posted
I am a little confused.If a neighbor of the tenant knew of drugs being put in the water meter why couldnt you have them give you a time as close to when this usually happens and call you? As a property manager isnt it your responsibility to due occaisional inspections of yhe properties.Once a year on the inside to insure no damage is done and drive by insp. to make sure the place if safe and reasonably clean.With the suspicion of drugs have either a uniformed officer or some type of cop meet you there just to insp the meter area? If the drugs are found then at the very least the son would have lost them or more if he was spotted when the cop showed up.The tenat was decieving you for a reasonably safe condition of your property.Or with any knowledge of criminal activity on the property make you an guilty as well.
I know I am scatterbrained with thoughts but your knowledge of drugs on the property would make you guilty as well.As far as the lawsuit, did his mother knowingly walk towards the opened meter area with the intent of harming herself? Just questions.I dont wanna get into you arguements on the issue.I keep my own valuations of someones character to my self.
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: So, just to be clear, you're saying that the landlord should be at the rental property 24/7 to ensure that the tenants don't remove the water meter cover and then fall in? THAT'S CRAZY!
Depends...how large is your building? I live in a 129 unit condo and expect my management company to have someone over once a day to ensure everything is working properly. That includes a walk of the grounds. My buildings is full of buyers, not section 8 renters, but they are young homeowners and stupid stuff still happens quite frequently around some of them.
quote:Originally posted by Upside: Look, regardless of how you may feel about Propertymanager, he has a very valid point. This country is so full of frivolous lawsuits that it's crippling our entire legal system. Somehow some common sense needs to be injected into our system so lawsuits are no longer won on a legal loophole or technicality. These slip and fall lawyers that advertise on late night TV should somehow be put out of business. How? I have no idea but right is right and wrong is wrong and that's what our legal system needs to recognize instead of trying to make a quick buck for every moron that falls off of the third step of a ladder or falls down because he claims to have tripped over a twig on someones driveway.
You are right, frivolous suits are debilitating. I had a friend lose a suit to a handyman who decided to bring his son to work. Kid fell down the stairs while doing something stupid and he sued her for it. Didn't make any sense at all but he won. Luckily she had insurance covering to construction. (Wonder if that is why the kid took the tumble, papa had to know the job was covered...)
BUT! I'd be very cautious about supporting a change in our legal system. Right now I don't think it would be the little guy getting protection. Very likely any limits would be for insurance and medical companies.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
posted
Oh...yeah...Jon Edwards is all right. I think he falls more in the category of PM's lawyer rather than an ambulance chaser. Regardless, I still say he is running for the Vice spot, not to actually be president.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
posted
Seems to me Edwards isn't running for office as much as he is using running to allow him to try to give the benefit of knowledge to the Country and something he feels it deserves and to partially repay us all for providing a system that allows someone like him to be be so successful. He seems to truly want to make it be so much easier for others that are deep in the trap of poverty to have the chance he did to climb out.
At least I don't feel he is doing it for any financial gain and would be free from temptation of that. I cannot say that about many that run for office at any level.
IP: Logged |
The neighbors told me that the kid was doing drugs and I suspected it as well. The neighbors didn't tell me that he was hiding drugs in the water meter hole, I surmised that as the most logical explanation for the incident. Additionally, "suspecting" or being told by the neighbors that someone is doing drugs is not sufficient cause to get the police to act. Unfortunately, in the real world, even if the police KNOW that someone is using or selling drugs, it often takes months to get enough evidence to get a search warrant.
As I said in a previous post, we specialize in taking over drug infested and slummy builings and rehabbing them. We evict all the druggies and other riff-raff and then rehab the buildings. We just bought an apartment building last week that is a real mess. One apartment has a big time druggie that has been arrested 110 times (111 including his latest arrest thanks to me). He's still in jail and likely will be for several months. However, even with his obvious crime and him in jail, I still won't be able to kick his butt to the street until the first week in March. Even though he's been arrested, he still has not been convicted. He's innocent (yeah right) until proven guilty. I will be required to go through the entire legal process which can't start until he misses his rent payment on the 4th of February. It will then take 5 weeks for the eviction to result in a setout.
I know I am scatterbrained with thoughts but your knowledge of drugs on the property would make you guilty as well.
Your thoughts are not scatterbrained. They are the thoughts of a reasonable person. Unfortunately, there is no reasonableness or rationality in our screwed up legal system.
Bigfoot,
This property is a 2 bedroom single family house. However, even at a 500 unit complex, I'm absolutely certain that the landlord doesn't stand watch 24/7 to make sure that someone doesn't remove the water meter cover. What if someone removed the water meter cover and another tenant fell in it 5 minutes later? Is the landlord responsible for that because he went to the bathroom during his 24/7 water meter watching vigil? Kind of ridiculous, don't you think? Remember, the water meter is only one example of a potential hazard. What if a tenant spills his coffee at the top of the stairs and the next tenant that walks by slips and falls. Is that the landlords responsibility? Now we need 2 landlords, one to guard the water meter and another stationed at the top of the stairs. Where does the insanity end?
IP: Logged |
you are correct and I didn't mean to suggest that I expect you to be there 24/7.
If it is a single family home from my experience exterior inspections are done about once a month and interior done once every 3-4 months or as necessary.
In that case I would only suggest that you would be liable if the tenant had called you beforehand to inform you of the problem.
For a 500-unit complex I would expect a full time resident employee inspecting the building once a day at least and responding to repair requests.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
you are correct and I didn't mean to suggest that I expect you to be there 24/7.
If it is a single family home from my experience exterior inspections are done about once a month and interior done once every 3-4 months or as necessary.
In that case I would only suggest that you would be liable if the tenant had called you beforehand to inform you of the problem.
For a 500-unit complex I would expect a full time resident employee inspecting the building once a day at least and responding to repair requests.
geez, big, agree with you, but I gotta tell you--even on supposedly well-run sites it's gotten rotten. Just came offa multimillion dollar development in Austin, a collection of high-end "villages," where we saw a water leak go unanswered for over a week, spilling out from some sort of clubhouse, over the lawn, into the parking lot and out into the street. Not my job to inquire, but it makes you wonder what else is being ignored.
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
I hope I am wrong but John Mccain will be are next President. Another war hawk. Will America really elect another one? We need someone who has experience to help economy. Romney is a better bet then Mccain IMO.
IP: Logged |
Mccain is so old i don't want him. it's not personal. it's simply the state of humanity.
i have great respect for him, but Dubya sat in his chair IMO.
for him too go along with Dubya at all after the chit they (Rove and Dubya) pulled? he lost a certain amount of my respect.
i don't care how old his Mom is. she's a woman. and women live longer and healthier than men in general.
Romney? didn't he inherit tens of millions and use them to become a corporate raider?
After graduation, Romney remained in Massachusetts and went to work for the Boston Consulting Group, where he had interned during the summer of 1974.[10] From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., another management consulting firm based in Boston. In 1984, Romney left Bain & Company to co-found a spin-off private equity investment firm, Bain Capital.[11] During the 14 years he headed the company, Bain Capital's average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent,[12] making money primarily through leveraged buyouts.[13] He invested in or bought many well-known companies such as Staples, Brookstone, Domino's, Sealy Corporation and Sports Authority.[14]
In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse. As CEO, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections.[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
After his mission service, Romney attended Brigham Young University, where he graduated as valedictorian, earning his Bachelor of Arts degree summa cum laude in 1971.
In 1975, Romney graduated from a joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School. He graduated cum laude from the law school and was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent of his business school class.[9]
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
I will vote for no republican for any office, be it for president or dog cacher or wherever in between, until that Party has been thoroughly punished for what they have put this Nation (and the World) through AND they have profusely and bluntly apologized, admitting that they placed Party loyaly before the welfare of the Nation and the people, loudly and respectfully. I will not waste my vote and I WILL vote!
IP: Logged |
Except for torture, McCain has been a right hand for Bush and is promising to continue King Georges rule.
It is the republican party that refused to allow any oversight of the Party's dictatorial undermining of the Constitution.
That BS that everyone is guilty is just the Party's response to being proved to be crooked and eager to destroy the Constitution.
ANYBODY THAT ISN'T A REPUBLICAN IS BETTER AND ANYBODY THAT IS A REPUBLICAN IS DANGEROUS. In any position.
This has to be stopped and letting them get off without feeling the punishment will just let the same crew of scum resurface in a decade AGAIN.
Nixon shouldn't have been pardoned and there should have been big time prison time for the Iran Contra boys and girls. Those were the two major sources for King George's Court. Had they been punished for their past crimes, they could not have been tagged for this last republican venture in destroying the Constitution.
IP: Logged |
posted
All I have to say is THANK YOU John Edwards for dropping out. I certainly don't want a slimy contingency lawyer leading the country!!!
IP: Logged |
posted
It is the republican party that refused to allow any oversight of the Party's dictatorial undermining of the Constitution.
the Dems have done NOTHING either.
so you are just wrong to say whatever i said was not true.
furthermore? i specifically said that McCain stood up to Bush on the detainee issue, and i've siad in the past that McCain didn't stand up to Bush enough.
NEITHER have the Dems; you need to stop painting stuff with just one brush budgee. almost everybody on the Hill right now is complicit.
Obamma is by far one of the least complicit members on the Hill and Romney is not on the Hill at all. that doesn't mean i trust him either tho...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
here's what the Dems are working on: By Paul Kane Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, January 30, 2008; Page A04
The House and Senate yesterday approved a 15-day extension of an expiring intelligence surveillance law and the White House backed off a threatened veto, allowing more time to resolve a dispute over the administration's proposal to immunize telephone companies from lawsuits stemming from their cooperation with warrantless wiretaps.
Both chambers passed by unanimous voice votes the temporary extension of the Protect America Act, and members then left town for a one-week break. The White House gave its blessing last night to the short-term measure rather than allowing the surveillance law to expire Friday.
The Senate has not acted yet on a surveillance bill because of two related disputes: one among Democrats over whether to approve the legal immunity, and another between Democrats and Republicans over whether amendments are to be allowed when the proposed measure is brought to the floor for a vote.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who last year shepherded a surveillance bill through the House without immunity provisions, again urged the Senate to resist Bush's lobbying. "Congress must update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by passing a bill that protects both our national security and our civil liberties," she said in a statement. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012902909. html
Senate Logjammed on Surveillance Bill
By PAMELA HESS 1 day ago
WASHINGTON (AP) The Senate voted Monday against extending the eavesdropping law beyond Feb. 1, increasing political pressure to pass a new version of the bill this week.
The existing law will expire Feb. 1, a deadline the White House, intelligence officials and congressional Republicans are using to push the Senate into adopting a bill that would also protect from civil lawsuits the telecommunications companies that allowed their customers to be wiretapped without court approval. The Senate vote was 48-45, 12 votes short of the 60 needed to extend the law. Also on Monday, House Democratic leaders delayed until Tuesday a vote on whether to extend the law.
He said the White House would like to see lawmakers move forward on a bill and get it to the president's desk before the law expires on Friday. Bush plans to push for the law in a speech Thursday in Las Vegas, Nev.
The expiration of the law is more of a political deadline than a practical one, congressional Democrats say. All existing electronic surveillance activities can continue uninterrupted for at least a year from their commencement.
New domestic eavesdropping activities, however, would follow the old procedures established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 30-year old law created to dictate when the government has to get permission from a secret court to tap Americans' phone and computer lines.
That law has been interpreted to require court approval for nearly all domestic wiretaps conducted for intelligence purposes. U.S. intelligence agencies complain that the requirement ties them up in red tape and slows their ability to conduct surveillance on potential terrorists. The new law gives the government more latitude to eavesdrop without court approval.
as you can see? the Dems are "sticking" on this law based on the ability to sue the telecoms, not because it was unconstitutional to tap phone w/o a court order....
the Dems aren't very strict int heir interpretations of civil rights either.
the basics here amount to the Dems will let you sue somebody for participating with GOVT for violating your civil rights, and the GOP wants take away your right to sue.
BFD.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BooDog: Kucinich Abandons White House Bid Democrat Dennis Kucinich abandoned his presidential bid Friday to focus on a tough race for re-election to Congress. Full Story >>
Assurance continues for another republican election. Everytime I turn on the news I see the democratic party. The media is SO SURE the democrates deserve to reside they give onle a fraction of air time to every 5 minutes of democratic envision.
lol, maybe you wanna clarify...
Sry tex, Simply watching the news. For every 15 minutes of democratic coverage I see almost 1 minute of republican coverage. IMO the media is pushing.
-------------------- All post are my opinion. Do your own DD. Who's clicking your buy/sell button!?
IP: Logged |
WASHINGTON (AP) Lawmakers say they will push ahead with a presidential commission designed to root out waste and fraud in military contracts despite President Bush's concerns that it could usurp his authority.
Bush signed into law on Monday a wide-ranging defense bill that includes instructions to create a commission to investigate defense contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is modeled after a similar commission that was headed by Harry Truman in the 1940s to uncover abuse in military contracts during World War II.
Along with his signature, Bush singled out the commission and three other provisions that could "purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations."
A White House spokeswoman said parts of the contracting provision could be read to require the Justice Department to report whether or not they are prosecuting individuals.
"Under longstanding constitutional principles, the executive branch may protect from disclosure certain sensitive information, including national security information, as well as information about decisions whether to file criminal charges," the spokeswoman, Jeanie Mamo, said late Tuesday. "The signing statement provides notice that the commission's requests for information, if they are too broad, may run afoul of the Constitution."
Such "signing statements" are controversial tools in which the president signs a bill into law but notes portions he may ignore.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush can't just pick and choose.
"His job, under the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law every part of it and I expect him to do just that," she said.
Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who sponsored the military contracting provision with fellow Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, said Congress intends to move forward with setting up an eight-member commission.
The commission would be bipartisan, with four members appointed by Democratic congressional leaders, two by Republican leaders, one by the president and one by the defense secretary. Panel members would be p
In the signing statement, Bush also reserved the right to ignore expanded whistleblower protections for government contract workers, requirements that U.S. intelligence agencies respond quickly to congressional requests and a prohibition on federal dollars for permanent military bases in Iraq. U.S. officials have said repeatedly that their policy is not to have permanent bases in Iraq, but anti-war groups reacted quickly to the presidential statement.
"This signing statement raises further suspicions that President Bush seeks to establish a permanent presence in Iraq," said John Isaacs, executive director of Council for a Livable World. "If Bush is allowed to negotiate a treaty with Iraq that binds the United States under international law, the next president will be handcuffed."
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
"This signing statement raises further suspicions that President Bush seeks to establish a permanent presence in Iraq," said John Isaacs, executive director of Council for a Livable World. "If Bush is allowed to negotiate a treaty with Iraq that binds the United States under international law, the next president will be handcuffed."
if Bush tries to sign a treaty with Iraq?
Treaties
The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties made by the executive branch.
The Senate has rejected relatively few of the hundreds of treaties it has considered in its history. Many others, however, have died in committee or been withdrawn by the president rather than face defeat.
Some presidents have found it helpful to include senators in negotiating treaties in order to help pave the way for later Senate approval.
The requirement for a two-thirds vote ensures that a treaty will need bipartisan support to be approved.
The Senate may also amend a treaty or adopt various changes, which may lead the other nation, or nations, to further negotiate the treaty.
The president may also enter into executive agreements with foreign nations that are not subject to Senate approval.
Constitutional Provisions
Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur." These few words are the cornerstone to a major part of our system of divided powers, checks and balances. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
and gets it approved? then the Dems will be involved.
an international treaty becomes the law of the land..
most of our drug laws are based on Treaties.. the first was with China as i recall..
of course that treaty was before the current Chinese govt.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
There is nothing that the democrats can do, so long as the republicans continue to vote party line to support dubya and hold over 40% of the senate. As they have promised repeatedly, they intend to continue on that course through the foreseeable future.
It is the republicans that have made creeping fascism and the undermining of the Constitution the scourge of out time.
You are harping the RNC talking points, in case you didn't know. They are mostly bull and lies, just as they have been for over a decade.
There is no "good" reason to send any republican to the White house and that are many "bad" ones.
I don't know if what we cherish about our country can last through another four years of republicans destroying the Constitution.
IP: Logged |
posted
There is no "good" reason to send any republican to the White house and that are many "bad" ones.
actually? i can think of two good reasons.
1) Billary.
2) the Dems will prolly get their 60 seats in the Senate... then a GOP in the white house will be a"balance"
the Dems could have done alot more then they have. they specifically chose to play a low key confrontational game instead of front page confrontations.
they control the committees. that gives them the power of inquiry, and they did some good stuff with Gonzalez, but not much else....
committees conducting inquiries can make front page news. there's been very little of that.. esp. when it comes to where all the Iraq money is going.
IMO? they are just expecting to get the white house in '08 and then they have control of the two branches and they get to ride the gravy train till we get sick of them too (AGAIN). so we vote the GOP back in and we are back on the same old merry go round.. where does it stop budge? the Dems will be more competent than dubya's idjits.... thats about the best i can say.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Well now who do I support?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
