5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
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.
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.
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.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.
Landlord sets the rules, right? He/she owns the place.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.
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.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.....
Landlord sets the rules, right? He/she owns the place.
Why should taxpayers be liable for those luxuries? Seriously.....
HUD does not mean people are not working dude typically the rent is a percentage of your income 30% or less ..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.
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.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.
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?
HUD gives subsidized housing. Welfare.HUD does not mean people are not working dude typically the rent is a percentage of your income 30% or less ..
make sense
i keep my distain for use on the coffee tableHUD 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.
99.99% of the time.
The mental disease of liberalism has ate your brain.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.
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.
You think because you rent space from someone, you can do any damn thing you please.
I've worked since I was 13 years old. You can't say the same.
Those that will defend handouts, are users of them.
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.
Go to the bank and get a mortgage or home improvement loan, if it's your home.
lol Are you really that stupid? It is the banks. Until its paid for.
But your landlord does......
Incorrect again. WE provide the insurance, it was specified in the lease. 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....
By your logic, we shouldn't. We should just move out of the city/state/country if we don't like it.
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.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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
.
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.
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.
You are an uneducated fool.
You keep showing your libtard colors.
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.
The mental disease of liberalism has ate your brain.
I have EVERY right to tell you what I find acceptable that you may do with MY property.
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.
I support the landlords RIGHT to object to activities on their property they don't want.
Like vaping?
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?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.
Exactly. I have said as much all along. Don't like it? Live somewhere else more agreeable or buy your own home.
So you got nailed for DUI, and all the sudden you know what ownership is? LMAO.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?
So you got nailed for DUI, and all the sudden you know what ownership is? LMAO.
Because of the coating of VG over hard surfaces, the carpet, and the HVAC system.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?
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.
Because of the coating of VG over hard surfaces, the carpet, and the HVAC system.
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 scenereo. 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.
Tell me how you plan to wash out the ducting of the HVAC system.....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.
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, a?
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.