their thumb up their asses, to act on anything other than punishment and threats.

Did they force him to pay that citation, or did they cite him and immediately retract it when they realized their mistake? You don't know.

What we do know, the important part of this story, is the rape of private property. I'm not going to let you turn a blind eye to this modern-day William T. Sherman. Why are you apologizing for a rapist?

Why should he care what is in his neighbor's lot? Is it his lot? What fascist mindset leads one to think they would ever have the right to treat someone else's property as their own? This man is the symptom of everything that's wrong in the modern world.

Originally posted by: Pixel

nothing in your link says the city stated it was that guy's property. can you link that up please?

Feibush says he received a citation in August 2011 from the city for litter on the same lot that the city now points out is not his property.

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: Mockery
Agreed, except in the article above.......

Feibush says he received a citation in August 2011 from the city for litter on the same lot that the city now points out is not his property.

Soooo it was his enough to be cited for not cleaning it up.

Well defined property rights would have resolved all of this. Unfortunately the city was too busy placing undue blame, sticking their thumb up their asses, to act on anything other than punishment and threats.

Did they force him to pay that citation, or did they cite him and immediately retract it when they realized their mistake? You don't know.

What we do know, the important part of this story, is the rape of private property. I'm not going to let you turn a blind eye to this modern-day William T. Sherman. Why are you apologizing for a rapist?

Why should he care what is in his neighbor's lot? Is it his lot? What fascist mindset leads one to think they would ever have the right to treat someone else's property as their own? This man is the symptom of everything that's wrong in the modern world.

Do you know for certain who owns this piece of property?

Then kindly apply your logic to those inconsistencies as well. K-thanks!!

Originally posted by: Pixel
so far all i am getting out of this thread is that mockery supports fascism.

i would like to personally purchase property next to Mockery's land and turn it into a toxic dump zone.

if that motherfucker dares speak out against that he will only further his status as resident TWL fascist.

motherfucking rapist!

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Pixel
so far all i am getting out of this thread is that mockery supports fascism.

i would like to personally purchase property next to Mockery's land and turn it into a toxic dump zone.

if that motherfucker dares speak out against that he will only further his status as resident TWL fascist.

motherfucking rapist!

Ride that mother fucking taco truck band wagon.......



Ride it hard until the wheels fall off.

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: Mockery
Leave it as someone elses property.......you get a citation from the city fining you for blight.

Try to get the city to clean the property up .........the city ignores your request and dispenses you red tape.

Try to get the permit to clean it up yourself.........the city ignores your request and dispenses you red tape.

You spend your own money/time to clean it up yourself.......the city punishes you, fines you, and threatens legal litigation against you.



I guess I would be sarcastic too if I thought a moronic, do nothing, system was sound. So keep it up......your statist song and dance is adorably in unison.

All your act needs is a pair of tower tall top hats......but good luck getting a permit for that wardrobe accessory in the time it takes for this thread to expire.

i don't believe we are proposing the situation was sound. however it is well within the rights of the property holder to change their mind about their own private property if they feel like it.

really not sure why you are so against property owners doing their thing with their property.

statist.

Who owns the property?

The city said this guy did.......and provably so (as being government = always being right) when they fined him for the blight on this property in August 2011.

This guy took action, being told it was his property..........and couldn't get the city (trying to fine him and hold him responsible) to respond.

So he took action, on what I can only assume he thought was his property (since the city is never wrong) and remedied all of this for everyone (including the city) with 20k of his own money and god knows what of his own time.

Now you two chowder monkeys are in here saying he doesn't own the property (making the city wrong, but that's impossible) or are in here congratulating the city for rightfully punishing a guy for doing something he couldn't do with property that wasn't his (implying they are right now, but wrong before).

It's hard being so inconsistent in your criticisms.......and upholding only what you want to believe while disregarding everything else.

I'm merely pointing out how fucked it is to do anything. I have no idea whose property it was and it would be up to the PROPERTY OWNER to sue this guy and not the government anyways.

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: Mockery
Agreed, except in the article above.......

Feibush says he received a citation in August 2011 from the city for litter on the same lot that the city now points out is not his property.

Soooo it was his enough to be cited for not cleaning it up.

Well defined property rights would have resolved all of this. Unfortunately the city was too busy placing undue blame, sticking their thumb up their asses, to act on anything other than punishment and threats.

Did they force him to pay that citation, or did they cite him and immediately retract it when they realized their mistake? You don't know.

What we do know, the important part of this story, is the rape of private property. I'm not going to let you turn a blind eye to this modern-day William T. Sherman. Why are you apologizing for a rapist?

Why should he care what is in his neighbor's lot? Is it his lot? What fascist mindset leads one to think they would ever have the right to treat someone else's property as their own? This man is the symptom of everything that's wrong in the modern world.

Do you know for certain who owns this piece of property?

Then kindly apply your logic to those inconsistencies as well. K-thanks!!

if noone was certain whose property it was, it should have gone to the courts.

listen, as a property owner i could give two shits who calls or emails me with requests for this and that. it's my fucking property.

take me to court. once that is figured out, we can talk. until then, you are an imperialist fascist fucking with my property.

how do you defend such rape of property rights?

makes me sick.

Originally posted by: the wierdo
He sent them SEVEN LETTERS.

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: Mockery
Agreed, except in the article above.......

Feibush says he received a citation in August 2011 from the city for litter on the same lot that the city now points out is not his property.

Soooo it was his enough to be cited for not cleaning it up.

Well defined property rights would have resolved all of this. Unfortunately the city was too busy placing undue blame, sticking their thumb up their asses, to act on anything other than punishment and threats.

Did they force him to pay that citation, or did they cite him and immediately retract it when they realized their mistake? You don't know.

What we do know, the important part of this story, is the rape of private property. I'm not going to let you turn a blind eye to this modern-day William T. Sherman. Why are you apologizing for a rapist?

Why should he care what is in his neighbor's lot? Is it his lot? What fascist mindset leads one to think they would ever have the right to treat someone else's property as their own? This man is the symptom of everything that's wrong in the modern world.

Do you know for certain who owns this piece of property?

Then kindly apply your logic to those inconsistencies as well. K-thanks!!

if noone was certain whose property it was, it should have gone to the courts.

listen, as a property owner i could give two shits who calls or emails me with requests for this and that. it's my fucking property.

take me to court. once that is figured out, we can talk. until then, you are an imperialist fascist fucking with my property.

how do you defend such rape of property rights?

makes me sick.

Since we all want to get all grandiose and riddled with hyperbole (* cough* cough)

This should go in both directions.

What should have happened IMO:

The city should have fact checked who owns this piece of property before threatening anyone.

Since they didn't that is bullshit.

Once this property notice for blight, fining this individual, was received he should have taken it to court to properly define these well defined property rights (of who actually owns what).

Once that was established, the city, this guy, and/or whoever is responsible for this property could begin to clean it up, or tell the city to go fuck itself (because it is their trash).

Instead, this guy took it upon himself to remedy a problem, that he was told was a problem, that he was once told was his problem, and is now having himself ass raped for it.

Only if the city owns this piece of property should they be able to demand that he has to return all this garbage and shit to property that was not his.

So to court we go again...........

If either of you have any objections to that, not the bullshit you mentally fabricate, please just let me know.

Originally posted by: Cocytus

Originally posted by: the wierdo
He sent them SEVEN LETTERS.

Were the seven letters f, u, c, k, y, o, and u?

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: Mockery
Agreed, except in the article above.......

Feibush says he received a citation in August 2011 from the city for litter on the same lot that the city now points out is not his property.

Soooo it was his enough to be cited for not cleaning it up.

Well defined property rights would have resolved all of this. Unfortunately the city was too busy placing undue blame, sticking their thumb up their asses, to act on anything other than punishment and threats.

Did they force him to pay that citation, or did they cite him and immediately retract it when they realized their mistake? You don't know.

What we do know, the important part of this story, is the rape of private property. I'm not going to let you turn a blind eye to this modern-day William T. Sherman. Why are you apologizing for a rapist?

Why should he care what is in his neighbor's lot? Is it his lot? What fascist mindset leads one to think they would ever have the right to treat someone else's property as their own? This man is the symptom of everything that's wrong in the modern world.

Do you know for certain who owns this piece of property?

Then kindly apply your logic to those inconsistencies as well. K-thanks!!

if noone was certain whose property it was, it should have gone to the courts.

listen, as a property owner i could give two shits who calls or emails me with requests for this and that. it's my fucking property.

take me to court. once that is figured out, we can talk. until then, you are an imperialist fascist fucking with my property.

how do you defend such rape of property rights?

makes me sick.

Since we all want to get all grandiose and riddled with hyperbole (* cough* cough)

This should go in both directions.

What should have happened IMO:

The city should have fact checked who owns this piece of property before threatening anyone.

Since they didn't that is bullshit.

Once this property notice for blight, fining this individual, was received he should have taken it to court to properly define these well defined property rights (of who actually owns what).

Once that was established, the city, this guy, and/or whoever is responsible for this property could begin to clean it up, or tell the city to go fuck itself (because it is their trash).

Instead, this guy took it upon himself to remedy a problem, that he was told was a problem, that he was once told was his problem, and is now having himself ass raped for it.

Only if the city owns this piece of property should they be able to demand that he has to return all this garbage and shit to property that was not his.

So to court we go again...........

If either of you have any objections to that, not the bullshit you mentally fabricate, please just let me know.

you keep stating the city didn't fact-check whose property this was. still waiting on a link on that assertion.

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: Mockery
Agreed, except in the article above.......

Feibush says he received a citation in August 2011 from the city for litter on the same lot that the city now points out is not his property.

Soooo it was his enough to be cited for not cleaning it up.

Well defined property rights would have resolved all of this. Unfortunately the city was too busy placing undue blame, sticking their thumb up their asses, to act on anything other than punishment and threats.

Did they force him to pay that citation, or did they cite him and immediately retract it when they realized their mistake? You don't know.

What we do know, the important part of this story, is the rape of private property. I'm not going to let you turn a blind eye to this modern-day William T. Sherman. Why are you apologizing for a rapist?

Why should he care what is in his neighbor's lot? Is it his lot? What fascist mindset leads one to think they would ever have the right to treat someone else's property as their own? This man is the symptom of everything that's wrong in the modern world.

Do you know for certain who owns this piece of property?

Then kindly apply your logic to those inconsistencies as well. K-thanks!!

if noone was certain whose property it was, it should have gone to the courts.

listen, as a property owner i could give two shits who calls or emails me with requests for this and that. it's my fucking property.

take me to court. once that is figured out, we can talk. until then, you are an imperialist fascist fucking with my property.

how do you defend such rape of property rights?

makes me sick.

Since we all want to get all grandiose and riddled with hyperbole (* cough* cough)

This should go in both directions.

What should have happened IMO:

The city should have fact checked who owns this piece of property before threatening anyone.

Since they didn't that is bullshit.

Once this property notice for blight, fining this individual, was received he should have taken it to court to properly define these well defined property rights (of who actually owns what).

Once that was established, the city, this guy, and/or whoever is responsible for this property could begin to clean it up, or tell the city to go fuck itself (because it is their trash).

Instead, this guy took it upon himself to remedy a problem, that he was told was a problem, that he was once told was his problem, and is now having himself ass raped for it.

Only if the city owns this piece of property should they be able to demand that he has to return all this garbage and shit to property that was not his.

So to court we go again...........

If either of you have any objections to that, not the bullshit you mentally fabricate, please just let me know.

you keep stating the city didn't fact-check whose property this was. still waiting on a link on that assertion.

Sending a guy a letter fining him for another persons property, in August 2011, is pretty much admitting that who owns this property was up for debate.

If that was a lie (as told by the guy being fined)........then we don't really have much else to go with.

All we have is this article and a one paragraph statement from the redevelopment committee.

That isn't exactly a lot to go from (but I know it's more than enough for you to have your mind made up).

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: Cocytus

Originally posted by: the wierdo
He sent them SEVEN LETTERS.

Were the seven letters f, u, c, k, y, o, and u?

All frivolity aside, this man is a war criminal.

Originally posted by: the wierdo
I'm the chowder-monkey for defending property rights? I'm inconsistent for saying that no man is entitled to step onto his neighbor's land and treat it as his own? If that's the charge, then, yes, I'm inconsistent. I don't know what kind of worldview it takes to think a steadfast defense of freedom is inconsistency, but hey, you socialists live in such a bent world that I'm sure you could come up with a reason.

I'm the problem here? No. The problem is the fascists who don't respect property lines that they could trace in their sleep. He knew where his property ended.

That's why he called the redevelopment agency TWENTY-FOUR times, asking them to take care of the trash on THEIR property. He sent them SEVEN LETTERS. These are all explicit, continuing proof that he knew it was NOT HIS PROPERTY.

But, being of the modern socialist age, what did he do? Did he resign himself to the fact that you can't just go into other people's properties and start throwing things away that you deem 'trash'? No, of course not. He raped their property boundaries and imposed his will.

I guarantee that man is either an Obama or Romney voter.

Originally posted by: Pixel

i don't see anything in your OP that states fining him for anything simply because it was another party's property except after the fact he altered someone elses property.

i'm sure you can agree, fining someone for fucking around with someone else's property is a primary directive of the libertarian mindset. no?

And the situation is not without irony. Feibush says he received a citation in August 2011 from the city for litter on the same lot that the city now points out is not his property.

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Originally posted by: the wierdo
I'm the chowder-monkey for defending property rights? I'm inconsistent for saying that no man is entitled to step onto his neighbor's land and treat it as his own? If that's the charge, then, yes, I'm inconsistent. I don't know what kind of worldview it takes to think a steadfast defense of freedom is inconsistency, but hey, you socialists live in such a bent world that I'm sure you could come up with a reason.

I'm the problem here? No. The problem is the fascists who don't respect property lines that they could trace in their sleep. He knew where his property ended.

That's why he called the redevelopment agency TWENTY-FOUR times, asking them to take care of the trash on THEIR property. He sent them SEVEN LETTERS. These are all explicit, continuing proof that he knew it was NOT HIS PROPERTY.

But, being of the modern socialist age, what did he do? Did he resign himself to the fact that you can't just go into other people's properties and start throwing things away that you deem 'trash'? No, of course not. He raped their property boundaries and imposed his will.

I guarantee that man is either an Obama or Romney voter.

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Pixel

i don't see anything in your OP that states fining him for anything simply because it was another party's property except after the fact he altered someone elses property.

i'm sure you can agree, fining someone for fucking around with someone else's property is a primary directive of the libertarian mindset. no?

Try reading the article.......

Try rereading the article..........

Try reading this:

And the situation is not without irony. Feibush says he received a citation in August 2011 from the city for litter on the same lot that the city now points out is not his property.

Try reading it again.

Then ask yourself how you can receive a citation in August 2011 for litter on property that you do not own. That you are not in control of.

Then ask yourself if they were wrong then (and why?) or if they are wrong now (and why?).

This is how reading comprehension and deductive reasoning works, Pixel. Asking the same question over and over again, expecting a different reality, because you don't like the one I force feed you.......isn't going to alter anything.

Ori Feibush says he visited the local offices of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority four times, sent in seven written requests and made 24 phone calls to the agency asking them to take care of a major eyesore: an empty lot next to his coffee shop was home to more than 40 tons of debris.

Originally posted by: Pixel

I appreciate that this guy feels the need to defend himself with such claims. If I started acting like anyone else's property was mine I would do the same.

however it needs to be proven in a court of law. if it was a mistaken surveyor issue, or a wrongful claim by the property owner, then it should be addressed.

however, that still should not give this man the right to trespass on private property and do with it as he wishes.

Originally posted by: the wierdo
Pixel is not going to fall for your statist smoke screen. A mistaken citation in 2011 doesn't trigger a property transfer. In your world, maybe it does. Your emperor-has-no-clothes deception is especially naked when one considers the repeated action of Mr. William T. Sherman after the mistaken citation, which was to send letter after letter asking the redevelopment agency to clean up THEIR PROPERTY.

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Ori Feibush says he visited the local offices of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority four times, sent in seven written requests and made 24 phone calls to the agency asking them to take care of a major eyesore: an empty lot next to his coffee shop was home to more than 40 tons of debris.

Throw up as many statist deceptions as you like, but he knew perfectly well that it wasn't his property.

Originally posted by: the wierdo
I like how defending freedom is now considered a fairy tale. Hah, I guess in the modern world, full of people who feel entitled to your property, it kind of is.

Originally posted by: Pixel
snake mistakenly claimed this thread was his, even after 24 emails from you to the moderators claiming otherwise.

i hope he comes in here and starts to clean up.

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: the wierdo

Ori Feibush says he visited the local offices of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority four times, sent in seven written requests and made 24 phone calls to the agency asking them to take care of a major eyesore: an empty lot next to his coffee shop was home to more than 40 tons of debris.

Throw up as many statist deceptions as you like, but he knew perfectly well that it wasn't his property.

Did he?

And you base that on what exactly (besides what you want to believe)?

So who does own this property? The city, or someone else?

However, the city agency was less excited, demanding that Feibush return the vacant lot to its previous condition and saying it is considering legal action against him.

"Like any property owner, [the authority] does not permit unauthorized access to or alteration of its property," Paul D. Chrystie, director of communications at the Office of Housing and Community Development told the paper. "This is both on principle (no property owner knowingly allows trespassing) and to limit taxpayer liability."

The situation is almost like a reverse case of eminent domain, in which a private owner is attempting to revitalize a piece of public property.