Stooping

**Piña** · July 27th, 2005, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by gae:
That's correct, Cap'n. That *IS* the liberal agenda. Everyone has rights EXCEPT law abiding, tax paying citizens.

No gae, that's incorrect.

My "liberal" agenda holds that EVERYONE has rights INCLUDING law abiding, tax paying citizens. They're not conditional. Conditional is for privileges.

**Lew** · July 27th, 2005, 10:21 PM

There are a myriad of variables being injected into this discussion, which is healthy except it requires an increase in the complexity of our respective analyses. Let's look at a few-

- Crime. Obviously, crime should be punished and if the police in Northside (or anywhere else) aren't doing their jobs, then that is a separate issue that needs addressing. Gae has told me horror stories, and the lack of response by City Hall is disgraceful.

- slum lords. There is (or can be) a remedy for their blight: BUILDING STANDARDS. Tighten up the rules and requirements of a dwelling, and then give some teeth to the enforcement of those standards. When a property falls below standard, and the landlord does nothing about it, down it comes. And, why don't we increase the criminal penalties for these slum lords? Force them to get in line or else find out what insider trading is like in the big house.

**Piña** · July 27th, 2005, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Lew:
There are a myriad of variables being injected into this discussion, which is healthy except it requires an increase in the complexity of our respective analyses. Let's look at a few-

- Crime. Obviously, crime should be punished and if the police in Northside (or anywhere else) aren't doing their jobs, then that is a separate issue that needs addressing. Gae has told me horror stories, and the lack of response by City Hall is disgraceful.

Why is it ?obvious? that crime should be punished? Another alternative is to remove the economic incentive that marries violence and abject conditions to drug use and prostitution. Would you be as ready to suggest that ?crime? should be punished if it were still illegal for people to engage in homosexual behaviors?

- slum lords. There is (or can be) a remedy for their blight: BUILDING STANDARDS. Tighten up the rules and requirements of a dwelling, and then give some teeth to the enforcement of those standards. When a property falls below standard, and the landlord does nothing about it, down it comes. And, why don't we increase the criminal penalties for these slum lords? Force them to get in line or else find out what insider trading is like in the big house.

I agree for the most part. There are many regulations on the books that aren?t enforced. It?s a pity that it takes time and money to enforce them.

And have you considered what sort of political and legal fight you would have on your hands if you tried to take rental properties away from landlords for not meeting code to say nothing of attempting to jail them for it? It wouldn?t be pretty, or cheap.

So maybe just getting together with your neighbors and buying the properties and improving the area would be a more feasible approach. I mean either way you end up paying for them.

**travelinman** · July 28th, 2005, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by Pi?a:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by travelinman:
Most defiantly, the east end of Hanfield could sure use a bulldozer. I would also clean out the intersection of Colerain, Montana and Virginia. Get rid of all the buildings on the each side of the street from the entrance of I-74 up the hill to where the sidewalks and retaining walls are. Create a left turn lanes on Colerain north and south. Create right turn lanes on Colerain onto Virginia and Virginia onto Colerain. This would reduce a lot of congestion and get rid of a lot of trash. Cleaning out all those falling down buildings will make the back entrance into Northside much better.

Lew,

Don't you also find it a bit, uhm, incongruous that Trav is championing social change via bulldozer? I always thought he was in favor of the strong individual being allowed to operate independently of those oh-so-onerous governmental intrusions. Anarchy uber alles and all that.

I guess his Libertarian mantra of ?Don?t tread on me? only applies to him and those he deems worthy.

Why am I not surprised?<hr /></blockquote>Don?t? you have anything else to do but look for ways to insult my wife or me? When was the last time you had an original thought of your own?

Oh that?s right, when you do start threads, no one posts to them.

**Piña** · July 28th, 2005, 03:21 AM

Well, I guess that just shows that you can't refute my criticisms.

**travelinman** · July 28th, 2005, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by Pi?a:
Well, I guess that just shows that you can't refute my criticisms.

There is no reason I should. You?re so far to the left that you have lost all touch with reality.

**Piña** · July 28th, 2005, 03:32 AM

Sure, sure. That must be it.

Does anyone else find it pitiful that Trav almost always relies on smoke screens and deflection to avoid having to defend his, well let's be charitable, insane ideas?

Kind of tells you how weak even he finds them.

**travelinman** · July 28th, 2005, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by Pi?a:
Sure, sure. That must be it.

Does anyone else find it pitiful that Trav almost always relies on smoke screens and deflection to avoid having to defend his, well let's be charitable, insane ideas?

Kind of tells you how weak even he finds them.

There you go again, talking to those invisible people. I don?t keep track, but outside of myself and one from the Captain in this thread who else responds to your babble?

**Piña** · July 28th, 2005, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by travelinman:
There you go again, talking to those invisible people. I don?t keep track, but outside of myself and one from the Captain in this thread who else responds to your babble?

Blah, blah, blah.

Care to answer my questions?

No?

Always the same with you. Can't keep up so you try and hijack the conversation into a personal flame war.

Again, you can't argue your position so you take the cheap, cowardly, way out. Typical freeper technique.

**reason** · July 28th, 2005, 03:53 AM

If you don't like prostitution and drug dealing then address the problem directly. If you don't want run down properties in your neighborhood then form a homeowners association and develop standards. Get together with your neighbors and buy the offending properties if they bother you so much and then bulldoze away.

Keep in mind though that while you may find the run down properties to be so objectionable, others may find yours to be sub-standard. Should they be able to compel you to raze yours?

The neighborhood has been dealing with the problem "directly" for years now. Over the past week I've gotten an education on everything they've done, yet the problem of absentee landlords exist. THEY are the problem.

You can go year after year of having prostitutes and drug dealers evicted, only to be replaced. Hit up Masud Whathisface with 12 violations on his 5 properties and let him do his patch up job, and life goes on as before.

But thankfully we've got the property owners' rights to protect them at the expense of everyone else.

And why should I have to front MY hard-earned capital because of someone else's antisocial behavior? Why should I be the one to pay? The one to pay should be the offender.

Why should I put my money into properties who have no other life than to be housing attractive to only those who have no other options? Why should I pay to get rid of drug dealers?

What I'll probably end up doing is simply moving - and that's what most people do. So in the name of sacred property rights, whole neighborhoods die, the slum lords continue to collect their money and the drug dealers continue dealing drugs.

But at least we've protected property rights. Or at least the slum lords' property rights.

[ July 27, 2005 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Captain Whizbang ]

Thread: Stooping

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions