|
I will try to be specific again even though it seems that certain posters are not very interested. The financial thing I was guessing, but obviously ignorant on; either way that does not seem like a short-term legal avenue. My question was more focused on the process the city went through to decide on this specific property. What if there were other great or even better candidates that were silently and quickly rejected because the city council members live close to it or something? I wondered if anyone had any kind of experience or insight into questioning the actions of local governments when they are rushed and not very transparent. Lots of local politics is just a bunch of people trying to out-NIMBY each other, and it's pretty ridiculous to go from "help the homeless" to "you should therefore immediately trust the actions of any given city as long as they are aimed at helping the homeless." Hanging out in the legal questions thread to fill it with hundreds of "IANAL but I think you're a bad person" posts is super cool tho
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
generally a legislative body isn’t under an obligation to make the best choice or make choices with a pure heart that said they may violate some procedural quirk like an open meetings law that a local lawyer could make hay with
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
I'm feeling brave, thread. Landlords don't have to be shitbags, and I'd say I'm personally about 25/75 with the majority of landlords being shitbags, but I've had good landlords where we work together to keep each other's costs lower. Also, my good landlords have always been private owners. Companies suck and are terrible 100% of the time
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
As someone once jokingly said in one of socialist circlejerk threads awhile ago, "Nuance isn't praxis friend". That being said, at this point I'm convinced that none these guys have spent a day working towards social justice anywhere outside their keyboards. When I volunteered for a homeless organization in PA a decade ago, absolutely none of the people from top to bottom sounded like these CSPAM warriors. We, in fact, had close relationships with landlords since they were the people we were convincingly to take people in. We were getting subsidized rates or straight rental vouchers to pay them so that we could get roofs over people's heads before winter. We were providing documentation to prove that the tenants were not going to trash the places because that happening made it harder for us to work with the same landlords again. No one, even in private, was spouting this inane anti-social rent-seeking parasite bullshit, and it's a riot everytime one of these guys bubbles out of D&D to start their rants.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
With respect to your specific question about whether adjacent homeowners can do anything at the city council decides to take this proposed action, like the weasel said there maybe some technicality or other fault in their process or their legal authority but that would take a local municipal law firm to sort out and officially challenge and it would be very expensive. With respect to just the process, the only thing you can do is convince the council in advance of the vote at the public is generally against the proposed action and it would hurt their chance of re-election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:Also, my good landlords have always been private owners. Companies suck and are terrible 100% of the time That's the thrust of it, if I don't rake in that "parasitic income", the bank takes my house back from me and then it goes back to a megacorp like the one I bought it from. Speaking of which, the same megacorp still owns the building next to me, and we share a common porch, with a recorded easement. I have been trying to get them to go 50/50 with me to have the whole thing patched up and painted with grit, it's a porch for 4 floors across two buildings so the quote was $15k to do it right. I'm willing to fork over half but the megacorp has been dodging me for months and now one of their tenants slipped down the stairs a few weeks back. She doesn't seem to be suing, apparently it wasn't that bad and/or she doesn't want to rock the boat. I've put in a lot of hours pressure-washing the whole thing and replacing steps. Should my house/umbrella insurance + due diligence cover me here if anyone gets litigious, and is there a way besides making daily calls to a full voicemail box, that I can compel this company to pay attention and chip in for everyone's sake?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 00:34
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:That's the thrust of it, if I don't rake in that "parasitic income", the bank takes my house back from me and then it goes back to a megacorp like the one I bought it from. "I have no choice in the matter! Please ignore the fact that I chose to buy a house I couldn't afford!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 02:08
|
|
|
homullus posted:"I have no choice in the matter! Please ignore the fact that I chose to buy a house I couldn't afford!" Are you sure you want to play the "personal responsibility" and "consequences of my actions" cards in this particular debate? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
Landlords are a lot like cops where it's always the one you are currently talking to who is "one of the good ones."
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 02:23
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:With respect to your specific question about whether adjacent homeowners can do anything at the city council decides to take this proposed action, like the weasel said there maybe some technicality or other fault in their process or their legal authority but that would take a local municipal law firm to sort out and officially challenge and it would be very expensive. But yeah, I expect it will probably just happen, and hopefully the city will take it seriously. My friend is going through a lot but my personal leaning is that it can be good for kids to get some genuine exposure to poverty as long as it's not dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 02:27
|
|
|
Martman posted:…my personal leaning is that it can be good for kids to get some genuine exposure to poverty as long as it's not dangerous. I have bad news for you about semi-permanent hobo camps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 02:33
|
|
|
Most importantly there are like zero landlords involved with the homeless RVer situation, as they already have housing that they paid for and own. No one is being required to house them, OP and friend thereof just have to learn to cope with approving of less than one hundred percent of the vehicles parked vaguely near their neighborhood for a few months e: Martman posted:The odd thing is that as far as I can tell this wasn't voted on or discussed at city council meetings at all. From news reports on it, it sounds like Apple literally came up with the plan and then the city just started setting up fences on the property and then told people "oh btw these people will be moving here in like three days." They already own the property and it's the city's to put stuff on, why are you under the impression they had to vote on it? It probably came down to one person's desk who signed off on it, and the remedy is to run against that person next time Javid fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Sep 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 02:40
|
|
|
Just wanted to chime in about the whole "giving homeless people money just causes them to kill themselves with drugs!!!" thing. A couple years ago the University of British Columbia partnered with a charity group to do a study wherein they gave $7500 to fifty homeless people who had no serious untreated mental health issues and helped them get ID and bank accounts. Within a month 70% of them were food secure and had lower alcohol and drug consumption rates, and most had stable housing within three months. After a year some still had money left over. This is in Vancouver, too, a notoriously expensive city to live in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
Javid posted:They already own the property and it's the city's to put stuff on, why are you under the impression they had to vote on it? It probably came down to one person's desk who signed off on it, and the remedy is to run against that person next time
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 02:57
|
|
|
No, I have no clue about how the gently caress san jose runs things, but it's reasonably possible whatever department actually owns that plot was the only entity that needed to approve of it and you're mad about nothing. You've already been advised what kind of lawyer to get if you really want to filibuster the decision; if you're absolutely sure I'm wrong then go do that and solve your problem that way. Continuing to express outrage ITT that the city would dare put poors where you can see them without a vote will do exactly nothing to move that boulder forwards
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 03:09
|
|
|
Javid posted:No, I have no clue about how the gently caress san jose runs things, but it's reasonably possible whatever department actually owns that plot was the only entity that needed to approve of it and you're mad about nothing. You've already been advised what kind of lawyer to get if you really want to filibuster the decision; if you're absolutely sure I'm wrong then go do that and solve your problem that way. Continuing to express outrage ITT that the city would dare put poors where you can see them without a vote will do exactly nothing to move that boulder forwards
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 03:19
|
|
|
Yeah with Portland the mayor before Wheeler, I forget his name, the one who lived in Vancouver, his homlessness policy was basically "Do nothing and hope the problem goes away", and surprise surprise, it didn't. Wheeler's adopted the more traditional policy of having the police break up wildcat homeless camps every few months and destroying their stuff, although I don't know if that was a decision by him or just a consequence of his attitude of letting the police do whatever the heck they want. A few years ago my wife went to a presentation by the portland business rentacops and they were like "We don't actually kick the homless! Please don't say we kick the homeless! We just nudge them gently with our feet to wake them up! We don't actually kick them!" So they don't kick the homeless, they say. Just letting you guys know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 04:12
|
|
|
Martman posted:Less outrage and more confusion that you have seemingly posted like 1000 times in this thread just to shoot from the hip and state how you assume things must work or something. I could have gone to r/LegalAdvice for that! well there's more cops there I guess If you think the city decided to yolo and bypass legal process then you should sue them to block it. I doubt that's the case because they probably expect some nimby to try and stop this, but you seem to be convinced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 04:19
|
|
|
sullat posted:Yeah with Portland the mayor before Wheeler, I forget his name, the one who lived in Vancouver, his homlessness policy was basically "Do nothing and hope the problem goes away", and surprise surprise, it didn't. Wheeler's adopted the more traditional policy of having the police break up wildcat homeless camps every few months and destroying their stuff, although I don't know if that was a decision by him or just a consequence of his attitude of letting the police do whatever the heck they want. The previous mayor was Sam Adams, and it is unfair to say his entire policy was “do nothing.” For instance he was very pro- “groom 17 year old boys and have sex with them.” Edit: the kid he groomed had the perfect name for a scandalous affair: Beau Breedlove.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 04:42
|
|
|
Who comes into a thread full of people who willingly went to law school and tries to argue personal responsibility
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 05:00
|
|
|
therobit posted:The previous mayor was Sam Adams, and it is unfair to say his entire policy was “do nothing.” For instance he was very pro- “groom 17 year old boys and have sex with them.” Sam was the mayor before that, I was thinking of Charlie Hayes who is incredibly forgettable. Apparently he folded like a cheap umbrella when confronted with Ted Wheeler.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 05:12
|
|
|
sullat posted:Sam was the mayor before that, I was thinking of Charlie Hayes who is incredibly forgettable. Apparently he folded like a cheap umbrella when confronted with Ted Wheeler. You’re right, Hales was in between and was very forgettable. Frankly I don’t there’s been a decent mayor in Portland since Vera Katz, and I only think she was good because of the people who hate her. Lol imagine being so impotent that you cave to Edward Tevis Wheeler.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 05:24
|
|
|
Martman posted:Less outrage and more confusion that you have seemingly posted like 1000 times in this thread just to shoot from the hip and state how you assume things must work or something. I could have gone to r/LegalAdvice for that! well there's more cops there I guess I don't need to know exactly how your specific city works to know they're probably used to exactly this kind of nothingburger complaints from people whenever they so much as store a surplus of fill dirt within someone's very important and special sightlines. If you (sorry, your friend) are absolutely certain that they skipped the required gold-fringed incantations before typing a memo changing the parking rules for exactly one rectangle of city-owned asphalt, the next step towards screaming the project out of existence is to pay a lawyer to care
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 05:44
|
|
|
therobit posted:You’re right, Hales was in between and was very forgettable. Frankly I don’t there’s been a decent mayor in Portland since Vera Katz, and I only think she was good because of the people who hate her. My impression is that Portland is the way it is now because of a deliberate policy set in motion by Vera Katz and her right hand man, Sam Adams. They had a vision for what Portland should become, and they succeeded in making it, without caring that the side effects of the plan would be to eliminate low-income housing in most of Portland.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 06:02
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:Are you sure you want to play the "personal responsibility" and "consequences of my actions" cards in this particular debate? Zero VGS is well known from other threads for being in over his head in terms of debt to liquid assets. Also lol at the idea that d&d is the forum calling landlords parasites.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 06:21
|
|
|
Anachronist posted:Zero VGS is well known from other threads for being in over his head in terms of debt to liquid assets. In over my head in terms of debt to liquid assets? Congratulations, you just invented every mortgage. If someone wanted to chime in on my porch question that might put things back on track. What kinda nastygram do I need to persuade this place with 100+ properties to go halfsies with me to fix our dilapidated shared porch?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 07:05
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:In over my head in terms of debt to liquid assets? Congratulations, you just invented every mortgage. It sounds like you've already tried the core approach. Maybe one more letter along the lines of 'I have been made aware of an injury that occurred on x date [don't identify the person] due to the state of disrepair of the porch. I once again offer to split the reasonable costs of repair. Please note that I will be retaining copies of this correspondence in case this or future incidents lead to litigation on the part of the victims'. There's probably some more trigger words you can put in the letter to get it passed forwards to company legal, who are probably the best bet to recognise the danger and authorise a quick payout.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 10:10
|
|
|
I was thinking about getting one of those phone mounts that sticks to the dash or windshield so I can use my phone as a GPS that I can see rather than just listening to it giving directions from my center console, but then I realized there might be legal issues. I'm in CO, but is there anywhere I could look up the relevant regulations by state? The way I see it there are potentially two issues. One would be if it sticks to the windshield, there might be laws against having anything on the windshield. Two would be I could see some places counting having a gps running on your phone as using your phone if they didn't have the foresight to carve out an exception there in the distracted driving laws.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:I was thinking about getting one of those phone mounts that sticks to the dash or windshield so I can use my phone as a GPS that I can see rather than just listening to it giving directions from my center console, but then I realized there might be legal issues. I'm in CO, but is there anywhere I could look up the relevant regulations by state? The way I see it there are potentially two issues. One would be if it sticks to the windshield, there might be laws against having anything on the windshield. Two would be I could see some places counting having a gps running on your phone as using your phone if they didn't have the foresight to carve out an exception there in the distracted driving laws. Google is your friend (https://www.motorbiscuit.com/is-it-illegal-to-mount-your-phone-on-windshield/) quote:So these states allow mounting your phone anywhere on the windshield:
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
Kazinsal posted:Just wanted to chime in about the whole "giving homeless people money just causes them to kill themselves with drugs!!!" thing. A couple years ago the University of British Columbia partnered with a charity group to do a study wherein they gave $7500 to fifty homeless people who had no serious untreated mental health issues and helped them get ID and bank accounts. Within a month 70% of them were food secure and had lower alcohol and drug consumption rates, and most had stable housing within three months. After a year some still had money left over. This is in Vancouver, too, a notoriously expensive city to live in. Yeah, that line of argument conflates the homeless, the addicted, and the mentally ill. They aren't the same thing. We know how to solve the homelessness problem: adequately fund section 8 housing vouchers and mandate that landlords accept them. (The program doesn't work new, but a fee straightforward fixes like mandating that waiting lists be kept open and requiring funding match need would improve it dramatically). Addiction and mental illness are harder problems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 18:34
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Who comes into a thread full of people who willingly went to law school and tries to argue personal responsibility Based on a close reading of the lawyer chat thread going to law school is less associated with any sort of personal responsibility than a burning desire to eradicate one’s spare time, liver, and, in at least one notable case, marriage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, that line of argument conflates the homeless, the addicted, and the mentally ill. They aren't the same thing. Of course not, but they are highly correlated. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Addiction and mental illness are harder problems. ......which is why this is such a difficult and expensive problem to solve.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Of course not, but they are highly correlated. (Severe) (untreated) Mental illness and addiction may correlate highly with homelessness and especially with the long term homeless but I doubt that homelessness overall has a strong relationship with either. "The homeless" is a big rear end category. Most homeless are only short term homeless and I'm pretty sure that most homeless are neither mentally ill nor addicted to anything. Plenty of people with mental illness aren't homeless, too. Furthermore people living in RVs should probably not be considered homeless. They have a home: their RV.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:(Severe) (untreated) Mental illness and addiction may correlate highly with homelessness and especially with the long term homeless but I doubt that homelessness overall has a strong relationship with either. We might have different definitions of "strong relationship". Because it's about half. So call that what you like. https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/4832/2015-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness/
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
omg shut the gently caress up and ask about gold fringes or something
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:omg shut the gently caress up and ask about gold fringes or something No need to be butthurt, I'll rear end you abutt your fring-rear end being gold.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
Motronic posted:We might have different definitions of "strong relationship". Because it's about half. So call that what you like. On my phone right now but my guess is those are point in time estimates, which are going to overrepresent the long term homeless. There are more short term homeless by far but at any given point in time the long term homeless will all be measured while only part of the short term homeless for that year or decade will be caught.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 21:14
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Furthermore people living in RVs should probably not be considered homeless. They have a home: their RV. That's a legal problem in and of itself. An RV is, by definition, a Recreational Vehicle. In my state you are forbidden by law to live in one, only to use it for recreational purposes, i.e. vacationing. That's not easily enforced, but it also acts as a "no loitering" style catch-all where the cops can gently caress your poo poo up if Karen summons them. "This is my domicile, bitch" doesn't work as well as portrayed. Full-time RVers like retirees are always in a weird legal grey area. Then there's the final logistical issue of space and utilities. Poor people with RVs are not well-equipped to dump their garbage and poo poo-water while off-grid or have it done for them, like rich families who are paying campsite fees. They don't have the cash outlay for a big solar panel roof installation, so they're idling a gasoline generator if they can't get an electrical hookup. I want everyone with RVs to have access to proper infrastructure, but Texas can't keep the lights on and Florida has buildings collapsing so this is gonna be a slog. Funding and technology could help with a lot of this, alas, to paraphrase George Carlin, no one will ever help the homeless because there's no money in it. NIMBYs quite simply don't want to have to look at homeless people, and politicians can't fit them all under the rug, so we have these half-measures. Then the temporary solutions, by nature of being temporary, have worse problems with criminality just like short-term prisons are much more cutthroat than long-term; there's no sense of community and opportunists know they can take advantage of people and flee before they get their comeuppance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 21:31
|
|
|
I bet an unusually high percentage of the people who are RV homeless in CA right now are fire evacuees, too. Even a lovely RV is a better gig than throwing yourself at the mercy of FEMA disaster housing after your house and all your poo poo burnt down last summer
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
question, do the courts immediately throw out insanity like this or do they go out of their way to read the whole claim and respond accordingly? I can see the courts saying something like "tldr but also you didn't pay the $7 filing fee" or whatever. Either way this doc loving owns https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1435661762452393991?s=20 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2021 20:08
|
|
