44 tons of rotten meat

http://www.miamiherald.com/business/nati...66355.html

This raised an interesting question for me - the city is claiming that the owner owes them $11,500 in cleanup costs. However, should the owner be forced to pay it? Is there a law mandating that it is illegal to keep rotten meat on your own property? Understandably, it could be considered pollution, due to the smell, but I'd be pretty pissed if the city tried to make me pay for something THEY did because THEY couldn't stand the smell...

They should have contacted him first giving him the chance to dispose of it on his own within a certain timeframe, to just do something then expect payment for it isnt really fair, but I dont think its outside the law if it was doing that to the whole city..

They should have contacted him first giving him the chance to dispose of it on his own within a certain timeframe, to just do something then expect payment for it isnt really fair, but I dont think its outside the law if it was doing that to the whole city..

They stated that they tried working with him. Regardless, it was something that the city chose to do, not him. If the city decided my house was an eyesore and repainted it, I certainly wouldn't pay for it. The only thing I could see them getting him on is violating health codes.

eminent domain buddy. if the people saw it as a nuisance, and the state had to remove it, then of course the owner should be held accountable. he shouldve disposed of it properly, instead of abandoning it. lazy ass.

eminent domain buddy. if the people saw it as a nuisance, and the state had to remove it, then of course the owner should be held accountable. he shouldve disposed of it properly, instead of abandoning it. lazy ass.

ED only applies if the land was seized to be used by the...was it state? Anyways, this was a city matter, not state, and had nothing to do with the city seizing his property for its purposes, only with the city hiring people to clean the mess that was creating a foul odor throughout.

I agree with arguments for the city to clean it up, but to charge him for it...? That's just the city being pissy because he broke some health codes and owed some money.

The article just reeks of bias towards the city.... <_<

I don't recall any laws stating that they should pay for it. That's like saying you could be fined for having a pet skunk.