wrote:


Hey Mike... take your Harry obcession elsewhere, we are having enough
trouble with him as it is, without you and he, having a mindless cut
and paste party... Thanks.. I think I know who you are, and you
should already know how much trouble we have had trying to control
this idiot for the last few months/years.. "Everyone" here is and has
always treated you with respect and considered you a friend, hopefully
you can respect our fight here and decide which side of it you want to
be on....


Delusions of grandeur.

wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:17:29 GMT, Mike Hussein Hunt
wrote:

But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago
that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies -
including several hundred in Obama's former district - deteriorated so
completely that they were no longer habitable.

"Deteriorated" or just torn up by the irresponsible bums that lived
there? There is a reason why most homeless are homeless.


In case some of you enlightened folk haven't noticed, there's very
little maintenance being done these days on state and municipally owned
properties, and not much on federal properties, either. Bridges,
highways, tunnels, airports, major roadways, power plants, sewage
treatment plants, all have been "shorted" on maintenance the last seven+
years.

On Jul 2, 11:14*am, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:37:55 -0400, HK wrote:
In case some of you enlightened folk haven't noticed, there's very
little maintenance being done these days on state and municipally owned
properties, and not much on federal properties, either. Bridges,
highways, tunnels, airports, major roadways, power plants, sewage
treatment plants, all have been "shorted" on maintenance the last seven+
years.

If the home owner is getting free or heavily subsidized housing why
can't they do the maintenance themselves? The government does not help
me maintain my house.
When you look at the "deterioration" in these homes you see neglect
and *vandalism, not wear and tear. When you give something away for
free in this country the recipient treats it like it was free, having
no value at all. They just assume when they destroy it, someone will
give them another one.

Here in CT it's a combination of irresponsible social programs and
laws that protect those who have no problem stealing from others.
Landlords can't choose who they rent to and the state welfare dept
will actively seek out open apartments for welfare reciepients. CT
does not give vouchers however, they pay the reciepient who is then to
pay the rent. This is "so they won't feel insulted". But in many cases
these folks don't pay any rent for 6 months until the landlord can
evict them. Many times again, during that eviction, the property is
trashed. Now the landlord spends thousands and the welfare dept does
it to him again, and again... Eventually, all of the tenants put their
suitcases on the sidewalk and the place misteriously burns to the
ground. Welfare comes in and puts them in someone elses house... And
the cycle starts again. The landlord, with no income for over a year
at this point, can't afford to maintain anything.. I am not saying all
welfare recipients are like this, but the percentage makes it nearly
impossible for responsible landlords to maintan anything in or near
urban areas...

wrote in message
...
On Jul 2, 11:14 am, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:37:55 -0400, HK wrote:
In case some of you enlightened folk haven't noticed, there's very
little maintenance being done these days on state and municipally owned
properties, and not much on federal properties, either. Bridges,
highways, tunnels, airports, major roadways, power plants, sewage
treatment plants, all have been "shorted" on maintenance the last seven+
years.

If the home owner is getting free or heavily subsidized housing why
can't they do the maintenance themselves? The government does not help
me maintain my house.
When you look at the "deterioration" in these homes you see neglect
and vandalism, not wear and tear. When you give something away for
free in this country the recipient treats it like it was free, having
no value at all. They just assume when they destroy it, someone will
give them another one.

Here in CT it's a combination of irresponsible social programs and
laws that protect those who have no problem stealing from others.
Landlords can't choose who they rent to and the state welfare dept
will actively seek out open apartments for welfare reciepients. CT
does not give vouchers however, they pay the reciepient who is then to
pay the rent. This is "so they won't feel insulted". But in many cases
these folks don't pay any rent for 6 months until the landlord can
evict them. Many times again, during that eviction, the property is
trashed. Now the landlord spends thousands and the welfare dept does
it to him again, and again... Eventually, all of the tenants put their
suitcases on the sidewalk and the place misteriously burns to the
ground. Welfare comes in and puts them in someone elses house... And
the cycle starts again. The landlord, with no income for over a year
at this point, can't afford to maintain anything.. I am not saying all
welfare recipients are like this, but the percentage makes it nearly
impossible for responsible landlords to maintan anything in or near
urban areas...


The landlords should then sue the state for rent and damage. Who ever
signed the rental agreement papers. They used to do the same thing here,
give the rent money to the Section 8 renter and they were supposed to send
the rent payment in. No forwarding of the rent money. Here the county has
to repair any damage done by the resident to a section 8 abode.

On Jul 2, 2:42*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jul 2, 11:14 am, wrote:





On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:37:55 -0400, HK wrote:
In case some of you enlightened folk haven't noticed, there's very
little maintenance being done these days on state and municipally owned
properties, and not much on federal properties, either. Bridges,
highways, tunnels, airports, major roadways, power plants, sewage
treatment plants, all have been "shorted" on maintenance the last seven+
years.

If the home owner is getting free or heavily subsidized housing why
can't they do the maintenance themselves? The government does not help
me maintain my house.
When you look at the "deterioration" in these homes you see neglect
and vandalism, not wear and tear. When you give something away for
free in this country the recipient treats it like it was free, having
no value at all. They just assume when they destroy it, someone will
give them another one.

Here in CT it's a combination of irresponsible social programs and
laws that protect those who have no problem stealing from others.
Landlords can't choose who they rent to and the state welfare dept
will actively seek out open apartments for welfare reciepients. CT
does not give vouchers however, they pay the reciepient who is then to
pay the rent. This is "so they won't feel insulted". But in many cases
these folks don't pay any rent for 6 months until the landlord can
evict them. Many times again, during that eviction, the property is
trashed. Now the landlord spends thousands and the welfare dept does
it to him again, and again... Eventually, all of the tenants put their
suitcases on the sidewalk and the place misteriously burns to the
ground. Welfare comes in and puts them in someone elses house... And
the cycle starts again. The landlord, with no income for over a year
at this point, can't afford to maintain anything.. I am not saying all
welfare recipients are like this, but the percentage makes it nearly
impossible for responsible landlords to maintan anything in or near
urban areas...

The landlords should then sue the state for rent and damage. *Who ever
signed the rental agreement papers. *They used to do the same thing here,
give the rent money to the Section 8 renter and they were supposed to send
the rent payment in. *No forwarding of the rent money. *Here the county has
to repair any damage done by the resident to a section 8 abode.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In-laws had a big stake in an apartment building in Oakland. One
thing, it takes for EVER to get a squater out of your place in CA!
Before we sold our townhouse in Martinez, we rented it to a real nice
couple, we did our homework, had a nice lease made up, checked their
employment and credit history, did everything right. They were just
like professional squatters! After the first month's rent, they just
quit paying. Called them, they just said, "nah, wer're not paying
you". They knew how long it'd take to get them out! Took almost six
months.

wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:37:55 -0400, HK wrote:

In case some of you enlightened folk haven't noticed, there's very
little maintenance being done these days on state and municipally owned
properties, and not much on federal properties, either. Bridges,
highways, tunnels, airports, major roadways, power plants, sewage
treatment plants, all have been "shorted" on maintenance the last seven+
years.

If the home owner is getting free or heavily subsidized housing why
can't they do the maintenance themselves? The government does not help
me maintain my house.
When you look at the "deterioration" in these homes you see neglect
and vandalism, not wear and tear. When you give something away for
free in this country the recipient treats it like it was free, having
no value at all. They just assume when they destroy it, someone will
give them another one.



"If the *homeowner" is getting free or heavily subsidized housing..."

How many homeowners do you assume are getting "free" housing? And of
those in subsidized interest home ownership programs, how many are
"heavily" subsidized?

I didn't read more than a couple of paragraphs of the screed that
started this thread, but I assumed the housing units being discussed
were "rental" units. If they were, then the maintenance is supposed to
be performed by the owners of the properties. The owners usually are not
the tenants.