Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=spdrun]CA Renter –
It’s not always practical to avoid certain locales. Given a “bad” police department, you could end up being assaulted or killed as a mere passer-by. Thus the need for scrutiny from the public, to get rid of the bad apples. Everyone can be affected, not just people who choose to live or work somewhere.
Read up on the poor guy from India who was visiting his son in Alabama, and got his neck broken for being the wrong color and walking on the street. Fortunately, the local police chief manned up and disavowed the actions of his officer. But public scrutiny and film evidence can serve to root out bad apples BEFORE they kill or maim someone.[/quote]
Please understand that I believe in transparency and accountability, but oppose people who try to interfere with police officers who are simply trying to do their jobs.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]
It’s still reasonable for people to stand at a distance to make sure things are kosher, but they do NOT need to be in cops’ faces when they are working.[/quote]
As if the cops would let people get in their faces.
As you said, it’s reasonable for passersby to film. It’s no different than witnesses of the past. Now, people just have smart phones they can use.[/quote]
As it stands, they are legally required to let people “get in their faces.”
The question is one of distance and whether or not the people are interfering with the cops’ ability to do their jobs.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]CAr just has the typical union mentality that wants to backup a union cop, no matter what.
There was an interesting article in NYT about some police unions rethinking supporting cops all the time, comes hell or high water. When it’s wrong, it’s wrong. There’s no defending.[/quote]
Nonsense, Brian. It has nothing to do with any kind of “union mentality” (as you put it). Far from it, as a matter of fact; I’ve strongly advocated for unions to disavow those who make all of the members look bad.
As I’ve posted before, here and in other threads, police officers can indeed be power-hungry thugs who will go way beyond what’s legal in order to either “do the right thing” (fight crime and defend the innocent) or because they are every bit as psychopathic as some of the criminals they claim to fight; but I still think that these cops are in the minority. Yes, we need to hold them fully accountable, but we should not go on witch hunts because it’s the thing to do in today’s political climate.
April 22, 2015 at 12:51 AM in reply to: The cost of an Ivy League undergrad degree next year…. #785124ParticipantAgreed, flyer.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Unlike private business, government and its police are special cases.
(a) the employees are literally given a power to kill
(b) people have no choice whether to do business with a given government. People can walk out of a restaurant with a rude waiter. They can’t just walk away from an encounter with a violent cop.[/quote]Yes, customers do have a choice. When you move to a country, state, county, or city that has certain taxes, regulations, rules, ways of operating, etc., you are agreeing to the terms of that location. If you don’t like the terms of the agreement, don’t move there, or move somewhere else if you are already there. You can always choose to walk away.
BTW, you posted too quickly! I meant to correct my paragraph in my last post…change employee’s to employer’s.
Participant[quote=spdrun]
It means that they are in the service industry working for the government.
Of course. My point was that I don’t see them as the brave heroes that the post-9/11 media wants us to think of them as. They’re just hirelings.
Ultimately, they’re paid via tax money taken from the public. Therefore, they’re accountable to the public. The public has every right to film and scrutinize their actions.
If they don’t like it, they can change jobs.[/quote]
Wrong. They are paid by the government agency with whom they are employed. Public citizens are no more their bosses than they are the bosses of employees who work for Microsoft…owning a computer with Microsoft software doesn’t entitle them to any power over Microsoft employees.
Of course, if they deal with a particularly obnoxious employee, they are free to complain to the employer, whether that’s Microsoft, or Qualcomm, or the City of San Diego. But they don’t personally employ or have any control over individual employees, and the individual employees are not personally accountable to any of their employers’ customers.
It would be foolish for employees to cause problems with their employees customers, no matter the type of business they work for, but we have to be clear about the customer-employer-employee relationship.
Participant[quote=spdrun]If police (who are public servants … that’s right SERVANTS) are uncomfortable with the public, too fucking bad. Time to seek a new job or jump off a tall bridge. Can’t hack the job description … no one drafted them.
And people do belong near enough to film police work, considering the number of outright homicidal and violent cops these days. In many instances, the “mob” is doing the world a great service.[/quote]
People erroneously think that the inclusion of the word “servant” in the title means that they are like butlers or maids. That’s not what it means. It means that they are in the service industry working for the government; it does not mean that they are in a lower caste or whatever it is some people tend to think when they hear the word servant.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]That’s just over the top, A bunch of random people go to anyone’s job and get in the way, guess what , the cops are going to get called! Why don’t we just crash government hospital surgery rooms and get in the way, fuck it they are public servants. Lets go crash a state college class and not let the teacher teach, fuck it she’s a government servant. Let’s go to court crash up scaredy’s closing arguments to save some poor guys soul, who we think may have killed someone, that’s the people’s courtroom, fuck it, he’s a government servant.[/quote]
Exactly, Russ. I honestly don’t think that most cops are afraid of cameras because they like to be thugs and commit horrible acts on innocent people…most cops are just trying to do their jobs in the most efficient and effective way possible. Most people would not want a bunch of obnoxious people in their faces all day with cameras when they are just trying to do their jobs. Add the violent/emotional component of many calls, and it’s easy to see why cops want to do their job unimpeded.
It’s still reasonable for people to stand at a distance to make sure things are kosher, but they do NOT need to be in cops’ faces when they are working.
Participant[quote=Essbee]Three years ago (March 2012), we were in escrow, and our (now) home in 4S was appraised low. Not only that, the appraiser indicated that it was a “declining market.” Because of this, we had to put 25% down (rather than the 20% we had planned.)
Three years later, it is worth about $300K MORE than the price we paid.
I guess I’m glad now that we put down 25%, but it left us without much savings for a little while…
I don’t think there is much science behind this business.[/quote]
Congratulations on the price increase! 🙂
Agree with your last sentence. As a result of the bubble, appraisers had requested changes to the system that would have enabled them to appraise a property without any pressure from the sellers or RE agents. It seemed to be working for a while, but it looks like things have reverted to the appraisers hitting the numbers for the RE agents/sellers.
Participant[quote=flu][quote=CA renter][quote=flu][quote=CA renter]If the appraisal came in low, use it to your advantage. Tell the seller than you can only pay the appraised amount. See if they reduce it all the way, or part of the way.
Good luck![/quote]
In this market? ha ha ha ha. If I were the seller, I’d say… See ya, next buyer.[/quote]
Sure, if there are cash buyers or buyers with extra cash over the 20% who are willing to pay an inflated price. I’d still take my chances as a buyer to negotiate. IIRC, if they show the appraisal to the listing agent/seller, it’s supposed to be included as part of the disclosure package. SDR, please correct me if I’m wrong on this.[/quote]
With the way lending requirements are these days, provided the person can qualify for the loan, I’d take the one(s) that gave me the higher offer, who had more than 20% down, but I wouldn’t require them to pay 100% cash, especially if the house is over $1million. I think it would depend on how much activity there is in that area. If there has been many sales nearby of comparable, then the that might be a red flag. But if the sales history in that area has been spotty, and especially if the appraiser isn’t from san diego, that might have a lot to do with it. I don’t follow what you said about “the 20% who are willing to pay an inflated price”. I’m not sure where you got 20% from. And as far as inflated price. One can determine if the price is inflated if there is a reasonable comparable.[/quote]
Whoops! Sorry about the totally horrible syntax there, as I was posting in a hurry.
What I meant was that the seller could sell to all-cash buyers if the house is in an area that attracts these types of buyers, or simply to someone who is willing to fork over additional money that exceeds the 20% down payment, like Essbee did. A mortgage company won’t usually increase the amount they’re willing to lend beyond 80% of the appraised value if it’s a conforming loan, so the buyer has to increase the amount of cash they’re willing to contribute above the 20% down payment.
In our case, the appraisal came in low; and even though we were all-cash buyers, we still insisted on purchasing at the lower, appraised price. We offered to pay for the seller to hire their own appraiser to see if they could get a different number, but they weren’t able to find any comps that would justify their higher list price. In the end, we paid the appraised price plus $10K toward our agent’s commission. We also let them forgo a lot of the repairs that they would have had to do for buyers who were using a mortgage (required termite work for mortgaged properties) which saved them thousands of dollars. The appraisal came in $50K below the list price.
The appraisal also noted that the market was declining, so even though they wanted to test the market some more, they knew that they had a solid buyer who could close in a matter of days, so we got the house.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]http://thefreethoughtproject.com/armed-officer-charges-woman-filming-police-smashes-phone/
You can try to film the cops but I think as this becomes more common they are going to kick the shit out of cameramen. Personally I think it’s way risky. Here a cop assaults an l.a. woman for trying to record them.[/quote]
As much as I understand the frustration that cops feel when people crowd around them (often shouting insults), and stick cameras in their faces, I agree that it needs to be done. There are definitely abuses out there, and those cops need to be held accountable.
Participant[quote=flu][quote=CA renter]If the appraisal came in low, use it to your advantage. Tell the seller than you can only pay the appraised amount. See if they reduce it all the way, or part of the way.
Good luck![/quote]
In this market? ha ha ha ha. If I were the seller, I’d say… See ya, next buyer.[/quote]
Sure, if there are cash buyers or buyers with extra cash over the 20% who are willing to pay an inflated price. I’d still take my chances as a buyer to negotiate. IIRC, if they show the appraisal to the listing agent/seller, it’s supposed to be included as part of the disclosure package. SDR, please correct me if I’m wrong on this.
Participant[quote=zk][quote=svelte][quote=no_such_reality]I’m not a fan of artificial grass. I think there are other alternatives like xeriscape or buffalo grass.
.[/quote]Kinda depends upon what you want to do in the space.
Buffalo grass may work, but weed control is an issue.
But its kinda hard to kick a soccer ball around a xeriscaped area.[/quote]
We had “UC Verde buffalo grass” for a while. It wasn’t bad, but it didn’t work for us. The water savings was less than I expected. It spread by runners, and if the runner hit established grass, it just died. So you’ve got hundreds of dead runners blowing all over, making a bit of a mess. Plus it’s brown in the winter. Just a couple things to keep in mind.[/quote]
Bumping this topic in hopes that someone will have some info about the Eco-lawn product.
Also, what did you use to replace the UC Verde, zk?
ParticipantDon’t a lot of golf courses use recycled/non-potable water? I thought most of them converted years ago.
Not saying that we can’t use this water for other purposes, just that using non-potable water makes the water usage a bit less disgusting.
-
AuthorPosts
