- This topic has 45 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
jpinpb.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 3, 2009 at 4:37 PM #392583May 4, 2009 at 12:53 AM #392770
scaredyclassic
Participantyou can’t arrest ona misdemeanor not committed in the officer’s presence without a warrant generally, so you’d need to get a judge to sign off ona warrant to go haul the offending party to jail. be difficult to find that judge. more effective probably, would be to make the fine so freaking high that the bank would take care of the proeprty. kind fo like speeding fines aren’t high enough to deter speeding–they’re just things we all calculate in deciding where toset our cruise control. if the fine were $5,000/day, and the house reverted to the city in a month or two, the banks would be on it. The city could then auction the place off right quick and get the hosue in the hands of someone who’d care for it. fine the living hell out of em!
May 4, 2009 at 12:53 AM #392505Participantyou can’t arrest ona misdemeanor not committed in the officer’s presence without a warrant generally, so you’d need to get a judge to sign off ona warrant to go haul the offending party to jail. be difficult to find that judge. more effective probably, would be to make the fine so freaking high that the bank would take care of the proeprty. kind fo like speeding fines aren’t high enough to deter speeding–they’re just things we all calculate in deciding where toset our cruise control. if the fine were $5,000/day, and the house reverted to the city in a month or two, the banks would be on it. The city could then auction the place off right quick and get the hosue in the hands of someone who’d care for it. fine the living hell out of em!
May 4, 2009 at 12:53 AM #392981Participantyou can’t arrest ona misdemeanor not committed in the officer’s presence without a warrant generally, so you’d need to get a judge to sign off ona warrant to go haul the offending party to jail. be difficult to find that judge. more effective probably, would be to make the fine so freaking high that the bank would take care of the proeprty. kind fo like speeding fines aren’t high enough to deter speeding–they’re just things we all calculate in deciding where toset our cruise control. if the fine were $5,000/day, and the house reverted to the city in a month or two, the banks would be on it. The city could then auction the place off right quick and get the hosue in the hands of someone who’d care for it. fine the living hell out of em!
May 4, 2009 at 12:53 AM #393032Participantyou can’t arrest ona misdemeanor not committed in the officer’s presence without a warrant generally, so you’d need to get a judge to sign off ona warrant to go haul the offending party to jail. be difficult to find that judge. more effective probably, would be to make the fine so freaking high that the bank would take care of the proeprty. kind fo like speeding fines aren’t high enough to deter speeding–they’re just things we all calculate in deciding where toset our cruise control. if the fine were $5,000/day, and the house reverted to the city in a month or two, the banks would be on it. The city could then auction the place off right quick and get the hosue in the hands of someone who’d care for it. fine the living hell out of em!
May 4, 2009 at 12:53 AM #393174Participantyou can’t arrest ona misdemeanor not committed in the officer’s presence without a warrant generally, so you’d need to get a judge to sign off ona warrant to go haul the offending party to jail. be difficult to find that judge. more effective probably, would be to make the fine so freaking high that the bank would take care of the proeprty. kind fo like speeding fines aren’t high enough to deter speeding–they’re just things we all calculate in deciding where toset our cruise control. if the fine were $5,000/day, and the house reverted to the city in a month or two, the banks would be on it. The city could then auction the place off right quick and get the hosue in the hands of someone who’d care for it. fine the living hell out of em!
May 5, 2009 at 1:02 AM #393103joestool
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=ucodegen]Brad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.
If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.
The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.
There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.
[/quote]
Correct, UR.
I’d rather have the city enforcing the rules than have banks letting squatters move in and/or allow the houses to deteriorate like they do.
Yes, some of the problem lies with the former owner/occupant (who should also be fined, IMHO), but I’ve seen plenty of homes go downhill FAST simply because they are empty and neglected.
[/quote]Some a-hole with a gun and a badge showing up to tell me to mow my lawn or chlorinate my pool under threat of fine or imprisonment. Yeah, this is going to end well.
First the city fines home-moaners and banks until they take ownership of distressed properties for the unpaid fines. Next, to be in accordance with its own upkeep laws, the city will have to raise taxes on the locals to fund the upkeep of the houses they now own. Brilliant.
Let me guess, the police chief and the mayor each have a property caretaking company on the side, right? Plenty of business extorted from homeowners and banks looking to avoid fines, then plenty of business contracting to the city at the taxpayer’s expense. Once all the locals are bled dry and the shadow inventory’s all fixed up — the city flips ’em for profit or special deals for their friends and family. Nice. Takes “flip this house” to a whole new level of “flip this city”.
May 5, 2009 at 1:02 AM #393765Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=ucodegen]Brad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.
If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.
The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.
There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.
[/quote]
Correct, UR.
I’d rather have the city enforcing the rules than have banks letting squatters move in and/or allow the houses to deteriorate like they do.
Yes, some of the problem lies with the former owner/occupant (who should also be fined, IMHO), but I’ve seen plenty of homes go downhill FAST simply because they are empty and neglected.
[/quote]Some a-hole with a gun and a badge showing up to tell me to mow my lawn or chlorinate my pool under threat of fine or imprisonment. Yeah, this is going to end well.
First the city fines home-moaners and banks until they take ownership of distressed properties for the unpaid fines. Next, to be in accordance with its own upkeep laws, the city will have to raise taxes on the locals to fund the upkeep of the houses they now own. Brilliant.
Let me guess, the police chief and the mayor each have a property caretaking company on the side, right? Plenty of business extorted from homeowners and banks looking to avoid fines, then plenty of business contracting to the city at the taxpayer’s expense. Once all the locals are bled dry and the shadow inventory’s all fixed up — the city flips ’em for profit or special deals for their friends and family. Nice. Takes “flip this house” to a whole new level of “flip this city”.
May 5, 2009 at 1:02 AM #393624Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=ucodegen]Brad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.
If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.
The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.
There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.
[/quote]
Correct, UR.
I’d rather have the city enforcing the rules than have banks letting squatters move in and/or allow the houses to deteriorate like they do.
Yes, some of the problem lies with the former owner/occupant (who should also be fined, IMHO), but I’ve seen plenty of homes go downhill FAST simply because they are empty and neglected.
[/quote]Some a-hole with a gun and a badge showing up to tell me to mow my lawn or chlorinate my pool under threat of fine or imprisonment. Yeah, this is going to end well.
First the city fines home-moaners and banks until they take ownership of distressed properties for the unpaid fines. Next, to be in accordance with its own upkeep laws, the city will have to raise taxes on the locals to fund the upkeep of the houses they now own. Brilliant.
Let me guess, the police chief and the mayor each have a property caretaking company on the side, right? Plenty of business extorted from homeowners and banks looking to avoid fines, then plenty of business contracting to the city at the taxpayer’s expense. Once all the locals are bled dry and the shadow inventory’s all fixed up — the city flips ’em for profit or special deals for their friends and family. Nice. Takes “flip this house” to a whole new level of “flip this city”.
May 5, 2009 at 1:02 AM #393571Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=ucodegen]Brad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.
If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.
The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.
There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.
[/quote]
Correct, UR.
I’d rather have the city enforcing the rules than have banks letting squatters move in and/or allow the houses to deteriorate like they do.
Yes, some of the problem lies with the former owner/occupant (who should also be fined, IMHO), but I’ve seen plenty of homes go downhill FAST simply because they are empty and neglected.
[/quote]Some a-hole with a gun and a badge showing up to tell me to mow my lawn or chlorinate my pool under threat of fine or imprisonment. Yeah, this is going to end well.
First the city fines home-moaners and banks until they take ownership of distressed properties for the unpaid fines. Next, to be in accordance with its own upkeep laws, the city will have to raise taxes on the locals to fund the upkeep of the houses they now own. Brilliant.
Let me guess, the police chief and the mayor each have a property caretaking company on the side, right? Plenty of business extorted from homeowners and banks looking to avoid fines, then plenty of business contracting to the city at the taxpayer’s expense. Once all the locals are bled dry and the shadow inventory’s all fixed up — the city flips ’em for profit or special deals for their friends and family. Nice. Takes “flip this house” to a whole new level of “flip this city”.
May 5, 2009 at 1:02 AM #393363Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=ucodegen]Brad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.
If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.
The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.
There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.
[/quote]
Correct, UR.
I’d rather have the city enforcing the rules than have banks letting squatters move in and/or allow the houses to deteriorate like they do.
Yes, some of the problem lies with the former owner/occupant (who should also be fined, IMHO), but I’ve seen plenty of homes go downhill FAST simply because they are empty and neglected.
[/quote]Some a-hole with a gun and a badge showing up to tell me to mow my lawn or chlorinate my pool under threat of fine or imprisonment. Yeah, this is going to end well.
First the city fines home-moaners and banks until they take ownership of distressed properties for the unpaid fines. Next, to be in accordance with its own upkeep laws, the city will have to raise taxes on the locals to fund the upkeep of the houses they now own. Brilliant.
Let me guess, the police chief and the mayor each have a property caretaking company on the side, right? Plenty of business extorted from homeowners and banks looking to avoid fines, then plenty of business contracting to the city at the taxpayer’s expense. Once all the locals are bled dry and the shadow inventory’s all fixed up — the city flips ’em for profit or special deals for their friends and family. Nice. Takes “flip this house” to a whole new level of “flip this city”.
May 5, 2009 at 11:13 PM #393547jpinpb
ParticipantSmart of Indio to start fining. Well, that’s something similar to what the city of Victorville was attempting w/their code violations. And the banks decided to just destroy the homes instead.
May 5, 2009 at 11:13 PM #393805ParticipantSmart of Indio to start fining. Well, that’s something similar to what the city of Victorville was attempting w/their code violations. And the banks decided to just destroy the homes instead.
May 5, 2009 at 11:13 PM #394020ParticipantSmart of Indio to start fining. Well, that’s something similar to what the city of Victorville was attempting w/their code violations. And the banks decided to just destroy the homes instead.
May 5, 2009 at 11:13 PM #394074ParticipantSmart of Indio to start fining. Well, that’s something similar to what the city of Victorville was attempting w/their code violations. And the banks decided to just destroy the homes instead.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.