U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-26-2014, 04:21 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,057,675 times
Reputation: 8970

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I'm for democracy and letting everybody live but you gotta have some respect. You just can't come in when people have a culture that's been laid down for generations and you come in and now s*** has gotta change because you're here? Get the **** outta here. You can't do that!


Mission Playground is Not For Sale - YouTube

But they think money makes them entitled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-27-2014, 09:51 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,830,658 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
But they think money makes them entitled.
Because the owner of the field, the City of San Francisco, took their money in exchange for a field reservation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2014, 11:52 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,955,202 times
Reputation: 1953
People will faux-rage over anything.

Booking fields is SOP with any big city Rec. Department where there are leagues and especially where fields are a scarce commodity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
But they think money makes them entitled.
And on the flip side there's the "I've lived here longer than you therefore I'm entitled to not follow the rules. This playground is 'my' turf and if I want to hog the field all day I will."

"I've lived here longer than you." That's the quintessential Philadelphia cop-out for any and all anti-social behavior.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2014, 08:14 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,057,675 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
People will faux-rage over anything.

Booking fields is SOP with any big city Rec. Department where there are leagues and especially where fields are a scarce commodity.



And on the flip side there's the "I've lived here longer than you therefore I'm entitled to not follow the rules. This playground is 'my' turf and if I want to hog the field all day I will."

"I've lived here longer than you." That's the quintessential Philadelphia cop-out for any and all anti-social behavior.

My favorite is "I've lived here only six weeks but I own my home, so that trumps your 25 years living here and therefore I can NIMBY you out of town."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2014, 09:39 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,955,202 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
My favorite is "I've lived here only six weeks but I own my home, so that trumps your 25 years living here and therefore I can NIMBY you out of town."
Sorry - what does that have to do with booking a field?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 04:01 AM
 
Location: Southern California
1,026 posts, read 1,115,122 times
Reputation: 2508
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
It sounds like your data is around 20 years too late.

DC is definitely at a peak right now. It is one of the most expensive cities in the country, and everyone wants to live there.

Philly is ascending pretty fast, if not really close to a peak.

Not sure about Cleveland.
Not quite everyone. You couldn't pay me to live in DC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 11:14 AM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,252,221 times
Reputation: 9846
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
My favorite is "I've lived here only six weeks but I own my home, so that trumps your 25 years living here and therefore I can NIMBY you out of town."
Actually, that's true. If someone owns their home, then the renters are out of luck. Whether they have owned for one day or 100 years is irrelevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2014, 02:23 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,057,675 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Actually, that's true. If someone owns their home, then the renters are out of luck. Whether they have owned for one day or 100 years is irrelevant.

Please elaborate, this ought to be interesting.

I was referring to a personal experience living in a town for 25 years. then a developer wanted to build some apartments on a large vacant land parcel and a recently-arrived homeowner rallied her neighbors to successfully lobby the town to deny a building permit (and subsequentky ti downzone the land to prevent any other troublemaker from getting development ideas).

My point is that a newcomer property owner owns their property and not Other People's Property and shouldn't be afforded greater political power over Other People's Property than a longtime renter.

I understand that a property owner has every right to keep others off Their Property. Are you saying that a newbie homeowner in town has a right to keep others off Someone Else's Property superior to that of a longtime resident renter?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2014, 06:40 AM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,252,221 times
Reputation: 9846
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Are you saying that a newbie homeowner in town has a right to keep others off Someone Else's Property superior to that of a longtime resident renter?
Of course. Ownership trumps renting. If I own for 1 second, and you rent for 1,000 years, my rights are still legally greater than yours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2014, 06:05 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,955,202 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Of course. Ownership trumps renting. If I own for 1 second, and you rent for 1,000 years, my rights are still legally greater than yours.
If you own a house on 5th Street you don't have a greater legal standing than a renter on 5th Street when it comes to a someone building a new house on 8th Street. The property on 8th Street belongs to neither of you. You might get more sympathy in court when it comes to 'protecting your investment' but you don't have special legal protections when it comes to OPP.

When it comes to someone renting a property that you own your legal standing as the owner comes down to the degree of possession. Is it adverse possession? holdover tenancy? lease? If your tenant has a lease and hasn't violated any terms of the lease that would lead to eviction then you as an owner don't have many rights to use of the property and the lease is even transferable to new owners if you decided to sell it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top