how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | reply to iknow
Re: Code enforcement demolishes House next door said by iknow:actually, it's court opinions spurred on by the war on drugs that allows property forfeitures that don't even have anything to do with drugs. it's the slippery slope deal, the congress starts legislation, and passes laws, and it's good for the intended purpose, but it quickly gets misused for other purposes. years ago, this was not allowed. they could fine, but not clean up a property themselves, or demolish someones property. it might possibly still be illegal, but not enforced.
By years ago, you mean 50 years ago?
This has been a practice since the urban redevelopment of blighted property laws of the 1960s.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | | |
|
iknowPremium
join:2012-03-25 | said by marigolds:said by iknow:actually, it's court opinions spurred on by the war on drugs that allows property forfeitures that don't even have anything to do with drugs. it's the slippery slope deal, the congress starts legislation, and passes laws, and it's good for the intended purpose, but it quickly gets misused for other purposes. years ago, this was not allowed. they could fine, but not clean up a property themselves, or demolish someones property. it might possibly still be illegal, but not enforced.
By years ago, you mean 50 years ago? This has been a practice since the urban redevelopment of blighted property laws of the 1960s. no way, not anywhere near that long ago!. you might have it confused with eminent domain laws, where the government pays you a fair price for your property, and then evicts you, and uses the property for public use, like a privately owned strip mall. OR, possibly unpaid tax liens, those are the 2 that have been around forever. what has happened here is something new, started maybe 10-15 years ago, an offshoot of the drug wars. seizures of anything for unpaid parking fines, high grass, junk etc. or other civil violations were unheard of back then, and not allowed. buildings just used to crumble to the ground, and that was it. | |
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | said by iknow:said by marigolds:said by iknow:actually, it's court opinions spurred on by the war on drugs that allows property forfeitures that don't even have anything to do with drugs. it's the slippery slope deal, the congress starts legislation, and passes laws, and it's good for the intended purpose, but it quickly gets misused for other purposes. years ago, this was not allowed. they could fine, but not clean up a property themselves, or demolish someones property. it might possibly still be illegal, but not enforced.
By years ago, you mean 50 years ago? This has been a practice since the urban redevelopment of blighted property laws of the 1960s. no way, not anywhere near that long ago!. you might have it confused with eminent domain laws, where the government pays you a fair price for your property, and then evicts you, and uses the property for public use, like a privately owned strip mall. OR, possibly unpaid tax liens, those are the 2 that have been around forever. what has happened here is something new, started maybe 10-15 years ago, an offshoot of the drug wars. seizures of anything for unpaid parking fines, high grass, junk etc. or other civil violations were unheard of back then, and not allowed. buildings just used to crumble to the ground, and that was it. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_renewal
I was actually off by a couple of decades. Practice dates from the 1930s.
But it still reached its peak in the 1960s with the HUD Act and the New Communities Act.
The blight cases wound their way through state supreme courts in the early 1970s.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
robbinPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1 | The house which was destroyed can no way be classified as urban renewal. This was a nuisance situation where taxes weren't being paid, the yard wasn't being upkept, possible drug usage, and unoccupied. Really a shame to destroy a house which was in the apparent condition of the one pictured. | |
| said by robbin:The house which was destroyed can no way be classified as urban renewal. You'd be amazed at what can be done in the name of urban renewal. The next town over declared that a bunch of land which never had anything built on it to be "blighted", took over the land, then turned it over to a developer who built a 900,000 sq ft shopping mall. | |
|
