Here is the current version of the legislation in question: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/2003%5F0/hb0977p1152.htm
First, I don't see anything in the legislation suggesting that the taxpayers would pay the costs borne by private parties. I think it is more akin to the rights of community groups to appeal zoning cases; the group chooses to bear the costs if it decides it is important enough to pursue the case through the courts.
Second, Bill, you are too intelligent to have mistakenly interpreted Mr. Hoffman's post as supporting a pursuit of
"public policy agendas through the courts." Mr. Hoffman makes passing reference about the legislation that "in context it harkens to the "private attorneys general movement" that sought to empower individuals and communities to pursue public policy agendas through the courts." If you want to make an overblown ideological argument about it, go ahead, but we see right through you and it lessens our respect for your other mostly worthwhile postings.
Third, the legislation is bi-partisan, so you can have your Loony Left and eat your Radical Right, too.
Andy Frishkoff
| "William H. Magill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/2004 12:26 PM
|
To: University City List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Subject: Re: [UC] Fw: [phillyblocks] Interesting proposal: Enable neighborhood groups to file complaints directly |
On 21 Jul, 2004, at 22:45, Mark Krull wrote:
> There has been a partial solution to the problems you identify
> floating around in the legislature for some years--- the idea of
> enabling parties in interest, including neighbors and neighborhood
> organizations to file exterior code complaints and if they are not
> acted upon by the municipality, enabling the party in interest to
> pursue the issue in court. I don't know how the bill's sponsor (who as
> I recall was Rep. Kirkland from Chester) came upon this idea, but in
> context it harkens to the "private attorneys general movement" that
> sought to empower individuals and communities to pursue public policy
> agendas through the courts.
Dammm ... you gotta love those Lawyers ... er Legislators -- doing
their part to create jobs in America!!!!
> One could envision community based organizations receiving training in
> code enforcement (one wouldn't want a system of harrassing your
> neighbor through the courts) and pursuing complaints in part in lieu
> (and perhaps financially supported by) of L&I. The bill has been
> bottled up by property owners and the City's legislative delegation
> has historically not been willing to do much to push this bill.
... and getting the Taxpayers to finance both the jobs created and to
guarantee their salaries to boot!
Way cool dude!
I guess I should consider a career change. Government Job Retraining
funds should easily cover this. And it would be tax deductible as well.
Of course this cuts both ways...
Just think, we could use this movement to go back to enforcing "Blue
Laws." Not to mention all of those laws on the books which the Police
and Judicial System prefer to "negotiate" rather than enforce... If
your neighbor plays their TV too loud after 10PM don't tell them to
turn it down, simply slap them with a government-paid-for lawsuit. BAM!
If Kyle's neighbors toss trash out their windows. BAM! If "Cafe
Society" blocks your passage on the sidewalk.BAM!
But the good news is: we can finally do-in all of those Dogs running
loose in Clark Park!...BAM! Getting the rooster will be harder, but
we'll get 'm too!...BAM!
Just think of how many more "process servers" this will employ (all
patronage jobs)! And how many more Judges we'll need to handle the case
loads! Maybe this is simply a way to bring back the old Magistrates
Court System ... where the presiding officer doesn't need ANY legal
training -- You just "pays your money and gets your verdict."
You'll note that a large part of this description/discussion has
nothing to do with enforcing existing law. It's purpose is to "Pursue
public policy agendas through the courts." Or as the Right would put
it, "To legislate through Judicial Fiat."
This is one of the most asinine ideas I've heard put forward by the
Loony Left in years. (Note that if the Radical Right had made such a
proposition, it would be decried as Fascist.)
Hey, hey Ayatollah, you created a Theocracy -- well, we're going to see
you and raise you one. You can have your Sharia; we have Torts. We're
going to create a "Litocracy." nayna, nayna boo boo.
The mind reels with possibilities!!!
And just for the record: the Radical Right and the Loony Left only
differ in WHO gets to dictate what you are allowed to do. The goal of
both groups is identical: to dictate to you what you can and cannot do.
T.T.F.N.
William H. Magill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
