267 replies, Replies 51 to 60

There should be a law that if you are a politician, you're just not allowed to have any investments in anything.

There was a book I read once (a fantasy novel) where the one country all of the people in government had to sell ALL their property, stocks, etc. and the money was put into the treasury. They were given comfortable if bland government housing, clothing, etc.

When their term was completed they were given back their money adjusted based on how well the country did economically. If the country made a profit, they got a little extra, if they were at a loss, they got less. And they couldn't make a profit by raising taxes.

One could not refuse a nomination, or choose not to do the job. If they did, then their property was sold anyway and added to the treasury, and they were imprisoned/executed.

- written
I've been trying listen to Congressional hearings lately.

@Rockster160 Lano's comments keep getting flagged. Is there something I am missing?

- written
I don’t know what to do now…

And I just learned that they spoke briefly to another practicing lawyer... who told them not to move out, because the FD requires a court order to remove them.

However, as I understand it, all it takes is the FD to call a judge to sign the order... there's no hearing or anything. And given the state of the building, they wouldn't have a hard time getting the court order.

- written
I don’t know what to do now…

BA1 wrote:
Well.....
Based on the criteria given, be prepared to jump the ship.

Even if the FD allows the structure to remain standing, it won't allow for any sort of habitation. Effectivly...you're kinda screwed.

Wash your hands and run.

That is what my business partner and I are doing... But how can I get it through to the tenants who are trying to fight it. They can't win this fight. They certainly have grounds to go after the owner for failing to maintain the building, but not to fight the FD.

- written
I don’t know what to do now…

BA1 wrote:
It wouldn't matter even if the tenant was partially correct about the buildings condition - it's about what the fire department says in general.
If it's not safe, it's NOT safe. (We all obviously agree).

So, the REAL 64 thousand dollar question is.......
What part of the picture does insurence play in this game?

The legitimate truth is, insurance should cover most all "unsafe" areas the fire department claims to exist.

If/being the case, you should be able to temporarily reshelter your tenants until the project is completed and deemed "safe," and then move them back in.

Insurance doesn't play into this at all. Because all of the issues were predating the acquisition of the building. All the issues were known, and nothing was actively done to stop the deterioration of the building.

We still haven't gotten word on what the owner is planning on doing with the building... and the FD still hasn't published the official report from the Structural Engineers. It is entirely possible that the FD will mandate that the building be demolished.

- written
I don’t know what to do now…

NacthoMan wrote:
i feel ya padre..

sigh. people are still childish no matter how old they are. Know that reason is the best mediator. if they wont listen .. provide some sort of solution.. remember.. a stubborn person inquires a careful plan within reason. such as temp stay somewhere else..

may it be relaying your solution. nobody likes to be ordered to do anything especially when its a osha/saftey mandate. so play ball .. the rules are in course.

might i add.. why are people residing in an incomplete housing complex??

the goal here is to build an affordable residence - and sure theres gonna be some check ups so n so.

This isn't an incomplete housing complex... It is an old building, that was in one family for close to 100 years. And in that 100 years they did virtually no maintenance. The building has needed a new roof for more than 25 years now. The water damage, and other structure issues have all just gotten worse over time.

Then the family that owned the building had a second mortgage and defaulted on it. Now the second mortgagee is in possession, and didn't do anything to the building either. I believe they were using it as a tax writeoff.

- written
I don’t know what to do now…

Lano wrote:
I have worked in customer service oriented jobs for a long time. I'm guessing you have worked with people a lot as well, so maybe this isn't news to you.

Some people are reasonable, and if you explain things to them logically, in a way they can understand, they will accept your explanation, however grudgingly.

Some people just want to vent. If you let them be angry and explain what is upsetting them, and let them air their grievance, that seems to help. Say that you get it, and be specific, if you can. Say how your cousin got evicted for a similar situation and how hard it was for him or her. Or whatever anecdote you may have that would apply.

All that said, some people just want what they want. They don't care about your reasons, perhaps they've already decided that they know better than you or that you either don't care or are out to cheat them.

In the last situation, like in the first two, you need to be the adult in the room and keep a cool head. To something like "I would rather go to jail." I would try some empathy and be more "real" than professional and say "Sir, I don't think you really want that. I understand that you want to say in your home but unfortunately that just isn't possible anymore." Perhaps offer to do some research to see if there are any similarly priced, comparable amenity apartments in the area on the spot with him.

If he is starting to get violent then you have to get the police involved. That is unacceptable behavior.

I tried all of those things... He just wasn't rational in any way, and stopped just short of actual violence.

One of the biggest issues with this eviction, is that there is a 0% housing market in the area here. And what housing is being built, it is all high end medium residential houses, and well out of the price range of all the tenants. My business partner and I have directed the tenants to those who may be able to help, but they don't seem to care, or are adamant that they are not leaving.

- written
Troubling times for us here at Help-QA

Lano wrote:

If I understand correctly, you are not saying that people should not disagree, only that they need to really be careful about what they say and how they disagree.

Exactly. Just be respectful to everyone. :)

- written
Im done..

Since absolutely no one has commented on the original post, only speculating on who is lying and who is not, with no facts to back any argument, AND the fact that multiple people have reported this post, I am forced to close this it.

- written
URGENT AND WILL BE DELETED IN 24 HOURS

Moderator speaking: There have been a number of reports about this post and the content therein. I have reviewed the entire post, and looked over the terms and conditions of the site carefully.
According to the terms of the site, no infractions have happened. However, both parties seem to unwilling to back down from this argument. As such I will be closing this post.

Padre Speaking: It is my opinion, that everyone has the right to speak, and the right to share what they wish (within the terms and conditions).
However, if something controversial is posted, then it is reasonable to expect a polarized response.

It is also my personal opinion, that if someone is sharing information for the purpose of educating others, that the person doing the sharing is responsible to ensure that what is shared is accurate. If that means taking some extra time to research before sharing so be it.

As this post will be closed, if anyone wishes to contact me about this reply, they may do so via shout or Facebook Messanger.

- written