| Author | Post |
|---|
Don Horner
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 05:06 pm |
|
If that's the case, it is NOT a residential neighborhood. their neighbors are Okeechobee Heavy Equipment, the Livestock Auction, Maschmeyer, Gator Feed and others. There are a very few individually owned lots nearby that might be residences, but it is a Heavy Industrial neighborhood with e few residences, not a Residential neighborhood with a heavy industrial plant stuck in the middle. It actually looks like pretty good zoning, to me, bordered as it is by Hwy 98 and the railroad, again.
I just spent some time on the Property Appraiser's GIS system and looked it all up.
|
local mother
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 04:40 pm |
|
| They are talking about Royal Concrete Concepts near the Okeechobee County Civic Center I am pretty sure.
|
Don Horner
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 04:28 pm |
|
I don't know where Playland Park is, but if you're talking about the area behind McDonald's, that concrete plant is in an industrial corridor alongside the railroad tracks, along with a fertilizer company, on the extreme fringe of a residential area, and is located there because the tracks are there. That's not the same thing as having a concrete plant (or an asphalt plant, which has the added negative of smelling bad) in the middle of Oak Park, surrounded by houses. Which you know very well, being an intelligent woman.
The view that restrictions only start when the payoff is not good enough is sadly cynical, and also not true. Even Okeechobee has zoning laws, now, and any time someone wants to start a new project, they have to follow those laws or publicly get a special exception.
Plus, you did not answer my question -- especially if we do not have restrictions, now, what's wrong with restrictions? If there is a concrete plant in a residential neighborhood, do you want to see it continues? If Brantly's is a threat to the public health and safety, should it be permitted to continue?
Relax the restrictions a litlle, and see what happens when greed takes over.
|
OkeeNarnie
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 7th, 2008 11:21 am |
|
Don Horner wrote: What's wrong with restrictions? Without them you would have bars next to churches, sex offenders living next to schools, asphalt plants in residential neighborhoods. Without restrictions every business on Parrott Ave would be free to look like Brantley's eyesore.
Of course, just like the Republicans in Congress who voted down the credit rescue plan, you probably don't give a crap about the neighborhood or the country. as long as someone can squeeze out a little more money without any responsibility.
What happens in they force the restrictions when it stops adding enough sweet to the tea!
There is very little difference between the problems caused by an Asphalt Company and a Concrete Company in a residential neighborhood. Okeechobee has one of those in Playland Park which IS a residential neighborhood.
|
Don Horner
Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 02:52 am |
|
Ciphered wrote: Don Horner wrote:
-- that is, if the person actually bothers thinking.
The obvious arrogance of such comments astounds me. While you evidently consider your consideration of the issues superior to that of every Republican, I assure you that there are plenty of people here who do think and have chosen the Republican party after serious consideration of the differences between the major political factions. The fact that I believe in helping the disabled, the very young and the very old, but do not agree with a system that rewards sloth in perfectly able-bodied men and women, or that I believe in strict enforcement of our laws, but do not think law-abiding citizens should be stripped of the means to protect themselves and their homes, among other things, are valid, thoughtful reasons for identifying with the Republican party over the Democratic party. And the support of corporations is vital to the prosperity of this nation, since they provide the millions of jobs and much of the tax revenue that keep this country going. How we treat the goose has a lot to do with the quality and quantity of the eggs she will lay, and whether or not she will stay in our yard. Your failure to understand what I wrote astounds me. In no way did I cast any aspersions on thinking members of one party or another. All I said was that most people don't bother to think about why they made a party choice -- whichever party it is. I hope you enjoyed your rant, even though it was pointless in response to my message.
My delay in replying is because I have been traveling for the past two weeks and have not always had time to reply to every message.
Last edited on Mon Oct 6th, 2008 03:14 am by Don Horner
|
CitizenGC
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 118 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 6th, 2008 01:01 am |
|
ic517 wrote: has anyone noticed with all the people moving from down south they seemed to have brought their cime with them?
The crime was and is already in place long before the people started moving south, the criminals wait until the people come before they come out of hiding and prey on them.
|
base_ball_boy08
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 5th, 2008 11:46 pm |
|
ic517 wrote: looks like a couple of crackheads are doing what our local goverment was unable to do . make him move his junk off the side walk. its a wonder that someone hasnt done this already. has anyone noticed with all the people moving from down south they seemed to have brought their cime with them?
I have definetly noticed the crime. just last week, we had two thefts. they broke into the rv, and stole a fourwheeler two night in a row!!
|
Southern Diva
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 158 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 08:12 pm |
|
Stop and think you know your giving a license to start a junk yard, now what do you expect a bed of roses, no, junk sitting everywhere, what code enforcement is doing is absoultely rediculious which par for the course in this county, our taxes go down so they increase the millage rate so they get more money, why dont they get rid of employees that dont hold there weight, like code enforcement to start with, I can go all over this county and find violations every where and code is no where to be found, I know someone that was reported for living in there home before it had a CO the county was informed several times and they turned the other check, also they give electric service for livestock but people are using it to live in unfinished home, where is code enforcement , at the donut connection having coffee, or enjoying the gossip in the office, so what gives we pick on the people in the city and leave everyone else alone.....
|
Betty Herdya
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 34 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 12:36 pm |
|
| Just think how much money the county/city would have if they would start collecting on these people who owe the money. $68,000? Put him on some sort of payment plan; or maybe he already is. I think maybe they should reduce it if he starts paying it down. Like for every thousand paid take 2% off? I don't know, but that is silly. $68,000.
|
Southern Diva
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 158 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 10:49 am |
|
ISnt the county and the city the ones who gave him his license to do business as a junk yard in town???? if you they knew what they were getting into then, all they are doing is makin life rough on this man, this town needs to wake up if they approved the occpational license for here then leave him alone, so he has a junk yard in town alot of people have them in there yards and code does not mess with them, for example ther eis a gentleman who lives out on the 101 side of the praire his yard looks like a junk yard but have they fines him NO he has old campers all over they place and a huge hive of the afican bees, but the county says that its not theres for they wont get rid of the bees, even though they are a danger to the public
WHATS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE
|
Chauna Aguilar Okeechobee News
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 01:34 pm |
|
This story was printed in the Okeechobee News on Oct. 8, 2007, where Brantley's son had came before the council to request a reduction in fees. Prior to this meeting he had also went before the Code Enforcement Board to ask for a reduction as well.
Brantley asks for fine reduction
Marvin W. Brantley is on the Tuesday, Oct. 9, agenda of the Okeechobee City Code Enforcement Board where he plans to request a fine reduction on his property located at 1811 S. Parrott Ave. The current fines total $68,662.23Okeechobee News/Chauna Aguilar
By Chauna Aguilar, Okeechobee News
The Okeechobee City Code Board will hear a fine reduction request from Marvin W. Brantley concerning his property at 1811 S. Parrott Ave. where the current fines total $68,662.23.
These fines include a $58,750 lien on the property in addition to $750 of additional attorney fees and interest totaling $9,162.23.
These fines date back from the settlement that was reached July 1, 2005, in a code enforcement case brought by the City of Okeechobee against Mr. Brantley, owner of a junkyard on South Parrott Avenue. The junkyard was said to be a public nuisance and in violation of city codes under Florida statutes.
In the settlement agreement, Mr. Brantley agreed to pay $58,750 in city code violation fees, to bring materials on the property within code requirements and to install an 8-foot fence along the western boundary of the property.
The City of Okeechobee filed a complaint against Mr. Brantley on Nov. 30, 2004. In July 2004, the city council moved to foreclose on Mr. Brantley’s property in an attempt to collect fines accruing as a result of code violations. The council was following the Code Enforcement Board’s recommendation to file a civil judgment against Mr. Brantley. The violations dealt with setbacks, fencing and emergency traffic lanes at the business.
The settlement states: “…a nuisance exists in the nature of placement of junk, creation of public safety issues and concerns, creation of environmental hazards, and failure to comply with applicable city of Okeechobee codes.”
The judgment requests that the $58,750 code enforcement liens be paid, or 7 percent interest will be charged, and the public nuisance be abated. No more fines were to be accrued if the conditions were met by Aug. 26, 2005. The city’s attorney’s fees and court costs were awarded to the plaintiff, and Mr. Brantley has already paid those fees, which amounted to $3,388.50.
Abating the nuisance involves cleaning up the junk that is beyond a wire fence along Parrott Avenue.
The property extends for about one-tenth of a mile north and south on South Parrott Ave. and extends east to Taylor Creek. The total property comprises about eight acres, but only the western portion is in the city. The rest is in the county.
Junkyards have been outlawed in the City of Okeechobee since 1978.
The property is currently under contract with D.R. Wilson and a portion of the property has been sold to Parrott Avenue Partners, LLC, who have currently secured the first 1.3-acre parcel which is located on the northern end of the property.
The lien on the property will have to be satisfied prior to sale of the property.
In other business, the board will also hear cases regarding permit issues for two property owners Ventura Arroyo and Allen Rochefort.
A case citing the throwing of rubbish, trash or garbage is also going before code board concerning property owned by James R. Sweat on un-platted land east of the railroad.
Post your opinions in the Public Issues Forum at http://www.newszap.com. Reporter Chauna Aguilar may be reached at caguilar@newszap.com.
|
Meems
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 751 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 10:20 pm |
|
local mother wrote: They can't fine him anymore, all they can do is notify the courts that he is in contempt of a court order. Because there was an actual judgement made, they cannot impose new fines on the same issues. Brantley has a court order that he is supposed to be following. It is up to the courts to enforce it.
Also, I wonder when they are ever going to not be pending on that sale...they went before the council forever ago to try to get fines reduced for the clean up and sale of the property. Get on with it already...lol
When did Brantley agree to a sale of his property? Last time my husband was there for some part Brantly told him he would never sale his property.
|
outside the box
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 259 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 09:47 pm |
|
Don Horner wrote: Bilgerat wrote:
Imagine, a thread on Mr. B's yard turning into a dig at the "Evil Republican Empire". 
America, what a country 
Actually, it was not Brantley's that turned in into a characterization of Republicans, but the attitude the business is more important that public good even if it is a nuisance. That attitude is pervasive regarding the largest corporations all the way to the local junk yard. It is the same attitude that las led to pollution, chemical dumping and much more. The Republicans are famous for getting rid of environmental rules if they stand in the way of profit.
Brantley's should be shut down and everything should be moved off so the ground underneath can be decontaminated, if that is even possible. There have been hundreds of oil pans and gas tanks sitting there and rotting and draining into the ground for dozens of years. Every other community with which I'm familiar has passed and enforced laws that prevent junkyards fro polluting the ground.
But, oh no, even if it is threatening our water supply as well as being an eyesore and lowering the value of the entire city, let it go on as long as one man will reap the rewards when the property is sold.
As far as Brantley making a living, does anyone actually buy anything there? I've been in some dirty and dangerous places, but I hesitate to even stop there.
There you have it...... Mr. Horner don't shop there so shut it down.
|
Ciphered
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 187 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 08:33 pm |
|
Don Horner wrote:
-- that is, if the person actually bothers thinking.
The obvious arrogance of such comments astounds me. While you evidently consider your consideration of the issues superior to that of every Republican, I assure you that there are plenty of people here who do think and have chosen the Republican party after serious consideration of the differences between the major political factions. The fact that I believe in helping the disabled, the very young and the very old, but do not agree with a system that rewards sloth in perfectly able-bodied men and women, or that I believe in strict enforcement of our laws, but do not think law-abiding citizens should be stripped of the means to protect themselves and their homes, among other things, are valid, thoughtful reasons for identifying with the Republican party over the Democratic party. And the support of corporations is vital to the prosperity of this nation, since they provide the millions of jobs and much of the tax revenue that keep this country going. How we treat the goose has a lot to do with the quality and quantity of the eggs she will lay, and whether or not she will stay in our yard.
|
Bilgerat
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 08:04 pm |
|
local mother wrote: Guess that is why I really don't side myself with a party...and vote for a person instead of a political party. There are definitely things on each side of that for the given areas that I would be for and they are pretty much even as far as how many of them are Dem and how many are Rep.
Well said
Never "generalize", vote your conscious and use FACTS
|
Bilgerat
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 08:00 pm |
|
Don Horner wrote: Bilgerat wrote: (But ONLY the Republican's, right Don? I mean, the good, kind and pure Democrats would NEVER stoop so low)
There are several general truths about the differences between the two parties that are recognized by everyone with their eyes open, For example:
* Democrats are generally Pro-choice, Republicans are generally Pro-life.
* Democrats tend to be in favor of gun control, Republicans tend to favor the NRA.
* Democrats generally support the middle and lower class, Republicans generally support the upper class.
* Democrats tend to support workers and labor unions, Republicans tend to support corporations and management.
* Democrats generally support environmental rules, Republicans generally support loosening of environmental rules.
These are not universal truths applied to every person who espouses one party or the other, but when a person is considering their choice of party, these are the kinds of general trends one must think about before making a choice -- that is, if the person actually bothers thinking.
General "Truths"?
Or just generalizations
Or even "trends"
Or just plain SWAG's
|
local mother
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 07:39 pm |
|
| Guess that is why I really don't side myself with a party...and vote for a person instead of a political party. There are definitely things on each side of that for the given areas that I would be for and they are pretty much even as far as how many of them are Dem and how many are Rep.
|
Don Horner
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 07:37 pm |
|
Bilgerat wrote: (But ONLY the Republican's, right Don? I mean, the good, kind and pure Democrats would NEVER stoop so low)
There are several general truths about the differences between the two parties that are recognized by everyone with their eyes open, For example:
* Democrats are generally Pro-choice, Republicans are generally Pro-life.
* Democrats tend to be in favor of gun control, Republicans tend to favor the NRA.
* Democrats generally support the middle and lower class, Republicans generally support the upper class.
* Democrats tend to support workers and labor unions, Republicans tend to support corporations and management.
* Democrats generally support environmental rules, Republicans generally support loosening of environmental rules.
These are not universal truths applied to every person who espouses one party or the other, but when a person is considering their choice of party, these are the kinds of general trends one must think about before making a choice -- that is, if the person actually bothers thinking.
|
Bilgerat
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 05:46 pm |
|
Don Horner wrote: Bilgerat wrote:
Imagine, a thread on Mr. B's yard turning into a dig at the "Evil Republican Empire".
America, what a country
Actually, it was not Brantley's that turned in into a characterization of Republicans, but the attitude the business is more important that public good even if it is a nuisance. That attitude is pervasive regarding the largest corporations all the way to the local junk yard. It is the same attitude that las led to pollution, chemical dumping and much more. The Republicans are famous for getting rid of environmental rules if they stand in the way of profit. (But ONLY the Republican's, right Don? I mean, the good, kind and pure Democrats would NEVER stoop so low)
Brantley's should be shut down and everything should be moved off so the ground underneath can be decontaminated, if that is even possible. There have been hundreds of oil pans and gas tanks sitting there and rotting and draining into the ground for dozens of years. Every other community with which I'm familiar has passed and enforced laws that prevent junkyards fro polluting the ground.
But, oh no, even if it is threatening our water supply as well as being an eyesore and lowering the value of the entire city, let it go on as long as one man will reap the rewards when the property is sold.
As far as Brantley making a living, does anyone actually buy anything there? I've been in some dirty and dangerous places, but I hesitate to even stop there.
|
Don Horner
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 03:19 pm |
|
Bilgerat wrote:
Imagine, a thread on Mr. B's yard turning into a dig at the "Evil Republican Empire".
America, what a country
Actually, it was not Brantley's that turned in into a characterization of Republicans, but the attitude the business is more important that public good even if it is a nuisance. That attitude is pervasive regarding the largest corporations all the way to the local junk yard. It is the same attitude that las led to pollution, chemical dumping and much more. The Republicans are famous for getting rid of environmental rules if they stand in the way of profit.
Brantley's should be shut down and everything should be moved off so the ground underneath can be decontaminated, if that is even possible. There have been hundreds of oil pans and gas tanks sitting there and rotting and draining into the ground for dozens of years. Every other community with which I'm familiar has passed and enforced laws that prevent junkyards fro polluting the ground.
But, oh no, even if it is threatening our water supply as well as being an eyesore and lowering the value of the entire city, let it go on as long as one man will reap the rewards when the property is sold.
As far as Brantley making a living, does anyone actually buy anything there? I've been in some dirty and dangerous places, but I hesitate to even stop there.
|
Bilgerat
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 02:44 pm |
|
Don Horner wrote: Ciphered wrote: It's unfortunate, though, that you have to use every opportunity to bash the Republicans. Historically, Republicans have been the "law and order" party, calling for stricter enforcement of our laws and harsher punishment for violations of the law, including zoning.
Proving my point, Meems went on to say, "As for Brantleys I agree it is an eye sore but it is a matter of principals. [sic]" People who put their principles ahead of the public good fit right into my characterization.
You are correct about this historical record of the Republican party, but that role has largely reversed in the past couple of decades. Clinton was the one who put forth legislation to put 100,000 new cops on the street, and the Bush administration largely reversed it, as just one example. It was a conservative Supreme Court which ruled that property could be taken by public domain to benefit private developers.
I submit that in the past twenty years, the GOP has forsaken all of their previous platforms, including smaller governmnet (it increased under Bush), lower spending (it increased under Bush), law and order (they have not funded homeland security the way they should) and much more. It is now the Democratic Party that is the party of fiscal responsibility, and folks who have not yet come to that realization arfe being blinded by their past prejudice.
Imagine, a thread on Mr. B's yard turning into a dig at the "Evil Republican Empire".
America, what a country
|
1GR8L8Y
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 138 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 02:34 pm |
|
| There are several businesses in this town that need to be looked. Not just Brantley. Go north across the tracks and look at Doc's Texaco. How long has that building been there? It looks unsafe and appears that it will soon fall down. It has looked that way since the 2004 season. Not to mention that Brantley is still doing business and the Texaco station is never opened. Seems like it was just abandoned. What about the buildings behind Glades Gas? They are warehouse being used for businesses. At least Brantley is trying to make a living. More than what I can say for most people who think we owe them a living.
|
Don Horner
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 06:21 pm |
|
Ciphered wrote: It's unfortunate, though, that you have to use every opportunity to bash the Republicans. Historically, Republicans have been the "law and order" party, calling for stricter enforcement of our laws and harsher punishment for violations of the law, including zoning.
Proving my point, Meems went on to say, "As for Brantleys I agree it is an eye sore but it is a matter of principals. [sic]" People who put their principles ahead of the public good fit right into my characterization.
You are correct about this historical record of the Republican party, but that role has largely reversed in the past couple of decades. Clinton was the one who put forth legislation to put 100,000 new cops on the street, and the Bush administration largely reversed it, as just one example. It was a conservative Supreme Court which ruled that property could be taken by public domain to benefit private developers.
I submit that in the past twenty years, the GOP has forsaken all of their previous platforms, including smaller governmnet (it increased under Bush), lower spending (it increased under Bush), law and order (they have not funded homeland security the way they should) and much more. It is now the Democratic Party that is the party of fiscal responsibility, and folks who have not yet come to that realization arfe being blinded by their past prejudice.
|
local mother
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 04:32 pm |
|
They can't fine him anymore, all they can do is notify the courts that he is in contempt of a court order. Because there was an actual judgement made, they cannot impose new fines on the same issues. Brantley has a court order that he is supposed to be following. It is up to the courts to enforce it.
Also, I wonder when they are ever going to not be pending on that sale...they went before the council forever ago to try to get fines reduced for the clean up and sale of the property. Get on with it already...lol
|
Razorback75
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 14th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 654 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 04:28 pm |
|
| Keeping the sidewalk clear is also a safety issue. This has been brought up every time the city starts fining him for piling up stuff outside the fence. Also, he needs to keep that area outside the fence clear to provide parking spaces for his customers. If he piles up the junk and they can't pull in easily to park, it creates a traffic hazard.
|
ic517
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 86 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 01:56 pm |
|
it does not matter what you or i think, if the city grandfathered him in or what ever . if he dosent move his stuff behind his fence the thevies and dopeheads will steal any thing outside that fence. now that the put that in the paper eveyone of them has the bright ideal to do it
|
Meems
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 751 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 01:18 pm |
|
As for Brantleys I agree it is an eye sore but it is a matter of principals. He was grandfathered in and so he is allowed to stay and then the county or cith whichever comes along and is now and has been trying to force him to move or go out of business by continuing to add more and more restrictions on him. This is what I think is wrong. Forcing to quit a business that is legally in place to me is just wrong.
Besides if Brantleys moves how you going to know just how far up in town the original lake shore came before they diked it.......
|
Ciphered
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 187 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 12:26 pm |
|
Don Horner wrote: What's wrong with restrictions? Well, I am with you on this one, DH. Brantley's eyesore is the poster child of broken down code enforcement systems. (By the way, I remember when that property was Page's Auto Camp, with small cabins scattered under pristine oaks, and later in the 60's when Brantley's parents ran a grocery store and meat market at the front of the property. It slowly developed into a "junk yard" in the 70's and 80's when Marvin started his motorcyle and boat repair operation on the property.) The problem in the City, but even more so in the County, is the lack of enforcement of zoning restrictions 25 and 35 years ago, allowing things like Brantley's, El Mirosol (DeBarry Gardens), the whole area behind LaFiesta Market, and others, to develop. Now there is so much "catch-up" to play that they just put out fires as they flare up.
Of course, just like the Republicans in Congress who voted down the credit rescue plan, you probably don't give a crap about the neighborhood or the country. It's unfortunate, though, that you have to use every opportunity to bash the Republicans. Historically, Republicans have been the "law and order" party, calling for stricter enforcement of our laws and harsher punishment for violations of the law, including zoning.
And there are legitimate reasons why 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats (who I guess don't give a crap about the country either?) voted against the "rescue plan." Maybe they thought it was wiser to slow down, think about other alternatives, and act in a deliberate, prudent fashion to correct something that developed over nearly 2 decades. In the past 2 days, people more savvy on the economy than any of these legislators have suggested alternative measures that make more sense than the rushed-through bail-out bill. And they now are at least being heard.
|
pops
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Florida USA |
| Posts: | 769 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 12:15 pm |
|
ic517 wrote: looks like a couple of crackheads are doing what our local goverment was unable to do . make him move his junk off the side walk. its a wonder that someone hasnt done this already. has anyone noticed with all the people moving from down south they seemed to have brought their cime with them?
Marvin got his junk back, so the crackheads didn't accomplish the task.
|
Don Horner
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 05:26 am |
|
What's wrong with restrictions? Without them you would have bars next to churches, sex offenders living next to schools, asphalt plants in residential neighborhoods. Without restrictions every business on Parrott Ave would be free to look like Brantley's eyesore.
Of course, just like the Republicans in Congress who voted down the credit rescue plan, you probably don't give a crap about the neighborhood or the country. as long as someone can squeeze out a little more money without any responsibility.
|
Meems
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 751 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 12:36 am |
|
I don't believe that Brantley's junk was ever on the sidewalk.
The back and forth situation with Brantley is the show of junk out front and it being in the city limits. I believe there is a law about junk yards being in the dity limits but he was grandfathered in. They try to make him move by fining him and just before they fine him he moves the stuff and then when enough time has gone by he moves it back out. They are trying to force him out which is to say government is trying to force out little business by putting restrictions on them.
|
ic517
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 86 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30th, 2008 11:56 pm |
|
| looks like a couple of crackheads are doing what our local goverment was unable to do . make him move his junk off the side walk. its a wonder that someone hasnt done this already. has anyone noticed with all the people moving from down south they seemed to have brought their cime with them?
|
Current time is 02:23 pm | |
|
|
|