-
Sidebar Ads
-
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Email
Print
Digg
Facebook
MySpace
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo!Member Opinions:
By: hikerman on 9/22/08
The Sheltons are proving themselves to be greedy neighbors who care nothing about the community or the county. If they cannot accept that BPUSA was a deeply unpopular scam that was legitimately defeated, then they need to move away and quit trying to sue the county with this frivolous lawsuit.
The Sheltons are proving themselves to be greedy neighbors who care nothing about the community or the county. If they cannot accept that BPUSA was a deeply unpopular scam that was legitimately defeated, then they need to move away and quit trying to sue the county with this frivolous lawsuit.
By: constant on 9/22/08
I hate the bible park idea, but on the other hand if I owned the land and felt like I didn't get a fair opportunity to sell it I would want "my day in court" as well.
I don't think the lawsuit is frivolous, it is their right.
I hate the bible park idea, but on the other hand if I owned the land and felt like I didn't get a fair opportunity to sell it I would want "my day in court" as well.
I don't think the lawsuit is frivolous, it is their right.
By: peri_winkle on 9/22/08
I agree w/constant on all counts--against the park (for the same reasons as hikerman), but not against the lawsuit. getting this into court is the only way to resolve the zoning ordinance issues. with that done, we'll know what we're up against next time.
I agree w/constant on all counts--against the park (for the same reasons as hikerman), but not against the lawsuit. getting this into court is the only way to resolve the zoning ordinance issues. with that done, we'll know what we're up against next time.
By: Farmall on 9/24/08
Good luck with the property rights issue, if the supreme court is any example.
Good luck with the property rights issue, if the supreme court is any example.
By: lifelibandprop on 9/24/08
Like the BPU idea or not, this is not a frivolous lawsuit. These property owners where subjected to a strict 2/3 vote in a rezoning request when the average property owner's request requires only a simple majority. That is a legal double standard and is completely immoral. I do not recall the portion of the constitution that addresses due process stating that unequal "due process" was permisable if the "neighbors don't like what your doing".
Like the BPU idea or not, this is not a frivolous lawsuit. These property owners where subjected to a strict 2/3 vote in a rezoning request when the average property owner's request requires only a simple majority. That is a legal double standard and is completely immoral. I do not recall the portion of the constitution that addresses due process stating that unequal "due process" was permisable if the "neighbors don't like what your doing".
Login and voice your opinion!