Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who is right about the added cost, Weinbrecht or the editor?
That was a useful clarification in the column. (That the city's insurance is paying the tab from this point out.) It was interesting to note, though, that in the N&O article a couple of city council members themselves expressed concerns about cost. Still, to be complete the N&O could have referenced the insurance - maybe Cary officials failed to mention it? Of course, "cost" can encompass different things. Insurance pays Cary's legal fees. Does it pay the fees it has to pay to the homeowner if they lose again? Does it pay for staff time?
1) If Cary is hitting up the insurance company for further legal fees, what happens when premiums increase (maybe they are gov't regulated), and who decided when enough appealing is enough. It seems to me that calling in insurance for legal fees puts the insurance company in the drivers seat on how far to take the case.
2) Did Cary make a mistake by trying to enforce city ordinances in this case and open the door for their ordinances to be called into question. If it gets struck down aren't their more legal fees to get a new ordinances created.
I find it kind of strange how the town knew it would lose the court case and yet it decided to take on the case / fight in spite of this knowledge. Maybe it's a side of the legal system I just don't know about, sounds like a play to rack up extra legal fee no matter who pays the bills.
1) If Cary is hitting up the insurance company for further legal fees, what happens when premiums increase (maybe they are gov't regulated), and who decided when enough appealing is enough. It seems to me that calling in insurance for legal fees puts the insurance company in the drivers seat on how far to take the case.
2) Did Cary make a mistake by trying to enforce city ordinances in this case and open the door for their ordinances to be called into question. If it gets struck down aren't their more legal fees to get a new ordinances created.
I find it kind of strange how the town knew it would lose the court case and yet it decided to take on the case / fight in spite of this knowledge. Maybe it's a side of the legal system I just don't know about, sounds like a play to rack up extra legal fee no matter who pays the bills.
According to the article(s), they appealed knowing they would lose because it was "part of the process". I don't know if that means that after their appeal get denied they can request a new judge or what. Someone on this board that went to school a LOT longer than me can probably answer that.
According to the article(s), they appealed knowing they would lose because it was "part of the process". I don't know if that means that after their appeal get denied they can request a new judge or what. Someone on this board that went to school a LOT longer than me can probably answer that.
The word "appeal" is being used in different ways here. Before Cary could go to a higher court with an appeal, it first had to ask the lower court to "reconsider" its ruling (which is also being called an appeal). That motion for reconsideration is what they expected to lose (as almost always happens).
I'd like to see more discussion (like more details with an accurate timeline) of what I see is the root question without the facts being blurred.
Did the city try to enforce a city law on the size and location of a sign, or did it try to use the law to get the message itself suppressed? Also, someone here posted that they had seen water runoff drainage problems long before the road work. If the homeowner every complained, surely he did it in writing, and Cary could post those to confirm it.
I strongly agree that the house owner has (and should legally have) the right to put up a sign with a political message. But I also think the city (as representing the citizens of the town) has a right to 'reasonably' regulate that message's method of display.
A citizen should be able to put up a sign that says "The [insert political message here] is crap", but that sign should have limits based on serving the public good. It should be restricted similarly to all First Amendment limitations, IE: pornography, harming others by shouting "FIRE" in a theater type harm, slander, etc.
I can also see that the "harming others" example would apply if someone put up a massive interstate-type billboard in their residential neighborhood with cuss words for all the kids to see.
Maybe Cary should offer to replace his sign with one that says the same thing but in a size that meets the rules other front-yard political election signs have to meet. That way he gets his message out, but not at the expense of driving his neighbor's land values down and exposing kids to bad language.
From what I have seen, Cary said that the sign itself violated rules on size and color and were pretty careful not to say content. However, given the constraints of his property, I am not sure that he could have been seen with a normally allowable sign since his property now has such a huge hill above it. Maybe that was a factor in the judges thought process? Cary certainly has a long history of attempting to enforce the color and size of signs in other areas.
I never did any site surveys so I cant tell you for sure, he may well have had drainage issues before. However, I stand by my assertion from way back, that Cary should have bought the guy's house. Just go and try to cut down every tree in your yard in Cary, like they did, and see what happens.
Their solution of sticking a huge wall in front of his house is also a disgrace. I am sure they gave him some small amount of compensation for the actual square footage of land he lost and tried to get off cheap. What they have done has taken tens of thousands of dollars off the value of his porperty and made it practically unsellable.
Compare this picture from the Wakegov real estate site to now, there can be little doubt they have materially altered his propetry and in no small way.
In the end it would have been cheaper to have just paid him.
Wow! That picture really does say more than 1000 words. I've seen the 'after' pictures with the trees gone, the driveway routed through (and using up 80% of) the front yard over to the right side of the property where it could then reconnect with the main road.
I wonder if there has been any change in the Wake county tax records as to Tax Value of property???
I'd like to see more discussion (like more details with an accurate timeline) of what I see is the root question without the facts being blurred.
Did the city try to enforce a city law on the size and location of a sign, or did it try to use the law to get the message itself suppressed? Also, someone here posted that they had seen water runoff drainage problems long before the road work. If the homeowner every complained, surely he did it in writing, and Cary could post those to confirm it.
I strongly agree that the house owner has (and should legally have) the right to put up a sign with a political message. But I also think the city (as representing the citizens of the town) has a right to 'reasonably' regulate that message's method of display.
A citizen should be able to put up a sign that says "The [insert political message here] is crap", but that sign should have limits based on serving the public good. It should be restricted similarly to all First Amendment limitations, IE: pornography, harming others by shouting "FIRE" in a theater type harm, slander, etc.
I can also see that the "harming others" example would apply if someone put up a massive interstate-type billboard in their residential neighborhood with cuss words for all the kids to see.
Maybe Cary should offer to replace his sign with one that says the same thing but in a size that meets the rules other front-yard political election signs have to meet. That way he gets his message out, but not at the expense of driving his neighbor's land values down and exposing kids to bad language.
This is essentially the same thing as squelching his free speech rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
