141–150 of 184 posts
Whats the difference between that homeowner saying "hey i am going to break your kneecaps" vs "hey I have more money than you and am going to destroy your life with legal action." - which is what he was implying in his email
I have to wonder why more residents aren't trying to milk money out of the tourists. Isn't that what is supposed to happen around every tourist attraction? If I lived there, I might just pave a few extra parking spaces into my property and charge $5 for first 30 minutes and $5 each additional 60 minutes thereafter. Buy lemonade, hiking maps, souvenir magnets, and postcards from the kiosk. 10%-off coupons for checking…
"Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously? Look, it is plain rude to park directly in front of someone's drive. There's no two ways about that. I should not have to be go and park my car somewhere else because people can't be bothered to not be rude. I have plenty of property in front of my house that they could have parked (it's 25 extra feet they would have had to walk). That's what plenty of other people were doing. There's plenty of open space…
You are being unreasonable. The grandparent is correct. Any parker would've left in less than 5 minutes. You would not have even known they were there. If they did not leave and you needed out, you could have simply asked them to leave. Property rights in this strange absolutist never-to-be-violated interpretation would make a hell of a world. Dropped your wallet? WELL, I CAN'T PICK IT UP FOR YOU BECAUSE THAT'S THEFT…
I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice that. It may be a cultural thing, I don't see such strong opinions in my country very often.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>> Friend of mine got one of those hard to remove stickers put on their car for taking her mother up there. What did they put on her car?
It's a sticker that gets put on your window. They're very hard to remove. http://www.myparkingpermit.com/Parking-Violation-Stickers/No...
I wonder if they were double-blind tests.
Similar issue in Sausalito above the Bridge. Wolfback Ridge Rd is a publicly maintained road yet they have a gate and sign that says otherwise. It is strictly enforced by Sausalito Police on behalf of residents. There's some great short hikes up there that offer excellent views of the Golden Gate Bridge and headlands. Even google didn't dare go up there: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8512481,-122.4911711,3a,75y,...…
The Bing driver was more bold: https://www.bing.com/mapspreview/?&cp=37.848938~-122.49187&l... What an awesome view
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/37.8531329,-122.4934891/37.8...
The attempt to turn public property into the property of the locals reminds me of a similar, non-tech-related case, also in LA - Malibu beaches. According to the law of the state of California, all beaches are public property. Of course, this gets a bit complicated when an individual owns the land in front of the beach. The people who buy houses in Malibu would, of course, prefer to have a private beach section. So t…
Apparently the coastline of the SF Bay does not count under that law. So for example the area from the Golden Gate Bridge down to San Jose, back up to Richmond, over to Larkspur and down back to the Golden Gate bridge has many places on the water that are not public.
Why is it in our society threatening to sue someone doing nothing wrong is not considered the same as a violent threat? Whats the difference between that homeowner saying "hey i am going to break your kneecaps" vs "hey I have more money than you and am going to destroy your life with legal action." - which is what he was implying in his email
It so happens that money can unfairly influence the state, but that is the problem, not people threatening to sue.
I have to wonder why more residents aren't trying to milk money out of the tourists. Isn't that what is supposed to happen around every tourist attraction? If I lived there, I might just pave a few extra parking spaces into my property and charge $5 for first 30 minutes and $5 each additional 60 minutes thereafter. Buy lemonade, hiking maps, souvenir magnets, and postcards from the kiosk. 10%-off coupons for checking…
The people that own those houses have enough money that it isn't worth the time investment to make a little extra cash, even if the side benefit it ruining the experience. That's a hell of a time commitment.
I am fully aware that a NIMBY neighborhood, such as the one near the sign, would actually tar-and-feather the first person who tried to treat the invading tourists as anything other than vermin to be eliminated.
I was simply making a modest proposal, to contrast against the actual efforts of the local homeowners to discourage tourist traffic.
For instance, a while ago, I agreed to go with my family to Grand Canyon national park. I had but one condition: under no circumstances would I be asked to buy anything at any gift shop filled with touristy crap, nor even be requested to enter one. And guess what happened. We still spent over three consecutive hours in a thrice-cursed gift shop, wherein I was asked repeatedly to buy junk of the lowest quality. That was more time than was spent looking at the actual canyon, for which there was no additional charge beyond the cost of park admission.
That kindled a great fight, which everybody lost.
More recently, we visited New Orleans. My sole condition of the pre-trip planning was "No French Quarter." And guess what happened. My matrifornicating in-laws wanted to eat dinner at Hard Rock Cafe. On deity-despised Bourbon Street.
So I find that the single most effective way to make me passionately hate your locale and avoid it like an Ebola-infected bat roost forevermore is to make it into a tourist trap.
Why is it in our society threatening to sue someone doing nothing wrong is not considered the same as a violent threat? Whats the difference between that homeowner saying "hey i am going to break your kneecaps" vs "hey I have more money than you and am going to destroy your life with legal action." - which is what he was implying in his email
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/barrister-loses-misconduct-...
Why is it in our society threatening to sue someone doing nothing wrong is not considered the same as a violent threat? Whats the difference between that homeowner saying "hey i am going to break your kneecaps" vs "hey I have more money than you and am going to destroy your life with legal action." - which is what he was implying in his email
Because it isn't a threat of violence. OTOH, it can be an unlawful threat, as, e.g., extortion. [1]
[1] http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2009/hynes101...