Politics
Politics
Out of context: Reply #16993
- Started
- Last post
- 33,773 Responses
- locustsloth0
^
Army Corp of Engineers and/or the town office that issued the permits should be on the line for this. They either need to defend their position that the land was ok to build on, or refute that the couple went through the proper channels. Being that he is in the excavation business, it's possible he found a way to circumvent what he needed to do and the oral permission (rather than written) is a convenient way of claiming plausible deniability.
i'm guessing there's a lot more to this than the article touches on.- you might be right, but the fact that this dispute reached the Supreme Court, says something.********
- That this couple are insufferable douchebags.waterhouse
- but if they, indeed, did due diligence, how are they assholes? The system is far from infalliblelocustsloth
- sorry, "douchebags". Taking reesposibility for ones actions extends to the govt toolocustsloth
- if the EPA f'd up, they should compensate these people for the money they spent. And their time too, to some degreelocustsloth
- Local permit office should have known about it if it was wetlands. That's either the EPA's or the office's faultlocustsloth
- Finding culpability with the Army Corp would be a little more tricky as there is no paperwork on the matterlocustsloth
- Some responsibility falls on the Sacketts for not getting it all in writinglocustsloth
- If she travelled 2 hours to the Army Corp, she must have at lease SUSPECTED that there may have been restrictionslocustsloth
- I agree locustsloth. why are they assholes for not knowing the EPA declared this protected, after the fact?********
- BTW, the article states they are being fined or could be for something that isn't their fault per se. Crazy********
- you might be right, but the fact that this dispute reached the Supreme Court, says something.