http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/03/montgomerys-new-civil-rights-struggle/
Sounds pretty bad. I’ve never understood the right of a government to condemn any structure on private property, unless there were serious causes for concern. Like a child living there, or the possibility of a structure of falling onto another’s property.
It’s not for you to understand but rather just blindly accept.
Just be sure that where there is a condemned building there is some stooge using gunvernmnet to take over the property (at below market value) in the name of “public safety”.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/03/montgomerys-new-civil-rights-struggle/
Sounds pretty bad. I’ve never understood the right of a government to condemn any structure on private property, unless there were serious causes for concern. Like a child living there, or the possibility of a structure of falling onto another’s property.[/quote]
I am not saying I am on the side of Montgomery we will have to wait and see how this all plays out.
It is not so much children, but Vagrants and criminal activity. There was a house across the street from me. It was a house anyone of us would have loved to live in. 5-6 bedrooms 6,000 sqft, with all the amenities. It was on a 2.5 acrea lot in the middle of Houston. A developer bought the piece of land and was intending on demolishing the house and build a high rise. He did not do his homework. There were deed restrictions on the the land, so he could not build the high rise that he wanted. He decided to list and sell the land for $2.9 Million. The house sat vacant, and the house started to go down hill. A “blight” so to speak on the neighborhood. Well a vagrant moved into the house. The Developer never filed paperwork with the city to say the house was empty and no one could live there. The vagrant would kill animals and throw them on peoples door steps. We called the cops multiple times. They would come out and say there was nothing they could do. Finally the City of Houston deemed the house condemed and forced the developer to demolish the building. The developer complied and took the building down after 7 years of it looking like it was going to fall over. The land was also all over grown and looked horrible. The neighborhood was glad the City took this course of action.
I do not know if the city of Montgomery is doing this, or doing what the article is saying. If they are doing what the article was saying then they are in the wrong and should make it right. I guess we will have to wait and see.
Sounds like the police or law needs to crack down on squatters not owners.
And you have no right to force him to maintain the property unless he signed a contract (like a homeowners association) to meet certain criteria.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Sounds like the police or law needs to crack down on squatters not owners.
And you have no right to force him to maintain the property unless he signed a contract (like a homeowners association) to meet certain criteria.[/quote]
The city does have laws rules and regulations on the books. When you sign a contract to purchase a house inside of a city limits you have to abide by the laws. It is one thing if the laws are changed after you purchase a piece of land. I think the developer purchased the land after it was destroyed by Tropical Storm Allison. His intentions were to destroy the house, and I guess the City of Houston had to make him do it 7 years later.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And you have no right to force him to maintain the property unless he signed a contract (like a homeowners association) to meet certain criteria.[/quote]
Incorrect. See zoning laws.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And you have no right to force him to maintain the property unless he signed a contract (like a homeowners association) to meet certain criteria.[/quote]
Incorrect. See zoning laws.
[/quote]
Existing zoning laws would be part of the contract.
Besides, I was talking right, not legality.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Existing zoning laws would be part of the contract.[/quote]
No, they are independent of contract.
Of course, because that is useful in this context.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Existing zoning laws would be part of the contract.[/quote]
No, they are independent of contract.
Of course, because that is useful in this context.
[/quote]
When do we discuss useful things in here? And yes, by buying a property withing the city under existing zoning laws he entered into a contract with the people of the city. It doesn’t have to be written and signed with the title “contract” at the top in order to be a contract.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
When do we discuss useful things in here? And yes, by buying a property withing the city under existing zoning laws he entered into a contract with the people of the city. It doesn’t have to be written and signed with the title “contract” at the top in order to be a contract.[/quote]
DD wrote:
And you have no right to force him to maintain the property [u]unless he signed a contract[/u] (like a homeowners association) to meet certain criteria.
So, on one hand, you say he must sign a contract to be bound by the rules…on the other, you say the “contract” is implicit w/r/t zoning laws. Which is it?
And no, I am not simply trying to play “gotcha” - are the zoning laws (which aren’t contractual) valid under your “rights” theory, or not?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
When do we discuss useful things in here? And yes, by buying a property withing the city under existing zoning laws he entered into a contract with the people of the city. It doesn’t have to be written and signed with the title “contract” at the top in order to be a contract.[/quote]
DD wrote:
And you have no right to force him to maintain the property [u]unless he signed a contract[/u] (like a homeowners association) to meet certain criteria.
So, on one hand, you say he must sign a contract to be bound by the rules…on the other, you say the “contract” is implicit w/r/t zoning laws. Which is it?
And no, I am not simply trying to play “gotcha” - are the zoning laws (which aren’t contractual) valid under your “rights” theory, or not?
[/quote]
sign - to assign or convey formally
As long as zoning laws are publican available when the property was purchased. Now if it was hidden or passed after purchase, then no. He knew what he was getting into and he “signed” up for it.
There is nothing implicit about zoning laws. To the contrary, they are very explicit.