Chemlawn *******s

[zxcvbob]

Sprayed broadleaf herbicide and who knows what else thru the chain link
fence from my neighbor's yard into my garden again. Killed my squash,
and the tomatillo closest to the fence looks stunted a bit.

Last time they did this they left a calling card. This time, I don't
know for /sure/ that it was them because there was no little sign left
in the yard. I'm gonna call the county Monday and find out who they
sent out to spray the fence line (the county owns the house) and then
complain to the EPA this time instead of complaining directly to Chemlawn.

I don't think the EPA will yank their applicator's license, but there
ought to be a stiff fine for applying pesticides without following the
label restrictions.

Bob

[William Wagner[_2_]]

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> Sprayed broadleaf herbicide and who knows what else thru the chain link
> fence from my neighbor's yard into my garden again. Killed my squash,
> and the tomatillo closest to the fence looks stunted a bit.
>
> Last time they did this they left a calling card. This time, I don't
> know for /sure/ that it was them because there was no little sign left
> in the yard. I'm gonna call the county Monday and find out who they
> sent out to spray the fence line (the county owns the house) and then
> complain to the EPA this time instead of complaining directly to Chemlawn.
>
> I don't think the EPA will yank their applicator's license, but there
> ought to be a stiff fine for applying pesticides without following the
> label restrictions.
>
> Bob

Place a few black trash bags on your side of the fence. Document
with an image. Let the folks know if their is spray gets on your bags
It will be an legal issue. This ruse caused my neighbors to call off
aerial spaying 10 years ago.

Bill considered a ******* but so be it . This with relatives.

--

S Jersey USA Zone 5 Shade
http://www.ocutech.com/ High tech Vison aid
This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational
and informative purposes. This material is distributed without profit.

[Ron Hardin]

William Wagner wrote:
> It will be an legal issue. This ruse caused my neighbors to call off
> aerial spaying 10 years ago.

Still, it's amusing when your dog chases the airplane up and down the
fence line, even if she can't have puppies.

--
Ron Hardin


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

[Lar]

zxcvbob wrote:
> Sprayed broadleaf herbicide and who knows what else thru the chain link
> fence from my neighbor's yard into my garden again. Killed my squash,
> and the tomatillo closest to the fence looks stunted a bit.
>
> Last time they did this they left a calling card. This time, I don't
> know for /sure/ that it was them because there was no little sign left
> in the yard. I'm gonna call the county Monday and find out who they
> sent out to spray the fence line (the county owns the house) and then
> complain to the EPA this time instead of complaining directly to Chemlawn.
>
> I don't think the EPA will yank their applicator's license, but there
> ought to be a stiff fine for applying pesticides without following the
> label restrictions.
>
> Bob

What ever state you are located in will have a regulatory office that
regulates pesticide application. They are who you need to contact rather
than the EPA. Some states it will be Dept of Ag other states will have
specialized regulatory board.

Lar

[beecrofter]

On Jul 1, 3:51 pm, zxcvbob > wrote:
> Sprayed broadleaf herbicide and who knows what else thru the chain link
> fence from my neighbor's yard into my garden again. Killed my squash,
> and the tomatillo closest to the fence looks stunted a bit.
>
> Last time they did this they left a calling card. This time, I don't
> know for /sure/ that it was them because there was no little sign left
> in the yard. I'm gonna call the county Monday and find out who they
> sent out to spray the fence line (the county owns the house) and then
> complain to the EPA this time instead of complaining directly to Chemlawn.
>
> I don't think the EPA will yank their applicator's license, but there
> ought to be a stiff fine for applying pesticides without following the
> label restrictions.
>
> Bob

It's called "Chemical Trespass"
But if you were to roundup a swath a few feet into their property they
wouldn't need to spray near the fence any more :)

[JoeSpareBedroom]

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> Sprayed broadleaf herbicide and who knows what else thru the chain link
> fence from my neighbor's yard into my garden again. Killed my squash, and
> the tomatillo closest to the fence looks stunted a bit.
>
> Last time they did this they left a calling card. This time, I don't know
> for /sure/ that it was them because there was no little sign left in the
> yard. I'm gonna call the county Monday and find out who they sent out to
> spray the fence line (the county owns the house) and then complain to the
> EPA this time instead of complaining directly to Chemlawn.
>
> I don't think the EPA will yank their applicator's license, but there
> ought to be a stiff fine for applying pesticides without following the
> label restrictions.
>
> Bob


You're in luck. According to a former town justice here, what the chem-pigs
did falls under the heading of civil trespass. That law doesn't only apply
to people entering property without authorization, but also objects, animals
and substances. Once you find out who the chem-pigs were, call the town
office and find out what's involved in taking them to small claims court.

You may also want to tally up the hours you spent on the garden, multiply by
a reasonable number (say $175 per hour), and include that in the claim.
Finally, check with your state's environmental agency as to whether there's
a safe method for planting in that spot again. If it involves new topsoil
and hiring laborers, it gets lumped into the claim. Finally, some judges
will issue an injunction preventing any further spraying within a certain
distance of the fence line. The local judge did that for me. It
***REQUIRED*** the police to arrest my neighbor and her chem-pig applicator
if she repeated her crime. She never sprayed again.

[zxcvbob]

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Sprayed broadleaf herbicide and who knows what else thru the chain link
>> fence from my neighbor's yard into my garden again. Killed my squash, and
>> the tomatillo closest to the fence looks stunted a bit.
>>
>> Last time they did this they left a calling card. This time, I don't know
>> for /sure/ that it was them because there was no little sign left in the
>> yard. I'm gonna call the county Monday and find out who they sent out to
>> spray the fence line (the county owns the house) and then complain to the
>> EPA this time instead of complaining directly to Chemlawn.
>>
>> I don't think the EPA will yank their applicator's license, but there
>> ought to be a stiff fine for applying pesticides without following the
>> label restrictions.
>>
>> Bob
>
>
> You're in luck. According to a former town justice here, what the chem-pigs
> did falls under the heading of civil trespass. That law doesn't only apply
> to people entering property without authorization, but also objects, animals
> and substances. Once you find out who the chem-pigs were, call the town
> office and find out what's involved in taking them to small claims court.
>
> You may also want to tally up the hours you spent on the garden, multiply by
> a reasonable number (say $175 per hour), and include that in the claim.
> Finally, check with your state's environmental agency as to whether there's
> a safe method for planting in that spot again. If it involves new topsoil
> and hiring laborers, it gets lumped into the claim. Finally, some judges
> will issue an injunction preventing any further spraying within a certain
> distance of the fence line. The local judge did that for me. It
> ***REQUIRED*** the police to arrest my neighbor and her chem-pig applicator
> if she repeated her crime. She never sprayed again.
>
>


In this case, the "neighbor" is Olmsted County, MN. The person living
in the house (rented from the county) is not a problem. The county
itself is sending people out to spray.

The county is most likely immune from any civil lawsuits, small claims
or otherwise. I have to go after the applicator, or find a criminal
statute violated by the county.

BTW, it got interesting a couple of years ago when the house was vacant
one winter, and I called the sheriff and told him if I was supposed to
keep *my* sidewalk cleared, he needed to come out and shovel *his*.
(There was a huge snowstorm and the sidewalk went unshoveled for a
couple of days, in violation of a local ordinance.) They sent someone
out a couple of hours later.

Bob

[zxcvbob]

beecrofter wrote:
> On Jul 1, 3:51 pm, zxcvbob > wrote:
>> Sprayed broadleaf herbicide and who knows what else thru the chain link
>> fence from my neighbor's yard into my garden again. Killed my squash,
>> and the tomatillo closest to the fence looks stunted a bit.
>>
>> Last time they did this they left a calling card. This time, I don't
>> know for /sure/ that it was them because there was no little sign left
>> in the yard. I'm gonna call the county Monday and find out who they
>> sent out to spray the fence line (the county owns the house) and then
>> complain to the EPA this time instead of complaining directly to Chemlawn.
>>
>> I don't think the EPA will yank their applicator's license, but there
>> ought to be a stiff fine for applying pesticides without following the
>> label restrictions.
>>
>> Bob
>
> It's called "Chemical Trespass"
> But if you were to roundup a swath a few feet into their property they
> wouldn't need to spray near the fence any more :)
>


I don't want to **** off the lady that lives there. She has enough
problems already, and she's not the one hiring Chemlawn.

Bob

[JoeSpareBedroom]

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Sprayed broadleaf herbicide and who knows what else thru the chain link
>>> fence from my neighbor's yard into my garden again. Killed my squash,
>>> and the tomatillo closest to the fence looks stunted a bit.
>>>
>>> Last time they did this they left a calling card. This time, I don't
>>> know for /sure/ that it was them because there was no little sign left
>>> in the yard. I'm gonna call the county Monday and find out who they
>>> sent out to spray the fence line (the county owns the house) and then
>>> complain to the EPA this time instead of complaining directly to
>>> Chemlawn.
>>>
>>> I don't think the EPA will yank their applicator's license, but there
>>> ought to be a stiff fine for applying pesticides without following the
>>> label restrictions.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>>
>> You're in luck. According to a former town justice here, what the
>> chem-pigs did falls under the heading of civil trespass. That law doesn't
>> only apply to people entering property without authorization, but also
>> objects, animals and substances. Once you find out who the chem-pigs
>> were, call the town office and find out what's involved in taking them to
>> small claims court.
>>
>> You may also want to tally up the hours you spent on the garden, multiply
>> by a reasonable number (say $175 per hour), and include that in the
>> claim. Finally, check with your state's environmental agency as to
>> whether there's a safe method for planting in that spot again. If it
>> involves new topsoil and hiring laborers, it gets lumped into the claim.
>> Finally, some judges will issue an injunction preventing any further
>> spraying within a certain distance of the fence line. The local judge did
>> that for me. It ***REQUIRED*** the police to arrest my neighbor and her
>> chem-pig applicator if she repeated her crime. She never sprayed again.
>
>
> In this case, the "neighbor" is Olmsted County, MN. The person living in
> the house (rented from the county) is not a problem. The county itself is
> sending people out to spray.
>
> The county is most likely immune from any civil lawsuits, small claims or
> otherwise. I have to go after the applicator, or find a criminal statute
> violated by the county.


In any case, it is trespassing.

[Pennyaline]

zxcvbob wrote:
> In this case, the "neighbor" is Olmsted County, MN. The person living
> in the house (rented from the county) is not a problem. The county
> itself is sending people out to spray.
>
> The county is most likely immune from any civil lawsuits, small claims
> or otherwise. I have to go after the applicator, or find a criminal
> statute violated by the county.

I'll bet they're not immune. It used to be a given, but governments big
and small have been made to answer for their presumptive behaviors
lately. If they contracted with Chemlawn, they are responsible for what
Chemlawn does. F'rinstance, Comcast has a right of way through the back
of my property. Two years ago, they had to do excavations on that right
of way to do line upgrading. Comcast hired an outside company to do the
excavation and lay the line. When the work was done, everybody pulled up
and left and the back of my property was a freakin' mess! They were just
gone without a word, and when the yard remained unchanged days later it
seemed evident that they had no intention of clearing up. There were
tire tracks all over my yard from their digging equipment, my back fence
was pushed over, and huge clods of dirt and sod were everywhere. They
hadn't backfilled properly and the trench line was a heaving lumpy mess.
When I called Comcast about it a few days later, they told me it wasn't
their problem since the "other company" did the work. I reminded them
that the "other company" was acting in Comcast's interest and under
Comcast's direction and as a result it was as if Comcast had done the
work itself and was responsible for cleaning it up. But to be on the
safe side, I backed it up with a letter from an attorney. The "other
company" was out there the next day leveling off the backfill, cleaning
up the mess, and lining the fence back up nice and straight.



> BTW, it got interesting a couple of years ago when the house was vacant
> one winter, and I called the sheriff and told him if I was supposed to
> keep *my* sidewalk cleared, he needed to come out and shovel *his*.
> (There was a huge snowstorm and the sidewalk went unshoveled for a
> couple of days, in violation of a local ordinance.) They sent someone
> out a couple of hours later.

As they should.

[Jan Flora]

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> Sprayed broadleaf herbicide and who knows what else thru the chain link
> fence from my neighbor's yard into my garden again. Killed my squash,
> and the tomatillo closest to the fence looks stunted a bit.
>
> Last time they did this they left a calling card. This time, I don't
> know for /sure/ that it was them because there was no little sign left
> in the yard. I'm gonna call the county Monday and find out who they
> sent out to spray the fence line (the county owns the house) and then
> complain to the EPA this time instead of complaining directly to Chemlawn.
>
> I don't think the EPA will yank their applicator's license, but there
> ought to be a stiff fine for applying pesticides without following the
> label restrictions.
>
> Bob

Gee, doing that in Alaska will get you in big trouble. The
legislature just passed a statute about pesticide application
without notification. Some people are allergic to certain ag
chemicals, like me. (What's with people suddenly becoming
allergic to so many things these days? I can't even walk down
the laundry soap isle in the grocery store anymore, and I don't
have a bad case of "chemical sensitivity" or whatever they're
calling it this week.)

Your state will have some control over their licensed pesticide
applicators. Look at your state website and figure out which
agency licenses them. (It's Dept. of Environmental Conservation
in Alaska.) Call them. Then if you need more help than the licensing
agency can offer, call your local legislator and see if he/she will
help.

Or something like that.

Good Luck,

Jan

[Dave]

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Sprayed broadleaf herbicide and who knows what else thru the chain link
>>> fence from my neighbor's yard into my garden again. Killed my squash,
>>> and the tomatillo closest to the fence looks stunted a bit.
>>>
>>> Last time they did this they left a calling card. This time, I don't
>>> know for /sure/ that it was them because there was no little sign left
>>> in the yard. I'm gonna call the county Monday and find out who they
>>> sent out to spray the fence line (the county owns the house) and then
>>> complain to the EPA this time instead of complaining directly to
>>> Chemlawn.
>>>
>>> I don't think the EPA will yank their applicator's license, but there
>>> ought to be a stiff fine for applying pesticides without following the
>>> label restrictions.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>>
>> You're in luck. According to a former town justice here, what the
>> chem-pigs did falls under the heading of civil trespass. That law doesn't
>> only apply to people entering property without authorization, but also
>> objects, animals and substances. Once you find out who the chem-pigs
>> were, call the town office and find out what's involved in taking them to
>> small claims court.
>>
>> You may also want to tally up the hours you spent on the garden, multiply
>> by a reasonable number (say $175 per hour), and include that in the
>> claim. Finally, check with your state's environmental agency as to
>> whether there's a safe method for planting in that spot again. If it
>> involves new topsoil and hiring laborers, it gets lumped into the claim.
>> Finally, some judges will issue an injunction preventing any further
>> spraying within a certain distance of the fence line. The local judge did
>> that for me. It ***REQUIRED*** the police to arrest my neighbor and her
>> chem-pig applicator if she repeated her crime. She never sprayed again.
>
>
> In this case, the "neighbor" is Olmsted County, MN. The person living in
> the house (rented from the county) is not a problem. The county itself is
> sending people out to spray.
>
> The county is most likely immune from any civil lawsuits, small claims or
> otherwise. I have to go after the applicator, or find a criminal statute
> violated by the county.
>
> BTW, it got interesting a couple of years ago when the house was vacant
> one winter, and I called the sheriff and told him if I was supposed to
> keep *my* sidewalk cleared, he needed to come out and shovel *his*. (There
> was a huge snowstorm and the sidewalk went unshoveled for a couple of
> days, in violation of a local ordinance.) They sent someone out a couple
> of hours later.
>
> Bob

So, I guess Agent Orange on your children, nevermind your garden, and pets
is okay as long as a government entity is responsible for subcontracting its
application.

Wonder how much of that herbicide is diluted and actually in your garden
now? Maybe you're eating some?
Dave

[zxcvbob]

Dave wrote:
> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Sprayed broadleaf herbicide and who knows what else thru the chain link
>>>> fence from my neighbor's yard into my garden again. Killed my squash,
>>>> and the tomatillo closest to the fence looks stunted a bit.
>>>>
>>>> Last time they did this they left a calling card. This time, I don't
>>>> know for /sure/ that it was them because there was no little sign left
>>>> in the yard. I'm gonna call the county Monday and find out who they
>>>> sent out to spray the fence line (the county owns the house) and then
>>>> complain to the EPA this time instead of complaining directly to
>>>> Chemlawn.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the EPA will yank their applicator's license, but there
>>>> ought to be a stiff fine for applying pesticides without following the
>>>> label restrictions.
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>
>>> You're in luck. According to a former town justice here, what the
>>> chem-pigs did falls under the heading of civil trespass. That law doesn't
>>> only apply to people entering property without authorization, but also
>>> objects, animals and substances. Once you find out who the chem-pigs
>>> were, call the town office and find out what's involved in taking them to
>>> small claims court.
>>>
>>> You may also want to tally up the hours you spent on the garden, multiply
>>> by a reasonable number (say $175 per hour), and include that in the
>>> claim. Finally, check with your state's environmental agency as to
>>> whether there's a safe method for planting in that spot again. If it
>>> involves new topsoil and hiring laborers, it gets lumped into the claim.
>>> Finally, some judges will issue an injunction preventing any further
>>> spraying within a certain distance of the fence line. The local judge did
>>> that for me. It ***REQUIRED*** the police to arrest my neighbor and her
>>> chem-pig applicator if she repeated her crime. She never sprayed again.
>>
>> In this case, the "neighbor" is Olmsted County, MN. The person living in
>> the house (rented from the county) is not a problem. The county itself is
>> sending people out to spray.
>>
>> The county is most likely immune from any civil lawsuits, small claims or
>> otherwise. I have to go after the applicator, or find a criminal statute
>> violated by the county.
>>
>

> So, I guess Agent Orange on your children, nevermind your garden, and pets
> is okay as long as a government entity is responsible for subcontracting its
> application.


Is that really what you think I said? That's it's OK because the govt
did it?

Bob

[Rachael Simpson]

Pennyaline wrote:
> zxcvbob wrote:
>> In this case, the "neighbor" is Olmsted County, MN. The person living
>> in the house (rented from the county) is not a problem. The county
>> itself is sending people out to spray.
>>
>> The county is most likely immune from any civil lawsuits, small claims
>> or otherwise. I have to go after the applicator, or find a criminal
>> statute violated by the county.
>
> I'll bet they're not immune. It used to be a given, but governments big
> and small have been made to answer for their presumptive behaviors
> lately. If they contracted with Chemlawn, they are responsible for what
> Chemlawn does. F'rinstance, Comcast has a right of way through the back
> of my property. Two years ago, they had to do excavations on that right
> of way to do line upgrading. Comcast hired an outside company to do the
> excavation and lay the line. When the work was done, everybody pulled up
> and left and the back of my property was a freakin' mess! They were just
> gone without a word, and when the yard remained unchanged days later it
> seemed evident that they had no intention of clearing up. There were
> tire tracks all over my yard from their digging equipment, my back fence
> was pushed over, and huge clods of dirt and sod were everywhere. They
> hadn't backfilled properly and the trench line was a heaving lumpy mess.
> When I called Comcast about it a few days later, they told me it wasn't
> their problem since the "other company" did the work. I reminded them
> that the "other company" was acting in Comcast's interest and under
> Comcast's direction and as a result it was as if Comcast had done the
> work itself and was responsible for cleaning it up. But to be on the
> safe side, I backed it up with a letter from an attorney. The "other
> company" was out there the next day leveling off the backfill, cleaning
> up the mess, and lining the fence back up nice and straight.
>
>
>
>> BTW, it got interesting a couple of years ago when the house was
>> vacant one winter, and I called the sheriff and told him if I was
>> supposed to keep *my* sidewalk cleared, he needed to come out and
>> shovel *his*. (There was a huge snowstorm and the sidewalk went
>> unshoveled for a couple of days, in violation of a local ordinance.)
>> They sent someone out a couple of hours later.
>
> As they should.


Here's one for you:

we own some land outside of a town near here. 20+ acres of pasture
land, currently occupied by 9 horses and 5 cows. NC DOT recently
decided that they want to take our pasture and run a *new* ditch thru
it. The overflow from an area pond runs thru the pasture in a little
stream and now they want to re-route it. We have been informed by local
government, that they are taking a little over 5 acres for this project,
right down the middle of the pasture, digging a trench, and lining it
with landscaping rocks. Do you know what effect that the rocks will
have on the horses feet?!? The way they want to fix it will almost
eliminate any water flow thru the pasture, thus having a bad effect on
the cows. For those who aren't ranchers on the group, the water is vital
to the cows in other ways than for drinking. Cows don't sweat, so they
stand in the water to cool themselves. The township and the county have
already approved this project. So how can we fight this one? Oh, and
during this process, we are *required* to remove all animals from the
pasture, so as the machinery won't scare them and make them *wild*. They
*assure* us that we will be paid for the acreage they take, as soon as
the project is complete. Like we had it for sale before hand or
something............Everything I've tried to do to prevent this, has
turned into dead-ends. Frustrating! UGH!

[JoeSpareBedroom]

"rachael simpson" > wrote in message
...
> Pennyaline wrote:
>> zxcvbob wrote:
>>> In this case, the "neighbor" is Olmsted County, MN. The person living
>>> in the house (rented from the county) is not a problem. The county
>>> itself is sending people out to spray.
>>>
>>> The county is most likely immune from any civil lawsuits, small claims
>>> or otherwise. I have to go after the applicator, or find a criminal
>>> statute violated by the county.
>>
>> I'll bet they're not immune. It used to be a given, but governments big
>> and small have been made to answer for their presumptive behaviors
>> lately. If they contracted with Chemlawn, they are responsible for what
>> Chemlawn does. F'rinstance, Comcast has a right of way through the back
>> of my property. Two years ago, they had to do excavations on that right
>> of way to do line upgrading. Comcast hired an outside company to do the
>> excavation and lay the line. When the work was done, everybody pulled up
>> and left and the back of my property was a freakin' mess! They were just
>> gone without a word, and when the yard remained unchanged days later it
>> seemed evident that they had no intention of clearing up. There were tire
>> tracks all over my yard from their digging equipment, my back fence was
>> pushed over, and huge clods of dirt and sod were everywhere. They hadn't
>> backfilled properly and the trench line was a heaving lumpy mess. When I
>> called Comcast about it a few days later, they told me it wasn't their
>> problem since the "other company" did the work. I reminded them that the
>> "other company" was acting in Comcast's interest and under Comcast's
>> direction and as a result it was as if Comcast had done the work itself
>> and was responsible for cleaning it up. But to be on the safe side, I
>> backed it up with a letter from an attorney. The "other company" was out
>> there the next day leveling off the backfill, cleaning up the mess, and
>> lining the fence back up nice and straight.
>>
>>
>>
>>> BTW, it got interesting a couple of years ago when the house was vacant
>>> one winter, and I called the sheriff and told him if I was supposed to
>>> keep *my* sidewalk cleared, he needed to come out and shovel *his*.
>>> (There was a huge snowstorm and the sidewalk went unshoveled for a
>>> couple of days, in violation of a local ordinance.) They sent someone
>>> out a couple of hours later.
>>
>> As they should.
>
>
> Here's one for you:
>
> we own some land outside of a town near here. 20+ acres of pasture land,
> currently occupied by 9 horses and 5 cows. NC DOT recently decided that
> they want to take our pasture and run a *new* ditch thru it. The overflow
> from an area pond runs thru the pasture in a little stream and now they
> want to re-route it. We have been informed by local government, that they
> are taking a little over 5 acres for this project, right down the middle
> of the pasture, digging a trench, and lining it with landscaping rocks.
> Do you know what effect that the rocks will have on the horses feet?!?
> The way they want to fix it will almost eliminate any water flow thru the
> pasture, thus having a bad effect on the cows. For those who aren't
> ranchers on the group, the water is vital to the cows in other ways than
> for drinking. Cows don't sweat, so they stand in the water to cool
> themselves. The township and the county have already approved this
> project. So how can we fight this one? Oh, and during this process, we
> are *required* to remove all animals from the pasture, so as the machinery
> won't scare them and make them *wild*. They *assure* us that we will be
> paid for the acreage they take, as soon as the project is complete. Like
> we had it for sale before hand or something............Everything I've
> tried to do to prevent this, has turned into dead-ends. Frustrating! UGH!


What does your lawyer say about this? And, did you attend any town meetings
where this could have been discussed?

[Rachael Simpson]

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "rachael simpson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Pennyaline wrote:
>>> zxcvbob wrote:
>>
*SNIP*
>> Here's one for you:
>>
>> we own some land outside of a town near here. 20+ acres of pasture land,
>> currently occupied by 9 horses and 5 cows. NC DOT recently decided that
>> they want to take our pasture and run a *new* ditch thru it. The overflow
>> from an area pond runs thru the pasture in a little stream and now they
>> want to re-route it. We have been informed by local government, that they
>> are taking a little over 5 acres for this project, right down the middle
>> of the pasture, digging a trench, and lining it with landscaping rocks.
>> Do you know what effect that the rocks will have on the horses feet?!?
>> The way they want to fix it will almost eliminate any water flow thru the
>> pasture, thus having a bad effect on the cows. For those who aren't
>> ranchers on the group, the water is vital to the cows in other ways than
>> for drinking. Cows don't sweat, so they stand in the water to cool
>> themselves. The township and the county have already approved this
>> project. So how can we fight this one? Oh, and during this process, we
>> are *required* to remove all animals from the pasture, so as the machinery
>> won't scare them and make them *wild*. They *assure* us that we will be
>> paid for the acreage they take, as soon as the project is complete. Like
>> we had it for sale before hand or something............Everything I've
>> tried to do to prevent this, has turned into dead-ends. Frustrating! UGH!
>
>
> What does your lawyer say about this? And, did you attend any town meetings
> where this could have been discussed?
>
>

Ha, town meetings? let me tell you where those got me - NO WHERE! My
uncle is the town manager, his wife is the town secretary and thinks she
runs the whole town! They are upset that grandpa left the cows to me &
my kids, and not them..........you can guess the rest.

So far, we are having trouble finding a local lawyer who hasn't been in
my "aunt's" back pocket so to speak.

However, OTOH, I do have several circuit court judges who are my
friends, one of which is going over our case now. Hopefully, he can
refer us to someone who will take the case, or work on it himself.......

In the meantime, lots of prayer, looking for another pasture that we
might can rent for awhile, and trying to get some of the neighbors
around the pasture involved.

[Cheryl Isaak]

On 7/2/07 9:41 AM, in article , "rachael
simpson" > wrote:

> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> "rachael simpson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Pennyaline wrote:
>>>> zxcvbob wrote:
>>>
> *SNIP*
>>> Here's one for you:
>>>
>>> we own some land outside of a town near here. 20+ acres of pasture land,
>>> currently occupied by 9 horses and 5 cows. NC DOT recently decided that
>>> they want to take our pasture and run a *new* ditch thru it. The overflow
>>> from an area pond runs thru the pasture in a little stream and now they
>>> want to re-route it. We have been informed by local government, that they
>>> are taking a little over 5 acres for this project, right down the middle
>>> of the pasture, digging a trench, and lining it with landscaping rocks.
>>> Do you know what effect that the rocks will have on the horses feet?!?
>>> The way they want to fix it will almost eliminate any water flow thru the
>>> pasture, thus having a bad effect on the cows. For those who aren't
>>> ranchers on the group, the water is vital to the cows in other ways than
>>> for drinking. Cows don't sweat, so they stand in the water to cool
>>> themselves. The township and the county have already approved this
>>> project. So how can we fight this one? Oh, and during this process, we
>>> are *required* to remove all animals from the pasture, so as the machinery
>>> won't scare them and make them *wild*. They *assure* us that we will be
>>> paid for the acreage they take, as soon as the project is complete. Like
>>> we had it for sale before hand or something............Everything I've
>>> tried to do to prevent this, has turned into dead-ends. Frustrating! UGH!
>>
>>
>> What does your lawyer say about this? And, did you attend any town meetings
>> where this could have been discussed?
>>
>>
>
> Ha, town meetings? let me tell you where those got me - NO WHERE! My
> uncle is the town manager, his wife is the town secretary and thinks she
> runs the whole town! They are upset that grandpa left the cows to me &
> my kids, and not them..........you can guess the rest.
>
> So far, we are having trouble finding a local lawyer who hasn't been in
> my "aunt's" back pocket so to speak.
>
> However, OTOH, I do have several circuit court judges who are my
> friends, one of which is going over our case now. Hopefully, he can
> refer us to someone who will take the case, or work on it himself.......
>
> In the meantime, lots of prayer, looking for another pasture that we
> might can rent for awhile, and trying to get some of the neighbors
> around the pasture involved.

You don't think this has "politics" involved? Family politics are the worst
and most deadly form.
C

[Rachael Simpson]

Cheryl Isaak wrote:
> On 7/2/07 9:41 AM, in article , "rachael
> simpson" > wrote:
>
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>> "rachael simpson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Pennyaline wrote:
>>>>> zxcvbob wrote:
>> *SNIP*
*snip*
>
> You don't think this has "politics" involved? Family politics are the worst
> and most deadly form.
> C
>

AMEN!

[zxcvbob]

rachael simpson wrote:
> Pennyaline wrote:
>> zxcvbob wrote:
>>> In this case, the "neighbor" is Olmsted County, MN. The person
>>> living in the house (rented from the county) is not a problem. The
>>> county itself is sending people out to spray.
>>>
>>> The county is most likely immune from any civil lawsuits, small
>>> claims or otherwise. I have to go after the applicator, or find a
>>> criminal statute violated by the county.
>>
>> I'll bet they're not immune. It used to be a given, but governments
>> big and small have been made to answer for their presumptive behaviors
>> lately. If they contracted with Chemlawn, they are responsible for
>> what Chemlawn does. F'rinstance, Comcast has a right of way through
>> the back of my property. Two years ago, they had to do excavations on
>> that right of way to do line upgrading. Comcast hired an outside
>> company to do the excavation and lay the line. When the work was done,
>> everybody pulled up and left and the back of my property was a
>> freakin' mess! They were just gone without a word, and when the yard
>> remained unchanged days later it seemed evident that they had no
>> intention of clearing up. There were tire tracks all over my yard from
>> their digging equipment, my back fence was pushed over, and huge clods
>> of dirt and sod were everywhere. They hadn't backfilled properly and
>> the trench line was a heaving lumpy mess. When I called Comcast about
>> it a few days later, they told me it wasn't their problem since the
>> "other company" did the work. I reminded them that the "other company"
>> was acting in Comcast's interest and under Comcast's direction and as
>> a result it was as if Comcast had done the work itself and was
>> responsible for cleaning it up. But to be on the safe side, I backed
>> it up with a letter from an attorney. The "other company" was out
>> there the next day leveling off the backfill, cleaning up the mess,
>> and lining the fence back up nice and straight.
>>
>>
>>
>>> BTW, it got interesting a couple of years ago when the house was
>>> vacant one winter, and I called the sheriff and told him if I was
>>> supposed to keep *my* sidewalk cleared, he needed to come out and
>>> shovel *his*. (There was a huge snowstorm and the sidewalk went
>>> unshoveled for a couple of days, in violation of a local ordinance.)
>>> They sent someone out a couple of hours later.
>>
>> As they should.
>
>
> Here's one for you:
>
> we own some land outside of a town near here. 20+ acres of pasture
> land, currently occupied by 9 horses and 5 cows. NC DOT recently
> decided that they want to take our pasture and run a *new* ditch thru
> it. The overflow from an area pond runs thru the pasture in a little
> stream and now they want to re-route it. We have been informed by local
> government, that they are taking a little over 5 acres for this project,
> right down the middle of the pasture, digging a trench, and lining it
> with landscaping rocks. Do you know what effect that the rocks will
> have on the horses feet?!? The way they want to fix it will almost
> eliminate any water flow thru the pasture, thus having a bad effect on
> the cows. For those who aren't ranchers on the group, the water is vital
> to the cows in other ways than for drinking. Cows don't sweat, so they
> stand in the water to cool themselves. The township and the county have
> already approved this project. So how can we fight this one? Oh, and
> during this process, we are *required* to remove all animals from the
> pasture, so as the machinery won't scare them and make them *wild*. They
> *assure* us that we will be paid for the acreage they take, as soon as
> the project is complete. Like we had it for sale before hand or
> something............Everything I've tried to do to prevent this, has
> turned into dead-ends. Frustrating! UGH!


Where's their environmental impact study? Who knows what endangered
species of microscopic amphibians might be harmed if they reroute the
water? (basically, find all kinds of federal bullshit paperwork that
they are lacking, and sic the bureaucrats on them. The feds should be
able to tie it up for 10 years, although you might have trouble getting
their cooperation under the current administration. But if your lawyer
can find a sympathetic judge...

(I'm serious about the Environmental Impact Study)

They say they will pay *after* the project is finished? That doesn't
smell right.

I don't know where you live in, but there may be state water-rights laws
that give you some leverage.

Or you and a few buddies could just deny them access to the land, with a
Garands and a few cases of Greek or Korean surplus ammunition if you're
into that last stand sort of thing.

Bob

[Dave]

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> Dave wrote:
>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Sprayed broadleaf herbicide and who knows what else thru the chain
>>>>> link fence from my neighbor's yard into my garden again. Killed my
>>>>> squash, and the tomatillo closest to the fence looks stunted a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Last time they did this they left a calling card. This time, I don't
>>>>> know for /sure/ that it was them because there was no little sign left
>>>>> in the yard. I'm gonna call the county Monday and find out who they
>>>>> sent out to spray the fence line (the county owns the house) and then
>>>>> complain to the EPA this time instead of complaining directly to
>>>>> Chemlawn.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think the EPA will yank their applicator's license, but there
>>>>> ought to be a stiff fine for applying pesticides without following the
>>>>> label restrictions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>> You're in luck. According to a former town justice here, what the
>>>> chem-pigs did falls under the heading of civil trespass. That law
>>>> doesn't only apply to people entering property without authorization,
>>>> but also objects, animals and substances. Once you find out who the
>>>> chem-pigs were, call the town office and find out what's involved in
>>>> taking them to small claims court.
>>>>
>>>> You may also want to tally up the hours you spent on the garden,
>>>> multiply by a reasonable number (say $175 per hour), and include that
>>>> in the claim. Finally, check with your state's environmental agency as
>>>> to whether there's a safe method for planting in that spot again. If it
>>>> involves new topsoil and hiring laborers, it gets lumped into the
>>>> claim. Finally, some judges will issue an injunction preventing any
>>>> further spraying within a certain distance of the fence line. The local
>>>> judge did that for me. It ***REQUIRED*** the police to arrest my
>>>> neighbor and her chem-pig applicator if she repeated her crime. She
>>>> never sprayed again.
>>>
>>> In this case, the "neighbor" is Olmsted County, MN. The person living
>>> in the house (rented from the county) is not a problem. The county
>>> itself is sending people out to spray.
>>>
>>> The county is most likely immune from any civil lawsuits, small claims
>>> or otherwise. I have to go after the applicator, or find a criminal
>>> statute violated by the county.
>>>
>>
>
>> So, I guess Agent Orange on your children, nevermind your garden, and
>> pets is okay as long as a government entity is responsible for
>> subcontracting its application.
>
>
> Is that really what you think I said? That's it's OK because the govt did
> it?
>
> Bob

"The county is most likely immune from any civil lawsuits, small claims or
otherwise."

Dave

[Pennyaline]

Dave wrote:
> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>> Is that really what you think I said? That's it's OK because the govt did
>> it?
>>
>> Bob
>
> "The county is most likely immune from any civil lawsuits, small claims or
> otherwise."
>
> Dave

But he *did not* say that makes it all right.

[Pennyaline]

Jan Flora wrote:
> Gee, doing that in Alaska will get you in big trouble. The
> legislature just passed a statute about pesticide application
> without notification.

Correct in Utah as well. We live in a mosquito abatement area
(wetlands... in a high desert state yet!), and aerial pesticide spraying
happens every year. Well before spraying begins, all residents must be
notified of when and where spraying will done, and what agent will be
sprayed.


> Some people are allergic to certain ag
> chemicals, like me. (What's with people suddenly becoming
> allergic to so many things these days? I can't even walk down
> the laundry soap isle in the grocery store anymore, and I don't
> have a bad case of "chemical sensitivity" or whatever they're
> calling it this week.)

People are suddenly becoming sensitive to so many things because we are
exposed to so many things, much more than before. It's in everything we
eat, drink, wear and breathe.

[JoeSpareBedroom]

"Dave" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dave wrote:
>>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Sprayed broadleaf herbicide and who knows what else thru the chain
>>>>>> link fence from my neighbor's yard into my garden again. Killed my
>>>>>> squash, and the tomatillo closest to the fence looks stunted a bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Last time they did this they left a calling card. This time, I don't
>>>>>> know for /sure/ that it was them because there was no little sign
>>>>>> left in the yard. I'm gonna call the county Monday and find out who
>>>>>> they sent out to spray the fence line (the county owns the house) and
>>>>>> then complain to the EPA this time instead of complaining directly to
>>>>>> Chemlawn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think the EPA will yank their applicator's license, but there
>>>>>> ought to be a stiff fine for applying pesticides without following
>>>>>> the label restrictions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>
>>>>> You're in luck. According to a former town justice here, what the
>>>>> chem-pigs did falls under the heading of civil trespass. That law
>>>>> doesn't only apply to people entering property without authorization,
>>>>> but also objects, animals and substances. Once you find out who the
>>>>> chem-pigs were, call the town office and find out what's involved in
>>>>> taking them to small claims court.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may also want to tally up the hours you spent on the garden,
>>>>> multiply by a reasonable number (say $175 per hour), and include that
>>>>> in the claim. Finally, check with your state's environmental agency as
>>>>> to whether there's a safe method for planting in that spot again. If
>>>>> it involves new topsoil and hiring laborers, it gets lumped into the
>>>>> claim. Finally, some judges will issue an injunction preventing any
>>>>> further spraying within a certain distance of the fence line. The
>>>>> local judge did that for me. It ***REQUIRED*** the police to arrest my
>>>>> neighbor and her chem-pig applicator if she repeated her crime. She
>>>>> never sprayed again.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, the "neighbor" is Olmsted County, MN. The person living
>>>> in the house (rented from the county) is not a problem. The county
>>>> itself is sending people out to spray.
>>>>
>>>> The county is most likely immune from any civil lawsuits, small claims
>>>> or otherwise. I have to go after the applicator, or find a criminal
>>>> statute violated by the county.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>> So, I guess Agent Orange on your children, nevermind your garden, and
>>> pets is okay as long as a government entity is responsible for
>>> subcontracting its application.
>>
>>
>> Is that really what you think I said? That's it's OK because the govt
>> did it?
>>
>> Bob
>
> "The county is most likely immune from any civil lawsuits, small claims or
> otherwise."
>
> Dave


That's now. Tomorrow is another story. And there's also the individual
person who operated the sprayer. If they own a home, the neighborly thing to
do would be to make them afraid they're going to lose it to settle the
lawsuit.......

[doofy]

Jan Flora wrote:
> (What's with people suddenly becoming
> allergic to so many things these days? I can't even walk down
> the laundry soap isle in the grocery store anymore, and I don't
> have a bad case of "chemical sensitivity" or whatever they're
> calling it this week.)


Its the toxic crap they put in everything. Fragrances are an
unregulated industry, which is likely what's hitting you in the soap aisle.

Some of the chemicals they use are known sensitizers, ensuring that some
people are going to become allergic.

[Phisherman[_1_]]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:22:54 -0700, doofy > wrote:

>Jan Flora wrote:
>> (What's with people suddenly becoming
>> allergic to so many things these days? I can't even walk down
>> the laundry soap isle in the grocery store anymore, and I don't
>> have a bad case of "chemical sensitivity" or whatever they're
>> calling it this week.)
>
>
>Its the toxic crap they put in everything. Fragrances are an
>unregulated industry, which is likely what's hitting you in the soap aisle.
>
>Some of the chemicals they use are known sensitizers, ensuring that some
>people are going to become allergic.


I dislike the perfumes put in detergents and soap, and look for the
kinds that contain no perfumes. Not allergic, but just don't like the
smell left in fabrics. Some upper department stores put their
cosmetic department near the entrance of the store, and these stores I
avoid.

[doofy]

Phisherman wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:22:54 -0700, doofy > wrote:
>
>> Jan Flora wrote:
>>> (What's with people suddenly becoming
>>> allergic to so many things these days? I can't even walk down
>>> the laundry soap isle in the grocery store anymore, and I don't
>>> have a bad case of "chemical sensitivity" or whatever they're
>>> calling it this week.)
>>
>> Its the toxic crap they put in everything. Fragrances are an
>> unregulated industry, which is likely what's hitting you in the soap aisle.
>>
>> Some of the chemicals they use are known sensitizers, ensuring that some
>> people are going to become allergic.
>
>
> I dislike the perfumes put in detergents and soap, and look for the
> kinds that contain no perfumes. Not allergic, but just don't like the
> smell left in fabrics. Some upper department stores put their
> cosmetic department near the entrance of the store, and these stores I
> avoid.

Yup.

I've gone into Whole Foods, when I was particularly sensitive, and
needing to get some vitamin products. Those two areas are the same
department at WF, and right next to each other. I told them I couldn't
even go into the department to shop because of the crap. They offered
to get the products for me, but I was needing to see what they had
first. Wrote a letter to the corporate office. No avail.