Supremacist's N.D. takeover plot thwarted by health rules

  • Article by: Matt Pearce , Los Angeles Times
  • Updated: September 25, 2013 - 4:01 PM

Local bureaucracy seems to have gotten the upper hand on a white-supremacist’s plot to take over a small town in North Dakota.

  • 10
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 10 of 10
mullenschultSep. 25, 13 4:08 PM

I heard that there is a brand-new, unclaimed island in Pakistan they could move to and turn into their "paradise!"

72
3
mmediaSep. 25, 13 6:28 PM

Reportedly, he grew up in a wealthy family, traveled and lived in other countries, and now is known for his hate. He's like a North American Osama bin Laden.

44
3
ninetwelveSep. 25, 13 7:15 PM

Don't get me wrong, I'm against racism/discrimination in any/all of its forms (white on black, black on white, et al), but right, wrong, or indifferent racists still have the right to own property and to generally live where they choose (provided they can afford it). I find it interesting that there was no issue (at least previously published) with the properties prior to the racists/separatists speaking out about taking over the town government. Generally, inspections are required as part of the property sale and the costs associated to update/bring up to code fall upon the seller (unless the sales were "as-is"). The author seems to relish the fact that the properties could be condemned/razed (seemingly implying that racists shouldn't be allowed to own or should have their property forfeited for being ignorant). Typically if a property is condemned or deemed uninhabitable the owner can make updates and have the property inspected for compliance and reoccupation as long the property wasn't condemned for severe structural issues. If the properties are being condemned as a ploy to keep the racists from free and quiet enjoyment of their property then there is no longer a right to free speech or private property. So then who is worse, the racists for voicing their ignorance and stupidity or the local government for trampling private property and free speech rights? I suspect that Cobb probably purchased the property "as-is" and didn't comply with the code, but I'd suggest the author do further research and report back.

6
35
dtmonkeyboySep. 25, 13 8:12 PM

In general people violate laws all the time. We speed, we participate in some sort of black market, remodel our homes without the proper permits....but when you draw attention to yourself by hatching some sort of plan to take over you tend to draw the attention of the law. Don't think there is anything wrong with it.

26
3
jbpaperSep. 25, 13 8:49 PM

"The town’s mayor threatened to dissolve the city government and hand over power to the county if a takeover seemed likely."------ I know this article is suppose to be about the white supremacist but I can't say anything about them that would get past the censors. That being said, I am curious as to why a town of 16 people has a city government.

3
20
hawkeye56379Sep. 25, 13 9:25 PM

ninetwelve said: "Typically if a property is condemned or deemed uninhabitable the owner can make updates and have the property inspected for compliance" - in the story it said that he was given an opportunity to create a plan to provide sewage and water service to the property and didn't do it, so he apparently was given a chance to make updates.

24
0
wardnjuneSep. 25, 13 9:33 PM

ninetwelve: Without really knowing the laws/codes of Leith, it would make sense to me that a property could be purchased without the proper "updates," as long as it wasn't being occupied. The article only mentions the place in which he is living as being past the due date for being brought up to code. The other properties are (from what I gather), on their "watch list." I don't think their regulations are probably much different than any other township. And if they can use them to their advantage to keep control of their village, more power to them.

18
0
badgerfan2Sep. 25, 1310:35 PM

He represents the tea party.

11
5
edinawaterSep. 26, 13 2:41 AM

As of this writing, ninetwelve's comment has 20 thumbs down and four thumbs up. I suspect those who gave the comment a thumbs down want to trample upon Mr. Cobb's property and free-speech rights.

Trampling on Mr. Cobb's rights does two things. First it makes the people infringing his rights no better than Mr. Cobb. Second it puts Mr. Cobb in the role of victim which gives his cause power and credibility.

If your rights mean anything they must exist not just for you and your friends but also your enemies. In fact, they must exist especially for your enemies.

5
11
georgina17Sep. 26, 13 8:00 PM

Edinawater: I don't see the comments and thumbs at all the way you do. Most of us believe that ninetwelve read the article too quickly and missed key points, resulting in basically a conspiracy theorey. I follow the logic offered and would agree with it, except the facts used in the arguement are in conflict with those in the article.

0
0
  • 1 - 10 of 10

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT