Larry Lacey in the news again........

[Sidewinder]

I am by no means defending Larry Lacey or any of his actions. However........."911"?? And, is

While three Oregon State Troopers were present,

the best use of our said to be very limited State Troopers?????????????

I admit to having a little trouble with this one.....

I think the primary mandated duty of the police is to maintain the peace. I have never been there but the press coverage suggests it might have been a fairly volatile situation. Should it have been? No. But that's why we need police.

Where are the private property rights defenders that frequent this site?
In fact, where are the private property rights zealots that make up the Observer??????? Oh, yea, different ox being gored this time...... . . . 101

With no dog in the fight, it looks to me like a garden variety conflict of rights issue. Lacey's property rights on the one hand, and the objector's rights to freedom of association on the other. (I'm taking it that they don't want to be forced to associate with the particular practitioners and clientele involved.)

I suppose, if we really wanted to stir up a fight, we could characterize it as an issue of whether society collectively has a right to impose its accepted mores of behavior upon individuals and, if so, at what point does that right stop?

[101]

I am by no means defending Larry Lacey or any of his actions. However........."911"?? And, is

While three Oregon State Troopers were present,

the best use of our said to be very limited State Troopers?????????????

I admit to having a little trouble with this one.....

I think the primary mandated duty of the police is to maintain the peace. I have never been there but the press coverage suggests it might have been a fairly volatile situation. Should it have been? No. But that's why we need police.

Where are the private property rights defenders that frequent this site?
In fact, where are the private property rights zealots that make up the Observer??????? Oh, yea, different ox being gored this time...... . . . 101

With no dog in the fight, it looks to me like a garden variety conflict of rights issue. Lacey's property rights on the one hand, and the objector's rights to freedom of association on the other. (I'm taking it that they don't want to be forced to associate with the particular practitioners and clientele involved.)

I suppose, if we really wanted to stir up a fight, we could characterize it as an issue of whether society collectively has a right to impose its accepted mores of behavior upon individuals and, if so, at what point does that right stop?

I was referring to the singe incident of removing the tanks from his property, which is what the Observer article I referenced and was posted by Chuck is dealing with.

Your post seems to address a different matter. Was there another incident that involved three state patrol troopers that I missed? Was the situation potentially volatile when he was digging up the tanks? Were the three police officers concerned there was going to be a riot for removing gas tanks?

[Sidewinder]

Was the situation potentially volatile when he was digging up the tanks? Were the three police officers concerned there was going to be a riot for removing gas tanks?

As I understand the situation, when the vigilantes discovered the extraction activities they promptly responded by descending upon the site with videocams which led to the usual volatile confrontation. I am not certain whether the 911 call came before, during, or after the confrontation. Does it matter?

[chuck white]

The State police who responded to the call about the broken car window called for back up after Lacey became loud and started to shout at those along the freeway onramp.
As far as private property rights, you don't have card blanc with your property. along with rights comes responsablity. Removing old gas tanks needs to be done right or you risk polluting the underground enviroment. Granted his well sits on top (about 20' from where the tanks were) and will be the first contaminated, but there are others who might be contaminated ten years from now. I would be leary about drinking anything made from the water from his well (ice in drinks etc.). If it was just him drinking that would be one thing but he serves to the public and needs to be held under tighter control.

[fell4that1]

Did anyone hear or read that Lacey no longer owns the property on G Street? My hubby said he read that in the paper, just recently. I didn't see the paper and I only read it as I am putting it down for the bird to poop on.

[Ethan]

I hadn't heard that, but it makes me wonder if he's actually washed his hands of the property, or if it's just in his best interest to not be "own" it right now.

[chuck white]

I recall that he transfered ownership of club 71 out of his name at one point , then quick deeded back to himself later. Around the time someone got hurt after leaving his bar. I don't know if the two are related.

[Ethan]

That's right up the alley I was thinking. I wouldn't believe he's given up. Seem's a little out of the ordinary to be legit.

[planetdancer]

Did anyone hear or read that Lacey no longer owns the property on G Street? My hubby said he read that in the paper, just recently. I didn't see the paper and I only read it as I am putting it down for the bird to poop on.

According to the computer at the assessor's office, he is still the owner. Sometimes it takes a while for the title company to get info to assessor and assessor to update computer (couple weeks).

[fell4that1]

It may not be true, but thanks for checking.