|
MrMister -> RE: City condems house for only using solar (2/2/2010 7:32:53 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: eyesopened
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrMister
quote:
ORIGINAL: eyesopened
Oh there is a LOT more going on than the article is saying.
First, if you don't like rules or people telling you what you can and cannot do with your property, don't buy a house in a subdivision with a homeowner's association. They will nearly always have additional covenants about what you can and cannot do.
Second, what happened to the roommate?
Third, sorry to say but if all you can find is a minimum-wage job, you might have to take a second job. Since she did not have children, this would have been a workable alternative until she got on her feet again.
Fourth, electricity isn't that expensive! Shut the lights off, stuff the fridge with jugs of water, there's lots of ways to keep electricity costs low.
Fifth, talk to your creditors! Let the electric company know your situation, they'll work with you. They won't work with you if you decide to steal it instead. Ask for assistance. No one is gonna offer it. No one. If you need help, you have to ask.
This isn't a matter of evil government trying to take away anyone's rights. Its about an irresponsible person trying to blame everyone else for the poor chocies she made.
I absolutely agree with you that there are a myriad of lessons one can learn from this debacle, and there appears to be more under the surface of what the news articles are informing us about. But it certainly is my opinion that the government had no right to do what they did, regardless period.
If you, or anyone else would be so kind, please explain to me how the actions of the city were warranted. The following is what John Stossel wrote in his article:
When the cops learned she had no electricity, they notified a code enforcement manager, who said: "Once we received notification from police that she had been without electricity for some time... we were very concerned about health and safety "... "We explained to her that the panels weren't enough to sustain a quality of life.” Stevens was given 24 hours to get electric service to her home. When she failed to do that, the bureaucrats condemned her home. Stevens moved into her car. Officials say if they had known Stevens' predicament they would have offered help. But why were they even involved with what happens inside her four walls? Oh that's right. They were concerned about her health and safety.
Seeing how the article is slanted, I doubt we are getting a clear picture. If in fact the city condemed the house in 24 short hours, that seems terribleand I would agree they did not have the right. But the article says she was given TWO notices prior to the cops coming. She chose to ignore the notices. Had she answered the notices, explained her situation, asked for assistance, maybe there would have been a different outcome. She didn't just go without a refridgerator and the cops showed up one day and condemed her house the next. It was a long process. A process she chose not to work within.
With all due respect, you are making a great deal of assumptions regarding this lady and her dilemma. I'm basing my belief upon what the article is stating. I was not there and cannot say definitively one way or the other concerning all the points you brought up. My point is even if she choose to ignore two notices, does this then give the "officials" the right to do what they did? I feel fairly positive if this were happening to anyone of us (precisely the way the article is depicting it), a great many of us would be outraged.
|
|
|
|
