Responsibility for Drug Clean-ups
The request was made that this be a topic for blog discussion. A recent newspaper article stated that the county will now be responsible for the expense of cleaning up any illegal or hazardous chemical, (including Meth. related sites), discovered in the county.
Why don't we put something in the proposed charter as a local ordinance that requires the owner, operator, accomplice or anyone convicted of any offending 'chemical dump' (to include meth labs ) shall be automatically required to pay for 100% of cleanup costs and if necessary the sheriff shall be authorised to confiscate property/business or any other personal assets sufficient to cover such costs plus the costs associated with the confiscation.
Why don't we put something in the proposed charter as a local ordinance that requires the owner, operator, accomplice or anyone convicted of any offending 'chemical dump' (to include meth labs ) shall be automatically required to pay for 100% of cleanup costs and if necessary the sheriff shall be authorised to confiscate property/business or any other personal assets sufficient to cover such costs plus the costs associated with the confiscation.
posted by Allen Barrett | 2:15 PM
16 Comments:
That's a common sense approach to the problem. After all, why should the tax payers be burdened with the cost of such?
Doesn't the property owner need to assume responsibility of his own property?
After all: he should have known who it was he was renting out to. And even if his due diligence failed him, it's still his property regardless.
Methamphetamine seems to be the biggest business on the town square. HOO-RAY for Pulaski, something else to be proud of.
Great common sense. The County MUST be permitted to own these contaminated trailers and campers. Just think of the possibilities! Yay Barrett.....Great idea yet again.
6:11 says, "The County MUST be permitted to own these contaminated trailers and campers."
Well, don't you think that if we have to pay to clean them up, we should at least own them?
4:12 says, "HOO-RAY for Pulaski, something else to be proud of."
Sadly, I share your sentiment. It's beginning to look like that's about the only viable business we have here in this county these days.
You can't truly decontaminate these areas. Why would the city want to own such trash? And now you're asking the criminal to pay for the clean up. Have you seen most of the people manufacturing this junk? They all drive new cars and trucks and live in the finest of homes in our area. Right? No teeth, no hair and sores on most of them.
"You can't truly decontaminate these areas."
What a laugh! What? Are these buildings radio active? LOL!
Of course they can be decontaminated. How is it that specialist can get smoke fumes and odors out of homes that have had fires? What's so different about the fumes and such of this noxious stuff?
And are you saying that the property must be torn down and land filled by the tax payers? What the heck are you suggesting be done? And by whom, if not the property owners?
Government needs to make
accessabililty to ingredients harder to get. Make sudafed prescription and draino to sign for.
Draino? They must be crazy if they take something made from draino.
I agree the property owner should pay for having it decontaminated, but would they do it?
"I agree the property owner should pay for having it decontaminated, but would they do it?"
They would if the law made it mandatory, by condemning the property and sealing entrance to it, until it had been decontaminated by a certified contractor. And if the property owner doesn't comply within a reasonable time, then the property needs to be confiscated.
That will get the property owner in gear.
Confiscated. Then if the property owner doesn't pay, then WHO? The taxpayers. 11:58--I think you should poney up for it. You seem to be the most intelligent person on the blog lately. Smart people like you always have great suggestions and not a lot of man power.
8:26
Hey brainiac. Lets see if I can walk you through on this one.
Property is contaminated because the owner or renter was cooking meth there. Right?
So, according to law, the place has to be decontaminated in order to be habitable again. That's what the law states. Agreed?
Now, for whatever reason; the property owner refuses to pay, or can't afford the decontamination of his building as required by LAW.
So now you have a property that lawfully can't be inhabited, and is to sit empty, go down in value, and possibly blight the neighborhood, because the owner will not(again, for whatever reason) comply with the law.
Therefore, the local government can do:
A- Nothing and allow the property to become a bight on the hood.
B- condemn the property and let the neighborhood go down.
c- Condemn the property,and give the owner a reasonable amount of time to comply with the law. And when the time allowed has expired, and the owner hasn't complied with the process set forth: then the local government seizes the property, pays for the decontamination and places the property up for sale to pay for our trouble.
Now which one of those sounds more reasonable to you?
Why is your nose out of joint with me? Are you ashamed you didn't come up with such a logical and simple idea yourself?
I like option D: You pay
Hey there! Up late too I see.
Oh I'd be glad to pay. Provided I get ownership of the property that is.
Renters do not always go by the landlords rules. Why not make the one caught with the lab pay. They should be responsible. Take what ever they have of value to cover the expense of the cleanup.
10:58 AM Believe thats exactly what the suggestion was. Then if that dont work it should be the responsibility of the landlord who sould ghave been keeping up with what is happening with his property anyway. If the renters dont keep to his rules then he should get them out. Done all the time.
Post a Comment
<< Home