On 14 Mar 2007 12:42:03 -0700, "
wrote:

On Mar 14, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:06:03 -0400, "Wayne Harrison"





wrote:

"Tim J."

There was a business up here in MA that ran into a similar problem about
10-12 years ago. After a zoning change, the owner was told he's have to
remove the tires he'd been collecting for more than a decade because of
the fire hazard, about the same number you mentioned, or go to jail.

. Faced with paying many
hundreds of thousands of dollars he didn't have, he ended up serving time
and losing the business.

whoa, nellie! that would be unconstitutional on more than one basis,
imo. most obviously, the imposition of a criminal penalty against conduct
that was not criminal at the time it was initiated would be a clear
violation of the "ex post facto" clause.

How? If the zoning change made whatever use illegal, and the owner
continued to allow a situation he created to exist, there's nothing ex
post facto. They wouldn't need to worry about charging him about what
was once legal or such - he would have been breaking the current law
instant to his being charged.

TC,
R





i don't get it. any details on this "prosecution"? news articles? the
guy's name?

yfitons
wayno(not that i don't believe you--i just think there's something missing)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well, richard, that theory would preclude the protection of ex post
facto in every case.

now, the municipality might be able to take some sort of *civil*
action to require a cleanup in what would likely be termed "the
abatement of a nuisance", but prosecuting him *criminally* is not
constitutional.

Again, how so? He wouldn't be charged with anything for what he did
prior to the law change, but would have been charged with his illegal
_current_ activity. For example, if Studs McCrapsgame runs a
currently-legal game in Anytown, North Virginia, and the law changes,
but Studs keeps running the game, his being charged under the changed
law for contemporary violation of it is not ex post facto. What you
_seem_ to be suggesting, although I can't imagine that you would, is
that ex post facto protection extends to future acts after a law change.

As to the civil v. criminal aspect, I'd offer that the charges would not
have stemmed from the (then-legal) creation of the dump, but rather the
failure to clean it up after having been so ordered under the new
law(s). I'm not suggesting it was the proper action by the city,
county, or whatever, merely that it doesn't seem to involve anything ex
post facto.

TC,
R

yfitons
wayno