Skip to main content

Live in a trailer home where the land your trailer sits on was bought out by a company (owned by the former head of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources -- you can't make this crap up!) that wants to divert 3 million gallons of water per day to the hyfrofracking industry?  Welcome to your eviction notice:

Hey, they're just poor people who can't afford to move.  It must be their own fault, right?  Pollution concerns?  Pish posh.  The lives of families disrupted?  Who cares, right?  They are just collateral damage.  Just a bunch of white trash who are standing in the way of progress, energy independence and the American Dream.  Well at least the dream of Nicholas DeBenedictis, his tan, his expensive tailored suit and his American Flag pin.

Because if you are not as rich and connected as sexy St. Nick, you deserve every goddam miserable misfortune thrown at you in life.  Especially if you are just a kid.  I'm sure this will encourage all of these families to work harder to become part of the One Percent who deserve all the freedoms and liberties we can shower upon them. Or invest in lotto tickets.

Hydro-fracking is so great for Pennsylvania and its people, isn't it.  

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  that is powerfully sad stuff. (21+ / 0-)

    powerfully sad people.

    And for what.

    Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act. - Al Gore

    by Burned on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:45:55 AM PDT

    •  too bad they're going to blame Democrats n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, bumbi
      •  maybe Democrats should stop (10+ / 0-)

        praising fracking in their speeches.

        Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:19:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  they're doing it b/c they think these ppl want it (0+ / 0-)

          I think that a lot of Democrats have it in their heads that in places like Appalachia and West Penn, "Coal" and "Fracking" might as well be names of God: that which giveth and taketh away.  

          How would Appalachia react if the Democratic Party came out in favor of phasing out fossil fuels completely?  They'd say we were trying to take their jobs and starve their children.

          •  But they're wrong about fracking. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ColoTim, little lion, hazzcon

            Fracking is causing serious problems, including economic problems, to the working families in these areas. And given this diary, they apparently know that.

            And anyway, Appalachia might react differently if being in favor of phasing out fossil fuels went along with a package of solid, government-funded jobs at a living wage in wind, or producing solar panels, or some other section of the clean energy sector.  There's no reason why those jobs shouldn't be in Appalachia, and a lot of good reasons why they should be. None of us wants to create more unemployed in WV. With a little good sense and a working government, it's more than possible to get those people into jobs that won't end up requiring that rubble fouls their water supply and mountains that their ancestors lived and died on get the tops blown off of them.

            Honestly, with the correct investments, and without an austerity politics, we could certainly provide both training and new jobs for the miners.  With the right political system, this could be a win-win.  But "win-win" has been outlawed in Washington, the land of the zero sum game.

            Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:46:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  They doing this in North Dakota, also. (24+ / 0-)

    Meteor Blades did a piece on this in a recent Native News compilation.

    They want to evict tribal members.

  •  I, like most in WV (28+ / 0-)

    don't own the mineral rights to the land my trailer sits on.  Sometimes I have nightmares about coal companies coming and taking everything away.

    Or maybe it will be fracking.

    :sigh:

  •  Evironmental justice (23+ / 0-)

    the poorest people suffer the most. As long as the 1% can have their gated communities far away from that scene, they'll go on raping other people's human rights.

  •  Sad for those families (10+ / 0-)

    but this problem is not specifically related to fracking.  The simple fact is that anyone who is leasing or renting the area where they live is subject to being evicted when the owner from whom they are leasing/renting sells the property.  

    Some states provide a situation where you can record a lease/rental agreement, and then anyone who buys the property takes it subject to the leases, and can't evict until the leases expire.  Absent that, I've seen it happen over and over, where the owner sells, and the renter is evicted because the new owner intends to use the property for something else.  

    Your title is a bit misleading.  These people weren't displaced solely because of fracking.  Presumably, nothing would have happened if the owner had not sold the mobile home park.  Seems to me that the anger should be directed to the prior owner of the property where the mobile homes stood.  He/she made the decision to sell, and he/she made the decision to sell to someone who bought the property for the purpose of using it as something other than a mobile home park.  

    Once that owner sold to someone who wanted to use the property for something other than a mobile home park -- whether it was for fracking, for a building, or for a parking lot -- that new owner was going to evict those people and use the property for the purpose for which he/she bought it.  

    Yes, it's a sad situation.  But it's been replayed repeatedly whenever anyone lives in rental property and the owner of that rental property sells to someone who wants to use the property for something else.  

    •  bullshit (4+ / 0-)

      Fracking is the catalyst here. Stop trying to spin that.

      Bad is never good until worse happens

      by dark daze on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 08:40:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, selling the land is the catalyst. (8+ / 0-)

        If the property had not been sold, presumably these people would not have been evicted, fracking or no fracking. Hydraulic fracking is done underground, with a relatively small surface footprint, and with some option as to where to put the surface activities.  See here.  If this owner had not sold, the company presumably would have put the surface facilities on a different tract of land.  Fracking needs SOME surface facilities, but there is some flexibility as to where those facilities can be.  (I'm in Louisiana, where the oil and gas industry is huge.)  

        I suspect that the company wanting to do the fracking offered the owner a lot of money for his property, more than he could get by leasing for mobile homes -- otherwise, it would make no sense for him to sell his land.  If you want to blame the company, blame them for offering him enough money to make him want to sell his land.  Apparently, they didn't hide the reason they wanted to buy the property -- to change the use to surface facilities for fracking.  

        There are a LOT of critics of fracking on environmental grounds.  That's a different issue.  Here, if you want to focus on the reason why people are being evicted, the operative fact is  that the owner sold to someone who intended to use the property for something other than a mobile home park.  If the new owner wanted to build a parking lot, it would be the exact same situation -- these people would be evicted.  If the new owner wanted to build a fast food restaurant, it would be the exact same situation -- these people would be evicted. If the new owner wanted to build a water park, it would be the exact same situation -- these people would be evicted. The fact that the new use is fracking makes no difference to whether people are evicted.  No matter what the new use for the property was, they would be evicted.  

        The tragedy in this story is that these people are being evicted.  

        •  oh please (0+ / 0-)

          do insult me, the person who bought this area had ONE reason to do so, water rights. Look who bought the fucking land.

          Im so sick of insulting bullshit like this. You really think the sale and purchase was for something other than water rights and fracking?  really? are you that naive?  or are you just disengenious?

          Bad is never good until worse happens

          by dark daze on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:26:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That particular poster (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bumbi

            Is always on the side of the corporatists. Take a look at comment history. Just feed recipes in response, no need to

          •  I don't understand what you're objecting to here. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            Coffeetalk says nothing about this being for another purpose.  S/he just acknowledges that the owner of the land was offered a lot of money for their property and they sold it.  The owner didn't have to (they might have, but they didn't HAVE to) care what was going to happen to the residents who were about to be evicted.  I don't believe there would have been any legal obligation from the owner to the tenants.

            Sure the purchaser of the land did it for water rights so he could do fracking.  Why is that any kind of problem for the seller of the land?  It sure is a problem for the tenants, but legally, they had no legal right to the land nor any legal means to direct how it was used.  As is pointed out below, they can and should argue about what it is zoned for, and to make the local politicians and law enforcement make sure that all required laws are followed with the rezoning.  If they are being wronged, they should have their wrongs righted.  However, all coffeetalk is doing is pointing out that the seller has the right to sell the land and it's up to the purchaser to decide whatever they're going to do with the land, within legal boundaries.

            You can and are objecting to the next use being fracking, but that's not what coffeetalk is addressing.  Seems like you and s/he are talking past each other, and coffeetalk (and I) are not saying there's not a human tragedy here.  We're both saying there is.  It's just something that could happen whether or not fracking is the reason.

      •  coffeetalk is right though (11+ / 0-)

        unless you're going to make the argument that the land under the trailers wouldn't have been sold otherwise.

        this is a problem for trailer parks everywhere. You might own your trailer, but the land it sits on may not be yours at all. If the owner of that land sells it, well, sucks to be you if they decide to redevelop the property. you'll have to pick your trailer up and move it. It happens all over the place, fracking or no fracking, as coffeetalk notes.

        and that doesn't even get into the bizarreness that are mineral rights. you might own the surface but what's underneath it? nope. Very common in coal, oil, and gas producing regions. The rights to that property (and the courts consider subsurface minerals and resources to be property, unfortunately) might have been sold long before you ever came along or were even born, or before your parents were even born.

        (I live in a trailer, well, "manufactured home," but we DO own the land it sits on. No idea if we own the subsurface rights, but there's nothing under it anyway.)

        I'm struck by how the meanest, cruelest, nastiest people brag about how they live in a Christian nation. It's rather telling.

        by terrypinder on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:31:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your deed to the property (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bumbi

          may refer to a mineral reservation, if there is one.  If the preparer was lazy, it may just say "subject to all prior reservations, if any" - which is pretty worthless information.  If you have title insurance, that policy should note it.

          At least in Texas, but I would guess it is standard.  

          The truth always matters.

          by texasmom on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:08:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  of course IM going to argue that (0+ / 0-)

          what the fuck, how naive are you people?  

          Bad is never good until worse happens

          by dark daze on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:27:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  not naive at all (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, auron renouille, Audri, bumbi

            just saying that the sale of property that trailers sit on HAPPENS ALL THE GODMOTHERFUCKING TIME ALL OVER THE GODDAMN COUNTRY for WHATEVER REASON THE PROPERTY OWNER FEELS LIKE and your inability to SEE the tragedy in THAT is typical histrionic bullshit from the overly emotional unthinking set of scientific illiterates that infests daily kos your problem, not mine.

            I'm struck by how the meanest, cruelest, nastiest people brag about how they live in a Christian nation. It's rather telling.

            by terrypinder on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:33:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  typical (0+ / 0-)

              typical response but a typical, if not unremarkable poster.

              Unable to put 2 and 2 together, thats your problem not mine or people who are able to see things for what they are.

              Bad is never good until worse happens

              by dark daze on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:14:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  how naive do you have to be to think (0+ / 0-)

              that the  former head of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources , just happens to buy this trailer park.

              You really think he just buy trailer parks for fun?  as some type of investment?  please, my god, your lack of critical thinking skills is part of the problem of this country.

              Bad is never good until worse happens

              by dark daze on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:17:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Unfortunately, you're right. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coffeetalk, bumbi

          A co-worker of mine once lived in a trailer park that was sold to an apartment developer. Not only did she have to move but she had to pay to have her own trailer demolished (she owned the trailer but not the lot).

          Ask the homophobes against marriage equality this: "Would you rather see two gay men marry each other or one closet case marry your daughter and then cruise in parks?"

          by spacecadet1 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:15:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The Huffpo story is even more bizarre. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomFromNJ, bumbi

      Hands Across Riverdale: The Human Costs of Fracking

      The Riverdale Mobile Homes Park, nevertheless, has become an unlikely nexus of resistance to corporate power. When some of the families, led by Deb Eck and Kevin June, decided to resist the June 1 eviction date, they called for help from the outside. Activists from the anti-fracking movement and Occupy Wall Street quickly responded, and a makeshift blockade, which, as of June 2 is still in place, was set up to prevent Aqua America from starting construction on the pump station.
      The residents of Riverdale are not dirty hippies in their 20s, fresh from art school with large debts and useless liberal arts degrees.
      •  This seems to be the most operative part (8+ / 0-)

        of that article:

        The remaining occupants are currently in negotiation with the Aqua American Corporation, and there is a possibility that the process of re zoning the property as industrial and attempting to clear the site so quickly with a combination of threats and petty bribes was not completely legal.

        If the rezoning was not legal, the residents have some grounds to stand on.  (Presumably, however, it was the prior owner who got the property rezoned -- Aqua wouldn't have standing to do that until they owned the property, although they could have agreed to pay the prior owner's costs of rezoning  as part of the purchase price.)  If people want to resist this, that would seem to be the best route -- to challenge the legality of the rezoning that happened before the sale.  That might invalidate the sale to Aqua.

        If the rezoning and sale of property were legal, I'm not sure what grounds the residents have to resist.  The owner of the property has the right to use the land as he/she sees fit, staying within the bounds of the law.  

        •  but according to you (0+ / 0-)

          the rezoning and sale were just happenstance.  There was no thought to such a thing.  Just happened to go to a guy who happened to have insider knowledge on fracking, and this property just so happened to be rezoned, and just so happened to have water value etc etc

          Bad is never good until worse happens

          by dark daze on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:29:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I said no such thing. (5+ / 0-)

            I said the catalyst was the owner deciding to sell to someone who intended to change the use of the property.  

            I also suspect that Aqua helped the owner get the rezoning so that the owner could sell to Aqua.  If the rezoning was illegal, perhaps that would nullify the sale, and Aqua would get its money back from the owner and the owner would once again own the land.  In other words, the only way I see to pre-empt the eviction is to nullify the sale of the property.  

            That would only help these people if the owner then decides to keep the land rather than sell it to someone else.  If the owner sells the land to someone else, that someone else presumably is going to have the right to evict these people, no matter what business that new owner is in.  He may even have the right to evict these people because he wants to retool the trailer park and make more money in rent.  That's the inherent problem in a mobile home on land you do not own -- unless you get a lease that  is not only long term, but also is binding on any subsequent purchaser.  

            •  its called a fucking buy out (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil

              jesus, stop this insulting bullshit, some of us are smarter than you.  We see right through the bullshit.

              Bad is never good until worse happens

              by dark daze on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:18:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, its a well-recognized appraisal concept (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                terrypinder, ColoTim, VClib

                called "highest and best use."

                If you own a piece of land, and you're using it as a trailer park, and it could be more profitable if developed as the site of a commercial building, that's it's "highest and best use."  (The concept is a bit more complicated, and a lot of factors affect it, as that link shows.) An owner of real estate has an economic incentive to have that real estate used for, or sold to someone who will use it for, its "highest and best use" because that is what makes financial sense for the owner of the property.  

                It's an economic reality that creates hardship just like this for people living in mobile home parks all over this country.  

                •  and you make my initial point (0+ / 0-)

                  because suddenly with the advent of fracking in the area, and the need to divert and pollute millions of gallons of water , the mobile park suddenly gains and new highest and best use.

                  Hence my initial point- Fracking is the catalyst here.

                  Bad is never good until worse happens

                  by dark daze on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:18:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nope. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    VClib

                    The catalyst is the person who sold his trailer park.  Aqua -- the fracking company -- had no ability whatsoever to evict these people without that person electing to sell his property.  His property was worth more to HIM by selling than by use as a mobile home park.  He's the owner of the land.  He was the one who elected to cash in on the "highest and best use" of his own land.  Now, it was a reasonable economic decision for him to make.  But it was still his decision.  He could have decided that it was not worth the extra money he would get to disrupt these people's lives.  That would not have been smart economically, but that was still his decision.  He was the one who had the ability to prevent the evictions.  

                    If this person had not elected to have his property rezoned so he could sell it to Aqua, what most likely would have happened is that Aqua would have gone to a different landowner to buy property, the surface facilities necessary for the underground fracking operations would have been located on a different tract, and the people would be in their homes.  The surface facilities for underground fracking do not have to be in one particular spot on the surface. Aqua could have put those facilities elsewhere if this owner did not agree to have his property rezoned and sold.

                    But I have to tell you that rezoning property like this as industrial will typically, in and of itself, increase the value of the property.  So, the fact that he could get it rezoned (assuming the rezoning was legal) meant that he would have made more money selling it to somebody who was going to use it for industrial purposes, whether it was for the surface facilities for underground fracking or some other industrial purpose.  The rezoning is what increased the value of the "highest and best use" of the property.

                    •  what a bunch of shit (0+ / 0-)

                      Fracking is the the catalyst, to say otherwise is just beyond stupid.

                      Im not looking to sell my house, but if someone knows how to make money off it that I dont, and then offers me a ton of money and I sell, IM NOT the catalyst.

                      Christ give it up. Think before you type.

                      Bad is never good until worse happens

                      by dark daze on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:24:29 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  why did the owner if he did (0+ / 0-)

                      have it rezoned?  BECAUSE OF FRACKING in the area.

                      Bad is never good until worse happens

                      by dark daze on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:25:50 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  IF (0+ / 0-)

                      these companies werent in the area fucking things up with fracking, The owner never would of rezoned ( if he did) and would likely not have sold.  FRACKING is the variable  that changed things.

                      Bad is never good until worse happens

                      by dark daze on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:27:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  it is a buyout (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coffeetalk, ColoTim

                and it's obviously legal. if the people did not own the land their mobile home sits on, they will have to move when the land is sold and redeveloped. this can happen anywhere for any reason. THAT is the tragedy here. Lots of mobile home owners don't realize that when they buy one.

                these folks only bet is to challenge the zoning change. If they can get the zoning changed back to residential, they can prevail and hopefully stay in their homes.

                This is what people are saying in this tread up and down.

                I'm struck by how the meanest, cruelest, nastiest people brag about how they live in a Christian nation. It's rather telling.

                by terrypinder on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:32:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Mobile Homeowners Have it Worse (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      spacecadet1, Noddy, bumbi, terrypinder, ColoTim

      These aren't simply renters forced to move, but Mobile Homeowners. Moving a Mobile home is expensive and you have to find someplace to move it to. A lot of mobile homes aren't really mobile but are more like prefab houses intended to permanently sit where they are first placed. Generally buying a mobile home is a lot like buying a condo. You expect  to live in the same mobile park that it is currently sitting.

       Some of these people may own the mobile home outright and some of them probably are paying off loans but either way they stand to loose a lot of money if they can't afford to move them somewhere else. Selling them considering they have to be moved seems unlikely on such short notice.

      The big problem is that mobile home owners have almost no rights anywhere. They can be forced to move their mobile home (which is likely not very mobile) within 3-5 days of receiving notice and people who own them rarely realize how fragile their living arrangements are unless they own the land that the mobile home is sitting on.

      •  Very true. It's a problem inherent in the (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bumbi, terrypinder, dfe, VClib

        nature of the "mobile" home when it is situated on property owned by someone else.

        I've seen a number of times when mobile home parks have closed because the owner sold out and the new owner wants to develop it into something else. It happens most often when the property where the mobile homes sit becomes more valuable for some other use.  

        The big problem is that mobile home owners have almost no rights anywhere. They can be forced to move their mobile home (which is likely not very mobile) within 3-5 days of receiving notice and people who own them rarely realize how fragile their living arrangements are unless they own the land that the mobile home is sitting on.
        Sadly, I don't know how many mobile home owners realize this.  At the very least, this kind of situation may make mobile home owners take notice of their own situations, look at the papers they signed so as to be where they are, and determine what rights, if any, that they have if the owner decides to sell the property.  
  •  This diary has been promoted (6+ / 0-)

    in today's What's Happenin'? Blog Posts of Interest section.


    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 08:16:33 AM PDT

  •  Aonther horrible Corpro-Facism story (6+ / 0-)

    Fracking is going to poison all the groundwater in this country. By the time people realize the Eco-disaster that's unfolding, the crooks will be living in Paraguay with their loot.

    Gee if only we had a Democratic President - WHO ACTED LIKE A DEMOCRAT.

    There's enough on this planet for everyone's needs but not for everyone's greed. ~ Gandhi

    by CitizenOfEarth on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 08:35:45 AM PDT

  •  Trailer park owner's name? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    What's the name of the owner of the trailer court? Time to put his face forward for all to see!

  •  Capitalism. (4+ / 0-)

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:54:23 AM PDT

  •  blame the victims (9+ / 0-)

    This reminds me of what happened to many poor families, mostly of color, when their homes were razed to make way for Urban Renewal projects.  It is almost always the poor who suffer the most under the guise of "progress."

    The sale of the trailer park may have been the catalyst, but what is really driving this is the unbridled greed of capitalism and our desire for cheap energy.  The bottom line for me is that "fracking" regardless of the location has been shown to be a very dangerous tool to extract fossil based fuels and should be banned before a major portion of our groundwater is destroyed.  

    The poor who lived in this trailer park now have no place to go because the rents in the nearby town have skyrocketed due to the fracking workers coming in and driving up the rental rates.  It is easy for you armchair quarter backs to say that they should know that they could be evicted at any time because they do not own the land underneath their trailers.  Yeah, that is the American way.  These people are poor and their ability to choose where they can live is very limited.  They cannot pick up and move easily. This lack of empathy is indicative of the crassness of too many in this country who somehow always seem to be able to make it the fault of the victims.  

    "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

    by gulfgal98 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:26:27 AM PDT

    •  gulfgal - we all have lots of empathy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim, gulfgal98

      People are just pointing out that the unfortunate mobile home owners have a very poor legal position. However, there may be a way to challenge the rezoning and that looks like their best chance.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:11:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know this type of situation very well (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        I worked for over 31 years as a land use planner in local government and saw how the poor were treated when a developer came to town waving money.  Poor people would tell me that they felt very disenfranchised by the government and that they were often afraid to speak up because no one cared about them.  And that was in a community in which the elected officials were more sensitive to the poor than most.

        "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

        by gulfgal98 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:54:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  gulfgal - it's a balancing act (0+ / 0-)

          There is a fundamental right for the land owner to sell their property and land always seeks it's highest and best use. The issue becomes treating all parties fairly, if a rezoning is required. Many communities require the developer to pay for relocation as a condition of the rezoning approval.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:09:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  To compound the sadness, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim, gulfgal98

      it seems for many that they thought they were "finally" setting down roots and becoming part of the community (instead of just being renters).

      I hope it turns out that the re-zoning was illegal so that these people have some basis for staying where they are.

  •  What a guy, (4+ / 0-)

    Red Cross Citizen of the Year  Award to the stunningly tanned, Mr. DeBenedictis.

    I didn't know the award was for creating clientele for the Red Cross...

    -6.25 -5.3 If I ever leave this world alive The madness that you feel will soon subside...

    by dansk47 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:34:29 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site