hasn't been allowed inside public property for a very long time. This is
different. the land owners actions, or lack thereof, is causing deaths on
public property. Obviously the owner should be held liable.
-----Original Message-----
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 9:40 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: one for heald
yeah it does :) fwiw I agree with you -- if this parcel of land is causing
fatal accidents I think the government should yes, strongly encourage that
it be planted. Doesn't seem like a lot to ask, considering. It just reminded
me of your stance on the smoking issue and I wondered if you would disagree.
Dana
>dispose of private property?? I am not sure what you mean. If the land
>owner is causing accidents than he should be held liable. Also the
>interstate system was originally a department of defense project. I
think
>that it is still important to the national security of the United States.
>That being the case I think that the government must take some
>responsibility as to the solution to this problem.
>
>Does that answer the question?
>
>Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 8:16 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: one for heald
>
>
> just curious whether he would still say the right to dispose of private
>property is absolute in cases such as:
>
> http://www.gallupindependent.com/043004pitch.html
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
