Papewaio's solution is wise in a proposed measured solution, but ignores the central issues: the 'litter' is on so-called private property. What is the state's compelling interest in regulating that, and what is the state's right in enforcing that interest?

I agree that this fellow is not the most sympathetic poster-boy for property rights, for the reasons cited by Tribesman

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
All this arises becauseTubic decided he was going to fight the fine which he thought was unfair , but his idea of fighting the fine was to ignore it and do nothing .
Given that he is mentaly competant to pay all his other bills when they come in , keep up to date on his property taxes and choose to make donations to local politicians election funds it appears that his "mental illness" angle on this issue may just be a ploy .
Then again making donations to politicians does bring his mental state into question .


as well as the fact that he inherited the property vs having paid it down over a 30 year mortgage himself personally.

And both Andres and Hosakawa Tito make persuasive argument for compliance with the rule of law, no matter how silly or unjust that law may seem.

Bravo! for HoreTore's Rosa Parks reference. Well played Sir.

Many other posters want to solve the problem via Tubic's compliance with the pay-orders at various stages.

But - it - was - his - property.

Parked 20 feet southward of it's current position, on a public street, I can see the citation and fine, and the state taking action to remove a nuisance and impediment to public use of the public road, possible safety issue, and apparently-abandoned property revenue source.

But it's on his (inherited, but nevertheless: his) property. Why can his friends and neighbors, fellow citizens, dictate to him what he can and cannot display on his property? And then, seeing resistance to that claim to a right to dictate, levy onerous fines, and sieze, assume, and dispose of any and/or all properties of the alleged perpetrator?

To 'prove' the rule of law? To enhance ( or prevent the un-enhancement of) local property values? To punish a scofflaw, and deter other non-compliers from daring to challenge the right of society-at-large, which knows best, to impose it's will by force, on the individual property owner?

Granted, this is the 21st century, so such imperial confiscations and usurpations of "The American Dream" (tm) have become normal-ized. Two hundred years ago, we'd have reached for our pitchforks and torches (and yes, Tribesman, flintlocks) and defended miserable little Mr. Tubic's right (yes: right) to do whatever the hell he wanted to do on his personal property.

It's the big draw for immigrants here, legal and otherwise. Come here, work hard, eventually earn thru that hard work a chunk of land you can call your own, that nobody can take from you.

Except, now 'they' can.

Rights aren't given or bestowed, or granted, or levied. At least, not here. They just 'are'. Take your pick whether they 'are' because of some natural or divine inclination, or by agreement among men. They are in any case, unalienable; incapable of being alienated/separated from their holders.