charisma94

The rise of the KAREN

Recommended Posts

On 6/24/2020 at 9:56 PM, Se7en said:

Why?

Just to be a cunt?

Happy did say he was a friend, so probably yes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Karen encounter turns lucrative!

More than $21K in tips are donated to a Starbucks barista after a 'San Diego Karen' tried to shame him in a viral Facebook post for refusing to serve her when she wasn't wearing a mask.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8460435/More-21K-tips-donated-Starbucks-barista-Karen-tried-shame-him.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...... some goode comes frome theire existence?  Who niewe?                                         :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public access to the water has always been a problem in Michigan.  Wolverine Lake councilman Ed (“Ken”) Sienkiewicz has been abusing the public for years – then got tripped up by a local investigative reporter.  

This newscast caused a local ruckus and the council voted to censure him and he was supposed to apologize.  But he remains on the council to this day.  Seven minutes and 1.75 million views.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2020 at 10:41 PM, Morgan Crewed said:

Public access to the water has always been a problem in Michigan.  Wolverine Lake councilman Ed (“Ken”) Sienkiewicz has been abusing the public for years – then got tripped up by a local investigative reporter.  

This newscast caused a local ruckus and the council voted to censure him and he was supposed to apologize.  But he remains on the council to this day.  Seven minutes and 1.75 million views.

 

 

I wonder if he planted the invasive Narrow Leaf Cattail?   That would be a no no.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2020 at 9:14 AM, Grrr... said:

Ok folks.  How's this?

This is a satellite picture of the area between Cheboygan and Rogers City where we have a cottage on Lake Huron.

image.png.8546eb040705b7fbe50cb2a97c3be28d.png

It is truly beautiful there.  That brown you see along the bay is allllll beach.  Miles.  And miles.  And miles.  You can walk it.  Build Sand castles.  Enjoy it.  Enter our next-door neighbors, who just purchased the house and built another one.

I've always been led to believe that the beach is community property.  But these fuckers don't think so.  Here's what they've done to the beach.

IMG_66161.thumb.jpg.c0e4d896e8c115a2db45560a4a23ee1e.jpg

Fuckers brought in dump trucks of sand and rocks and did this, effectively making it impossible to walk by their house.  Of course, I'm not rich and they are which means the whole community is pretty well fucked.  OH - and they wiped out the trees on their lot and filled that with sand too.  Wonderful folks, eh?

Here's the overhead before they fucked the beach.

image.png.a5b86c6e9edbdc24442188bbab4daaaa.png

@MR.CLEAN

Got anyone up north who does pro-bono work?

That's (or was) some very pretty territory.   I once camped at Cheboygan Park.   It was a haunting surprise to see the shipwreck in the gloomy evening water as I paddled around the point.    The wreck leaves me surprised your little corner of the great lakes is so protected.   I grew up frequenting family property on Erie, property that was held from 1928 to 2005 and revisited last year.   My few decades of personal memories combined with photos and video provide a long glimpse of a changing and temperamental shoreline.   Those rocks hardly look big enough to survive the erosion of a good Easterly wind combined with high water levels.   My dad recalled a rock nearly that size thrown through the second floor window above a small boathouse connected to Erie by a ramp and old wringer style washing machine roller conveyer belt.   It took three guys to remove the rock from the building.   Won't your problem self correct by spring?   Those lakes have a long history of humoring property owners for a few years of construction, then smashing it like a child's sand castle.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lark said:

That's (or was) some very pretty territory.   I once camped at Cheboygan Park.   It was a haunting surprise to see the shipwreck in the gloomy evening water as I paddled around the point.    The wreck leaves me surprised your little corner of the great lakes is so protected.   I grew up frequenting family property on Erie, property that was held from 1928 to 2005 and revisited last year.   My few decades of personal memories combined with photos and video provide a long glimpse of a changing and temperamental shoreline.   Those rocks hardly look big enough to survive the erosion of a good Easterly wind combined with high water levels.   My dad recalled a rock nearly that size thrown through the second floor window above a small boathouse connected to Erie by a ramp and old wringer style washing machine roller conveyer belt.   It took three guys to remove the rock from the building.   Won't your problem self correct by spring?   Those lakes have a long history of humoring property owners for a few years of construction, then smashing it like a child's sand castle.   

We are still working through the DNR trying to convince them that this went Well beyond any need to prevent erosion.  But I think their answer is basically that they have this guy the permit and that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

We are still working through the DNR trying to convince them that this went Well beyond any need to prevent erosion.  But I think their answer is basically that they have this guy the permit and that's it.

unless they lied or their engineer materially misrepresented something on the application. Have you been able to get it yet?  I can help you with some FOIA tips if you need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Army Corps of Engineers may have something to say as well because there are overlapping and at times conflicting jurisdictions between Fed and State.  Also, your State law likely defines who owns the beach and how far up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on the Great Lakes, there is no private/off limits law concerning the shore.  The beach is considered private but shore access cannot be prevented. This means that you cannot rock up and have a day at the beach in from of someone's private property. What is does mean is that you can walk along the shore or run your boat onto the shoreline if you're in trouble (they can't make you move).  I know this first hand because (prior to divorce) I had access to a private beach (100' or so) on Lake Michigan.  Ours was a community deeded beach access. Just north and south was private beaches. As long as you didn't set up on their space, everyone was chill.  Newbies and renters would be warned by the locals to not put their crap where they were putting it... but they didn't listen until the beach 5.0 rocked up and explained life. We were good and drunk by this time so had a good laugh at them. Being a private beach, it was all good.

Additionally, I grew up across the street from Lake Michigan, in Indiana. There were a few houses on the lakeside of Lake Shore dr. They had erosion controls in place too, not just the rip-rap rocks (although those were along the entire shore) in the form of 20' high steel walls to prevent the houses from falling in.  There are areas without that, but most of this shore is were the dunes drop into the lake. All held in place by dune grass. pretty fragile ecosystem.

882677858_BevHillsIN.jpg.dccf2967ad8044d9cb5b9a364256f5b7.jpg

 

Here's a link to an article written about this topic. https://glenarborsun.com/supreme-court-reaffirms-great-lakes-public-beach-access/#:~:text=The public has the right,reaffirmed that right on Tuesday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, linaszuk said:

on the Great Lakes, there is no private/off limits law concerning the shore.  The beach is considered private but shore access cannot be prevented.

 

 

state law controls, and each state has different rules.  You are correct as to Michigan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

state law controls, and each state has different rules.  You are correct as to Michigan.

 

2 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

state law controls, and each state has different rules.  You are correct as to Michigan.

per United States Supreme Court - "The public has the right to walk the Great Lakes shoreline, even along privately owned beaches." <-- That's not my opinion. This is a United States Supreme Court ruling. Go argue with them.

From the rest of the article: "But state supreme courts in both Indiana and Michigan have long held that walking along a Great Lakes shoreline is a public right.

The Michigan Supreme Court last upheld that right in 2005 in a similar case along the Lake Huron shoreline." <-- As the original issue was on Lake Huron which is Michigan (where I was relating my private beach information from)".... 

Current rulings support that private property extends only to the "ordinary high-water mark,".  This is NOT a big space on the Great Lakes, no tidal action to speak of, amounting to only about 2-5 feet depending on waves and slope of beach.  The spirit of these rulings are to allow people to walk along the waterfront or to beach a boat in trouble. This ruling does NOT allow people populate the beachfront for extended periods. If you buy or build a property on a Great Lake, you are doing so with this knowledge. You should not be surprised, as a property owner, when someone walks along the beach. 

This battle will continue for a long time as rich people want to keep poor people away from them (so they don't get afflicted with poverty or something that poor people get). We've had many disputes in that private beach where the rich/new owner tried to block our beach access by damaging the easements, putting up locked gates and such. Lots of legal stuff back and forth, but the community, collectively defending itself, was stronger than a single attacker. 

For the original post, the rip-rap being trucked in, there may be no solution.  The rich/new owners built a big/expensive house and are trying to ensure that the beach does not show up in their living room.  As lake levels are rising, the beaches get eroded and walk inland. The Indiana Dunes area (where I grew up) gets sinkholes because of the wave action. I remember that Lake Shore Drive was taken out twice when I was a kid, which lead to the riprap in all the steeper ares of shoreline.  I was just trying to give some information to the legal background and support to Great Lakes shoreline access rights.

A small add, the entire shore of Lake Geneva, WI is also public shoreline and even has a path for walking (more of a good hike) it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, linaszuk said:

 

per United States Supreme Court - "The public has the right to walk the Great Lakes shoreline, even along privately owned beaches." <-- That's not my opinion. This is a United States Supreme Court ruling. Go argue with them.

From the rest of the article: "But state supreme courts in both Indiana and Michigan have long held that walking along a Great Lakes shoreline is a public right.

The Michigan Supreme Court last upheld that right in 2005 in a similar case along the Lake Huron shoreline." <-- As the original issue was on Lake Huron which is Michigan (where I was relating my private beach information from)".... 

Current rulings support that private property extends only to the "ordinary high-water mark,".  This is NOT a big space on the Great Lakes, no tidal action to speak of, amounting to only about 2-5 feet depending on waves and slope of beach.  The spirit of these rulings are to allow people to walk along the waterfront or to beach a boat in trouble. This ruling does NOT allow people populate the beachfront for extended periods. If you buy or build a property on a Great Lake, you are doing so with this knowledge. You should not be surprised, as a property owner, when someone walks along the beach. 

This battle will continue for a long time as rich people want to keep poor people away from them (so they don't get afflicted with poverty or something that poor people get). We've had many disputes in that private beach where the rich/new owner tried to block our beach access by damaging the easements, putting up locked gates and such. Lots of legal stuff back and forth, but the community, collectively defending itself, was stronger than a single attacker. 

For the original post, the rip-rap being trucked in, there may be no solution.  The rich/new owners built a big/expensive house and are trying to ensure that the beach does not show up in their living room.  As lake levels are rising, the beaches get eroded and walk inland. The Indiana Dunes area (where I grew up) gets sinkholes because of the wave action. I remember that Lake Shore Drive was taken out twice when I was a kid, which lead to the riprap in all the steeper ares of shoreline.  I was just trying to give some information to the legal background and support to Great Lakes shoreline access rights.

A small add, the entire shore of Lake Geneva, WI is also public shoreline and even has a path for walking (more of a good hike) it.

HAHAHA. Try that over by Wrigley...  They will chase you off with that ancient restored Christcraft.. (Might be worth it to get a ride on that thing).  Yes, in Geneva/fontana etc, but there is no way in hell you are walking through some of those estates whatever the law says...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, linaszuk said:

 

 "The public has the right to walk the Great Lakes shoreline, even along privately owned beaches." <-- That's not my opinion. This is a United States Supreme Court ruling. Go argue with them.

Wrong.   That's an article in a newspaper.   Feel free to cite the SCOTUS decision saying that and I will happily eat my words.

How many fucking times do I have to tell you people not to learn law by reading or watching what some reporter or youtuber thinks the law says?

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2020 at 10:31 AM, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

well first you have to find who has jurisdiction over the beach...  down in texas,  Us Army Corp of Engineers control everything on the shoreline and I mean everything..    you have to start there...  then work with all the other neighbors on that beach and get a petition up to get it removed, if you have no one backing you , good luck...   finally, when you clean up the beach, toss everything over the wall onto their side..

In Minnesota one day the DNR would should up with a "return to natural" 

You could add sand if sand was washing away, no way could you do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2020 at 8:00 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

Thanks for the unsolicited advice on what to do and not to do. I'll be sure to consider it. 

if you think the legal profession is less ethical now than it was in the past, I have a 60s muscle car to sell you. 

Drives great.

 

Clean, did you know that Jule's real name is Jean Louise 'Scout' Finch?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2020 at 10:52 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

Wrong.   That's an article in a newspaper.   Feel free to cite the SCOTUS decision saying that and I will happily eat my words.

How many fucking times do I have to tell you people not to learn law by reading or watching what some reporter or youtuber thinks the law says?

 

 

 

https://www.justice.gov/enrd/federalstate-conflict <-- lots of case law there

Right.  ---> (JOURNAL) MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2005 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ... No. 05–764. Richard A. Goeckel, et ux., Petitioners v. Joan M. Glass. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan denied. <--- this is specifically where the SCOTUS Declined to hear the case that the property owner had land ownership all the way to the water.  This is where it was established to the high water mark is the land of the property owner and allowed for people to walk the shoreline.  --- from the article referanced, "But decades later, shoreline property owners Richard and Kathleen Goeckel began having frequent disputes with Glass, over both her use of the easement and her strolls along the shoreline in front of their property. The Goeckels' property deed specified one of their boundary lines as the "meander line of Lake Huron.""

As the north Chicago suburb beaches have eroded to the point of non-existence, due to prevention measure put in place by property owners.  There is no beach to walk and the high water mark IS the revetment in place to keep the lake at bay.  This effectively makes that part of the lake private. One can guess that having sufficient funding, one could enjoy the process of making the property owners restore the lake shore line that the water control efforts have erased.  Further restoring public access.  One would probably need to be a masochist of a specific sort to play that game.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, linaszuk said:

https://www.justice.gov/enrd/federalstate-conflict <-- lots of case law there

Right.  ---> (JOURNAL) MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2005 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ... No. 05–764. Richard A. Goeckel, et ux., Petitioners v. Joan M. Glass. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan denied. <--- this is specifically where the SCOTUS Declined to hear the case that the property owner had land ownership all the way to the water. 

 

you said "The public has the right to walk the Great Lakes shoreline, even along privately owned beaches." <-- That's not my opinion. This is a United States Supreme Court ruling."

If you can't provide a site to the SCOTUS ruling saying what you said it says, maybe take a screenshot.  I did a search of the journal file you posted for the world 'beach' and didn't find shit. Try again.  If you can't find anything, look up the list of reasons for which SCOTUS may deny certiorari.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, linaszuk said:

Here's the SCOTUS Journal I'm referencing.

jnl05.pdf

 

image.thumb.png.b3d2ba0eae05931ba809dc65635debb4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d like to hear the answer.    On Erie of the 1980s or 90s our understanding is the squatters couldn’t use the improvements (mostly rendered unusable by an angry lake and the same vandals) but could hang on the beach as long as they weren’t openly doing drugs.. Anybody could walk along the water, as slow as they wanted to.   I don’t recall what we were told about beach towels.   Littering was on public property..    High water line was the hill in a heavy storm, or there could be many yards of dry sand if the wind had recently blown from the other direction and the lake was low.   Would it be defined by day, year, decade?   The new mansions with security cameras and signs suggest either they bought a better law or better cops. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

you said "The public has the right to walk the Great Lakes shoreline, even along privately owned beaches." <-- That's not my opinion. This is a United States Supreme Court ruling."

If you can't provide a site to the SCOTUS ruling saying what you said it says, maybe take a screenshot.  I did a search of the journal file you posted for the world 'beach' and didn't find shit. Try again.  If you can't find anything, look up the list of reasons for which SCOTUS may deny certiorari.

image.png.a994f4156c7059fe0a952e44e0cb7268.pngThat's all there is in the journal. Just the "Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan denied". This is what I did the cut-and-paste from. I do not need to look up the reasons for this. I do not care why. The current state of "high water line" stands and I'm good with that. If you need more proof, may I suggest that you go through the effort to locate evidence/rulings that the private property extends into the Great Lakes, beyond the high water mark. I'm not your research lacky.

I know that this action would be in direct opposition to your current campaign of "go find me more evidence" and "everyone is lying and I need more proof". Thus, conveniently placing the burden of locating a negative proof on someone else (this is where you need to actually go look something up rather than spouting off in direct opposition with nothing but opinion).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:

I’d like to hear the answer.    On Erie of the 1980s or 90s our understanding is the squatters couldn’t use the improvements (mostly rendered unusable by an angry lake and the same vandals) but could hang on the beach as long as they weren’t openly doing drugs.. Anybody could walk along the water, as slow as they wanted to.   I don’t recall what we were told about beach towels.   Littering was on public property..    High water line was the hill in a heavy storm, or there could be many yards of dry sand if the wind had recently blown from the other direction and the lake was low.   Would it be defined by day, year, decade?   The new mansions with security cameras and signs suggest either they bought a better law or better cops. 

Currently, the way it actually works on the private beaches that I went to in Michigan (south west area), you can walk along all the shoreline and this does go in front of a bunch of very nice houses.  You cannot drop a towel and chill there. I have not been or even seen anyone that was actually chased off the beach. New property owners will try, as they are not familiar with the current rulings etc. Usually, this is dealt with by the more established owners explaining the rules to the newbies. Cops have been called and the cops will then explain the laws to them. Newbies fume. Life goes on. This stems from real estate advertising ads that include the phases "beach-rights" and "private beach" and it's not explained and just assumed that it means all the way to the water. 

On a private beach, anything that is permissible by law is allowed. Open alcohol, bonfires, etc. are OK. It is discouraged to bring anything glass as a break is bad and ends up with shards in the sand (no bueno). And yes, I have spoken to the beach cops holing a beer and noticeably in a "should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle, much less a kazoo"

on both, everyone is pretty good about picking up and policing their own trash. Ambitions kids will go scavenge on the public beaches for cans at $.10 a pop on Sat and Sunday mornings. There are the usual dad patrols with rakes that also do cleanup activities. The beaches are kept pretty clean.

The high water line last year was the hill. pretty much no beach. Water levels are up. I'm told that it's slightly better this year. 

All this above (and all the arguing) is only regarding is only referring to private property ownership and public shore line access. There are corporate harbors, steel mills, a couple of coal and nuke plants etc.that I'm sure have different rules governing shore line access.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lake above ours is used as storage for irrigation. In the Texas heat, it can get drawn down 40-50 feet at times. Ownership of land goes down to the elevation of the top of the spillway. The land below the spillway level is public. When the lake is down people will have biggg fukin' parties and bonfires in front of people's houses. It gets testy.  On our lake, the land was owned by deed before they built the damn. According to the Texas Supreme Court, the public owns the original river bed, but not the current lake shore. It gets interesting sometimes instructing people who think they know the law as to what the law actually is. Public access is very  limited so it's not much of a problem, but it's enough of one to be a nuisance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, On The Hard said:

The lake above ours is used as storage for irrigation. In the Texas heat, it can get drawn down 40-50 feet at times. Ownership of land goes down to the elevation of the top of the spillway. The land below the spillway level is public. When the lake is down people will have biggg fukin' parties and bonfires in front of people's houses. It gets testy.  On our lake, the land was owned by deed before they built the damn. According to the Texas Supreme Court, the public owns the original river bed, but not the current lake shore. It gets interesting sometimes instructing people who think they know the law as to what the law actually is. Public access is very  limited so it's not much of a problem, but it's enough of one to be a nuisance. 

it may be public land , but it's controlled by the army corp of engineers , you may use that public land , but that's all you can do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, linaszuk said:

image.png.a994f4156c7059fe0a952e44e0cb7268.pngThat's all there is in the journal. Just the "Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan denied". This is what I did the cut-and-paste from. I do not need to look up the reasons for this. I do not care why. The current state of "high water line" stands and I'm good with that. If you need more proof, may I suggest that you go through the effort to locate evidence/rulings that the private property extends into the Great Lakes, beyond the high water mark. I'm not your research lacky.

I know that this action would be in direct opposition to your current campaign of "go find me more evidence" and "everyone is lying and I need more proof". Thus, conveniently placing the burden of locating a negative proof on someone else (this is where you need to actually go look something up rather than spouting off in direct opposition with nothing but opinion).

 

 

You really do dig in when you are wrong.  I am not looking for research, I am trying to get you to learn some basics.

Let me try to make it simple for you: You wrote that SCOTUS made a ruling on the case.  It did not.  It denied cert with no statement.  Very different thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

You really do dig in when you are wrong.  I am not looking for research, I am trying to get you to learn some basics.

Let me try to make it simple for you: You wrote that SCOTUS made a ruling on the case.  It did not.  It denied cert with no statement.  Very different thing.

and with that. I give up. enjoy life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such an emotional moment.   :)
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, On The Hard said:

  On our lake, the land was owned by deed before they built the damn. According to the Texas Supreme Court, the public owns the original river bed, but not the current lake shore. It gets interesting sometimes instructing people who think they know the law as to what the law actually is. 

The Norfolk Broads are man made small lakes, created by many centuries of peat cutting for fuel (only died out around 1900). Many Boaters and fishermen, start getting agitated and talking about inalienable rights to fish and boat on tidal waters..

What they don't often understand is that, the owners still own the space. for example, If you build a drive way no one else can come and park on it without your permission, So they've dug out the peat doesn't give you rights to go there.. The only exception is where rights of access have be granted normally to a village staithe (quay)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2020 at 12:17 PM, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

it may be public land , but it's controlled by the army corp of engineers , you may use that public land , but that's all you can do...

On Medina Lake (the one in question) they do all sorts of shit the Corp would probably not approve of. Since the Corps didn't build the dam (funded by Scottish venture capitalists that lost their collective asses) I'm not sure they have ownership. The water itself is owned by the Bexar, Medina, Atiscosa Water Authority which sells water to farmers and to San Antonio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, On The Hard said:

On Medina Lake (the one in question) they do all sorts of shit the Corp would probably not approve of. Since the Corps didn't build the dam (funded by Scottish venture capitalists that lost their collective asses) I'm not sure they have ownership. The water itself is owned by the Bexar, Medina, Atiscosa Water Authority which sells water to farmers and to San Antonio

Were you living in SA in the early '90s when the catfish farm imbroglio erupted?   I don't remember what the final outcome was.

Ahh, Google provided the answer. 

Catfish farm controversy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2020 at 3:41 AM, Ed Lada said:

Were you living in SA in the early '90s when the catfish farm imbroglio erupted?   I don't remember what the final outcome was.

Ahh, Google provided the answer. 

Catfish farm controversy.

I hadn't seen that article, but thought I'd recalled that the city water authority ended up buying it.  The whole thing just pointed out how antiquated our water laws were. The article was right, the law was on his side.  On a side note, they just implemented watering restrictions last week. Another dry and hot July.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A local Karen in my city has shut down a live outdoor music event that was happening every Friday evening in the downtown area.  The city bylaw says noise must be kept to a minimum after 11pm but this event was 6-8 pm.  The business putting on the shows was threatened with a 50K fine.

There is now a campaign to get the city to cease persecuting the business.

The Karen lives in a multistory concrete condo development down the block from the business.  

This reminds me of the people who buy property next to airports then complain about aircraft noise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of two similar events

One a motorcycle speedway track ( that's a 400yard cinder oval surrounded by stands for the fans)  had been open for 80years, it was out in the countryside,  but houses have now been built nearby.  They've now has limited hours and noise levels introduced by the local authorities. 

The other a smithy, a forge,  it's only been on site for about 500years probably longer but that's how long records go back. They too have had new housing built nearby,  and people have tried to close them down,  they did get limited hours and noise levels enforced.. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Rain Man said:

A local Karen in my city has shut down a live outdoor music event that was happening every Friday evening in the downtown area.  The city bylaw says noise must be kept to a minimum after 11pm but this event was 6-8 pm.  The business putting on the shows was threatened with a 50K fine.

There is now a campaign to get the city to cease persecuting the business.

The Karen lives in a multistory concrete condo development down the block from the business.  

This reminds me of the people who buy property next to airports then complain about aircraft noise.

The problem is weasel politicians who never have the balls to say "fuck you" - even in polite terms - to these assholes.

The lowest common denominator always wins with them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In NZ and a lot of other countries if you want to sue and get uppity fine,  but if it comes to a court of law and you are wrong you are on the hook and you get to pay every one else’s legal expenses it’s a nice way of sorting the whiners and whingers out from those who have a legit gripe.

if you enacted a Karen law making the whiners legally liable it would go a long way to sorting out the whiny bullshitters from those with a legal case worth pursuing.

Call it the “whiny Karen law “ and watch the problem disappear .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2020 at 12:23 AM, Rain Man said:

This reminds me of the people who buy property next to airports then complain about aircraft noise.

I'm employed by a university that has been in this particular location since the late 1700's.

completely amaze as to how much power the surrounding neighborhoods have  over the university.  

Honestly if you didn't want to live where drunken kids wander the streets puking on your car at 4am.  Or you don't like the fact that your neighbor, the absentee landlord, rents to college students that have parties all the time, Buying  property next to a college campus might not have been the right call.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Navig8tor said:

In NZ and a lot of other countries if you want to sue and get uppity fine,  but if it comes to a court of law and you are wrong you are on the hook and you get to pay every one else’s legal expenses it’s a nice way of sorting the whiners and whingers out from those who have a legit gripe.

if you enacted a Karen law making the whiners legally liable it would go a long way to sorting out the whiny bullshitters from those with a legal case worth pursuing.

Call it the “whiny Karen law “ and watch the problem disappear .

Yeah - that's a good way to reduce lawsuits and hold frivolous complainants accountable for the losses that they cause to the target. There's a side effect, which is that folks with deep pockets can buy more access to the law - a poor person being deprived of rights by a large corporation could not risk legal action if their pro-bono lawyer could lose the case and cause them to be liable for the other side's fancy legal team's costs. It's a nasty little catch-22 and both methods have societal consequences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Wet Spreaders said:

Yeah - that's a good way to reduce lawsuits and hold frivolous complainants accountable for the losses that they cause to the target. There's a side effect, which is that folks with deep pockets can buy more access to the law - a poor person being deprived of rights by a large corporation could not risk legal action if their pro-bono lawyer could lose the case and cause them to be liable for the other side's fancy legal team's costs. It's a nasty little catch-22 and both methods have societal consequences. 

Not exactly the case.  In UK and other countries with "loser pays" rules there is robust litigation insurance industry to repay the loser.  Contingency attorney buys an insurance policy and underwriters evaluate the cost of the policy for the client.  I assume (could be wrong) that the cost of the policy is paid by the attorney.  Therefore,  Karen still can file a lawsuit and the insurance company pays instead of her.

Also assume that if the policy premuim is too high, then that is a proxy telling the Karen's of the world that their claim is frivilous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Karen' Orders Bikini-Clad Woman to 'Get Your A-- Covered' Because Her Sons Are 'Staring'

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now