Wednesday, August 8, 2012

The Unusual

Today we are doing unusual stories.

I didn't know if I should laugh or cry at the following article:

Did they do the right thing by offering all their properties for back taxes?

Speaking of right or wrong the following article is a head shaker:

He was on his own property for goodness sake! The rainwater is his.

Still celebrating the unusual but in this case it is a darn good story:

Good for he cops!

Comment Away.


Pat said...

I have no idea whether that county should have sold off all the properties at once. If they just wanted to get rid of them, why not?

And to prosecute a guy for collecting rainwater on his own property is just absurd. Now if he's really diverting water from streams running into a major river, maybe that's different. I'm glad I don't really have the responsibility for deciding these things.

The third story has an "Oops" and doesn't exist or isn't available. I tried Googling, but got the same response there.

William J. said...

Hi Pat

I fixed the link on the third story, it should work now.

The problem I hard with the first story is that they could have made a lot more money by selling them separately. The man was made unjustly reach when others should have had the opportunity to purchase the property.

I am with the guy because he is on his own property. If they don't want him to divert water from a major stream they should pay him for an easement.


Lady DR said...

I don't have any problem with the county offering all properties for back taxes, so long as it was made clear, before the auction, properties could be bought as one block or as smaller blocks or individual properties. I'm okay with it, especially if McMachen does as he says - offers the properties to other interested parties at reasonable prices and, especially, if he uses some of the homes for charitable purposes. If he only bought them to make a huge profit by charging high rent to families who have lost their homes and have no option, then boo-hiss, but he doesn't seem to be that kind of guy.

It sounds like we're missing a couple paragraphs on the guy collecting rainwater. If he did admit to blocking water from streams to fill his reservoirs at an earlier point... Then again, if he really is collecting only rainwater and snow runoff (questions - is he collecting that from a stream?), then they're infringing on his rights as a property owner.

Yes, Good Cops! Stories like this make me grin. Thanks!

Lady DR said...

Okay, I see your point on making the extra money on selling them separately. However, the question becomes, had they sold them separately, how many auctions would it take to get rid of that many pieces of property and what would the cost of multiple auctions have been to the county? Most bidders would only be interested in the better properties, while this guy took the bad with the good.

Ah, so the stream runs through his property?

William J. said...


If he uses the homes for charitable purpuses and turn some into affordable homes then I am all for the guy. But I am skeptical.

Good question about if he is collecting the the water from the stream or the mountain runoff. I am assuming the stream is not on his property (but access to it is). I think they should pay him to stop diverting the water.

If like good stories like the cop story then tune in tomorrow there is the most charming story of a one hundred year-old man coming to you.


William J. said...


The stream doesn't run through his property is my guess but access to it does. I compare it to paying a man to cross his property to get to a well or an access road. He is on his property, can do what he wants unless the pay him not to in my book.

Good question about the inidivual costs of selling them separately. I just wonder if the county didn't need an immediate cash infusion and made a quick decision.