Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Landlords warned about drug dealing
Dayton Daily ^

Posted on 02/05/2003 10:57:26 AM PST by Stew Padasso

Landlords warned about drug dealing

By Lawrence Budd

LEBANON | The commander of the Warren-Clinton County Drug Task Force gave notice Monday to the landlords of properties where drug dealing is alleged: Clean up or face seizure under public nuisance laws.

The warning came after an infant and 3-year-old girl were removed from their parents last week as Warren County drug agents were about to shut down purported crack cocaine trafficking at two homes in downtown Lebanon.

The unrelated girls were turned over to Warren County Children Services, one on Thursday and one on Friday — the same day a SWAT team served simultaneous warrants at residences on Warren Street and North East Street, officials said.

"It's another part of drug trafficking. Some people say there are no innocent victims. Well there certainly are," John Burke, commander of the Warren-Clinton Drug Task Force, said Monday.

While emphasizing the property owners were not involved, Burke said authorities would be contacting the landlords in this and other drug trafficking cases to advise them that properties that are the subject of repeated drug problems could prompt civil lawsuits to declare them public nuisances subject to seizure.

In this case, Burke said the task force investigation spanned two months during which crack cocaine was frequently sold from the residences.

"The neighbors certainly noticed," Burke said. "It puts (landlords) on notice to be more vigilant what's going on in their buildings."

Burke said the girls' parents had not been arrested. The girls were removed by workers of children services and are in the custody of foster parents, community relations director Patti Jacobs said.

"We look at the adequacy of the supervision, dangerous acts and whether they are repeated. Whether the child is old enough to self-protect," Jacobs said.

On Friday, residents Eric Harley, 39, and Victoria Robinson, 40, were arrested by SWAT team members who served the warrant at 6 p.m. at 208 E. Warren St., Burke said.

A grand jury indicted Harley on three counts of trafficking in cocaine and Robinson on one count of trafficking in cocaine and two counts of permitting drug abuse, Burke said.

Other SWAT team members served a search warrant at 6 p.m. Friday at 318 N. East St. Both residences are rentals just west of downtown Lebanon, Burke said. Crack cocaine was seized, but no one was home on East Street, Burke said.

Harley and Robinson remained in the county jail, pending a bond hearing, according to jail records.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: drugskill; wodkills; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-161 next last
fyi
1 posted on 02/05/2003 10:57:26 AM PST by Stew Padasso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; vin-one; WindMinstrel; headsonpikes; philman_36; Beach_Babe; jenny65; AUgrad; Xenalyte; ...
WOD Ping
2 posted on 02/05/2003 11:07:27 AM PST by jmc813 (Do tigers sleep in lily patches? Do rhinos run from thunder?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
People don't own anything anymore. We only have what someone in government lets up use and pay taxes on for a while.

I suppose these government weisels will pony up the eviction costs and lawyers fees for trying to evict someone who you "think" might be a drug dealer in your rental property....I wouldn't count on it.
3 posted on 02/05/2003 11:15:03 AM PST by Orangedog (Accept No Substitutes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
The same warning to investment bankers would be alot more effective, and profitable.
4 posted on 02/05/2003 11:15:13 AM PST by steve50 (forget the tar and feathers, get a rope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
Let me get this straight. The landlords are supposed to accomplish what the cops can't? Hoo-kay. (Maybe we should seize the police force, since they haven't stopped the drug dealing either).
5 posted on 02/05/2003 11:23:14 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso; *Wod_list
"The commander of the Warren-Clinton County Drug Task Force gave notice Monday to the landlords of properties where drug dealing is alleged: Clean up or face seizure under public nuisance laws."

I notice the commander doesn't seem to have said HOW landlords are supposed to "clean up." Could that omission have anything to do with the money that stands to be made off the threatened seizures?

6 posted on 02/05/2003 11:27:14 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc813; All
I think it's perfectly appropriate to use 'public nuisance' bylaws to protect a community against public nuisances!

Neighbours of the rental properties suffer significant financial and personal losses as a consequence of the landlord's neglect.

In Canada, municipalities do the same thing, with reasonable performance measures. Everyone has a stake in preserving social values, which include NO public outrages!

Yes, this is really me, headsonpikes. I'm opposed to irrational drug laws, but I'm not opposed to community standards of public behavior, and the right of property-owners to be protected from negligence.
7 posted on 02/05/2003 11:30:22 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
Neighbours of the rental properties suffer significant financial and personal losses as a consequence of the landlord's neglect.

What neglect---what should he have done differently?

8 posted on 02/05/2003 11:42:13 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
"It's another part of drug trafficking. Some people say there are no innocent victims. Well there certainly are," John Burke, commander of the Warren-Clinton Drug Task Force, said Monday.
He completely forgot to explain how, why and who the innocent victims are. Typical. Sympathy angle at play. Just leaves it hanging.
9 posted on 02/05/2003 11:54:12 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy; headsonpikes
Neighbours of the rental properties suffer significant financial and personal losses as a consequence of the landlord's neglect.
Are these some of the "innocent victims" of drug trafficking or they the "innocent victims" of a slum lord only interested in maximizing his profits?
10 posted on 02/05/2003 11:57:05 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; MrLeRoy
See my #7, phil.

The innocent victims are the owners of neighbouring houses.

They suffer damages from the landlord's imprudence and neglect.

Period.
11 posted on 02/05/2003 11:59:29 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
They suffer damages from the landlord's imprudence and neglect.

What imprudence and neglect---what should he have done differently?

12 posted on 02/05/2003 12:00:45 PM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
Nobody in the community has less power to affect change than the poor bastards who own the property.

If you want to hold landlords accountable for their tenants, then give the landlords authority to do something about it.

I'd favor a law that allows the landlord to beat down the door and drag the tenants into the street and hang them from the streetlight. That would make a positive difference.

But what's being proposed here is just another example of punishing the innocent.

13 posted on 02/05/2003 12:02:48 PM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
A landlord is legally still the neighbour, even if not residing there.

It is an obligation of OWNERSHIP, not tenancy, to keep one's property 'nuisance'-free.

A nuisance is a tort.
14 posted on 02/05/2003 12:05:16 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
I'd favor a law that allows the landlord to beat down the door and drag the tenants into the street and hang them from the streetlight.
Vigilantism? A self-appointed doer of justice. No trial by jury...none of that other Constitutional stuff?
15 posted on 02/05/2003 12:08:02 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
"...then give the landlords authority..."

In B.C., where I live, which has very pro-tenant and anti-landlord regulations, a landlord can evict a disorderly tenant on 24 hours notice.

There is no excuse for allowing a rental property to degenerate at the expense of the neighbours.
16 posted on 02/05/2003 12:10:48 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
If you're going to punish property owners for the actions of their tenants, you should give the landlords authority to take action against the tenants.

Otherwise, have the law deal with the tenants and leave the property owners alone.
17 posted on 02/05/2003 12:12:36 PM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
If you're going to punish property owners for the actions of their tenants, you should give the landlords authority to take action against the tenants.
I don't see the landlord/property owner getting punished. Could you show me where that occurs?
The landlords can take action against the tenants through the courts as they're supposed to. You're supporting something else altogether though.
Otherwise, have the law deal with the tenants and leave the property owners alone.
The law does deal with such situations. Someone has to start the process by filing a complaint. You're not wanting to go that route though. "Hang 'Em High" seems to be your solution.
18 posted on 02/05/2003 12:20:29 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
Where I live, if you complain too loudly about tenants murdering your children, you are going to lose everything you own and then some. And that's before you get hauled into court.

Seriously, I know former property owners who have had their buildings seized by the courts because tenants have vandalized them.

I was pulled over once, late at night, handcuffed and taken in because a tenant of mine shoved the refrigerator out of the second floor window(without opening it). I was charged with public menace, having a refigerator on the lawn that didn't have the door removed. Then I was asessed a large fine under the retaliation statute for trying to evict the tenant in question. He also tossed his wife out the window that night.

I had to give him two thousand dollars to move. That was not really a bad ending for a case in massachusetts. Most are much worse. One of my most sucessful evictions only took ten months and cost $2500. That's because the tenant was so horrid. But that kind of success is extremely rare.
19 posted on 02/05/2003 12:20:53 PM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
I see a warning...While emphasizing the property owners were not involved, Burke said authorities would be contacting the landlords in this and other drug trafficking cases to advise them that properties that are the subject of repeated drug problems could prompt civil lawsuits to declare them public nuisances subject to seizure.
Of course, they won't be.
Drag the tenants to court, not drag the tenants into the street and hang them from the streetlight.
Narcoanarchy? Is that what narcoanarchy is? I want no part of that.
20 posted on 02/05/2003 12:24:43 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
They are talking about siezing the owners property if he has bad tenants. Admittedly, it's probably going to be a relief for the landlord to get rid of the place. But it is meant to be punishment.

In this area, there is nothing a landlord can do about a tenant. No matter what they do. I know of plenty of cases where property has been siezed from the owner, while his actions against the tenant had been going on fruitlessly for months and even years.

An average eviction where the tenant is a violent maniac last nine or ten months, rent free, with the owner paying all court costs, including the dirtball's dirtball attorney.
21 posted on 02/05/2003 12:27:22 PM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
Ah, understanding becomes clearer...Why didn't you follow your own advice?
...drag the tenants into the street and hang them from the streetlight.
A tainted perspective. Sorry to hear about your arrest/fine.
22 posted on 02/05/2003 12:27:23 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
Clean up or face seizure

The addiction to tax monies wasted by the free wheeling spending of corrupt fat politicans the magic cure for lack of tax money ....

We make money the old fashioned way....we steal it ...legally.... its easy when you are the one making the laws...enforcing the laws...exacting the penalties...

1776 will have to be earned all over again Im afraid...

23 posted on 02/05/2003 12:28:17 PM PST by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
I understand and sympathize with the argument that neighborhoods should be free of "nuisances" like disruptive drug dealers and such. Furthermore, absentee landlords are a serious problem for many communities, especially in cities with declining populations and flight to the suburbs.

However, the approach taken here by the cops is wrong, pig-headed, and smacks of European facism circa the 1930s. Here, the cops are enlisting the property owners and members of the community to enter the fray of the drug wars, not only making them take responsibility for the (so-called criminal) actions their tennants, but doing so by using fear and coercion to threaten their very right to own the property.

A more favorable approach would be to help landlords root out undesirable tennants by helping neighbors and lanlords alike establish a record of complaint and evidence against those in the neighborhood who are continually presenting themselves as a nuisance to the community. Then, with a body of evidence and complaints against the nuisance neighbor, the police, landlords, and neighbors can petition the local court to take action against the disruptive element in their neighborhood.

It depends upon which state you live in, but renters have specific rights, including the right to privacy and freedom from intrusive snooping by the landlord. The cops in this case are encouraging landlords to spy on their tennants, and in so doing, seem to be passing the buck to the landlords. The cops say: "you fix problem, or we will confiscate your property" - and they can, just like they confiscate property in any drug related case. This is just the wrong approach to a society that advocates freedom based upon property rights. That being said, landlords need to be responsive to the complaints of neighbors and need to take some responsibility for the activities that take place on their property. Like I said before, depending upon the laws of the state granting renters specific rights, the sort of threat imposed by the police in this example is just another expansion of the questionable legal and moral practices of the nation's drug wars.
24 posted on 02/05/2003 12:28:37 PM PST by citizenK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes; the gillman@blacklagoon.com
In B.C., where I live, which has very pro-tenant and anti-landlord regulations, a landlord can evict a disorderly tenant on 24 hours notice.

As the gillman points out, not all landlords have this power. Do you agree that it's wrong to hold a landlord responsible for not making an eviction he had almost no power to make?

25 posted on 02/05/2003 12:29:19 PM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
Neighbours of the rental properties suffer significant financial and personal losses as a consequence of the landlord's neglect.

Well exactly what is a landlord supposed to do? They cannot legally monitor the activities of their tenants, and God help them if they violate the Fair Housing Act. This is just an excuse for the Feds to grab more land cheap...JFK

26 posted on 02/05/2003 12:31:00 PM PST by BADROTOFINGER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
That's amazing! They hold you liable, yet you can't evict???

And I thought we had socialism in Canada. ;^)
27 posted on 02/05/2003 12:31:15 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
They are talking about siezing the owners property if he has bad tenants. Admittedly, it's probably going to be a relief for the landlord to get rid of the place. But it is meant to be punishment.
So do you see yourself as an innocent victim of drug trafficking or as an innocent victim in general?

In this area, there is nothing a landlord can do about a tenant. No matter what they do.
I suggest selling out and moving on to a location more hospitable to landlords.
If you knew it was so bad why did you get involved in that type of enterprise in the first place?

28 posted on 02/05/2003 12:31:42 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
The refrigerator case was just a mild annoyance. There were many far worse. I sold my properties to other fools and bailed.(Liberal lawyers whenever possible, that was when there were still tax benefits and people dumb enough to buy them.)

It was obvious that to stay in business, one either had to simply pour money down the socialist rathole forever or become a mass murderer.
29 posted on 02/05/2003 12:32:26 PM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
When I started, there were laws. Then they instituted the so-called housing court, which was much like the tribunals after a communist takeover. They existed simply to extract money from the property owners and punish those who sought to better themselves.

I actually sold my worst property to a fool of a liberal lawyer who thought she was going to show me how liberalism worked. The subhuman scum who lived there had other ideas.
In the end, she lost the building in her own housing court, had to file bankruptcy and lost her personal home as well.

30 posted on 02/05/2003 12:39:14 PM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: citizenK; MrLeRoy
Something like K's suggestion looks right to me.

I guess we have a slightly more reasonable brand of socialism in this regard, in B.C.

Many socialist voters are landlords here. ;^)

It's hard to believe you guys put up with all this federal meddling in rental housing. That a disturbance or nuisance is being created by a tenant ought to be sufficient grounds for eviction.
31 posted on 02/05/2003 12:44:27 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Employee Alerts Police to Drug Suspects
2/5/03

By Kevin Cole


[WIBC News] - An alert Meijer employee is being crediting with alerting police to a possible methamphetamine lab in the making.


When a customer purchased six boxes of cold medication, the employee became suspicious and called police. Detectives say the employee also provided them with a description of the suspect and the vehicle he was driving.


Fishers police then followed the vehicle on 96th street, and stopped the car for a traffic violation.


Police say a drug sniffing dog indicated there were narcotics in the car and a further search found 76 boxes of decongestant, or pseudo-ephedrine, 4 bottles of starter fluid, and one bottle of butane - all materials used to make methamphetamine.


Police say they also found meth in the car, and almost four thousand dollars on Kenneth and Polly Rector. They were arrested and sent to the Hamilton County jail.
32 posted on 02/05/2003 1:35:12 PM PST by Stew Padasso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Some people say there are no innocent victims. Well there certainly are

Didn't you read the next paragraph?

While emphasizing the property owners were not involved, Burke said authorities would be contacting the landlords in this and other drug trafficking cases to advise them that properties that are the subject of repeated drug problems could prompt civil lawsuits to declare them public nuisances subject to seizure.

Think it coincidental that these appear sequentially?

33 posted on 02/05/2003 6:47:43 PM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
Didn't you read the next paragraph?
Why yes, I did. I even commented on that paragraph. Did you miss that reply?
...could prompt civil lawsuits..., not will.
When it happens then you can come claim you have some "victims". What will they be the "victims" of?
Think it coincidental that these appear sequentially?
Perhaps, but probably not. Creating illusion is such hard work.
34 posted on 02/05/2003 6:56:57 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
I didn't miss the reply, but I'm not sure where you're going with it. Are you saying that none of the property owners are victims until the drug warriors confiscate?

Is someone who has been threatened a victim? Maybe not, but I can't think of a counterexample right now.

35 posted on 02/05/2003 7:27:13 PM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
I didn't miss the reply...
Then why did you ask...
Didn't you read the next paragraph?
If you saw the reply and knew that I had read the paragraph why did you ask?
Are you saying that none of the property owners are victims until the drug warriors confiscate?
I've got a better question...How do you conclude that the property owners are currently victims? You do believe them to be "victims" don't you? How are the property owners "victims" and who/what is the damage/harm and who/what is causing the damage/harm?
Is someone who has been threatened a victim?
I've got a better question...Who is doing the threatening?
36 posted on 02/05/2003 7:46:24 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
It is an obligation of OWNERSHIP, not tenancy, to keep one's property 'nuisance'-free.

In Ohio it is easier to evict someones junk from a storage rental than a residence. Perhaps the LEOs would be willing to "help" evict the offending renters.

A nuisance is a tort.

Yeah, so let the offended party file suit, and if negligence/nuisance is proven, collect damages. So you think it is OK for some JBTs to confiscate property by force without due process (by due process I don't mean some quasi-judicial ruling or order; but due process in a real court with trial by jury).

37 posted on 02/05/2003 8:02:50 PM PST by suijuris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Burke said authorities would be contacting the landlords in this and other drug trafficking cases to advise them that properties that are the subject of repeated drug problems could prompt civil lawsuits to declare them public nuisances subject to seizure.

Am I reading that wrong? My opinion is that someone who advises me that my property could just as easily be theirs as mine is threatening to take it if I don't toe their line. In this case, the Warren-Clinton Drug Task Force is threatening to initiate a civil action which will result in the confiscation of their property.

If a mugger grabs a man and holds a gun to his head while demanding his wallet, then runs away before he hands it over, I would consider 'victim' appropriate. I cannot generate a scenario where someone has been threatened and 'victim' is inappropriate. Could be that I'm just tired.

38 posted on 02/05/2003 8:16:06 PM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
Am I reading that wrong?
Don't ask me! You're the one reading it!
... Warren-Clinton Drug Task Force is threatening to initiate a civil action which will result in the confiscation of their property.
So you're saying that some of the "innocent victims" of "drug trafficking" are these property owners, who can't possibly know everything that their tenants do, and they're being victimized and threatened by law enforcement agencies though the "illegal acts" occur through no fault of the owners.
Have I got that right? I just want to be clear here.
39 posted on 02/05/2003 8:48:54 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Yes, I'm saying that they guy who has his vacation home confiscated because, while he was at work 1000 miles away, some high schoolers tied off on his dock while they smoked a joint is an innocent victim of the WOsD.

The original post was meant fecetiously, I found it too funny that the article concatinated Burke saying, "There are not innocent victims," and then following it immediately with what amounts to, "I'm threatening to make some right now!"

I don't feel its the property owners responsibility to do the job of the police wrt tenants.

40 posted on 02/06/2003 4:42:28 AM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: suijuris
"so you think it is OK for some JBTs to confiscate property by force..."

Well, no. I'm in favor of municipalities protecting the property rights of peaceful home-owners.

I don't think the cops should be calling the shots...that's what the mayor and council are for. One of the advantages of living in a town or city is the ability to act as a community against nuisances.

If you want to live like a wild man, move to the bush.
41 posted on 02/06/2003 7:09:05 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
While emphasizing the property owners were not involved, Burke said authorities would be contacting the landlords in this and other drug trafficking cases to advise them that properties that are the subject of repeated drug problems could prompt civil lawsuits to declare them public nuisances subject to seizure.

Unbelievable. Okay landlords, put on your black hoods, bust in the door and evict your drug dealing tenants. Yea right. Like how does this guy expect landlords to be able to deal with this? YOu can serve and eviction notice for what? Selling drugs? On what evidence? If the police arrested them, what are they doing out on the street. Oh, awaiting trial maybe. Hmmm, I see a tenants suit coming. The U.S. has become a very, very stupid society.

42 posted on 02/06/2003 7:21:35 AM PST by BJungNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
"There are not innocent victims," and then following it immediately with what amounts to, "I'm threatening to make some right now!"
Now I get your point. Sorry for being so slow on the uptake (I bet I get some guff for that remark).
Using your earlier example...
If a mugger grabs a man and holds a gun to his head while demanding his wallet, then runs away before he hands it over, I would consider 'victim' appropriate.
The mugger is the Warren-Clinton Drug Task Force, the gun is the WOsD and the running away part should be when "the victim" looks closely at the gun, notices that there are no rounds in the revolver and pulls his own piece out to defend himself! Damned fool mugger coming at folks with an empty weapon. 2:1.32
The property owners, however, believe in gun control and don't believe in CCW. I guess they like victim status.
43 posted on 02/06/2003 11:02:34 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Roger, Victor, over and out.

Unfortunately, I don't know if there is anything the landlords could do outside of spending countless hours policing their tenants. If that were the case, who'd want to live there anyway? Seems like the cops want them to do a delicate balancing act between providing a service (rental property) and snooping on their tenants.

44 posted on 02/06/2003 7:12:10 PM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes; citizenK; MrLeRoy

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the stories being recited about landlords being burdened are because of local ordinances, no?

I agree with your well-written assessment of the situation, that the legal owner bears the legal responsibilities to see that his lawful property is nuisance-free. Certainly a crack house next door constitutes a very big nuisance, which infringes upon the unalienable rights of the neighbors to pursue happiness, being bummed about seeing the needless suffering next door.

The article makes mention of two other points being largely overlooked by those who allege some nefarious scheme to defraud owners of their property:

The landlord's right to be irresponsible is trumped by the harm his commissions or omissions cause to others.
45 posted on 02/06/2003 7:51:56 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad; headsonpikes
the legal owner bears the legal responsibilities to see that his lawful property is nuisance-free

I don't know why you're copying me on this; my point, as headsonpikes understands, is that some landlords are legally hindered by "tenants' rights" laws from being able to see that their lawful property is nuisance-free.

46 posted on 02/07/2003 6:36:45 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad; MrLeRoy
I understand from a number of posters that landlords are not permitted to swiftly evict undesirable tenants because of 'Fair Housing' laws of various kinds.

Under these circumstances, it can hardly be fair to add insult to injury to the unlucky landlord by saddling him with a burden created by others. This is a typical example of the consequences of socialist-style legislation.

Virtually all social problems can be traced to government action, imo.
47 posted on 02/07/2003 6:48:25 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
What I don't get is this: If these crack houses are so well known and disruptive to their neighbourhoods, surely there should be plenty enough evidence available for the police to shut them down? Will none of these vitimized neighbours swear to an affadavit so the police can get a search warrant? (probably not, many people are good at complaining but not so good at actually doing something) If the cops know these places are crack houses, why don't they do something about it?
48 posted on 02/07/2003 7:06:14 AM PST by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
They can keep it up, but they run the risk of landlords abandoning properties or refusing to rent, which will cause a housing shortage.
49 posted on 02/07/2003 7:21:33 AM PST by ladylib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
The answer is for the owner to call police. All day, every day. Every five minutes. Tell them the suspect illegal activity. All the time.

What on earth does this twit want the guy to do?

50 posted on 02/07/2003 7:31:29 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-161 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson