DiogenesDog
Zen Bonobo
In my county there are two cases that are in the courts that are very
troubling.
One has to do with an elected property appraiser who was the recipient
of a piece of marginal property in a remote subdivision. In the
following years, the property surrounding the appraisers property was
built on to about 99% build out. The property came to him from a
developer who held the mortgage, transfered the deed and then forgave
the mortgage. The developer and the appraiser were friends ever
after.
The property in question sits astride a creek that is flood prone and
is covered in rank growth of trees and under story plants that are to
be found in such areas. A good part of the creek runs through various
easements, dedicated parks land and highway ditches that are
maintained for drainage by three different government entities. The
property in question has sat undisturbed for 20 years or more. It is
the only piece of private property that abuts or sits astride the
creek.
The property has alway been taxed at a minimal value because it was
just not the kind of ground over which a conventional house could be
built. It is part of a drainage system and is subject to broad
flooding four or five times a year in non-hurricane years and more
often in hurricane years. A couple of years ago the entire ditching
and draining watershed was cleared within the confines of the creek
bottom and its immediate banks. The property owned by the appraiser
was included by error but without intent of harm to the owner.
The appraiser owner discovered the work and then sued the county for
its otherwise innocent intrusion for the general good of the
neighborhood. The property had been on the tax rolls for bottom of
the barrel taxation that the appraiser had assisted in by being the
one who had made the appraisal on his "gift land" from a developer.
When he discovered the work and sued he valued his land for purposes
of the suit at 10 times the long standing appraisal that he had
himself put on it. He enlisted the aid of the county attorney and
the chief executive of the administrative body that is the action arm
of the county commission. As a result they are found complicit in a
scheme of criminal intent and are dismissed. The appraiser is an
elected official and so he stays on.
The appraiser has, however, just announced that he will not seek re-
election and will go into retirement with his $80K a year county
pension intact and he will be allowed to keep the money that he got
from the county for the property. His defenders say that all his
intentions, actions and outcomes are just good business for him as an
individual. The fired attorney and the administrative executive got
what they deserved for their complicity in anything that might not be
"just exactly right".
The background of the story is here.
Something is way out of kilter in my estimation. What do you think
without giving into "yes, but" or reading into the narrative some
assumption of your own.
Two. In my county a 17 year old son of a low brow entertainment
celebrity crashed his car on a downtown city street. Witnesses say
that his rate of speed and maneuvering in traffic was such as that
seen in street racing You-Tube Videos. There was another racer
involved. He was driving a vehicle owned personally by the celebrity
father of the young driver. When the young driver crashed his car
into a tree, the other driver fled and did not return to the scene for
many minutes. Shortly after, the celebrity himself appeared on the
scene and began a blustery display of "in-chargeness" until his act
was countered by law enforcement. The young driver of the crashed
car has a long history of driving infractions dating from the day he
was awarded a learner's permit. He was wearing a seat belt. His
passenger was not. The passenger was a near twenty year old military
man just returned from his second tour in Iraq. He still had time to
serve on his initial enlistment and had made his intentions known that
he would make the military his career. He is now in a near vegetative
state and displays minimal response to those around him. His military
life is over. His divorced parents are fighting over his estate and
care. The lawyers for the 17 year old driver are laying blame for
injury on the young soldier for not wearing a seatbelt.
The background of the story is here.
In both cases it is clear to me who benefited from status and
celebrity.
Am I missing something?
I AM
troubling.
One has to do with an elected property appraiser who was the recipient
of a piece of marginal property in a remote subdivision. In the
following years, the property surrounding the appraisers property was
built on to about 99% build out. The property came to him from a
developer who held the mortgage, transfered the deed and then forgave
the mortgage. The developer and the appraiser were friends ever
after.
The property in question sits astride a creek that is flood prone and
is covered in rank growth of trees and under story plants that are to
be found in such areas. A good part of the creek runs through various
easements, dedicated parks land and highway ditches that are
maintained for drainage by three different government entities. The
property in question has sat undisturbed for 20 years or more. It is
the only piece of private property that abuts or sits astride the
creek.
The property has alway been taxed at a minimal value because it was
just not the kind of ground over which a conventional house could be
built. It is part of a drainage system and is subject to broad
flooding four or five times a year in non-hurricane years and more
often in hurricane years. A couple of years ago the entire ditching
and draining watershed was cleared within the confines of the creek
bottom and its immediate banks. The property owned by the appraiser
was included by error but without intent of harm to the owner.
The appraiser owner discovered the work and then sued the county for
its otherwise innocent intrusion for the general good of the
neighborhood. The property had been on the tax rolls for bottom of
the barrel taxation that the appraiser had assisted in by being the
one who had made the appraisal on his "gift land" from a developer.
When he discovered the work and sued he valued his land for purposes
of the suit at 10 times the long standing appraisal that he had
himself put on it. He enlisted the aid of the county attorney and
the chief executive of the administrative body that is the action arm
of the county commission. As a result they are found complicit in a
scheme of criminal intent and are dismissed. The appraiser is an
elected official and so he stays on.
The appraiser has, however, just announced that he will not seek re-
election and will go into retirement with his $80K a year county
pension intact and he will be allowed to keep the money that he got
from the county for the property. His defenders say that all his
intentions, actions and outcomes are just good business for him as an
individual. The fired attorney and the administrative executive got
what they deserved for their complicity in anything that might not be
"just exactly right".
The background of the story is here.
Something is way out of kilter in my estimation. What do you think
without giving into "yes, but" or reading into the narrative some
assumption of your own.
Two. In my county a 17 year old son of a low brow entertainment
celebrity crashed his car on a downtown city street. Witnesses say
that his rate of speed and maneuvering in traffic was such as that
seen in street racing You-Tube Videos. There was another racer
involved. He was driving a vehicle owned personally by the celebrity
father of the young driver. When the young driver crashed his car
into a tree, the other driver fled and did not return to the scene for
many minutes. Shortly after, the celebrity himself appeared on the
scene and began a blustery display of "in-chargeness" until his act
was countered by law enforcement. The young driver of the crashed
car has a long history of driving infractions dating from the day he
was awarded a learner's permit. He was wearing a seat belt. His
passenger was not. The passenger was a near twenty year old military
man just returned from his second tour in Iraq. He still had time to
serve on his initial enlistment and had made his intentions known that
he would make the military his career. He is now in a near vegetative
state and displays minimal response to those around him. His military
life is over. His divorced parents are fighting over his estate and
care. The lawyers for the 17 year old driver are laying blame for
injury on the young soldier for not wearing a seatbelt.
The background of the story is here.
In both cases it is clear to me who benefited from status and
celebrity.
Am I missing something?
I AM
