Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Seems pretty clear to me his issue was both. Which is why he brought up the Chrysler situation where they have no reason to know about possible liability.

Nothing? Really? Why? There are equitable questions about fairness, too, but why isn't the chilling effect also a related concern?

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

I do believe I made this clear in my original post.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

If you know the law and the liability going in, the issue is just one of value, not fairness. You do your diligence, get your reps and warranties, pay your money, and when you buy the parcel, you buy it all.

I asked for detail on Chrysler and he never gave it, so I have no idea what he is talking about there. And if I go googling stuff about Jeep, I'm going to look for a new bikini top, not Hank's hypo.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Wow, I've only purchased in cities, but I would not think to do that much diligence. Good reminder.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

We think the family that owned it ran out of money and brains in the last generation and tried to keep the property in the family by soiling the backlot. Desperate people do desperate things. I'm betting they donate the backlot to charity.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

some companies own parcelS, not a parcel. you might want the wheet plant in Ohio, but not really care about the chrome plant in West virginia.

and I don't disagree if you know you are buying risk going in, than you deserve the risk you bought. I was commenting on listening to two Environmental managers of cos. that buy other cos. in the mid-90s. It was clear they would not take any associated property with the purchase that would put them in another clean-up site.

(and it was a legacy from a company that was bought by Jeep.)

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Actually, it depends when one got it. Modern policies have absolute pollution exclusions, and even the older "sudden and accidental" policies have mostly been interpreted to not cover long-term known pollution.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

in about 96 or 97 my biglaw's biggest environmental client was spending 5 million a year defending superfund cases. my friend in litigation was asked to prepare a memo on the chances of hanging the business insurer for denying coverage on these cases. we were looking at it as contingency. I suppose you can today buy and pay for coverage, but the containment of all of this liability is part of why environmental law is not the growth area it was predicted it would become in the late 80s. in the 90s there were unending cases that eventually settled AFTER tens of millions in expenses. a good environmental litigator was employed for as many hours as they cared to work. Most all of that work has disappeared since no new matters open.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Yes, though I wonder whether there were a lot of policies being written to cover pollution in the 1930s. Also, if the conduct really was intentional, that could be a barrier (very early on in my career I was involved in a long fight about that very issue with insurance carriers).

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Oh, cut the crap. You think everything is wrong (blame Clinton!). But you have no opinion on what is right or even whether the things you think are wrong should change. Hell, you don't even know if you do have an opinion.

But you are confident that you know more than me. Is that because you run a business, and you are convinced that I never have? Is that because you live in Detroit and you all have received wisdom about pollution there?

I spent several years working on environmental cases, so blow me.

I tried to have a real discussion with you. I recognize that there are problems with the way that liability is imposed. I think the system we have is the right solution -- the right balance of interests and problems -- to was a very serious, nearly intractable problem. But I find the issues interesting, and I was asking you, in all seriousness, where you thought the responsibility to pay for the clean-up should lie.

I should have remembered who I was talking to. I forgot what a complete dickhead you are here.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Exactly. And if you say that any new owner has no liability, there is no reason to do due diligence. Blame the past owner and you're all set (or, if you're the polluter, structure a deal that looks like someone else has gained ownership).

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Right, and Hank's thesis was that once you do that you won't want to buy urban industrial land, and thus no one was.

I suspect his conclusion is untrue, but he's certainly right about the incentive behind a legal system that put the acquiror on the hook for it's predecessor's wrongdoing.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

That certainly fits with the stories told around my old firm, which by the time I arrived was down to one part time partner and one counsel who oversaw a handful of associates doing environmental diligence on deals.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

There are now lots of people happy to buy dirty land and clean it up as a business model, but I suspect no matter what someone does, buying land in Detroit isn't going to be appealing. If only they'd had some laws in place before it was turned into a cesspool....

But Ty says cities are wonderful and everyone wants to live there. Maybe he'll buy?

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

read the brown field laws and the exceptions for good faith purchasers.

the bigger problem we have goes to why anyone would ever voise an opinion. read the shit i fielded today. truly, how can any of you expect people who don't march in line with Ty toadism to ever want to engage on any issue on this board?