Politics
Out of context: Reply #16995
- Started
- Last post
- 33,773 Responses
- locustsloth0
A couple interesting things about the EPA story from the Washington Post:
( http://www.washingtonpost.com/po… )"A coalition of environmental groups, using documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, is attempting to present “another side” of the story to the court.
They say documents from the Sacketts themselves indicate that they learned early on that there was a good chance their lot contained wetlands. “Petitioners chose to ignore the options available to them,” says the brief, prepared by the Natural Resources Defense Council and others, and decided to escalate a legal battle rather than negotiate for a permit to build. "
The Sacketts are seeking to suppress this.
Also:
"The agency subsequently issued a compliance order to the Sacketts, saying the site must be restored to its natural state before construction began. Failure to follow the orders could make the couple liable for fines up to $37,500 a day, an amount that would be nearly $15,000 more than they paid for the lot.The EPA contends that was a starting point for negotiations. Obtaining an exception to build is often available for far less than the Sacketts have spent on legal fees, the agency said."
So it kind of sounds like instead of going though the proper channels (obtaining an exception), they decided to make a fight out of it. This, along with this picture:
pull me over toward waterhouse's assertion a bit. Though there's still plenty of blame to be given to the EPA
- Also, fines aren't being levied until there's a decision, so if they're in the right, they pay nothinglocustsloth
- don't let facts deter your govt outrage
BonSeff - Population density is 21people per sq mi. That is a situation rife with possibilities of rural cronyismlocustsloth
- That's one-tenth the density of my town, and i know it happens herelocustsloth
- (this is all speculation and conjecture, of course)locustsloth
- oh, that's the COUNTY'S pop density, not just that town. Even worselocustsloth
- I'm just bringing up the fact that this is now in the hands of the Supreme Court. Seems very dodgy.********
- Fines are more than likely not going to be levied, who the FUCK is the EPA though, some bureaucrats named by politicians?********
- political figures and heads. WTF is that? Who oversees this shit?********
- What I meant was, who the hell is heading it? This fucking cow? http://blog.epa.gov/…********
- Hmmm no Tweets about this case, interesting: https://twitter.com/…********
- why would she tweet about an ongoing court case? It's pretty standard procedure to be mum about it until a decision is reachedlocustsloth
- reached.locustsloth