Wed
May 22 2013
09:23 pm
By: Roane-Voter
So I've noticed that the grass lot that sits between Ruby Tuesday and Los Primos in Harriman hasn't been mowed in months. It is a real eye sore and I'm sure hurting Ruby's business. Today someone told me that Ruby Tuesday has maintained that lot since they opened the store but that the lot isn't actually part of the property on which the restaurant and parking lot sit. Ruby's paid to have the lot mowed each time the grass on Ruby's actual lot was mowed. However, recently Ruby's was served with a court order saying that Ruby's could no longer have the lot mowed. Which is why it looks like it does now. Apparently the owner is wanting to sell the lot and is essentially trying to force Ruby's into purchasing the lot by not allowing the lot to be maintained thus creating the eye sore. Pretty despicable tactic if you ask me. I hope Ruby's doesn't cave.
Would the lot's owner have any actual recourse if Ruby's continued to mow the lot? I mean is a judge or jury actually going to believe that the lot owner is being harmed by having his lot maintained for free?
|
Topics:
|
Eco warriors and politics
- DoD tweaks organized religion list after complaints of Latter-day Saints snub (TN Lookout)
- Knox County votes to challenge Tennessee’s book ban law after “Roots” removal (TN Lookout)
- At a Tennessee hospital, a nurse stole fentanyl and AI missed it, state records say (TN Lookout)
- Trump to pump $700M into coal power in the states, as he again blasts renewable energy (TN Lookout)
- US Senate blocks Trump’s SAVE America Act, thwarting restrictions on voting (TN Lookout)
- Shelby district attorney balks at state move to dismiss legal challenges (TN Lookout)
- Lawsuit seeks to halt Tennessee law making illegal immigration a state crime (TN Lookout)
- US Senate launches marathon session to pass nearly $70B for ICE, Border Patrol (TN Lookout)
Science and stuff
- Some pterosaurs may have boasted bold iridescence (Science News Daily)
- A drug may help people on GLP-1 meds preserve muscle (Science News Daily)
- AI cracked an Erdős math problem. Now experts want guardrails (Science News Daily)
- NASA declares MAVEN, its Mars atmosphere orbiter, dead (Science News Daily)
- Honeybees and shrimp are now getting vaccinated (Science News Daily)
- This tiny, blue octopus is new to science (Science News Daily)
- Remote workers feel isolated. Back-to-office mandates are not a fix (Science News Daily)
- Bumblebees can solve problems on their own (Science News Daily)
- Even quiet black holes create winds, new Milky Way observations reveal (Science News Daily)
- A secret to making a queen bee may lie in the wax around it (Science News Daily)
Discussing
- America As It Is Right Now (1 reply)
- Maybe it's time to reenergize RoaneViews...Or does anyone have a better idea? (2 replies)
- The Constitution Won, Trump Lost in Colorado...Now What? (1 reply)
- Our Very Own George Santos, TN GOP Congressman Ogles is Pretty Much Insane (1 reply)
- Destroying Jim Jordan, All Without Mentioning Jordan's Support For Sexual Abusing Athletes (1 reply)
- Want to See Who Owns Your State Senators and Reps? (1 reply)
- 9-11 Strangest Uninvestigated Fact (2 replies)
- It's Gettin' Real, Now...Gloria Johnson Made Wonkette! (1 reply)
- Does Rep Fritts Want School Shooters to Have Access to AR 15s? (2 replies)
- How many Trees Died Trying Save Us From Global Warming? (1 reply)
- Feel Good Friday,,,From our "If Only" Dept. (1 reply)
- Tennessee Education Worsens Under Bill Lee and GOP (1 reply)
Lost Medicaid Funding
To date, the failure to expand Medicaid / TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding.
Sponsors
Brother Websites
Other "Views":
Local Interest:
Folks that Help:
Progressiveness:
Local News Media:
Local Government:
Candidates:
Local Interest:
Folks that Help:
Progressiveness:
- All Hat No Cattle
- American Progress
- Campaign for America's Future
- Daily KOS
- digby
- Paul Krugman
- Talking Points Memo
- Whitehouse.gov
Local News Media:
Local Government:
- City of Harriman
- City of Harriman Code
- City of Kingston
- City of Kingston Code
- City of Oliver Springs
- City of Oliver Springs Code
- City of Rockwood
- City of Rockwood Code
- Congressman Charles 'Chuck' J. Fleischmann
- Rep. Kent Calfee
- Rep. Ron Travis
- Roane County
- Roane Schools
- St. Sen. Ken Yager
Candidates:
Property Rights
Whether we think it needs mowimg or not, the actual owner has property rights. The owner of the property is a lawyer. Even thought I think it would look better mowed, I support the property owner.
Do the property owner's
Do the property owner's rights outweigh the other property owner's rights? So the lot shouldn't be maintained even though the law requires it to be?
Yes, the property owner has
Yes, the property owner has "rights" to his property; his neighor, a large corporation, nor a stranger do not have "property rights" to someone else's land. What rights does your neighbor have to your property? Do they have the right to do whatever they want? No. If that was the case then the property owner really doesn't have any rights. This country fought to have rights to what is ours.
What we have is a case of trespassing and bullying. When they entered this property to mow without permission, they were trespassing. If they had gotten hurt who would have been liable? What if you didn't like the color of your neighbors house or mail box? Should you go over and change it? This is a case of the neighbor bulling the property owner, even if you say they were doing him a favor. They had no right to force their will on him/his property.
If he was in violation of a law for not mowing, then they should have addresses it through the city and not steal rights from their neighbor. I suppose the land owner is returning this land to a natural green space. Is there anything wrong with that?
If law enforcement doesn't understand and respect property rights, then where are we as a society? Is it just a "bully" wins, the biggest guy takes what he wants society? I hope not!
Huh? This is a commercial
Huh? This is a commercial lot in the middle of other commercial property. This isn't someone's house. This isn't a greenway. Your exaggerated examples serve no purpose in this specific discussion. It seems the only bullying going on is by the property owner who refuses to maintain his property to cause problems for the adjacent property owner because that property owner would not buy the lot.
The actual owner of that lot
The actual owner of that lot is Gerald Largen. Ruby Tuesday's has essentially tried to have that lot as part of their lawn and landscaping without paying for it. Regardless of what the Tea Party says about Gerald, he's a very kind and reasonable man. His asking price was, at one time quite reasonable, but, since Ruby T messed with him repeatedly, I suspect things may be different now.
How did they "mess with
How did they "mess with him"? I fail to see how Ruby's would be at fault for not purchasing a patch of grass. They maintained the lot for years at no cost to the owner. Ruby's didn't use it as a parking lot they simply cut the grass. What the owner is doing is essentially extortion. But since he's a friend of this site apparently that's okay. I wonder if a Tea Party member behaving the same way would get a pass on similar behavior?
Extortion?
You have it backwards. Extortion is trying to take something that is not yours by forceful means. The property owner "owns" his property and can uses it as he sees fit within the law. The neighbor forcing their use (mowing) on the Propery owner is theft.
I would assume Tea Party members would support property owner rights as they claim to not like people trampling on their rights. That is what's happening here.
How could those trusted to enforce laws have this one so wrong?
Theft? Do you understand
Theft? Do you understand any of the concepts being discussed here? What theft is being committed? Please explain how mowing a vacant lot is in any way shape or form a theft?
Trying to take something that is not yours by forceful means is ROBBERY not extortion. Extortion is using coercion to deprive someone of something of value. In this case the property owner not maintaining his property to harm the business of Ruby Tuesday in order to force them to buy his useless piece of property is the extortion.
What laws are being enforced here? The only one who is in violation of the law (Harriman Ordinance) appears to be the owner who refuses to maintain his property. I don't understand why Harriman officials ARE NOT enforcing their own ordinance. And, if it is, as another on here has suggested, because they are afraid of the property owner then Harriman needs new officials. If the laws are only applicable to those who won't rock the boat then what's the point in having the ordinance in the first place.
Property has several layers
Property has several layers to its legal rights: mineral rights, air rights, etc. Oil companies just can't start pumping oil from under a neigboring property. They have to purchase those rights.
Just because you view the mowing as a nice favor, it is in fact trampling on the property owners right to their own property. You just have a lack of respect or misunderstand of property rights. If they are not breaking the law by trespassing through the nice favor of mowing Largen's lot, then why did they stop? It was because they were breaking the law. Even mowing can be taking something that's not yours.
If my memory serves me correctly, then here's another real life example - A couple of years ago even Whitescreek had people wanting to open a road on his property without his will or permission. The neighbors/trespassers had used the road for years (I assume without permission). Whitescreek shut the road down as it was "his" property. The road bed grew naturally up. Those trespassers went to the government to attempt to take property rights from Whitescreek. They basically wanted it cleared and opened, just like you want Largen's property. If this could happen to Whitescreek and Largen, then it could happen to any of us. As Americans we own the property that we purchase and all the rights that go along with it. If someone else tries to take our property then it's theft.
Apples and oranges. You
Apples and oranges. You cite examples of actual property rights issues but fail to answer the central question to THIS issue. Ruby's mowed the lawn for years at no cost to the other lot owner. They only stopped because he threatened to sue Ruby's if they didn't stop maintaining his property. But he refuses to maintain the property in what seems like an attempt to harm Ruby Tuesday's business. I've heard to force Ruby Tuesday's into purchasing the lot. My question is what possible damage is being done to the property or property owner by the lot being maintained? What would the grounds of his lawsuit be? By not maintaining his lot he seems to be the one breaking the law and potentially damaging the other property owner's rights (Ruby Tuesday's).
No one is trying to take the owner's property. The business was simply maintaining the lot because it sits in front of their business and having an eye sore in front of your business (especially a restaurant) is not a good thing. Now mind you the property owner himself is required to maintain the property by law. If he didn't want Ruby Tuesday to maintain it at no cost to him then fine. But his refusal to maintain the lot shouldn't get a pass. He should have to obey the same legal process he used to make Rubys stop mowing his lot and maintain it himself now at his expense.
So mowing is stealing? Please tell me what was being taken? I don't think I'm the one who misunderstands or refuses to respect property rights. You seem to think one person's property rights trumps every one else's.
Let's say your neighbor wanted you to buy his house but you didn't want or need a house right beside yours and it served no purpose to you. Your neighbor became upset that you wouldn't buy his house so he decided to cease to maintain his house to force you to buy it to keep from hurting your property value. Now the yard is overgrown the windows are broken trees are falling down old cars are piled up in the front yard. The yard is full of mice and rats and all sorts of other vermin. You're telling me you'd be okay with that because after all it's his property and his right to maintain it however he sees fit no matter the consequence to the other property owners in the neighborhood?
The real key here is the
The real key here is the fact that I don't think Largen really "wants" to sell the property as he doesn't have to. When you don't want to sell something and someone else badly wants it, people often ask more. This gives the message that you are not interested in selling it. Happens every day, but it's not extortion; it is the free market.
Keep in mind that Largen is not after money in this stage of his life or for the past 20 years. He just donated a large portion of his prime lake property (worth millions of dollars) to the community. Largen most often fights for the principle. It's hard to win over someone with nothing to lose when he is focused on principle only.
Rudy Tuesday's Real Estate Department (lawyers) should have identified this potential risk when they built in Harriman. They could have purchased the property out right or they could have purchased leaseholder rights to maintain it for a certain period of time. They didn't do their own due diligence. It is not anyone else fight, but Rudy Tuesdays.
Your minor issue of not mowing the grass can be settled by the City of Harriman or in court. I care less about the grass than I do protecting someone's actual property rights. Have you seen Largen's yard at this house? It's natural. Mowing or conforming to society's demands is apparently not a priority for him. I support his individual rights. You want to argue grass, while I want to defend our residents' rights. The logical discussion stops there. Have fun mowing.
Nice dodge of the issue.
Nice dodge of the issue. I'm not sure logical discussion ever started with you but thanks.
Extortion?
You have it backwards. Extortion is trying to take something that is not yours by forceful means. The property owner "owns" his property and can uses it as he sees fit within the law. The neighbor forcing their use (mowing) on the Propery owner is theft.
I would assume Tea Party members would support property owner rights as they claim to not like people trampling on their rights. That is what's happening here.
How could those trusted to enforce laws have this one so wrong?
HOW...
HOW are those "entrusted to enforce laws" doing anything wrong. They are leaving the property alone so far. They would be within their legal rights if they cited him to city court and let the court decide if the property violated city code. The enforcers are doing nothing.
RB
Exactly! I have as much
Exactly! I have as much issue with the city's lack of action on this as I do with the property owner threatening legal action over mowing an empty lot. What possible damages can the property owner claim from the lot being maintained? Just another way our judicial system is corrupted and used for frivolous actions wasting tax payer time and money.
Doesn't Harriman have any
Doesn't Harriman have any ordinances regarding property upkeep?
upkeep
I believe I Harriman does have some ordinances on unkempt property. I have read about them clearinog lots etc in the past. Perhaps they are unaware of the issue, or maybe they don't want to incur the wrath of Mayor of Lick Skillet.
I don't know how they could
I don't know how they could be unaware. I am sure the city leaders remember the $250K lawsuit filed last August and/or have driven by the parking lot and seen the grass. I imagine it is the latter. They probably want to stay on Mr. Largen's good side.
I always thought those ordinances were for sanitation purposes - like minimizing a place for vermin. Seems like an area between 2 restaurants would be a priority. I also think Harriman would want the properties at the interstate exchange maintained to promote Harriman's image. Maybe the city is getting to big for them to properly manage.
Other priorities
Harriman is putting all their attention on the New Harriman aka Midtown. But that is a whole different thread, better addressed elsewhere.
Actually, they're not putting all their attention in Midtown
This is a pretty big endeavor they're working on that has nothing to do with Midtown and everything to do with Downtown...
(link...)
RB
Read about this, but it
Read about this, but it doesn't get the coverage annexation etc does. And you know what they say about perception is reality.
It's much newer than annexation...
It couldn't have had the coverage and exposure that annexation has had. This project is only a few weeks old. They've done an excellent job with their presentation and website. Something brand new won't be in the memory like something that has been around forever.
RB
Harriman Code, as linked to here on RoaneViews...
"13-103. Weeds and grass. Every owner or tenant of property shall
periodically cut the grass and other vegetation commonly recognized as weeds
on his property, and it shall be unlawful for any person to fail to comply with an order by the building inspector to cut such vegetation when it has reached a height of over one (1) foot. (1974 code, sec. 8-407, modified)"
An note to this code citation provided the following extra information:
"Municipal code reference
Section 13-103 applies to cases where the city wishes to prosecute the
offender in city court. Section 13-104 can be used when the city seeks
to clean up the lot at the owner's expense and place a lien against the
property for the cost of the clean-up but not to prosecute the owner in
city court."
(The "Section 13-104" that the note mentioned is the one about overgrown and dirty lots which can ultimately be forced to be cleaned up an owner's expense. It is a different section than the 103 that has to do with weeds and grass.)
The section for overgrown and dirty lots has some specific enforcement provisions attached as part of it. The 13-102 section, addressing only weeds and grass, has no enforcement instructions with it. I quoted it in its entirety.
When I drove by it, it did not appear to be an area between two restaurants, but in front of Ruby Tuesday's. Are there other portions that belong to Largen that are not that little plot in front of Ruby's that are involved?
From previous exchanges that I have read of between Harriman and Largen, Harriman DOES want the properties to be maintained properly. I suspect that they are considering the financial risk versus benefit of a legal battle with Largen. Mr Largen, an intelligent and crafty barrister, is noted for his tenacity in court when he wants to be that way, regardless of how major or minor the issue may be. I say that not to belittle him, but out of having observed him in court on numerous occasions. I do not in the least belittle his courtroom skills. I'm saying that Harriman may well have a reasonable idea that to do battle with him in court could cost them more money than would be reasonable over such a small plot of land and some grass/weeds.
RB