On Mar 14, 4:05 pm, "Tim J."
wrote:
George Adams typed:





On Mar 14, 11:06 am, "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.

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.

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)

The guy's name was Carl Trant, and IIRC, he wasn't jailed for
possession of the tires, but for contempt of court, because he didn't
pay the fines that were levied against him. He served a short time in
jail, moved away from the area. and was killed in an accident
involving a car crusher at another junkyard.

Hmmm. . . that sounds just like a scene from Godfather, eh?

The taxpayers ultimately
paid to have the tires removed.....I think there were close to
1,000,000 of them.

Thanks for the clarification, George. I'll be damned if I can remember, but
weren't the fines related to having the tires?
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------http://css.sbcma.com/timj- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes. I don't recall any zone change, I think he simply exceeded the
number of tires he was allowed to store. My memory isn't the best, but
I think at one time he was planning to grind them up himself. When
that fell throgh he just kept accepting tires even though he had no
way to dispose of them.