Ground-up tires?

wrote:
There are a fair amount of knowledgeable (and, well, imaginative) folks
here, and I'm looking for help.

A tire recycler in Gulfport. MS got Katrina'ed, and there are tires out
the wazoo (that's a whole bunch of tires) on his property. Long story
short is that there are tires, a problem with them, and I figured good
ol' ROFF is as good a place as any to ask if anyone has any ideas,
contacts, wants to Google beyond what we've done, or ???

And for the record, I have no interest in the problem directly beyond
that as a concerned citizen. And to go even further, if someone knows
something that results in money being made, and I somehow wind up being
able to direct any of it, it goes to charity.

Thanks in advance, and all ideas welcome,
R

Let them eat tires.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:55:16 -0600, rw
wrote:

wrote:
There are a fair amount of knowledgeable (and, well, imaginative) folks
here, and I'm looking for help.

A tire recycler in Gulfport. MS got Katrina'ed, and there are tires out
the wazoo (that's a whole bunch of tires) on his property. Long story
short is that there are tires, a problem with them, and I figured good
ol' ROFF is as good a place as any to ask if anyone has any ideas,
contacts, wants to Google beyond what we've done, or ???

And for the record, I have no interest in the problem directly beyond
that as a concerned citizen. And to go even further, if someone knows
something that results in money being made, and I somehow wind up being
able to direct any of it, it goes to charity.

Thanks in advance, and all ideas welcome,
R

Let them eat tires.

Actually, the problem may be solved. Some wag used an offshore shell
corp to buy up some land in some backwater ******** called Stanley,
Idaho, hire a bunch of illegal workers to load 'em up, and send them to
the new dumpsite. Then **** it, it'll be that place's problem. Any if
any of the dip****s that inhabit this Stanley place wanna get their
panties in a twist over it, I sure hope folks up that way are
well-versed in Seychelles law...

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)

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.

yfitons
wayno

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.

. 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.

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

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

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

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.

On 14 Mar 2007 07:08:43 -0700, wrote:

On Mar 14, 12:16 am, wrote:

Thanks in advance, and all ideas welcome,

I was going to suggest an idea that I recalled reading about- sinking
tires to create reefs-, but a quick check of the news suggests it
isn't such a great idea:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/18/news/tires.php

There are some green builders who use recycled tires for wall
building, but I think it is a pretty small niche, even for green
building.

Maybe they could be used for levee construction?
http://orion.csuchico.edu/Pages/vol4...7.recycle.html

Now this might have some legs - thanks!

Hmmm... http://www.deantires.com/ You SURE you have no interest?

Whattyaknow? I had no idea I was a tire kingpin along with being the
Marquis of mortadella...of course, I didn't realize I was a sausage
kingpin-to-be until I read it on ROFF...seriously, though, I don't even
know the guy in the situation down here, I just know it is a problem
that needs solving.

Maybe they could be turned into sausages?

Um, that would be English sausage...

Or milk? "Oh, Mr. Johnny
Verbeck how could you be so mean..."

:-)

Hope the problem gets solved.

Yep. Thanks again,
R

Bill

On Mar 13, 9:16 pm, wrote:
There are a fair amount of knowledgeable (and, well, imaginative) folks
here, and I'm looking for help.


Send them to Sterling Connecticut they have a 26 Megawatt tire-
burning power plant that burns about 10 million tires annually. It's
a power plant that people pay you to give you the fuel.




A tire recycler in Gulfport. MS got Katrina'ed, and there are tires out
the wazoo (that's a whole bunch of tires) on his property. Long story
short is that there are tires, a problem with them, and I figured good
ol' ROFF is as good a place as any to ask if anyone has any ideas,
contacts, wants to Google beyond what we've done, or ???

And for the record, I have no interest in the problem directly beyond
that as a concerned citizen. And to go even further, if someone knows
something that results in money being made, and I somehow wind up being
able to direct any of it, it goes to charity.

Thanks in advance, and all ideas welcome,
R