Today's one-liner: "The shortest way to the distinguishing excellence of any writer is through his hostile critics." Richard LeGallienne
Local Government TV
▼
Thursday, July 04, 2013
Unhappy Zoning Litigant Charged With Harassment
Six days after Bethlehem's Zoning Hearing Board refused to allow Richard Smith to continue leasing a basement apartment at 311 E. Fourth Street, he's been charged by Bethlehem police with harassment. He's accused of grabbing or pushing a building inspector on July 2, after being informed that the property has been condemned.
7 comments:
You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.
Sounds like the building inspector and Zoning Board have a hard-on for this guy. He's owned the property for years that was bought as a 4 unit dwelling and approved as such. Then they find a "clerical error" that results in it becoming a 3 unit dwelling. Now the entire property is condemned? I'd probably be brought up on charges of physical harassment, too.
ReplyDeleteToo many people think they can screw with building and zoning inspectors. This is what happens when they do. Now this fellow will have a criminal record. If he is disgruntled over the City's decision he should take it to the courts and not the street!
ReplyDelete7:12 - idiot
ReplyDelete7:39 - correct
@ Mark Baker
ReplyDeleteName calling makes no valid point and makes you appear less than intelligent. The poster at 7:12 only seems sympathetic to the property owners dilemma and can understand the frustration one would feel. If you've ever had to deal with City Hall and a building inspector that can be a complete ass, you might understand. Granted, the circumstances leading up to the alleged "harassment" isn't known, so I'll wait until I hear both sides before I make a judgement of who is an idiot and who is correct.
Gotta keep that temper in check or it will cost you.
ReplyDeleteTransitory Anger as a mitigating factor may be a valid legal arguement.
ReplyDeleteAFD officials were told by code officials to break into my home undercover of a accidental electrical tragady three door away from my home to see if I was in there, at wich point I was accros the street say no no no I am right here¿ The shit that was compounded upon me after that was criminal to say the least¿
ReplyDeleteFirst of all said electrical malfunction was very questionable and I am by far no expert but, I have pictures that look like excelerant spill patterns and what looks like a melted gas can left behind that was taken by the men in black never to be mentioned again by local authorities¿ Than said firerestoration professional stole the insurance proceeds from three homeowners and flopped two homes on the block before bgining any real work just cleaning to damaged properties. The homes flopped were never even changed hands from the property owner of the two that were blighted before said tragady¿
If this was not some sort of coluded realestate dealing to a monorty sector I am a blind rabbit¿