|
|
| Re: Laws Laws Laws (714942) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (715199) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 16:25:44 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 16:05:45 2011. Pelosi and extreme left democrats have been out of favor to the party for quite some time. Party accepts them and runs them where it's expedient but you don't hear dems dissing them as "dinos" either. If the republicans don't like RINOs, then they should deny them the ballot. But of course that ain't happening, is it? |
|
|
| (715200) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jan 4 16:26:13 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 15:54:51 2011. we will soon find out |
|
|
| (715203) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 16:32:30 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 16:24:13 2011. Sounds like somebody overbuilt. The "4" limit by the way has been law since the 1950's. Dumbasses.Most of Queens' 6 Family Homes were built in 1910-1918. Most of Brooklyns 6 family homes were built prior to 1910. |
|
|
| (715204) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 16:35:52 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 16:25:44 2011. Pelosi and extreme left democrats.....Party accepts them and runs them where it's expedient but you don't hear dems dissing them as "dinos" either.How can a politician, to the LEFT of the moderate Democrats be a "DINO". Pelosi would match the equivilent "RINO" category, if she was to the RIGHT of the moderate Democrats. It's apples and oranges. Saying Pelosi is a DINO would be like saying someone like Jan Brewer is a "RINO". |
|
|
| (715205) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 16:41:39 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jan 4 16:26:13 2011. Consider the alternative - better already! :) |
|
|
| (715207) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 16:48:22 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 16:32:30 2011. There are typical Queens/Brooklyn 6 family homes. You will see them everywhere from Jackson Heights to Astoria to Ridgewood to Bushwick to all over Brooklyn and Queens (and even the Bronx). There are litterally 10's of Thousands of them, and they were all built in the late 1800's and early 1900's.   |
|
|
| (715208) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 16:56:25 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 16:48:22 2011. I'm sure NYC lawmakers must have been aware of those when they wrote the laws. You'll be comforted to know perhaps that upstate, tenants have only the right to GTFO if they don't like their dump. Those laws only apply to the city and certain suburbs. |
|
|
| (715209) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 17:01:25 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 16:35:52 2011. OK, so you don't want to hear the point and just want to argue to keep your dogma shiny clean. If there's a purity test to be a republican, then why are there RINO's in the first place? THAT was my point.Purebred parties don't allow mongrels, right? |
|
|
| (715215) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jan 4 17:24:14 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 16:41:39 2011. i am glad meg whitman did not make it for sure ! |
|
|
| (715242) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 18:10:13 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jan 4 17:24:14 2011. I can see it now ... "Thank you for calling the Highway Patrol ... your call is important to us. Please wait for the next available technician.""Hello ... this is being ... Bob. How may I be helping you?" Nah ... even another run of the Governator would be an improvement. :) |
|
|
| (715247) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 18:15:06 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 16:56:25 2011. Yes, it's much easier outside of liberal NYC.I remember knowing someone that had a cape on Long Island back in the 60's, and he was some old Italian guy. He made an apartment upstairs, and his tenant didn't pay or something, so one day he just threw all the guy's stuff on the front lawn. Granted, you couldn't even do that to someone in the 60's in the city either, but that said, it's amazing how you had a lot of control of your property back then. To those older guys, No pay no apartment. |
|
|
| (715250) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 18:17:50 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 16:56:25 2011. I'm sure NYC lawmakers must have been aware of those when they wrote the laws.Yeah, making 5 the cut off number is no accident, 6 is the magic number where number of buildings skyrockets. That said again though, thank goodness most of them are privately own, knowing how the city runs things, if you really want all the rental property to go into the public domain (through harsher and harsher laws), then watch the housing stock collapse. |
|
|
| (715253) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 18:26:11 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 17:01:25 2011. In an area like NYC, the most you are going to ever getting in the form of a Republican is a liberal Republican like Guiliani, or a RINO like Bloomberg. What kind of chance do you think Jan Brewer, Huckabee, or name some "Republican" will do in San Francisco, NYC, etc? |
|
|
| (715255) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 18:29:29 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 18:15:06 2011. That's how it is around here as well. And summary judgement on the eviction notice. |
|
|
| (715257) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 18:32:31 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 18:17:50 2011. It collapsed a long time ago under limited partnerships. If you're going to rent out property and don't want to have anything to do with it, you get what you deserve. Around here, "owner occupied" gets a complete pass ... can't find the owner, it's just like NYC in the cities around here. But "owner-occupied" is still sacrosanct for the owner. I feel that's fair enough with some of the douchebags that own buildings in horrid disrepair in Albany, Schenectady, Troy, Menands and Cohoes. |
|
|
| (715262) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 18:39:46 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 18:29:29 2011. Yup. And now if the wonderful lawmakers in California think it's a good idea to stick private landlords with non paying tenants just because they are "victims of Domestic violence". This is exactly the reason why I fall farther and farther from Democrats. It's utterly crazy.They won't even be happy until all the rental housing is forced into the public sector, and we know how nice it is to live in publicly run big or small buildings or "The Projects". |
|
|
| (715264) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 18:47:20 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 18:26:11 2011. Well then, perhaps the GOP should withdraw like the dems have done in the Carolinas? My point is simply that if a political party runs a candidate, then they should have the stones to simply admit that they ARE one of them regardless or don't run any at all. |
|
|
| (715267) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 18:49:15 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 18:32:31 2011. Just because an owner doesn't live in a building, doesn't mean they "don't want anything to do with it". As I said, there are PLENTY of slumlords, but there are plenty of landlords that maintain their property too.Sometimes it's more than you can say about city owned properties.  How convenient....a public housing of NYC article from today: http://www.onnyturf.com/blogs/view_post.php?content_id=11843 Yes, it's "so" much better when a bureaucracy like the NYCHA owns the buildings publicly, where it's a number, instead of private owners, where it's their investment. |
|
|
| (715269) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 18:49:53 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 18:39:46 2011. People are entitled to the government they elect, as we'll see in the coming two years on a national scale. As to California, perhaps some limited partnerships might want to invest in ... oh ... perhaps Nevada? Heh.California has enough republicans to have stopped it ... |
|
|
| (715271) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 18:54:54 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 18:47:20 2011. Again, the NYC area Republican party is not the same as the Louisiana Republican party. |
|
|
| (715273) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 18:56:05 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 18:49:15 2011. Budget cuts over many many years are responsible for the lack of maintenance in public areas of those buildings. Those warehouses for the poor were a bad idea from the get-go. I offer Cabrini in Chicago as the prime example. I can see blaming the tenants for the condition of individual apartments outside of the building infrastructure itself.Take a trip up to the South Bronx where government built NEW housing and you'll see that your ditty isn't at all accurate. But that's beside the point. There are some mighty awful landlords in the city, I paid my rent on time and it was substantial when I lived there. My building looked no better than a project after years of LLC's and neglect. And that ceiling in your photo looks a HELL of a lot better than the bathroom ceiling in my apartment when I moved out of the city. And for my final comment, back to where I started, you can't be terribly sane in the first place if you want to endure all that shit in the first place for so little return on your investment. Like I said, the small landlords who rent out their building deserve a much fairer system than there is. As for the absentee landlords, they should be swinging from a lamp post. That all said, I agree that the standards in most major cities are extremely unfair to the GOOD landlords ... but those are seriously in the minority already. |
|
|
| (715275) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 4 19:02:46 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 18:54:54 2011. Again, the NYC area Republican party is not the same as the Louisiana Republican party.But it's still the REPUBLICAN Party. REPUBLICANS sought and signed these laws. That's THAT and it's IRREFUTABLE. Period. |
|
|
| (715278) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 19:07:15 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 18:54:54 2011. There is one and only ONE republican party. It's like Allah. Haven't you been paying any attention to the teabaggers? :-\ |
|
|
| (715282) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 19:09:17 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 18:56:05 2011. Budget cuts over many many years are responsible for the lack of maintenance in public areas of those buildings. Those warehouses for the poor were a bad idea from the get-go.The NYCHA also owns many of the small "6 family houses" in Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx too. It's not just "the projects". Do you really believe they maintain them better than "the projects"? Just what the city needs....more buildings it can't manage properly. We saw what happened in the 70's when landlords just walked away from their property and the city took hold of them. Look at some photos of the Bronx, Bushwick, and so forth from the 1980's to see the result of that. I can see blaming the tenants for the condition of individual apartments outside of the building infrastructure itself. Yes, in MANY cases that is the case, and they tie landlord's hands behind their backs when they are stuck with garbage tenants like that. Take a trip up to the South Bronx where government built NEW housing and you'll see that your ditty isn't at all accurate. I don't need to, I know very well what is happening, I know Bushwick, which is similar to South Bronx in what happened to it, and what it returned to....and there are STILL plenty of NYCHA buildings in disrepair still owned by the city. Yes, there are refurbished ones too. I am aware of that. But alongside them is also maintained buildings by private owners. And of course, I was clear in stating there were slumlords too. But that's beside the point. There are some mighty awful landlords in the city, I paid my rent on time and it was substantial when I lived there. My building looked no better than a project after years of LLC's and neglect. And that ceiling in your photo looks a HELL of a lot better than the bathroom ceiling in my apartment when I moved out of the city. Yes, I am aware of the cycle from the 70's and 80's. Years of low rent control had done it's toll and no investment in the housing stock. I am quite aware of what many areas of the city looked like in that era. I am quite familiar that landlords that couldn't even cover costs found it easier just to walk away. And for my final comment, back to where I started, you can't be terribly sane in the first place if you want to endure all that shit in the first place for so little return on your investment. And again, that's the whole point of the outrage at some stupid regulation like this burdening private landlords further. When the government makes it harder and harder for private individuals to own property, then let's look to the 70's and 80's condition of the housing stock to see what that causes when landlords throw up their hands and feel they are better off walking away, burning it down, and having the city take over the buildings. Yes, that went well. Like I said, the small landlords who rent out their building deserve a much fairer system than there is. As for the absentee landlords, they should be swinging from a lamp post. That all said, I agree that the standards in most major cities are extremely unfair to the GOOD landlords .. We agree to that point, but must point out that not all "absentee landords" are slumlords, or large landlords. A "small" landlord can own his little piece of America in a 4 or 6 family house that he worked hard for, just as a slumlord can. |
|
|
| (715285) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 19:12:03 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 4 19:02:46 2011. Yes, RINO, in name to get elected. |
|
|
| (715286) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 19:12:56 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 19:07:15 2011. AGAIN, NYC area Republicans are not the same as "Louisiana Republicans", just as San Francisco Democrats are not the same as Texas Democrats. |
|
|
| (715288) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jan 4 19:14:16 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 18:10:13 2011. lol |
|
|
| (715291) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 19:19:42 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 19:09:17 2011. Maintenance has always been the first cut in lean times. And that's all I'm saying. When the money comes rolling back in again finally, that needs to be the first place it goes. But that doesn't happen. I grew up in and remained in the Bronx for most of my life until I left the city. Even did "small landlord" on Webster when I lived over there. I know all about all the problems for landlords and rent control as it once existed. But I also know of the scams pulled by many financial interests in the 70's which were directly related to a lot of the destruction which followed. Pick up a building for a couple of dollars at a tax auction, put nothing into it, burn a few apartments to scare out the rent controlled and then collect without putting anything into it. There was plenty of that as well.But back to the original point - "owner occupied" buildings shouldn't be subjected to the stupid. If the pipes leak, landlord's going to get wet and has an inducement to fix them. As for tenants, nowadays there's plenty of useful tools for identifying WHO you want to rent to and who you do NOT. One thing that gives me a hardon politically is "unfunded mandates." If a locality wants to place an undue burden on a property owner who *IS* properly fulfilling their obligations, then that locality should make up the difference for any losses in CASH. A ruling such as that alone would solve the problem. And if the taxpayers are going to allow their electeds to pull this, then they should pay their taxes and enjoy their outcome. |
|
|
| (715294) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 19:21:21 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 19:12:03 2011. If they wear the brand name, they ARE the product. |
|
|
| (715295) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 19:22:36 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 19:12:56 2011. Hate to break it to ya, but Texas democrats are democrats just like California democrats (apple/orange in state/city) ... the PEOPLE a particular representative may represent might have different wants than people in another place, but the party is national. |
|
|
| (715334) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 20:06:11 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 19:19:42 2011. Pick up a building for a couple of dollars at a tax auction, put nothing into it, burn a few apartments to scare out the rent controlled and then collect without putting anything into it. There was plenty of that as well.Yes, and that was caused by government meddling and involvement in the rentals. Rent control is government control. And yes, landlords walked away, the houses got put up at tax auction, and there you have it. But back to the original point - "owner occupied" buildings shouldn't be subjected to the stupid. If the pipes leak, landlord's going to get wet and has an inducement to fix them. And someone that wants to protect his investment, and avoid further damage will also repair that. Do you think most landlords would rather have to redo the ceilings and walls all the way to the first floor because a leak on the top floor was let unfixed? Again, it has nothing to do with "owner occupied or non owner occupied", there are good and bad landlords, just like there are good and bad tenants. As for tenants, nowadays there's plenty of useful tools for identifying WHO you want to rent to and who you do NOT. And if you ever did do rentals you also know that you can still check things out, and you STILL have to throw in a little bit of luck there too. One thing that gives me a hardon politically is "unfunded mandates." If a locality wants to place an undue burden on a property owner who *IS* properly fulfilling their obligations, then that locality should make up the difference for any losses in CASH. A ruling such as that alone would solve the problem. And if the taxpayers are going to allow their electeds to pull this, then they should pay their taxes and enjoy their outcome. I can agree with that, but Rent control and Stabilization is just that too....private landlords subsidizing tenants. There is no reason the city should make an apartment only be allowed to get "$900" when the market rent is $1400. If the city is requiring that subsidy, the landlord shouldn't have to be out $500 a month because the city placed that subsidy on the landlord's tenant. |
|
|
| (715336) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 20:07:33 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 19:21:21 2011. If pink blankets aren't selling in a store location, but orange blankets are, you sell orange blankets. |
|
|
| (715339) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 20:11:42 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 19:22:36 2011. Okay, San Francisco Democrats are not the same as Omaha Democrats, just as NYC Republicans are not the same as Houston Republicans. |
|
|
| (715347) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Tue Jan 4 20:21:25 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 3 23:04:29 2011. Recently Wendy's changed its fries too (voluntarily), and while they were never all that great, they lost all taste now. They have a new "healthier" recipe now, which includes a new cut of fries with the skin still on it (usually that tastes great), and seas saltI used to like the fries at Wendy's before they switched to the new ones. These new fries are okay, but they make the fries taste way too salty, so I order them now with no salt, and they don't taste as good as they used to. |
|
|
| (715348) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Tue Jan 4 20:22:53 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by BMTLines on Mon Jan 3 23:22:37 2011. At least at Burger King, you have the option to have onion rings instead of fries. |
|
|
| (715351) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 20:26:27 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 20:06:11 2011. Hate to say it, but not really a topic I'm all that interested in. I'll just leave it at "rent control" is largely gone, "decontrol" is also vanishing as well except in old building already paid off where the main cost now is maintenance and taxes. Somewhere, somehow something has to be done to allow for places for low income people to live or you have what's happening in NYC and a lot of other places, an ever increasing shortage of low wage workers.Dunno how you're going to deal with that other than a blessing from Republican Jesus ... for those landlords who can't find a way to deal with it, they can sell the building to someone else who can. Wish I cared more, but then I'm sane enough not to be a landlord. :) |
|
|
| (715354) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 20:28:51 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 20:07:33 2011. So what you're saying then is that it's OK to say that the orange blanket is really pink and they're color blind. Heh. |
|
|
| (715359) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 20:35:45 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 20:11:42 2011. There ya go! :)Compile completed successfully 0 warnings, 0 errors |
|
|
| (715391) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 21:13:47 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 20:28:51 2011. No, it's an orange blanket. It's a blanket just like the pink one is a blanket, but pink ones don't sell well in that location where sheets usually rule. |
|
|
| (715393) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 21:17:46 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 20:26:27 2011. I'll just leave it at "rent control" is largely gone,Rent Control was replaced with Rent Stabilization, so yes, Rent CONTROL is gone, but rent regulation is FAR from gone. "decontrol" is also vanishing as well except in old building already paid off where the main cost now is maintenance and taxes. ?????? It goes with the building, not the landlord. Someone that bought the "old" building "yesterday" usually hasn't "paid off where now the only cost is maintenance and taxes". New owner has a mortgage, so don't know where that comes from. Somewhere, somehow something has to be done to allow for places for low income people to live or you have what's happening in NYC and a lot of other places, an ever increasing shortage of low wage workers. Subsidies for low income people should be provided by the government, not private individuals owning a building. |
|
|
| (715395) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 21:19:48 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 20:35:45 2011. And Bloomberg (lifelong Democrat, nee Republican, nee Independent) is not a "Houston Republican". |
|
|
| (715400) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 21:22:45 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 20:26:27 2011. Hate to say it, but not really a topic I'm all that interested in. ......but then I'm sane enough not to be a landlord. :)I know I know, that's your usual response when you lost an argument. :) |
|
|
| (715402) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 21:23:22 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 20:26:27 2011. Hate to say it, but not really a topic I'm all that interested in. ......Wish I cared more, but then I'm sane enough not to be a landlord. :)I know I know, that's your usual response when you lost an argument. :) |
|
|
| (715404) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Tue Jan 4 21:24:07 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 21:19:48 2011. Hahaha, that's true. I just don't see him wearing a cowboy hat.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (715409) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 21:27:24 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by Fred G on Tue Jan 4 21:24:07 2011.  Oh, sorry, my mistake, that's not Bloomberg! |
|
|
| (715411) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 21:28:24 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by Fred G on Tue Jan 4 21:24:07 2011. LOL!! Yo can find almost everything you need on the internet....almost Bloomberg! |
|
|
| (715413) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 21:29:31 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 21:13:47 2011. I got your point ... missed mine. :) |
|
|
| (715415) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 21:30:49 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 21:29:31 2011. No I "got" your point, I don't agree with it. "Getting" and "agreeing" are two different things. |
|
|
| (715418) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 21:32:33 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 21:17:46 2011. Heh. People who buy old rundown buildings without fixing them kinda deserve their losses. As to subsidies for low income people, that's socialism. That's what your party is working to destroy. So THEN what?Look at how much industry has left the city because they can't find anyone to work on the factory floor. Ever wonder WHY that is? But no, let's not subsidize housing either. Yes indeed there's a huge mess. But nobody wants to fix it, just pass the mess on to somebody else. Remember my thing about unfunded mandates? |
|
|
| (715419) | |
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 21:33:54 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 21:28:24 2011. You DO realize that's dress code up here? :) |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||