Ground-up tires?

wrote:
On 14 Mar 2007 00:45:18 -0700, "riverman" wrote:


On Mar 14, 12:16 pm, 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

Google 'Crumb rubber' to find all sorts of businesses that consume
ground up tires.


Thanks, but oops...maybe I should be more specific, or at least as
specific as the information I have.

The "common" uses are known - this was a tire recycling facility. What
happened, generally and as I understand it, is that the equipment was
Katrina'ed, but the tires weren't. The owner apparently thought
insurance would replace/repair the equipment, and on that basis, he kept
accepting tires after the storm (there were tires everywhere, plus cars
being wrecked out). When the pile got too high, the city shut him down
and yanked his recycling permit. There are now some 400-500,000 tires
at the site, his insurance company has not ponied up, and it's become a
local issue. Apparently, there's no effective way to move them to
another (distant) area, and given the on-coming fire and mosquito
seasons, it's an obvious concern. There was a company that had talked
about coming in, but apparently, that fell apart.

TC,
R



--riverman

hellfire boy...y'all aint yet developed the paint it white, line the
driveway, tire gardens down there?

On Mar 14, 2:53 pm, "George Adams" wrote:
...He...was killed in an accident
involving a car crusher at another junkyard....

Which, oddly enough (under the circumstances) is the second leading
cause of death among middle-aged white males in the northeast
corridor........right behind improperly adjusted cement solar
conversion floatation devices.

Wolfgang
go figure.

On Mar 14, 5:57 pm, "BJ Conner" wrote:


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.

Um......I suppose that it would border on silly to suppose that the
power company passes on the savings by paying the consumers to take
the electricity, huh?

Wolfgang
yeah, yeah, I know it happens all the time.....but in connecticut!,
for god's sake?

wrote


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.

all i am suggesting is that officers could not wait until the day that
the new law becomes effective and immediately go out to the tire yard and
serve a warrant on the guy. frankly, i don't know what the details might be
that would enable some prosecution after some reasonable notice to the
putative defendant, but i am certain they exist, and would be required, in
any case.

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.

the key phrase is "after having been ordered to do so under the new
law". that implies notice and an opportunity for either a hearing or time
to remedy the condition, as i point out in my first paragraph, above.

interesting question, though.

yfitons
wayno

"George Adams" wrote

.. I don't recall any zone change, I think he simply exceeded the
number of tires he was allowed to store.

ah, i see. big difference. no ex post facto issue here--move along,
folks.

yfitons
wayno

Wayne Harrison wrote:
wrote


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.


all i am suggesting is that officers could not wait until the day that
the new law becomes effective and immediately go out to the tire yard and
serve a warrant on the guy. frankly, i don't know what the details might be
that would enable some prosecution after some reasonable notice to the
putative defendant, but i am certain they exist, and would be required, in
any case.

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.


the key phrase is "after having been ordered to do so under the new
law". that implies notice and an opportunity for either a hearing or time
to remedy the condition, as i point out in my first paragraph, above.

interesting question, though.

yfitons
wayno



i suspect it involved a new civil zoning issue. in those matters, the
existing nonconforming businesses are usually given a grace period to
come into compliance, then face civil penalties and contempt orders.
think about the topless bars and massage parlors that are zoned out of
business...sigh...or the ordinances regulating signs along highways or
in certain districts. that's different than passing a new criminal law
in an attempt to criminalize conduct occurring prior to the law's
enactment. (as i'm sure you know better than i)