Info

It's always been my understanding that one should not leave their personal possession on public property and expect it to remain there. How is this situation any different? WHA owned the property. The basketball goal was not something provided by the WHA. They saw obvious risks (i.e., injury, gang congregation, violence/fights, whatever else occurs on public basketball courts in the hood) and removed the goal. They were within their rights, were they not? Funny how not a single resident complained about not being able to get to work because of the tree blocking their exit from the building. Their only concern appears to be about the basketball goal.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Please re-enter the code shown in the image below.

Reply