# Dangerous veggies? City demands Ottawa woman remove garden



## NaeKid

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/dangerous-veggies-city-demands-ottawa-woman-remove-garden-1.2458585

*Dangerous veggies? City demands Ottawa woman remove garden*



> An Ottawa woman is fighting to save a small garden that city officials have ordered removed after deeming it a safety hazard.
> 
> Shannon Lough said a bylaw officer visited her Kanata home Monday and told her someone had complained about the little patch of fruits and vegetables she tends to after work.
> 
> The garden is a few square metres of earth surrounded by a wooden structure that is about knee height and set a few centimetres back from the sidewalk.
> 
> The bylaw officer told her it must be moved back six to eight feet by July 31 or the city could have it removed. Lough could also face a fine of up to $5,000.
> 
> Chief Bylaw Officer Robert Chapman said that the city is worried the wooden structure could cause an injury.
> 
> "We're just concerned about kids and others going down the sidewalk," Chapman said. "Somebody could be tripped."
> 
> Lough said she had travelled through Europe and seen similar front-yard gardens all over the place.
> 
> "I don't know why here in Ottawa this would be a problem."
> 
> In fact, Lough believes front gardens are beneficial because they help build a sense of community.
> 
> "Before (the garden), I didn't really have any excuse to speak to my neighbours," she said. "Now people come by all the time and we just talk about the garden."
> 
> The latest topic of conversation: a "Save our Garden" sign planted in the middle.
> _
> With a report from CTV Ottawa_


----------



## bugoutbob

Ah the nanny state ... nothing too low to stoop to in order to control us ... for our "own good" of course.


----------



## BillS

Apparently there's a law already in place that determines where gardens have to be located. I don't have a problem with the law being enforced.


----------



## IlliniWarrior

a garden today .... tomorrow the guy down the street decides he's entitled to do some shade tree mechanics in his front yard .... a further down the street another guy buys a few goats for yard work ....

that's why there's zoning laws .... no one is more entitled than anyone else .... laws apply to everyone ....


----------



## NaeKid

Honestly - I can understand needing to move the planter back a little ways, but, I cannot see how 8' from the curb will benefit anyone. Maybe 24" from the sidewalk would be more than enough so that there isn't a tripping hazard ... 

At my old house, I put in a flower-box that ended about 12" from the busy sidewalk, never had anyone trip over it and never had a single complaint ...


----------



## cowboyhermit

IlliniWarrior said:


> a garden today .... tomorrow the guy down the street decides he's entitled to do some shade tree mechanics in his front yard .... a further down the street another guy buys a few goats for yard work ....
> 
> that's why there's zoning laws .... no one is more entitled than anyone else .... laws apply to everyone ....


Is that supposed to be a bad scenario or are you being sarcastic? Hard to tell on the internet.

Property rights have long been on a slow slide to oblivion because of such regulations and bylaws.

"Owning" something without having control of it's use is a farce, and a mockery of rights.

As to the O.P, it's a safety issue, right, someone might trip and fall so we better move it 6-8ft back. What about street lights, parking meters, benches, etc. etc. :dunno: Guess it all depends on who has the power.


----------



## biobacon

I thought I would see something dangerous, something that was a safety hazard, something that the city had a legit complaint about. But that? Thats down right pretty. What a crock of crap. Zoning is a crock of crap. If you own it you can do what you want with it. I put up with my neighbors crap all the time, and they put up with mine. But then again I live on a dead end street full of gun owning, gardening people, who for the most part mind their own darn affairs.


----------



## Wellrounded

I'm wondering if her property boundary is where the fence stops. That would be 6-8 feet back from the path. Placing the garden completely on public land. They are not asking her to remove it just place back onto their land.


----------



## Grimm

What I don't get is the garden is sitting where grass/lawn use to be. The lawn is the homeowners' responsibility to maintain. How is it sitting on the "road allowance"?


----------



## cowboyhermit

Wellrounded said:


> I'm wondering if her property boundary is where the fence stops. That would be 6-8 feet back from the path. Placing the garden completely on public land. They are not asking her to remove it just place back onto their land.


If the bylaw officer had said it was a matter of city property, then it would be a different matter, but they specifically said it was a safety (tripping) issue which is B.S.

In what I saw of the place, there was a foot high fence in the background that goes right to the sidewalk, much worse tripping hazard. Selective enforcement causes way to many problems, like keeping B.S laws on the books.


----------



## JayJay

I just read an article with pictures about a man that won a city judgment against him for having raised bed gardens in his front yard--city wanted him to have 30% grass!!
He even spread mulch around the raised beds--he didn't want any mowing parts.
It looked nice.
He even had herbs in concrete blocks and was giving away vegetables and flowers.


----------



## IlliniWarrior

cowboyhermit said:


> Is that supposed to be a bad scenario or are you being sarcastic? Hard to tell on the internet.
> 
> Property rights have long been on a slow slide to oblivion because of such regulations and bylaws.
> 
> "Owning" something without having control of it's use is a farce, and a mockery of rights.
> 
> As to the O.P, it's a safety issue, right, someone might trip and fall so we better move it 6-8ft back. What about street lights, parking meters, benches, etc. etc. :dunno: Guess it all depends on who has the power.


no, that's exactly what transpires when zoning laws are ignored .... everyone thinks they can do whatever they want .... happens all the time in close quarters of a suburban/metro area ....

again, there's zoning laws that are OKed by the legislators elected by the people .... you accept those laws when you buy/rent into that law covered geographic area .... Don't like the laws? .... MOVE !!!! ... freaking simple as that - you most probably shouldn't have moved there to start with ....

zoning laws help protect the value of everyone's property .... no one can start a property de-valuing business in your residential neighborhood and it forces people to a certain level of property maintaining ....


----------



## Wellrounded

cowboyhermit said:


> If the bylaw officer had said it was a matter of city property, then it would be a different matter, but they specifically said it was a safety (tripping) issue which is B.S.
> 
> In what I saw of the place, there was a foot high fence in the background that goes right to the sidewalk, much worse tripping hazard. Selective enforcement causes way to many problems, like keeping B.S laws on the books.


The officer said it was on the road allowance and was a tripping hazard and I have to agree. I would assume they were told to remove the small fence as well even if not mentioned in the short 2 minute video. I have been involved with planning public walking and riding spaces and it's amazing what people won't see when walking as a group. It's just a fact of life that most people won't look out for the unexpected, the council is trying to maintain a uniformity throughout these areas. I'm 100% in favour of managing the property within your boundries as you see fit, harm none etc. But I don't see a problem with them moving the garden back onto their OWN land.


----------



## cowboyhermit

So you were serious, I was honestly wondering.



IlliniWarrior said:


> no, that's exactly what transpires when zoning laws are ignored .... everyone thinks they can do whatever they want .... happens all the time in close quarters of a suburban/metro area ....
> 
> I am well aware of the fact that things like that occur, I just disagree on whether or not it should be allowed.
> 
> again, there's zoning laws that are OKed by the legislators elected by the people .... you accept those laws when you buy/rent into that law covered geographic area .... Don't like the laws? .... MOVE !!!! ... freaking simple as that - you most probably shouldn't have moved there to start with ....
> 
> Sorry, but I find these arguments to be ridiculous, why is it OK for someone to be forced to move to a different municipality if they don't like the laws but not another country. Can you honestly tell me that whenever a law gets passed Federally or on a state level that you tell yourself and those who agree with you "Well, I should just move!" Maybe that's what the U.S founding fathers should have done when they didn't like the laws of the British Empire. There are many reasons our forefathers chose not to live in pure Democracies, and they are more relevant than ever.
> 
> zoning laws help protect the value of everyone's property .... no one can start a property de-valuing business in your residential neighborhood and it forces people to a certain level of property maintaining ....


Zoning laws exert control over people and their property and diminish their property rights. Areas can be rezoned, exemptions granted, etc, etc, it just gives that power to the busybodies running the municipality instead of those who actually own the property. There are better ways to deal with all these issues without compromising people's rights.


----------



## Davarm

Seems to me that someone would have to be trespassing to trip over the fence or "border".


----------



## IlliniWarrior

cowboyhermit said:


> So you were serious, I was honestly wondering.
> 
> Zoning laws exert control over people and their property and diminish their property rights. Areas can be rezoned, exemptions granted, etc, etc, it just gives that power to the busybodies running the municipality instead of those who actually own the property. There are better ways to deal with all these issues without compromising people's rights.


it's eazy enough .... you just live outside the law with a thug & bully mentality ... you're above the law and entitled to do whatever you want .... until .... you run up against a Zimmerman or Officer Wilson and you get a permanent dirt bath ....

some of you people act like you never studied civics and government in school .... this case is a simple dispute between two neighbors .... the neighbor with the complaint might or might not have tried to remedy the dispute thru discussion (the article is entirely one sided) .... she used the proper channels of authority & law to resolve the dispute .... the gooberment sent out a non-biased mediator to make a professional judgement .... he saw a problem and violations of the law ....

the gardening lady has her rights under the law .... both an appeal and court action if she wishes ....


----------



## bigg777

"Don't worry, I'm here from the government, I'm here to help."


----------



## NaeKid

*From the National Newspaper!*

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...following-too-often-blocks-basic-common-sense

*Age of (un)Reason: Blind rule-following too often blocking basic common sense*



> Shannon Lough grew up in pretty Caledon, Ont., where the park had a cool tree fort that all the kids would play in. Lough loved that fort, and clambered there often with Will Needham, a schoolmate, until somebody complained and town employees tore it down as unsafe.
> 
> _"There is always somebody that has to ruin things for the kids, and now here we are again," Lough says._
> 
> Now, Lough and Needham are in Ottawa, where they reconnected, fell in love, bought a house and, in May, planted a vegetable garden in their front yard. But a neighbour complained, bylaw officers responded, and the garden is now labelled a tripping hazard that must go by July 30.
> 
> It's a familiar feeling, and not just for these two. The potentially lethal garden joins an alarmingly long list of Canadian examples where blindly following rules has blocked the application of basic common sense.
> 
> Recall recent events in Surrey, B.C., where a family soccer game, in a public park, was shut down by police because the family didn't have a permit to play. In Squamish, B.C., a four-year-old playing naked on his front lawn, while his father was washing the car in the driveway nearby, drew a visit from police. And in Guelph, Ont., a topless eight-year-old girl, splashing about in a wading pool, was told to cover up by municipal workers.
> 
> "Not everyone has the same comfort level with females being topless," Kristene Scott, Guelph's manager of parks and recreation, told a reporter. "We try our best to balance a number of factors, including our community standards, legal rights of our employees and citizens, cultural norms and the rights and freedoms of all our patrons."
> 
> Well, hooey to all that, says David Sweanor, an adjunct law professor at the University of Ottawa. Sweanor is familiar with _busybodies blowing their morally absolutist whistles_ on the benign behaviours of the perceived wrongdoers in their midst, and recommends that every Canadian, especially every employee of the state, at every level of government, pay a visit to their local library.
> 
> "A lot of this comes down to giving people that have not had the opportunity - an opportunity to read John Stuart Mill," Sweanor says.
> 
> John Stuart Mill, yes, the British philosopher, the champion of liberty - and common sense. Mill's foundational belief about the relationship between individual freedom and the state, more or less, was thus: *Individuals should be free to do whatever they want as long as they are not causing harm or impinging upon another person's liberty.*
> 
> In other words: plant that garden, by gum, run naked on that lawn, kick a soccer ball around in a park - without a permit - because if no harm is being done, then why call foul?
> 
> Of course, not every foot soldier of the state, or nosy person next door, lacks the ability to think critically. There are rebels among them, like the parking cop who sees you coming and gives you a free pass, instead of ticket, or the bylaw officer who turns a blind eye to a chimney that is three inches too short, or too tall, or Bryce Casavant, a hero to two wee bear cubs in Port Hardy, B.C.
> 
> Casavant, a conservation officer, defied a directive from his superiors to destroy the eight-week-old orphaned cubs.
> 
> "It is important for the community to know that I am here to do the right thing," he told the Campbell River Mirror, before being suspended without pay, pending a performance investigation. The message from above being: Think outside the bureaucracy and the niggling stipulations of this or that nonsense law/order, and beware the consequences.
> 
> Back in Ottawa, Lough and Needham - a Canadian military veteran who did three tours in Afghanistan and viewed his garden, his girlfriend says, as a therapeutic balm to all that he had experienced in 12 years of army life - haven't given up on their vegetable plot.
> 
> It has yielded bok choy, kale, strawberries, tomatoes, eggplants and lemon grass. And the garden is their happy place, just like that old tree fort used to be - but just like that old tree fort, the garden appears doomed.
> 
> Lough has spoken directly with Roger Chapman, Ottawa's bylaw chief, and he has promised to meet with the couple at their home Friday at 2 p.m., to review the situation.
> 
> "I want to try and negotiate with him," Lough says. "At least let us keep our garden until September, so we can enjoy it for the rest of the summer."
> 
> Sounds reasonable, no?
> 
> _National Post_


----------



## jimLE

i have seen the fence line that goes between 2 properties come to the sidewalks before.and i've seen fence lines that follow the sidewalks,be directly next to the sidewalks..i've also seen tree roots coming up through sidewalks.some cities have flower beds built into city downtown sidewalks.all in which are a tripping hazards..


----------



## bugoutbob

I don't think we could argue that there is no merit in bylaws and zoning. Everything needs some form of control, but typical bylaws and zoning is out of control. Petty bureaucrats, building their individual empires ever expanding like any form of government. If you want to watch a cute movie about one man's fight against building inspectors watch Still Mine ... a bit slow, but touching.


----------



## cowboyhermit

IlliniWarrior said:


> it's eazy enough .... you just live outside the law with a thug & bully mentality ... you're above the law and entitled to do whatever you want .... until .... you run up against a Zimmerman or Officer Wilson and you get a permanent dirt bath ....
> 
> Right, everyone who thinks that people should be able to do what they wish on their property unless it _actually_ infringes on someone else's rights has a thug and bully mentality. They couldn't possibly just value rights and freedoms enough to mind their own business even when it is to their own detriment ... as to your last sentence ... I don't know ... what ... you ... are even talking about ...
> 
> some of you people act like you never studied civics and government in school .... this case is a simple dispute between two neighbors .... the neighbor with the complaint might or might not have tried to remedy the dispute thru discussion (the article is entirely one sided) .... she used the proper channels of authority & law to resolve the dispute .... the gooberment sent out a non-biased mediator to make a professional judgement .... he saw a problem and violations of the law ....
> 
> the gardening lady has her rights under the law .... both an appeal and court action if she wishes ....


Most of us studied government and "civics" in school.

Some of us bought exactly what we were spoonfed for a variety of reasons.

Some of us learned what we could from it and continued to think, question and learn about the principles involved, throughout our lives. Not all of us have come to the same conclusions.


----------



## Caribou

IlliniWarrior said:


> it's eazy enough .... you just live outside the law with a thug & bully mentality ... you're above the law and entitled to do whatever you want .... until .... you run up against a Zimmerman or Officer Wilson and you get a permanent dirt bath ....


A kale planting thug? :eyebulge: Oh my!

Zimmerman and Wilson each killed a man that was trying to kill them. This thread is about property rights and governmental overreach. If you want to start a thread about self defense I will be glad to join in.


----------



## tsrwivey

Just because a government body makes a rule doesn't make it right & doesn't mean it doesn't infringe on property rights. Maybe that area is the only sunny spot in her yard?


----------



## mosquitomountainman

IMO, if they bought the property knowing what the rules were then they should abide by them. I believe in freedom but I also believe it's important to honor your commitments.

We have so many Kalifornians and Kanadians coming here who have no regard for our laws and way of life. They come and not only do whatever they want to do, they try to force us to comply with their concepts of how things ought to be.

I'm tired of Kanadians who come here then ignore our traffic laws and private property and zoning laws. We've had several fatal accidents in the last couple of years caused by Kanadians.

We have a Kalifornia resident (wouldn't go so far as to call her a "neighbor") on our road who has constantly caused problems with fast and careless driving and trying to widen the road (taking other people's property away from them) despite the fact that they knew what the road was like when they moved here. We are under no obligation to give up our rights just so she can drive faster and more recklessly when what she needs to do is leave five minutes earlier. (They didn't even like her in California!)

I do want to note a difference between a Kanadian and a Canadian and a Kalifornian and Californian. We know good and bad ones from both places. We'd just like to deport the Kanadians and Kalifornians ... to Afghanistan or Iraq.


----------



## bugoutbob

mosquitomountainman said:


> I do want to note a difference between a Kanadian and a Canadian and a Kalifornian and Californian. We know good and bad ones from both places. We'd just like to deport the Kanadians and Kalifornians ... to Afghanistan or Iraq.


As (I hope) a Canadian ... I appreciate the clarification. I know that California and Canada fit the K theme really well, but I wondered what you call a local inconsiderate SOB what would make the Kaifornia and Kanada category ... just curious.


----------



## NaeKid

mosquitomountainman said:


> IMO, if they bought the property knowing what the rules were then they should abide by them. I believe in freedom but I also believe it's important to honor your commitments.


Recently I read a story in the Vancouver (BC) Newspaper about a young couple that were being evicted from their condo that they purchased a few years earlier.

Turns out that the condo-board stipulated that there can be a maximum of two people per bedroom in the condo-complex. Most would think that isn't a big deal and not even think about it, that is, till she got pregnant and a couple weeks after she gave birth to their first child, the condo-board sent a notice of eviction ... for having too many people in the single-unit.

They were being forced by the condo-board to sell their home and move ...

:gaah:


----------



## RevWC

So they have been blessed twice! New baby on the way and move out of the sh***y complex.


----------



## Grimm

NaeKid said:


> Recently I read a story in the Vancouver (BC) Newspaper about a young couple that were being evicted from their condo that they purchased a few years earlier.
> 
> Turns out that the condo-board stipulated that there can be a maximum of two people per bedroom in the condo-complex. Most would think that isn't a big deal and not even think about it, that is, till she got pregnant and a couple weeks after she gave birth to their first child, the condo-board sent a notice of eviction ... for having too many people in the single-unit.
> 
> They were being forced by the condo-board to sell their home and move ...
> 
> :gaah:


I know here in California the rule of thumb is 2 persons per bedroom and 2 if there is a living room. So a one bedroom unit could house 4 adults without issue by the law.

Studio units are a different story as there are no real defined rooms and only offer reasonable space for 2 adults.

But still sad the board forced them out. Most modern families co-sleep with new babies so I can hardly see the issue with allowing baby and family to stay for up to 2 years after birth while they sell their unit and find a new place.


----------



## NaeKid

Grimm said:


> I know here in California the rule of thumb is 2 persons per bedroom and 2 if there is a living room. So a one bedroom unit could house 4 adults without issue by the law.
> 
> Studio units are a different story as there are no real defined rooms and only offer reasonable space for 2 adults.
> 
> But still sad the board forced them out. Most modern families co-sleep with new babies so I can hardly see the issue with allowing baby and family to stay for up to 2 years after birth while they sell their unit and find a new place.


Reasonable ... yup. But, that goes against the laws that are written in stone.

Last I heard, the government has stepped in and stated that it is a "human-rights" issue and that the laws of BC / Canada over-ride the laws of the condo-board and that the condo-board is out of line by attempting to force the family out.

Still waiting to hear the final results of this story. It hasn't filtered through my news-feed for a little while.


----------



## Grimm

NaeKid said:


> Reasonable ... yup. But, that goes against the laws that are written in stone.
> 
> Last I heard, the government has stepped in and stated that it is a "human-rights" issue and that the laws of BC / Canada over-ride the laws of the condo-board and that the condo-board is out of line by attempting to force the family out.
> 
> Still waiting to hear the final results of this story. It hasn't filtered through my news-feed for a little while.


I forgot that here in the states no housing (privately owned or managed) can refuse anyone based on age, color, sex, religion etc.

When I was growing up there was an apartment/condo complex across the street from the subdivision I grew up in. The complex was adult only and no one under the age of 18 was allowed to live there even with someone over 18. Now the complex is full of young families thinking owning a condo is 'cool' but loading their balconies with all of baby's things that don't fit inside the tiny units.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

bugoutbob said:


> As (I hope) a Canadian ... I appreciate the clarification. I know that California and Canada fit the K theme really well, but I wondered what you call a local inconsiderate SOB what would make the Kaifornia and Kanada category ... just curious.


How about a few examples: One involved a Kanadian purchasing a few acres near a lake. He set up a cement pad for his camper and planned to spend his weekends at the lake. Not a problem until he began inviting his friends. Soon there were forty to fifty campers there every weekend partying throughout the night and racing up and down the dirt road stirring up clouds of dust. They left their campers there and some even poured their own cement pads and installed water and electricity. Neighbors got mad about it and tried talking to them but they (the Kanadians) had "rights" to do whatever they wanted on their land ... so they claimed. Neighbors called the county and filed a complaint. It was zoned single family residences and the county told the Kanadians to comply. Kanadians threw a tantrum but lost in court and eventually evicted the campers. They could allow guests to come but they could not leave their vehicles or campers over the week. That dropped the "guest" list down to a manageable size. County began enforcing speed limits and noise ordinances and the neighborhood can have some peace and quiet once again (which is why they moved there in the first place).

Second example: My wife is driving to Whitefish on Hwy 93. Kanadian begins tailgating and driving aggressively. Passes her going way over the speed limit (which my wife was driving) in a no passing zone (quite common with Kanadians). Once he is in front he slows down. She figures out that he has a follower and has slowed down to allow his compatriot to pass also. My wife kept blocking him as the Kanadian in front kept blocking her from passing him. Finally they got into Whitefish on a busy afternoon with lots of traffic. My wife begins backing off when there are cars coming and pretty soon there are a dozen vehicles between the moron Kanadian behind her and the moron Kanadian in front. (By now she's figured out that the one behind her is being guided by the one in front.) Both Kanadians are getting extremely antsy by now and shes smiling inside. Finally the first Kanadian turns off and the second didn't see it and drives on past the corner. They probably got back together using cell phones but it was fun while it lasted.

Third example: we were talking to a Kanadian in a restaurant and asked why the Kanadians drive like a--holes. His explanation was that speed limits were low in Saskatchewan and penalties were very expensive for speeders so when they got to the USA they had to sort of "let it out of their system" by driving fast. We asked if he thought maybe this put other drivers at risk and he grinningly replied that no, they were safe even at high speeds. Tell that to the teenage girl who was killed last fall when the Kanadian driver drifted over to her lane and hit her head-on. Explain to her family how he was "just getting it out of his system." No he wasn't drunk. He was going too fast for conditions on a dry day on a dry highway. But he was very remorseful afterwards ... at least while he was in jail for vehicular manslaughter.

Fourth example: My wife worked at the Fortine Merchantile where gasoline was sold. Guess who did ninety percent of the drive-offs without paying for the gas? Yep, Kanadians! It's only a few miles to the border and they can usually get across into Canada before getting stopped.

Fifth example: Our "neighbors" across the road from us. They drive very fast down our dirt road stirring up clouds of dust. They don't like our dog so they were coming over on the road by our house at night and teasing her to get her to bark at them. (Usually around midnight to 1:00 am.) The dog was barking like she does when there's a grizzly around (lots of movement but not engaging directly and that's the time our resident grizz usually comes around) and I suspected it was a grizzly so I turned off my bedroom light and went out the door. I racked a shell into the chamber of my pump 12 ga. and heard the sound of running feet. At that point I figured out what was going on. I waited a few seconds then fired the shotgun into the air (pointed away from them). No more problems after that. But why torment the dog! if they have a problem why not come to us and talk like real men?

Then there was the time I was a security guard and one Canadian bastar6 tried to run me over. He'd been turned away once (it was a construction zone) and he whined about his rights to go wherever he wanted to ... even on private property. He left then a few minutes later ran the gate at high speed. He didn't get far (it was a construction zone, remember!) then raced back and I had to dive for cover to keep from getting run over. He made it to the border before our keystone cops could catch him.

I could give a lot more examples but mainly if a person is a royal pain in the a$$ and disrespectful of our laws they are a Kanadian.

Kalifornians are about the same type only they're always going to sue someone in court if they don't get their way. The woman who lives past us on our road has threatened us with lawsuits several times. We tell her go ahead. She used to be a court stenographer in Kalifornia and thinks she's a lawyer. Every time she's tried something the judge or justice of the peace has had to remind her that she's NOT in Kalifornia ... she's in Montana and we do things different here. Doesn't keep her from trying though. Her husband needs to grow a set and rein her in but I suspect he'd probably go to prison if he tried.

Lots more stories on that subject too.

Again, there are also Canadians and Californians who are pretty good people. It's too bad others are such jerks. (Of course we have our Montana jerks as well.)


----------



## mosquitomountainman

NaeKid said:


> Recently I read a story in the Vancouver (BC) Newspaper about a young couple that were being evicted from their condo that they purchased a few years earlier.
> 
> Turns out that the condo-board stipulated that there can be a maximum of two people per bedroom in the condo-complex. Most would think that isn't a big deal and not even think about it, that is, till she got pregnant and a couple weeks after she gave birth to their first child, the condo-board sent a notice of eviction ... for having too many people in the single-unit.
> 
> They were being forced by the condo-board to sell their home and move ...
> 
> :gaah:


Sucks for them. A daugher and SIL sold a mobile home on contract to a woman with three kids. The woman has refused to make her payments on time for the first three months she's been there. She paid the first two months the day before formal eviction proceedings would begin. The last time she didn't pay at all. She's been trying to harass our daughter claiming her "rights" are being violated and has threatened to sue her for evicting her. Our daughter and SIL went to a lawyer and the eviction process has begun. I don't feel sorry for her no matter how many kids she has. She is employed and bragged to my daughter that she knows the system and has worked it before. The lawyer said let her try. The eviction case is a slam-dunk. She's a freeloading bum that wants everyone to feel sorry for her because she's a single mom with kids. I'm really tired of people breaking contracts then whining that they are the victims. READ THE FINE PRINT BEFORE YOU SIGN IT THEN COMPLY. You are the one who agreed to the terms. Quit whining and acting like it's everyone else's fault.

It's the same with credit cards. Mark my words, I detest credit card issuers with a passion. They are only slightly better than loan sharks and target those who shouldn't have credit in the first place. Then they use the legal system to make up for their poor business practices. And when thatg fails they make the rest of us pay for their mistakes.

BUT ... the people with the credit cards entered into the agreement voluntarily so they should honor it except under extreme situations beyond their control.

Now, all that is just my opinion, it's worth exactly the amount you paid for it.

I used to manage a Christian Camp. We often rented it out to individuals and families for reunions and weddings, etc. Three things we made very, very clear (as in they had to initial that they read them) were that there would be no alcohol use on the grounds, no smoking on the property, and no pets. They also had to sign a form saying they would inform all invited guests of these rules. Guess where we had the most problems? Yep, smokers, drinkers and people with pets. I got to where I almost hated pets owners for all the crap they put me through.

Again, if you don't like the terms ... don't agree to them and go somewhere else. Don't expect the rest of the world to bow down and kiss your royal hieny because you are so special.

It would really be nice though if people honored their word and quit whining when things didn't go their way.


----------



## bugoutbob

mosquitomountainman said:


> How about a few examples: One involved a Kanadian purchasing a few acres near a lake. ...


I believe all the examples, I run into those sorts of people everywhere I go. I was just curious what name you gave to them if they were locals as opposed to being from out of state. I have been blessed to have traveled throughout North America, parts of Mexico, Western Europe, Asia and Africa. I have encountered those kind of people everywhere, so I understand the frustration.

I have a neighbour who kept his vehicle plugged in from my electricity all winter (the cord was buried under the snow so I didn't find it until Spring). When confronted he had the nerve to accuse me of stealing his electricity, even though the way the cord was plugged in clearly showed him to be the thief. II probably wouldn't have minded if he had asked but that's not the point ... he stole it and he lied then accused me.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

bugoutbob said:


> I believe all the examples, I run into those sorts of people everywhere I go. I was just curious what name you gave to them if they were locals as opposed to being from out of state. I have been blessed to have traveled throughout North America, parts of Mexico, Western Europe, Asia and Africa. I have encountered those kind of people everywhere, so I understand the frustration.
> 
> I have a neighbour who kept his vehicle plugged in from my electricity all winter (the cord was buried under the snow so I didn't find it until Spring). When confronted he had the nerve to accuse me of stealing his electricity, even though the way the cord was plugged in clearly showed him to be the thief. II probably wouldn't have minded if he had asked but that's not the point ... he stole it and he lied then accused me.


They're everywhere for sure. And a jerk is a jerk no matter what label they wear. We do see some behaviors repeated over and over by some labels though.

A son and DIL were renting a place and the basement flooded. It tripped a breaker and they didn't know it until the land lord came over to investigate. It seems the LL was getting his electricity through that circuit which was being paid for by our son and DIL. They moved out at the end of the month without giving notice to the A-hole.


----------



## Grimm

mosquitomountainman said:


> They're everywhere for sure. And a jerk is a jerk no matter what label they wear. We do see some behaviors repeated over and over by some labels though.
> 
> A son and DIL were renting a place and the basement flooded. It tripped a breaker and they didn't know it until the land lord came over to investigate. It seems the LL was getting his electricity through that circuit which was being paid for by our son and DIL. They moved out at the end of the month without giving notice to the A-hole.


K and I rented a house in Bellflower at the end of October. Nice old place with a large yard for our 2 dogs at the time (male Corgis). We knew the guest house in the back was rented to a single guy and the landlord moved into the converted garage until he could find a place closer to his job. None of this was in the lease but we were okay with it...

Until the electric bill hit over $300 for December! Seems the landlord had several space heaters on 24/7 for his cat and an electric blanket in the storage shed for his dog. This was SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 11 MILES FROM THE DAMN BEACH!

When we asked him why the bill was high he tried to blame our 2 fish tanks (we had them for YEARS at this point and the bill was never over $50 a month) and then our Christmas lights that were on a timer for a total of 2 hours a night and only up for less than a week when the bill arrived!

We let the bill go in to default and refused to pay it since he left lights on all night when he was at his GF's for the weekend. They shut off the power and I used the propane camp stove and LED lanterns for 3 weeks before the ******* moved out late January.

The day after he moved out we had the power turned back on (still didn't pay the $300+ bill in his name) and had the power company disconnect the circuit to the garage and lock the circuit box giving us a copy of the key.

For extra measure the tenant in the guest house stopped paying the LL rent because the power was off for over 3 weeks and he was paying the LL half the "bill" or so he was told. He stayed in the guest house and started paying us a third of the bill when the power was turned back on.

Seems the guest house had been condemned by the county a year before the tenant moved in and it is illegal to collect rent on a condemned building.

I then made sure the landlord had to tear down the converted garage as it was built without permits to the county and city. I still get on Google Earth to view the residence in its new current condition without the guest house and garage apartment. You can see the ceramic tile from the garage bathroom set in cement sitting at the end of the driveway.


----------

