GSO/Guilford Pols

September 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

« Participatory budgeting | Main | Location, location, location »

Mar 01, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef0167633794d0970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lawyering up:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mad Dog

Very interesting. Our neighborhood covenants expired after 20 years and did not have a renewal clause. Not only will the letter make interesting reading, but so will the covenants themselves.

I applaude the neighbors and the attorney for using all ammunition available. Looks like we ought to sell tickets to this if it ever hits the courtroom.

MD

Ron

I don't think there is nothing the neighborhood can do but delay the project.

Ron

Interesting reading on covenants. If its expired there is nothing the neighborhood can do. There are other loop holes as well the developer could use.

"covenants may be unenforceable because the original wording of the covenant is inexact. Judges will usually throw out a covenant if it does not lay out its terms in detail"

"If restrictive covenants have no expiration date, and they do lay out specific, detailed requirements, they still may not be enforceable by law if there is a pattern of other property owners ignoring them or following them inconsistently. For example, if an entire neighborhood shares a common deed restriction that fences are not allowed, but half of the block has put in fences, the deed restriction probably won't hold up in court. Or, if several deeds in a neighborhood contain a restriction, but there are other properties in the same neighborhood with no such restriction, the restriction might not be enforceable"

http://home.howstuffworks.com/real-estate/is-there-way-out-of-restrictive-covenant1.htm

Ron

A judge may not enforce this covenant even if it hasn't expired. If there are patterns that the covenant has not been followed, it may not legally be enforceable. I'm looking at sites in this neighborhood and I see an office building at the corner of Friendly and Holden Rd There are condos at the corner of Hobbs and Northline and there are also condos at the corner of Holden and Friendly. Already I'm seeing properties in the neighborhood that don't follow the original restrictions and that could be grounds for not legally enforcing the covenant.

triadwatch

eating up greensboro blog has the letter

Collards

Thank you Ron for your insight.

Ed Cone

Ron,

I have been told by people I trust that you are paid by an interested party in this debate.

Please tell me, yes or no, if that is true.

Thanks.

Roch101

Wait, people you trust have insight into a pseudonymous commentator? How does that happen?

Ed Cone

They initiate a process of inquiry instead of casting their own conclusions as known fact that must not be vetted before further action is taken?

Billy Jones

Ed wrote, "I have been told by people I trust that you are paid by an interested party in this debate."

Seems to fit the pattern of Ron's comments. Of note: the downtown boosters are also looking to hire "social networkers" to get the word out manipulate the discussion.

Roch101

What, are you channeling Hartzman now, Ed?

Ed Cone

Actually, I think readers may find your comments to be obscure, Roch. Why not come out and say what you have to say?

Meanwhile, this is about Ron.

Ron, any answer to the question? Have you in fact been paid at any time by an interested party in the Hobbs Rd dispute?

Billy Jones

Ron has gone into hiding. Watch your stats closely for his new name.

Roch101

No hidden meaning, Ed. But if it wasn't clear, here: You have a commenter apparently using a pseudonym (unless "he" really is "Ron) about whom you say people you trust have information. I'm just asking how something like that happens. How do details about pseudonymous commenters on your blog come to be known by "people you trust?" Pretty straight forward question, in my opinion.

Ron

wow Its amazing how people start thinking about conspiracy theories. No I'm not paid by anyone but I am a supporter of this proposal. This is more than about Trader Joe's. This is about Greensboro's pattern of running businesses and opportunity away because people want to see greener pastures.

Ron

Also Just because I bring up some interesting points about covenants, that doesn't mean friends of Jim Melvin are paying me to post things to sway the general public.

David Wharton

Is ron the same person as "cityboi" who often posts about Greensboro at Urban Planet?

Ron

Wrong Mr Warton. But I have read his posts through links on this site.

Ed Cone

Ron, I'm not prone to conspiracy theories, I'm asking because of a specific tip that included a suggestion as to your full name, professional position, and a party to this deal for whom you have provided services in the past. The person and the firm do exist.

A business relationship with an interested party would not keep you from making valid points -- but it would require you to acknowledge that such a relationship exists.

If it's not true, it's not true.

Roch101

Is that you Colonel Mustard?

Gryllidae

Crickets from Ron.......

Billy Jones

No response from Ron yet? Imagine that!

Billy Jones

Hey, anyone seen that Ron fellow?

Billy Jones

Ron wrote: "Also Just because I bring up some interesting points about covenants, that doesn't mean friends of Jim Melvin are paying me to post things to sway the general public."

Why said anything about Jim Melvin? Until now I was unaware that Jim Melvin was involved in the Trader Joe's deal.

Billy Jones

Nope, no answer from Ron yet. Ron, can you tell us how Jim Melvin is involved with Trader Joes?

The comments to this entry are closed.