- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BLM vs. Nevada Rancher
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:04 pm to Dick Leverage
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:04 pm to Dick Leverage
quote:
Yes against an armed man. Are you paying your own personal militia or something? Where in the eviction process are you expected to remove a person, armed or not, from your property? You file the papers and let the legal system do its job. If he is still refusing to leave, and threatens with armed force, you step aside and let LE do it's job. That costs you nothing except what you have already paid in taxes to fund LE.
What is your point? Are you disagreeing with my statement that sometimes it's worth more than the back rent to remove an intransigent tenant?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 1:38 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
What is your point? Are you disagreeing with my statement that sometimes it's worth more than the back rent to remove an intransigent tenant?
Yes, unless and as I mentioned, there are VERY unique circumstances. You mentioned you have never had to remove a tenant so what are you basing your claim on? Under typical circumstances, it cost next to nothing to legally remove them. You might incur a lot of costs after removing them in repairs,etc. but you would have had those expenses anyway. I am asserting that the cost of REMOVAL in and of itself, is very little.
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 1:39 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News