WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DesideriScuri -> WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/22/2015 2:51:34 PM)

Crime-Free Lease Addendum

    quote:

    Crime Free Lease Addendum
    In consideration of the execution or renewal of a dwelling unit identified in the lease,
    Resident and Owner/Manager agree as follows:
    1. Resident, any members of the resident’s household, any guest or other person under the resident’s control shall not engage in any criminal activity, including drug-related criminal activity, on the said premises. “Drug-related criminal activity” means the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution, or use of a controlled substance or the possession with intent to manufacture, sell, distribute, or use of a controlled substance.
    2. Resident, any members of the resident’s household, any guest or other person under the resident’s control shall not engage in any act intended to facilitate criminal activity, including drug-related criminal activity.
    3. Resident or any members of the resident’s household shall not permit the dwelling unit to be used for or to facilitate criminal activity, including drug-related criminal activity, regardless of whether the individual engaged in such activity is a member of the household or a guest.
    4. Resident, any members of the resident’s household, any guest or other person under the resident’s control shall not engage in the unlawful manufacturing, selling, using, storing, keeping, or giving of a controlled substance at any location within the apartment community.
    5. Resident, any members of the resident’s household, any guest or other person under the resident’s control shall not engage in any illegal activity including: prostitution; criminal gang activity; assaultive, threatening, or intimidating behavior, including but not limited to the unlawful discharge of firearms on or near the dwelling unit; serious property damage; any behavior the otherwise jeopardizes the health, safety, and/or welfare of the property
    owner, property management or their employees, or any other resident or guest.
    6. VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS SHALL BE A MATERIAL AND IRREPARABLE VIOLATION OF THE LEASE AND GOOD CAUSE FOR IMMEDIATE TERMINATION OF THE LEASE AND TENANCY. It is understood
    and agreed that a single violation of any provision of this addendum shall be deemed a serious violation and a material and irreparable noncompliance and shall result in the immediate termination of the lease. Unless otherwise provided by law, proof of a violation shall not require a criminal conviction, but shall be by a preponderance of the evidence.
    7. In the case of conflict between the provisions of this addendum and any other provisions of the lease, the provisions of this addendum shall govern.
    8. This LEASE ADDENDUM is incorporated into the lease executed or renewed this day between the Owner, or Owner’s Agent, and the Resident.


http://www.monroenews.com/news/2015/apr/21/saginaw-to-require-renters-to-keep-homes-crime/
    quote:

    The ordinance, dubbed the "crime-free lease addendum," was approved Monday, The Saginaw News reported (http://bit.ly/1QdIx1a ). It will require renters to agree that neither they nor their guests will "engage in criminal activity." Violations could mean eviction. Landlords could face fines of $300 to $500 for violations. Councilman Demond Tibbs, an assistant Saginaw County prosecutor, led work on the ordinance and said it is a tool for city government to use to help make neighborhoods a better place to live. "I think that's how it should be looked at," he said. Mark Oberschmidt, a city resident and landlord, was the only person to speak against the proposal, calling it an unnecessarily complicated ordinance that would unfairly penalize landlords and be impossible to adequately enforce. "I'm not here because this will affect me," Oberschmidt said. "It simply makes doing business more complicated and expensive. We are going down a slippery slope when you try to fine someone for someone else's behavior."


So, renters have to agree to not break the law, and to not allow anyone in their house to break the law (regardless of whether that person is a resident or a guest). Breaking that agreement can result in the lease being terminated. Landlords who aren't doing their part in the policing of their tenants abiding by the agreement can be fined.

Luckily, I think the way the law reads in the first provision, the illegal activity has to occur on the premises. That means that getting a ticket for speeding, jaywalking, or parking violations won't likely result in an eviction under this slop. A lot might also ride on the intended definition of "criminal activity." Does "criminal activity" require a victim other than the "criminal?"




DaNewAgeViking -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/22/2015 3:56:51 PM)

So what's the problem here? Crime-Stopper provisions are common these days, and generally apply to felonies. To the best of my knowledge, parking tickets are not felonies.
[sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]




ExiledTyrant -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/22/2015 4:08:59 PM)

Anyone here from Saginaw?




MercTech -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/22/2015 6:24:41 PM)

"4. Resident, any members of the resident’s household, any guest or other person under the resident’s control shall not engage in the unlawful manufacturing, selling, using, storing, keeping, or giving of a controlled substance at any location within the apartment community."

The devil in the details I see here is that a prescription for a controlled substance, i.e. prescription codeine cough syrup, violates that point in the agreement. Heck, my arthritis prescription is a controlled substance.

It might be a punctuation problem in the wording as it isn't clear the way it is written if "unlawful" pertains to the manufacturing only or to all the terms listed. One reason why legalese would use multiple sentences or bullets instead of comma delineation on one line. I see a discrepancy with what they are trying to say and what they did say in that agreement.




slvemike4u -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/22/2015 6:27:18 PM)

I think "unlawful" must apply to all that follows,otherwise it makes no sense and is unenforceable




DesideriScuri -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/23/2015 3:09:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking
So what's the problem here? Crime-Stopper provisions are common these days, and generally apply to felonies. To the best of my knowledge, parking tickets are not felonies.
[sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]


It doesn't matter what other places attach "crime-stopper provisions" to. It's also why I presented what I did. There is no mention of the "criminal activities" needing to be felonies.

Plus, if you're referring to "crime stoppers" groups, those are volunteer groups of citizens, and, thus, not government mandating policing.

I wonder how many lease agreements don't include some sort of language that terminates an agreement if there is criminal activity (or more specific description defining that phrase). The key difference would be that the landlord isn't going to be fined if there is criminal activity going on in their rental units.




joether -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/23/2015 4:36:41 AM)

So now we are having landlords handling the policing duties? Rather than government 'uphold the peace' we have a corporation whom doesn't have as many constraints as government in handling US Citizens.

Not directly, but that feels like 'the direction' this would be going. Since the person can be removed for just being suspected, NOT, found guilty in a court of law (or even charged). Makes it sound like another method to remove 'undesirable types' without being racist about it.

I can understand they want to keep crime down; but this feels like a 'end run around' someone's civil rights. I dont quite know how to explain it. Just feels like we havent heard the end of this story....





JVoV -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/23/2015 5:39:46 AM)

I don't see a problem here.

Owners of private property retaining the right to evict renters that get caught running a meth lab or marijuana grow house, or actively dealing drugs from the rented property.

Seems pretty standard these days.




RottenJohnny -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/23/2015 7:10:16 AM)

FR

There may be more to it but I think all you're really seeing in the passing of this law is the City of Saginaw trying to build a legal wall between a generally nice, quiet town and the drug dealers that are moving in as the fallout from the economic collapse of Detroit continues.




Sanity -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/23/2015 7:17:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

So now we are having landlords handling the policing duties? Rather than government 'uphold the peace' we have a corporation whom doesn't have as many constraints as government in handling US Citizens.

Not directly, but that feels like 'the direction' this would be going. Since the person can be removed for just being suspected, NOT, found guilty in a court of law (or even charged). Makes it sound like another method to remove 'undesirable types' without being racist about it.

I can understand they want to keep crime down; but this feels like a 'end run around' someone's civil rights. I dont quite know how to explain it. Just feels like we havent heard the end of this story....




Your a bit trigger happy with that race card joether

Sounds like someone has never had to deal with renters before




Aylee -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/23/2015 8:21:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

So now we are having landlords handling the policing duties? Rather than government 'uphold the peace' we have a corporation whom doesn't have as many constraints as government in handling US Citizens.

Not directly, but that feels like 'the direction' this would be going. Since the person can be removed for just being suspected, NOT, found guilty in a court of law (or even charged). Makes it sound like another method to remove 'undesirable types' without being racist about it.

I can understand they want to keep crime down; but this feels like a 'end run around' someone's civil rights. I dont quite know how to explain it. Just feels like we havent heard the end of this story....




Considering that the government can confiscate your property if a crime is committed on it, EVEN IF IT WAS NOT BY YOU, this does not seem to be about race. Rather protection from the government and the screwed up asset forfeiture laws.

We all know that you believe that people have no right to their property. . . but claiming racism? That is a bit too far.




DesideriScuri -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/23/2015 1:53:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
So now we are having landlords handling the policing duties? Rather than government 'uphold the peace' we have a corporation whom doesn't have as many constraints as government in handling US Citizens.
Not directly, but that feels like 'the direction' this would be going. Since the person can be removed for just being suspected, NOT, found guilty in a court of law (or even charged). Makes it sound like another method to remove 'undesirable types' without being racist about it.
I can understand they want to keep crime down; but this feels like a 'end run around' someone's civil rights. I dont quite know how to explain it. Just feels like we havent heard the end of this story....


First of all, your post makes it look like you think that race plays a part in who is involved in criminal activity, which would be a racist statement in and of itself.

Secondly, I guess there were 9 people from the public attending the council meeting and only one (a landlord quoted in the OP) was opposed to the legislation. The key, in his eyes, was that he would have to be doing the policing, and could be fined for actions of his tenants, whether he supported the actions of his tenants or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
I don't see a problem here.
Owners of private property retaining the right to evict renters that get caught running a meth lab or marijuana grow house, or actively dealing drugs from the rented property.
Seems pretty standard these days.


Like I said, I'd be surprised if that wasn't already in the lease agreements. No need for government forcing anyone to do that. But, putting a financial risk on the landlord for actions of the tenants?






Aylee -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/23/2015 2:05:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Like I said, I'd be surprised if that wasn't already in the lease agreements. No need for government forcing anyone to do that. But, putting a financial risk on the landlord for actions of the tenants?





Asset forfeiture laws already do that, unfortunately.




DesideriScuri -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/23/2015 2:09:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Like I said, I'd be surprised if that wasn't already in the lease agreements. No need for government forcing anyone to do that. But, putting a financial risk on the landlord for actions of the tenants?

Asset forfeiture laws already do that, unfortunately.


To an extent, but I think there is going to come a time when asset forfeiture laws are going to come under scrutiny and will require intent to stand. If some guy is selling crack on my property without my knowledge or authorization, how is it fair that I'll be penalized?




Aylee -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/23/2015 4:37:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Like I said, I'd be surprised if that wasn't already in the lease agreements. No need for government forcing anyone to do that. But, putting a financial risk on the landlord for actions of the tenants?

Asset forfeiture laws already do that, unfortunately.


To an extent, but I think there is going to come a time when asset forfeiture laws are going to come under scrutiny and will require intent to stand. If some guy is selling crack on my property without my knowledge or authorization, how is it fair that I'll be penalized?



It is not fair, but it is being done. And YES, I do hope that they change the way they are applying the asset forfeiture laws.




JVoV -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/23/2015 5:00:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I don't see a problem here.

Owners of private property retaining the right to evict renters that get caught running a meth lab or marijuana grow house, or actively dealing drugs from the rented property.

Seems pretty standard these days.


Ok, slight change of heart. There is that whole 4th amendment thing. Criminal activity isn't criminal activity until a court actually convicts somebody.

The pesky 5th Amendment may come into play too. It seems like a responsible property owner, if they suspect criminal activity, would need to call the police in order to start the silly due process stuff including eviction for illegal activity, thereby incriminating themselves of violating the law.




Aylee -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/23/2015 5:37:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I don't see a problem here.

Owners of private property retaining the right to evict renters that get caught running a meth lab or marijuana grow house, or actively dealing drugs from the rented property.

Seems pretty standard these days.


Ok, slight change of heart. There is that whole 4th amendment thing. Criminal activity isn't criminal activity until a court actually convicts somebody.

The pesky 5th Amendment may come into play too. It seems like a responsible property owner, if they suspect criminal activity, would need to call the police in order to start the silly due process stuff including eviction for illegal activity, thereby incriminating themselves of violating the law.


The property owner is not obligated to observe the 4th or 5th amendment. Those are things that the GOVERNMENT cannot do. Not that private individuals cannot do.




MercTech -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/24/2015 6:37:12 AM)

I got curious and checked some of my back files at old lease agreements from years gone by.
Every lease agreement had a provision for immediate termination of lease for both "operating a commercial business out of the leased property" and for "conducting unlawful activities" on the premises. Many even proscribed "auto repairs and oil changes in parking lots on the premises".

Hmm, I guess that isn't a violation of rights if you enter into a contractual obligation to limit your activities as part of your rental agreement.




tj444 -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/24/2015 10:51:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I don't see a problem here.

Owners of private property retaining the right to evict renters that get caught running a meth lab or marijuana grow house, or actively dealing drugs from the rented property.

Seems pretty standard these days.


Ok, slight change of heart. There is that whole 4th amendment thing. Criminal activity isn't criminal activity until a court actually convicts somebody.

The pesky 5th Amendment may come into play too. It seems like a responsible property owner, if they suspect criminal activity, would need to call the police in order to start the silly due process stuff including eviction for illegal activity, thereby incriminating themselves of violating the law.

actually, with asset forfeiture its not "somebody" that is convicted or even goes to trial.. with asset forfeiture its the money/asset that is guilty and only put on trial if you try to get it back.. yup, thats right.. You must prove that your asset was innocent to get it back (which might cost $15k+ in legal fees for your lawyer to do this & a year or so, maybe more going thru the process)..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6MT_YLO5yg Forfeiture Machine Turns Cops into Robbers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJrM44GwiTg United States of America vs 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Mass. (The Motel Caswell) These people were lucky to have good lawyers that helped them take on the USA, how many werent so lucky??? As it says in the vid, there was a DEA agent whose only job was to find properties that could be seized..

Dont ya just love the way the US govt does things?




DesideriScuri -> RE: WTF Saginaw, MI?!?!? (4/24/2015 11:23:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
actually, with asset forfeiture its not "somebody" that is convicted or even goes to trial.. with asset forfeiture its the money/asset that is guilty and only put on trial if you try to get it back.. yup, thats right.. You must prove that your asset was innocent to get it back (which might cost $15k+ in legal fees for your lawyer to do this & a year or so, maybe more going thru the process)..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6MT_YLO5yg Forfeiture Machine Turns Cops into Robbers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJrM44GwiTg United States of America vs 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Mass. (The Motel Caswell) These people were lucky to have good lawyers that helped them take on the USA, how many werent so lucky??? As it says in the vid, there was a DEA agent whose only job was to find properties that could be seized..
Dont ya just love the way the US govt does things?


Nope. And, that's why I'm all for a limited government. [:D]




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0546875