The Chandler business group has recommended this many times, but to only be told that it was not legal to do. Evidently it is legal in Webster and they have started tagging nuisance properties with the owner's address, click here.
How effective is it? The next day the owner removed the sign and now she is being taken to court, click here, for larceny of property. Kudos to Webster.
WRRB/Telegram District City Council Forum 10/18
-
This forum is for all district council candidates; all candidates are here
today. Format: 14 total questions, 4 questions across districts (for all
candida...
6 months ago
5 comments:
I seriously doubt Webster's ordinance will stand up to a court challenge.
Off topic...
It looks like the tax rate debate in the city is being kept in the forefront rather than just the usual once a year push at rate setting time. Great piece in today's T&G from Beth Proko.
http://www.telegram.com/article/20110531/NEWS/105319936/1020
So if Worcester did put up such signs, do you think there would ever be one on 48 Mason St or the AUD or the imploded salt shed on E Mtn St or the dilapidated garage at the site of teh new Voke school or collapsing swimming pool facility at Holmes Field.
Remember the new sign ordinance doesnt apply to city owned propertiues, dittos for the nuisance ord, dittos for zoning ord. Next up ...maybe....new city owned vendor push carts that violate that ordiance. Remeber whats good for you aint nec. good for the city. CC's s/b asked why they exempted the city from it's own nusiance ord?
Municiplaites and government in general play by differrent sets of rules depending on who owns the nuisnace property.
Anyone counted how many city owned prperties have grass in excess of 12 inches?
Maybe Time for a protest in front of Worc Common Grds offices and if thats ineffective a move the protest to CM obriens office?
David, I agree with probably most all of what Ms. Proko wrote in the editorial.
After we tag all the nuisance properties, maybe we can have the niusance people don similar signage witht heir courthouse records.
Just think, if Vernon Hill park was a private piece of property, the owner would be in the process of being hauled to court for owning a niusance, which nuicsance the owner has no control over ....i.e gun incidence(s) on the property.
So now everyone over reacts to the Vernon hill incident. Does anyone really think the bad guys are going to be anywhere aorund Vernon hill park in the immediate future?. How ABOUT ALL L.L. COACHES OBTAIN A LTC?
She says she does not own the house. Bank owns it through bankruptcy court. I think the town is going to loose this one. If the hose does not belong to her, they have slandered her. If it does belong to her, they have no right to post that sign. Even if they did she has every right to take it down.
Post a Comment