11-23-2024, 07:46 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-23-2024, 08:27 PM by My 2 cents.)
"My gut tells me that families need mailboxes close to home. It's better for their well being, the environment, and the community as a whole. Maybe it's really about that."
I don't think anyone is disputing that there is a need for mailboxes. The issue is whether the process being used to fulfill that need is legal. That's what is being argued in court. All the talk about costs and trying to create a dispute over something that isn't being disputed are just diversions to avoid discussing the real issue.
It's a good thing this case isn't being tried here in this forum, although some would probably prefer that it was.
Is there a link that you could provide for the "law on the books" or some other method of reading it? I am not doubting you, I'm more interested in what some of the other requirements were at the time.
I don't think anyone is disputing that there is a need for mailboxes. The issue is whether the process being used to fulfill that need is legal. That's what is being argued in court. All the talk about costs and trying to create a dispute over something that isn't being disputed are just diversions to avoid discussing the real issue.
It's a good thing this case isn't being tried here in this forum, although some would probably prefer that it was.
(11-23-2024, 04:12 PM)kalakoa Wrote: If you agreed to the terms of the contract, then you are bound by that contract.
I suggest that "law on the books" is a form of contractual obligation, and the law says "roads to be paved before final subdivision plat approval". Because the subdivision was created illegally, I would question the very existence of HPPOA along with any action they have taken (or not taken) since they were formed.
Not that I have standing to do so.
Is there a link that you could provide for the "law on the books" or some other method of reading it? I am not doubting you, I'm more interested in what some of the other requirements were at the time.