frolicndetour t1_je3qdxz wrote

Per John Waters:

"I would never want to live anywhere but Baltimore. You can look far and wide, but you'll never discover a stranger city with such extreme style. It's as if every eccentric in the South decided to move north, ran out of gas in Baltimore, and decided to stay."


frolicndetour t1_jdy4o3i wrote

I agree. The building was beautiful but it's falling apart and dangerous and no one will invest the money to try to make it usable. The time for saving it was before that numbnuts bought the building and demolished part of it without following through on the project, and then left it to rot for a decade.


frolicndetour t1_jdnhooh wrote


frolicndetour t1_j6nuft9 wrote

Fair, statements to the media would not be protected, although I'd have to read the articles. I've read some and the majority seem to be quoting the complaint, which would still be covered by the court protection. They also included the opinions of the homeowners; opinions are not defamation. Calling someone racist is generally held to be an opinion. If they made a statement of fact in the media that is false, then the counterclaim may have legs.


frolicndetour t1_j6n3wxy wrote

No, this doesn't appear to be a legitimate countersuit. Statements made in pleadings or court are usually exempt from defamation claims because then literally everyone sued or charged with a crime would sue for defamation. It's not even a useful tactic for mediation because the counterclaim will immediately get thrown out.

Counterclaims make sense sometimes but this isn't it.


frolicndetour t1_j66fj23 wrote

I think there was arrogance, too. Like they are above petty laws and they can do what they want without consequences. It's common with corruption. Pugh and Dixon (and for example Trump on a national level) had the same attitude, like they did what they wanted and how dare you question my actions.


frolicndetour t1_ixzctkv wrote

Ok...yea that's what I thought. That it would be vested and then calculated based on time in, not the full pension. Because one of the articles seemed to suggest that they could supplement their time in by getting a job in city government, which wouldn't be necessary if they got the full pension after 8 years.


frolicndetour t1_ixzas5e wrote

I think that's about right. Does the bill provide for them to get a full pension? I haven't seen it and all the articles say they are "eligible" for a pension, which I guess I assumed meant that they are vested and would get something based on their years of service. If they get a full pension after 8 years, that is definitely bull.


frolicndetour t1_ixz5yb0 wrote

Most government jobs come with a pension that vests after 10 years. The state and city do this I believe. The federal government does after 5. The amount is based on years of service so you get more if you work longer. I don't disagree about people not being able to vote on things that benefit themselves but in just pointing out that pensions for government employees are incredibly common.