5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
Become a Patron!
HUD, please don’t ban e-cigarettes in public housing
- Thread starter 5150sick
- Start date
HUD is the one subsidizing "low income" housing.
If you are on handouts, why are you smoking or vaping anyway?
People can call me cold hearted, but if you can't work and provide your own income, you deserve no luxuries IMO. You aren't earning anything.
If you are on handouts, why are you smoking or vaping anyway?
People can call me cold hearted, but if you can't work and provide your own income, you deserve no luxuries IMO. You aren't earning anything.
You are welcome to open your home and your wallet all you want. To think you have the right to force others too is stupid.You sir, and I use that term loosely... are a tool.
Quite the perfect day for you to prove it as well.
Go vote for the Donald. Yay.
The ONLY thing I am entitled to is which I have earned.
While I do agree with your point of view, I don't see it as a reason to ban people from vaping.
If so, might as well also ban cell phones, internet, tv, and everything else that isn't actually required to survive.
But, what about visitors bringing said items to the place?
What about gifts? Just because you can't afford something doesn't mean you can't get it for free as a gift from a friend or family member.
CurlyxCracker
Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Not everyone in "low income" housing doesn't work.... Also what about the truly disabled? They surely don't have enough incomeThey don't call it "no income" housing for that reason. Some just don't make enough money to live on. For example a McDonald's employee would not be able to afford a one bedroom apt without a second job in my area.
All that said yes, there are some lazy fucks who don't work and take advantage.
Landlord sets the rules, right? He/she owns the place.
Why should taxpayers be liable for those luxuries? Seriously.....
What about the truly disabled? I see lots of them working. Unless you are bed ridden, you can find a way to earn a living.
Life is tough. If the best one can do is earn minimum wage, then they should get a new plan. It's not my job to provide for them. It's their job.
How is a tax payer liable if a son chooses to buy a luxury such as a cell phone for his mother in the housing and pay for the service plan to better keep in touch with her?
Heck, we have a whole PIF section on this forum to give stuff for free to people who can't afford it or just need occasional help. lol
Landlords set the rules, no argument there.
But, gov and congress set rules as well. Should we just sit down and let them pass any laws they want regarding banning vaping? We protest them, much like the residents of the apartments can protest the landlords rules. They could move out if they don't like the landlords rules, but one could say the same about leaving america if you don't like the laws being passed.
Last edited:
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? More like the poor should have to continue subsidizing Big Tobacco, and pay for it all by donating whatever cancer free organs they have left.
And no, they have no right to impose arbitrary stupid rules about vaping, anymore they they can impose a dress code. Or a mandatory religion. Subsidised does not mean free, They still pay the Landlord rent, and still have the right not to die of cancer from a product they have paid taxes on for years.
Now, perhaps I have stumbled on to something here. Vapeolicism. I pronounce myself Pope. Look at all the tax benefits I can gain, not as many as a slumlord king perhaps,
This is what happens when someone with the emotional maturity of a 12 year old reads Ayn Rand. Completly unable of comprehending the implacations of this slippery slope, and the effect it might have on them in their own home. The enemys of vaping are leigon. The right to vape in ones HOME, be it whatever, must be vigourly defended.
As the Pope of Vapeolicism, you freemind, may kiss my....... Holy driptip. Then I'll absolve you. Otherwise, Fuck off in peace my son.
Edit & PS
Just got back from delivering some Christmas baking & a cpl bottles of juice to my friend. He lives in subsadised housing. He fought in the Fauklands war in 82, and as a result, cannot work full time. He dosn't collect welfare, and is not yet elegible for his old age, or military pension.He smoked since he was a kid and paid taxes here and in England for over 30 years. He started vaping in August. By what right could ANYBODY tell him he can't vape in his home?
Last edited:
HUD does not mean people are not working dude typically the rent is a percentage of your income 30% or less ..
make sense
Because reality is the son/daughter isn't the one buying those cellphones 99.99% of the time. Government gives them to them. Just like food stamps, housing and money. My money. Your money. Every taxpayers money.
If one wants to protest the landlord's rules, then they have two options.
Live someplace else more agreeable, or buy their own place. Simple right?
What if the landlord said no dogs or cats? Should we throw a hissy too?
Landlords set rules for their own reasons. You don't like it? Live somewhere else.
It's not their home. They don't own shit. They only have a limited right of occupancy.
HUD gives subsidized housing. Welfare.
Someone making 30K a year can't get that, unless they have a passel of kids.
I am someone who grew up in the system. But, unlike the majority, I got myself OUT of it. My distain is well placed.
lordmage
The Sky has Fallen. the End is Here.
Staff member
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Gold Contributor
ECF Refugee
Member For 5 Years
i keep my distain for use on the coffee table
And you have data on this? And even if true, that gives the right to unlawfully oppress the others?
If a tenant does not damage the property, or disturb other tenants or commit criminal acts on or in relation to the property they have the absoloute right to do as they wish. In common law these rights are absolute. We no longer have serfdoms, and fiefdoms.
Regardless if the occupant pays full rent, their dead Aunt's estate pays it, or any portion thereof, or whether the government pays part or all of it, to weaken that will affect YOU in your home as well. Which I assume you fully paid in cash for.
If you didn't, by the minimal, if any merit of your own self aggrandizing logic, (and I use the word logic very loosely in this case) should have no difficulty not vaping in your house if the Bank tells you not to. After all, the bank owns it. And if the bank tells you what to read and what not to, or what religion you should practice, you would abide by that I guess.
But you wouldn't abide by that would you. You would screech and bleat and gnash your teeth, and display near biblical butt hurt.
But you of course are a special and unique snowflake, so far above the rest of humanity, and specially equiped to proclaim judgement, because you read part of Atlas Shrugged.
I've met people like you before. Professional Smuggsters who cannot bear to imagine that a great deal of what they have was not gained by ANYTHING that they in anyway controlled in their life. If you think you sit secure, hear this well:
You are only one drunk driver, and one failed bank, or insurance company from being in subsidised housing yourself.
The mental disease of liberalism has ate your brain.
You fail to grasp property rights. You think because you rent space from someone, you can do any damn thing you please. As the property owner, I have EVERY right to tell you what I find acceptable that you may do with MY property. That's exactly why there are leases and the terms are described in the fucking thing. You may fail to know that, because your mommy must be housing you in her basement. Otherwise you would know this already.
And if you are of the type to stick your hand out and demand handouts, then there CERTAINLY should be conditions tied to said handouts. They should be able to drug test you, see what you own in your home, and be able to look at your finances. You certainly don't have to take those handouts, you could either go without or find your own means of getting what you want. If you don't want your master to tell you how to live, then be your OWN god damned master.
And no, I haven't read Atlas Shrugged. Not even a paragraph of it. But I am better than at least HALF of America that sucks at the tit of government collecting handouts. I may have grown up in the system, but I have not and will not taken a penny from the system for myself. I pride myself too much to steal from others.
That one I find particularly funny. How did I gain it then, little mentally challenged liberal? White privilege? Government hand it all to me? Some rich family member will it to me?
You are a fucking joke. I earned everything by the sweat of my brow and the might of my brain. I've worked for every thing I have. I've worked since I was 13 years old. You can't say the same. Those that will defend handouts, are users of them. To think you are entitled to whats mine is stupid and wrong.
Funny thing is, those spineless little pussies that think that, don't have balls enough to get it themselves. They gotta have someone else do the work for them because they are weak. I have yet to see one try and take what's mine, because they are smart enough to know what would happen, if they tried.
And the clouds part to reveal the true colour of the sky.
The retail space I lease I'm free to do anything I like in. I could shut down the store, and providing I'm not commiting any criminal acts on or in relation to the property, violating any of the city zoneing laws or causing damage to the property, or detracting from any other tenants use of the property, (if there were any) I could use it as my own personal study.I could play handball in the warehouse, and as long as my lease is in effect, and I pay the rent, it is nobody's business but mine Literally.
Furthermore, if I were leasing the building out, and the above conditions were met, why should I care as long as I get my rent.
Really, You think you know me? I am far from being a liberal. Do you know what age I began shoveling driveways and mowing lawns? Oh thats right. I forgot. You are the "Special Snowflake" the only one who has worked, and the only one who has any right to their opinion. I do not want or need anything of yours, and as far as entitlement, I believe that you are the one with an overdeveloped sense of that.
Really? I recieve no subsidies, the Government has and would not bail out MY business if it were to go under, like they have the banks, the insurance and investment companies.
I really should know better than to try to illuminate such a tiny mind, but the issue here is NOT one of handouts, the issue is one of freedom to do what one wishes in their own home. I see you convienantly missed the part about being told what to do in your home.
Do you think the drunk driver that takes your life or health will be affected by your bluster? Or the corrupt corporate criminals on the Board of Directors of the insurance company that goes bankrupt when you try to collect for your injuries? Please tell me that you have you investments to fall back on, as that means that YOU have benefitted fron handouts. The ones that prevented Wall Street from collapsing and wiping you out. But that is different correct? Of course it is. You and you alone are a special snowflake. Nobody else could possibly understand how much you have contributed. Your apparent need to rule and control the behaviour of others displays not only a lack of understanding of law, but a overpowering fear on your part that you are somehow immune from the chaos that is this life, and safe.
You are not safe. Nobody is safe. 5 seconds after reading this that embolism in your pumpkin could burst, and you will assume room temperature. Perhaps not 5 seconds from now, but I promise you, the grave awaits you as it awaits me. You cannot take it with you. Your measure as a human on planet Earth, will be whether you have made this planet better, worse, or been just another parasite on its surface consuming, and living only for yourself, or for the sake of controlling others. Life is over in a blink.
The retail space I lease I'm free to do anything I like in. I could shut down the store, and providing I'm not commiting any criminal acts on or in relation to the property, violating any of the city zoneing laws or causing damage to the property, or detracting from any other tenants use of the property, (if there were any) I could use it as my own personal study.I could play handball in the warehouse, and as long as my lease is in effect, and I pay the rent, it is nobody's business but mine Literally.
Furthermore, if I were leasing the building out, and the above conditions were met, why should I care as long as I get my rent.
Really, You think you know me? I am far from being a liberal. Do you know what age I began shoveling driveways and mowing lawns? Oh thats right. I forgot. You are the "Special Snowflake" the only one who has worked, and the only one who has any right to their opinion. I do not want or need anything of yours, and as far as entitlement, I believe that you are the one with an overdeveloped sense of that.
Really? I recieve no subsidies, the Government has and would not bail out MY business if it were to go under, like they have the banks, the insurance and investment companies.
I really should know better than to try to illuminate such a tiny mind, but the issue here is NOT one of handouts, the issue is one of freedom to do what one wishes in their own home. I see you convienantly missed the part about being told what to do in your home.
Do you think the drunk driver that takes your life or health will be affected by your bluster? Or the corrupt corporate criminals on the Board of Directors of the insurance company that goes bankrupt when you try to collect for your injuries? Please tell me that you have you investments to fall back on, as that means that YOU have benefitted fron handouts. The ones that prevented Wall Street from collapsing and wiping you out. But that is different correct? Of course it is. You and you alone are a special snowflake. Nobody else could possibly understand how much you have contributed. Your apparent need to rule and control the behaviour of others displays not only a lack of understanding of law, but a overpowering fear on your part that you are somehow immune from the chaos that is this life, and safe.
You are not safe. Nobody is safe. 5 seconds after reading this that embolism in your pumpkin could burst, and you will assume room temperature. Perhaps not 5 seconds from now, but I promise you, the grave awaits you as it awaits me. You cannot take it with you. Your measure as a human on planet Earth, will be whether you have made this planet better, worse, or been just another parasite on its surface consuming, and living only for yourself, or for the sake of controlling others. Life is over in a blink.
You keep saying "your home". Produce the deed, if it's your home. Go to the bank and get a mortgage or home improvement loan, if it's your home.
It's NOT your home nor your store. Period. You are RENTING the space. You don't own it. You can't do anything you WANT to with it. It belongs to someone else.
You keep showing your libtard colors. YOU don't OWN it. You have NO property rights. You have a term of USE. Get the difference Francis?
If I rented space to you for a coffee shop, and 3 months down the road, you decide to open a vape shop, even if you get the proper licenses and permits, I have every right to throw your ass to the curb if I have it leased to you for a coffee shop ONLY.
If I rent you an apartment with the condition of no smoking or vaping, and I find out you are, I have EVERY right to toss your ass on the curb. It's MY property. I GET TO DECIDE what will go on there, not YOU. If I don't want the VG all over the surfaces of my property, that is MY decision, not yours.
If you don't like it, go BUY your own place and make your rules for yourself.
It's NOT your home nor your store. Period. You are RENTING the space. You don't own it. You can't do anything you WANT to with it. It belongs to someone else.
You keep showing your libtard colors. YOU don't OWN it. You have NO property rights. You have a term of USE. Get the difference Francis?
If I rented space to you for a coffee shop, and 3 months down the road, you decide to open a vape shop, even if you get the proper licenses and permits, I have every right to throw your ass to the curb if I have it leased to you for a coffee shop ONLY.
If I rent you an apartment with the condition of no smoking or vaping, and I find out you are, I have EVERY right to toss your ass on the curb. It's MY property. I GET TO DECIDE what will go on there, not YOU. If I don't want the VG all over the surfaces of my property, that is MY decision, not yours.
If you don't like it, go BUY your own place and make your rules for yourself.
lol Are you really that stupid? It is the banks. Until its paid for.
Actually no. It is security for a loan. The bank holds it in lieu of payment. Just like a loan for a vehicle.
The bank doesn't pay for property taxes or insurance. But your landlord does......
Incorrect again. WE provide the insurance, it was specified in the lease. Right down to the minimum coverages. Proof was required before the lease was in effect. lololol He does pay the property tax, with the $ he gets from us.
And if your car is financed, until you pay it off, you don't own it Should the finance company be able to tell you you cannot vape in your car?
I do owe you an appology, I too made some inacurate assumptions. I assumed the way you were posting , that you actually owned your home, not the bailed out bank that you pay your mortage to. Now, I wonder if you even own your own car, or are just making payments on it.
The insurance you buy is for CONTENT, not property. You CAN'T buy insurance to cover it, unless you own it.... Landlords can't provide renters with CONTENT insurance, anymore than renters can get insurance for the building....
2nd, you DO own the car. If you didn't you would not be able to get plates and insurance for it. The title is held for security of the loan, if you fail to pay. It's called a lien....
And you call me dumb? I wasn't born yesterday. Who the fuck are you trying to jive?
Firstly, you are wrong. My partner is a lawyer, and his firm wrote the lease.It was in accordance with the Act, and the Landlord decided to accept it.
I worked in a different occupation, until a few years ago, and the organization I worked for secured a 5 year lease in which the landlord agreed not to exercise his right entry to the premesis for the entire term of the lease. Legally, he could have still entered the property with 24 hours notice, but he acknowleged that doing so gave us the right to discontinue tennancy, and recover a pro rated portion of the 5 years rent which was paid in advance. We operated from a secure premesis, and the lease was paid in advance for the entire term, and for the amount that the landlord recieved he was VERY pleased with the conditions. He was indemnified for almost double the commercial value of the building. by bond. He kept the damage deposit afterwards for "removal" of the reinforced walls, and armored glass, and never actually removed it, because he was a greedy bastard.
You wrote: If one wants to protest the landlord's rules, then they have two options.
Live someplace else more agreeable, or buy their own place. Simple right?
No, not so simple. The third, and proper option is for both parties to abide by the law.
I don't pretend to know the specifics of property law where you live, but being a landlord in ANY free country does not give you any right to stipulate ANY lawfull behaviour. You cannot tell people how to vote. You cannot tell people to pray, or not pray, or who to. You cannot tell them what they can or can not post on the internet.
You wrote:
What if the landlord said no dogs or cats? Should we throw a hissy too?
Landlords set rules for their own reasons. You don't like it? Live somewhere else.
Where I live, for instance, A landlord may lawfully refuse to rent to you if you have a pet. He may even put a clause in the lease forbidding pets on the premesis, however the Residential Tenancy Act, trumps all, and the Act stipulates that if subsequent to signing a lease, the Tenant aquires a pet, even if prohibited in the lease, the Landlord may request a "reasonable additional damage deposit" not to exceed the amount of a months rent. Kids in a no children bldg? Unenforceable. Smoking in a single dwelling where smoking is prohibited in the lease? Unenforceable.The exception MAY be a "shared dwelling" or "rooming house" where smoking may interfere with the rights of other tennants to a "reasonable enjoyment" of (and here's the kicker.).. their home.
The law is clear, that in all cases, "the Act prevails".
You may keep the damage deposit, for cleaning anything outside of "normal wear and tear" and if that amount is exceeded the Landlord may file a claim in court. He MAY NOT terminate the tenancy though.
You can put anything you like into a lease, and both parties may agree to it, but if they contravene the law, they are unenforceable. Try sueing somebody for violating a contract that they signed agreeing to be an indentured servant. or a slave.
Last edited:
Plates merely register the car in your name, and are no true indicator of ownership. And as you point out, you do not hold the title, until it is paid for. The Finance company owns it. The title they hold is in THEIR name primarilly, otherwise, they have no right to it. Until its paid off they own it in law. They require YOU to insure it, and pay applicable taxes, but they own it. The same as a house. For that matter, the deed being a financial instrument, The bank or mortage company may use it as collateral, in whole or part and borrow money on it.
I am aware of banks foreclosing on home owners justifying alleged drug activity as grounds because the property could be siezed as proceeds of crime. Not that any convictions were secured, But believe me, if law enforcement alerts a bank of the possibility, it might just take one late payment or two (banking errors happen after all) and foreclosure is the result. In some litigations where the forclosed homeowner attempted to sue the bank, the home owner was awarded a portion of the equity they had in the house, in other cases, the courts agreed that the banks had a right to protect their security and acted reasonably, and ruled that the former home owner should pursue compensatory damages from the Agency that contacted the bank. Good luck sueing the government, most in that situation do not even have the resources to litigate with the bank, much less the government.
Your mortage/deed for your house may also be sold by the financial institution to anybody that can pay them their price for it. All the rates and conditions remain in effect, unless it is up for renewal.
The legal principle in common law, is that a man's home is his castle. Not his house, his home. I have seen the same tactics try to prevent citizens from lawfully owning firearms in rental properties. No real sucesses on that front.
The other legal principle is one of reasonableness. A land lord pretty much does not have a blanket right regarding his property once they decide to rent it. The law considers that the rights of a property owner acting as a landlord are limited, if they decide to rent that property, as opposed to their rights regarding the property if it was held as private. Some of the rights are abrogated, becuse it is understood that by renting, or leasing a property, the owner to some extent voluntairily diminishes his rights.
For example, you might decide in your own home, that 03:00 is the optimal time to change your furnace filter. On the other hand, thankfully the law protects your tenants from your OCD, and accessing their home, whether you own it or not at 03:00 on a whim.
If there were a fire that would be different. The law recognises "just cause" not "just cuz" Reasonableness.
If it could be proven that vaping reasonably posed a greater harm to a landlords property, than the benefit of harm reduction it provides the tennant, you might have an argument.
Tennants have some rights under law, like it or not. Do not rent your property if you do not respect that. That is your absolute right. But if you choose to do so, do not whine about it.
I don't.
Last edited:
We make hissy fits over the gov, cities and states trying to pass vaping laws.
Whats wrong with people making hissy fits over tenants trying to get a landlord to allow vaping in an apartment complex?
Even if you own your home, it wont stop the state you live in from passing a law making vaping illegal.
A shop owner may own his building, doesn't stop the city from passing a law saying no vaping in retail stores.
You may own your house, doesn't mean the city or gov can't just take it and destroy it to put in a new hiway. Eminent Domain.
Once again I ask.
Do you feel we should just sit back and not fight any anti vaping laws that congress or cities try to make?
By your logic, we shouldn't. We should just move out of the city/state/country if we don't like it.
Whats wrong with people making hissy fits over tenants trying to get a landlord to allow vaping in an apartment complex?
Even if you own your home, it wont stop the state you live in from passing a law making vaping illegal.
A shop owner may own his building, doesn't stop the city from passing a law saying no vaping in retail stores.
You may own your house, doesn't mean the city or gov can't just take it and destroy it to put in a new hiway. Eminent Domain.
Once again I ask.
Do you feel we should just sit back and not fight any anti vaping laws that congress or cities try to make?
By your logic, we shouldn't. We should just move out of the city/state/country if we don't like it.
Last edited:
Now, don't go bringing reason into this... lolol He believes HIS rights should be absolute, and that nobody else has any. After all, he actually works, and nobody else does.
Well, the problem with that is that according to his profile, he lives in Indiana.
And as such, his rights are already under fire because of HB 1432.
But, like he says, those in charge make the rules.
So, unless he is a hypocrite, he did not complain anywhere to anybody about the law. He didn't even care about it and just adjusted his lifestyle to abide by it and to account for it. He is watching for news of any newer laws that will have a more direct effect on him and is making plans to move out of the state if such a law happens.
We must follow the rules like sheep, regardless of how those in charge came to the decision of making those rules. Right?
Big tobacco gives congress billions of dollars and says 'ban vaping now'. No big deal right?
Congress is in charge of making laws for the country the same way that a landlord makes rules for his apartments.
So we have no right to fight the law and protest it. We should just move out of the country if we don't like it.
And as such, his rights are already under fire because of HB 1432.
But, like he says, those in charge make the rules.
So, unless he is a hypocrite, he did not complain anywhere to anybody about the law. He didn't even care about it and just adjusted his lifestyle to abide by it and to account for it. He is watching for news of any newer laws that will have a more direct effect on him and is making plans to move out of the state if such a law happens.
We must follow the rules like sheep, regardless of how those in charge came to the decision of making those rules. Right?
Big tobacco gives congress billions of dollars and says 'ban vaping now'. No big deal right?
Congress is in charge of making laws for the country the same way that a landlord makes rules for his apartments.
So we have no right to fight the law and protest it. We should just move out of the country if we don't like it.
Last edited:
You are an uneducated fool. The car is titled in your name with the lien holder listed as such on the title. it is NOT titled in the lien holders name. Quit being foolish and blowing smoke.
WTF are you talking about renewal? Who has ever "renewed" a mortgage? You renew leases, but not mortgages. Every time you type something else, you look more and more foolish. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
Your right. To some extent a landlord relinquishes SOME rights. Not all or most of them. I have never said otherwise. More smoke and mirrors from the resident straw man?
And yes, tenants do have SOME rights. They do not trump the rights of the property owner in respect to his property. For example, you can't rent a house and decide to open a daycare if the landlord forbids using the home for a business. You can scream about your "rights" to make a buck, but the law isn't on your side.
First, I don't give a shit if your partner is a lawyer. Big whoopee. I have yet to meet one that does not tempt the "color of the law". Lawyers aren't always right.
Yes, the LANDLORD accepted the terms. See the key words you used? He accepted the terms. He just doesn't have a problem with them. Other landlords likely will have other ideas.
Here comes the queen of straw men arguments again! Point out to me where I said anyone has the right to tell you how to worship, or what you can post on the internet? I didn't so stop being a disingenuous fool.
I don't know where you live, but those "laws" you claim there, are not like that here. If you move pets in in a no pet lease, you can be evicted LEGALLY and are due for any damages. If you smoke in a non smoking dwelling, you can be evicted and are liable for damages. I don't know of a state that has laws like you are talking about, and I would not think landlords would want to rent under such laws. You make it sound like a damn free for all, with the property owner having little to no rights.
And again with more straw man arguments. No one said a fucking thing about indentured servitude or slavery. Except YOU that is.
If you want to discuss what is being talked about, fine. If you continue to bring shit into a debate that you alone keep dragging in, start another thread someplace. I'm getting pretty sick of the straw man bullshit.
I never said we should not try to fight laws against vaping. However, I support the landlords RIGHT to object to activities on their property they don't want.
I never supported laws that said vaping/smoking is to be banned in all public places. I have always supported the building owners RIGHT to choose.
And when the crack wore off this...
Really? That must piss you off. No whipping them for mowing the lawn late, no selling their children for medical experiments. You poor bastard.
And being a home based daycare tycoon at your expense is how I got where I am.
Exactly. I have said as much all along. Don't like it? Live somewhere else more agreeable or buy your own home.
Get caught driving impaired here. Your car is siezed. The fianance company may apply to get it back. You won't. Notice I said charged, you don't have to be convicted. Who owns the car?
Imagine, you are an intelligent adult. If you were, please explain your just cause as a landlord to curtail a tenants right to vape in your rental property, or as the law sees it, their own home. How are you so aggregiously affected?
So you got nailed for DUI, and all the sudden you know what ownership is? LMAO.
So using your logic, if you run someone over with that car, then the finance company is liable since you don't "own" it, right? Your logic is a hoot!
Obliviously you have no clue what a secured loan is. Or how it works even.
LMFAO What side of the law do you think I'm on? Drop the crack pipe just for a minute.....
Again I ask you to imagine, you are an intelligent adult. If you were, please explain your just cause as a landlord to curtail a tenants right to vape in your rental property, or as the law sees it, their own home. How are you so aggregiously affected?
Because of the coating of VG over hard surfaces, the carpet, and the HVAC system.
Its the same reason I can decide to not rent to pet owners.
Potential DAMAGE.
While I agree also with a building owners right to choose, keep in mind that most retail shops are not owned by the person running the business. This also goes for vape shops. It's not uncommon for one person (or a company) to own many of the retail spaces in a town and rent them out to people to use for businesses. When it comes down to defending a landlord's right to choose, it could effect being able to vape in a vape shop.
Unless the landlord is knowledgeable on vaping, I don't see it as being any different from congressmen passing laws about vaping without knowing much about it. Cats and dogs? Sure, people know they can cause damage. They could ruin rugs, other tenants may be allergic, they can create noise that annoys other tenants. Smoking? You have the increased risk of fire and the smell. Modifications to the structure? Could effect the insurance rates and pose a risk to safety of the residents if improperly done.
But a landlord being against vaping could be as simple as reading a bunch of the anti-vaping propaganda that often goes around.
Now then, with the article in the OPs post. I doubt it's a landlord vs tenant situation. I doubt 1 person owns the buildings and makes the rules for them, more then likely they are owned by the city so the decision is not likely made by 'a landlord', but by a committee board instead. Possibly the same committee board who also makes the laws for other things that go on in the city, such as vaping in public places.
It's also possible, if the city owns the apartments, that some random city employee was hired and designated to act as the 'landlord'. In which case, he would not be the owner of the buildings, yet under the general definition of the job, would still be making the rules and enforcing them. This adds further complication to the scenario. Does he have the right to force his views on what he wants others to do? He's not the property owner, just somebody paid to play the part.
Another similar scenario is an owned building on leased property. Who makes the decision then? I live in a modular home community. I own my house, but I pay rent for the land the house sits on. The community does have rules that must be followed (such as pet limits) and there have been cases where people have taken the community management to court over rules violations and won with the court ruling the community management couldn't dictate what goes on inside the house, even if it's a violation of a rule (such as exceeding the allowed number of pets). Even with owned houses, the community can still evict residents for rules violations since the property is leased.
Last edited:
I see.. And VG is not easily washed off with water? the carpet would be damaged in such a way that steam cleaning (tenants responsibility) would not remove it? What about PG? that is used in inhalers. Do you have a right not to rent to ashmatics? Sounds like normal wear and tear to me.
It doesn't matter who owns it. City, corporation, or a single individual. When you start taking away rights from property owners, you create a hostile environment for them to do business.
Though some think that sucks, it's just how things are. We have rights, but our rights don't get to trample other's rights.
Tell me how you plan to wash out the ducting of the HVAC system.....
Show me where most renters actually clean the rented space. Because most landlords get left with a dump when a renter moves.
Did the space already have VG all over the surfaces? If not then how is that "normal wear and tear"?
This brings us back to the gov and cities making laws that take away rights.
No matter the situation, somebody will always have their rights trampled on by another person.
Person A has the right to smoke if they want to.
Person B has the right to clean air.
Person B fought harder, and now the rights of Person A got trampled on.
Airport was built in 1940
A lot of new residents moved in around the airport in 1980
Residents fought harder and the airport has to close. Airport owner got his rights trampled on.
Same thing is happening again with the anti-vapers pushing to get vaping banned.
No vaping indoors?
Your supporting the cities decision when it comes to property the city owns (regardless of leasing).
But at the same time, being against the cities decision when it comes to property it doesn't own.
Looks hypocritical to me.
Last edited:
or you could hvae the emotional maturity of an 11 year old girls and the intellectual maturity of an 8 year old boy and read "Dreams of My Father" and vote for a totalitarian dickhead twice that shoots off drones at wedding parties......how are the democratic socialists of Europe doing...their economies are in even worse shape than ours ...bother taking a look at the socialist paradise of Venezuela lately...what's next on your reading list Bernie Sanders explanation of how terrorisim is the result of global warming?
The subsidised housing here is owned by corporations. Mostly properties that are maintained at or below minimum standards. These corporations realize a maximum profit, by setting their rents at a rate higher than market value, and calulate their rent precisely to fall within the maximum percentage allowable for the subsidy. They enjoy a income that they could never realize on the open market.
As a former landlord, vaping would be so low on my list of considerations, as to be laughable, and without any concrete data that vaping in any way damaged or devalued my property, would be completly unenforceable. I lawfully could refuse to rent to a vaper, if I asked them, but without such proof, could not terminate a tenancy for vaping once the lease was entered into.
I rented a rural property in a very small town to a family some years ago, Social services paid the damage deposit..That was the first we knew of any involvement with Social services, the lease stipulated that the damage deposit and rent be paid on or before the first of the month, the beginning of the lease.
After the first four months, the rent stopped coming. We contacted Social Services, and requested that we be sent the rent directly. They agreed to do that, and the next month we recieved the rent cheque directly from Social services. 3 weeks later, I recieved a call from the Town Manager about a flood caused by water pouring from the house.
The tenants were so upset that they could not just take our rent, they had packed up their stuff, screwed and nailed the doors and windows shut, climbed out of the second story window, and left town. It was a long weekend, and until the neighbours basements flooded nobody knew.
Our insurance covered most of the damage to the other homes, and some of the second ground up restoration of the house. (they were the first tenants afterwe aquired and completly renovated the property) We were on the hook for the water bill, and the amount of the repairs above what our insurance company agreed to pay. There was a warrant issued for the father, but he had moved beyond the range of a returnable warrant, and was still collecting Social Services. Do you think that there is any chance of collecting the judgement against him?
There are risks renting properties. Good tenants are worth keeping. I was not lawfully able to discriminate against renting to a family on Social Services
The courts hear stories as bad or worse all the time. A Judge or Justice is not going to rule very favorably if a landlord is attempting to terminate a tennancy without substancial evidence and just cause on the part of a landlord. Trying to evict a tennant for vaping in the absence of a weight of proof that their lawfull activity (vaping) could reasonably be expected to cause bona fide damage to a property would badly backfire on the landlord.
Bad tenants are the cost of doing business.
As a former landlord, vaping would be so low on my list of considerations, as to be laughable, and without any concrete data that vaping in any way damaged or devalued my property, would be completly unenforceable. I lawfully could refuse to rent to a vaper, if I asked them, but without such proof, could not terminate a tenancy for vaping once the lease was entered into.
I rented a rural property in a very small town to a family some years ago, Social services paid the damage deposit..That was the first we knew of any involvement with Social services, the lease stipulated that the damage deposit and rent be paid on or before the first of the month, the beginning of the lease.
After the first four months, the rent stopped coming. We contacted Social Services, and requested that we be sent the rent directly. They agreed to do that, and the next month we recieved the rent cheque directly from Social services. 3 weeks later, I recieved a call from the Town Manager about a flood caused by water pouring from the house.
The tenants were so upset that they could not just take our rent, they had packed up their stuff, screwed and nailed the doors and windows shut, climbed out of the second story window, and left town. It was a long weekend, and until the neighbours basements flooded nobody knew.
Our insurance covered most of the damage to the other homes, and some of the second ground up restoration of the house. (they were the first tenants afterwe aquired and completly renovated the property) We were on the hook for the water bill, and the amount of the repairs above what our insurance company agreed to pay. There was a warrant issued for the father, but he had moved beyond the range of a returnable warrant, and was still collecting Social Services. Do you think that there is any chance of collecting the judgement against him?
There are risks renting properties. Good tenants are worth keeping. I was not lawfully able to discriminate against renting to a family on Social Services
The courts hear stories as bad or worse all the time. A Judge or Justice is not going to rule very favorably if a landlord is attempting to terminate a tennancy without substancial evidence and just cause on the part of a landlord. Trying to evict a tennant for vaping in the absence of a weight of proof that their lawfull activity (vaping) could reasonably be expected to cause bona fide damage to a property would badly backfire on the landlord.
Bad tenants are the cost of doing business.