Maybe he’s just tired of being typecasted as the good guy.
How dare he rob fire hydrant water better used by street kids frolicking in the heat.
In California?
Am I missing something? The article reads as though he was accused of moving water between districts, rather than stealing it.
Jay Spurgin, director of public works for Thousand Oaks, said water sourced from the hydrant described in the complaint was legally purchased during the last two years.
Yes, that’s the issue – the idea that used water reenters the system near where it is used so moving water outside an area is bad in drought-stricken areas. But that is a somewhat obscure infraction to most people, so probably the OP assumed the issue was that the water was stolen.
Yes, because moving water from watershed to watershed is wrong.
I’m as opposed to the hypocritical gluttony of the entitled, wealthy “takers” as the next person, but it sounds more like his contractor was stealing the water, which at one point was being siphoned legally. As it stands now, there’s a lot muddying this up. I think Selleck was smart to settle this fast and kill the story.
Lets be honest…it has to take a serious amount of water to clean that 'Stache!!!
Not to mention those bouncing caterpillars.
Perhaps, but “stealing” is an extremely bad way to describe “legally purchased water which was then moved to a different area illegally”.
It’s against the law and a problem, yes, but the headline of “stealing water from a fire hydrant” looks like it’s flat-out wrong unless there’s more information that isn’t in the article.
Have you read Cadillac Desert? There is a lot of history and precedent which is not in the article. CA water resources management is what it is. Taking the water away without a permit is stealing it, even though he owned it. He basically owned the use of it.
That’s an odd way to define “stealing”. I’d contend that it’s as misleading as using the term for copyright violation.
It’s also an odd expectation to have of a free website, that they offer all the context needed for each reader. Stealing is removing something not yours. The right to use it where he did, was not his. You may argue semantics, I was trying to help.
I’d say a cease and desist letter is an accusation that you are doing something that you are being asked to stop doing, stealing is accurate (whereas charged with theft would be misleading) so the headline seems fine. YMMV.
This we agree on. I disagree that “stealing from a fire hydrant” accurately depicts what he was asked to stop doing. YMMV.
“Taking illegally from a fire hydrant” would be better? Have you made a suggestion yet?
Also, I think it sucks when free ice cream gives me a bellyache.
Since it appears that it was properly paid for and wasn’t illegal to take the water from the fire hydrant… no?
Also, guess what… just because the site is free, doesn’t mean people can’t point out inaccuracies. It’s amazing, I know, but people are allowed to point out, and even discuss, issues here. Try not to be too surprised! I only mention it because you’ve brought up the “free” thing twice, now, so you seemed not to know.
NEWSPEAK. Gad zooks I feel like I have just been dropped into an Owellian novel.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
