- 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
Should the government be able to force someone to move out of their house if it’s “unsafe”
Posted on 1/5/25 at 11:04 pm
Posted on 1/5/25 at 11:04 pm
They had a house partially collapse in New Orleans this weekend. Some government agency said the house is unsafe to live in and told the owner she has to move out, I guess until it gets fixed.
Not sure the details of what makes it unsafe. But if there was no risk of danger to surrounding buildings, should the government be able to make a homeowner leave their home?
Not sure the details of what makes it unsafe. But if there was no risk of danger to surrounding buildings, should the government be able to make a homeowner leave their home?
22
Posted on 1/5/25 at 11:10 pm to TackySweater
When I was younger I would have said no. But now knowing how some people I know have become hoarders; all I’ll say is sometimes some intervention needs to happen.
Posted on 1/5/25 at 11:15 pm to TackySweater
The sensible answer is no, but then think about a house that would eventually collapse or set on fire and kill the person inside or a person on the property.
The kind of person that would live in a possibly unsafe house in perpetuity would also cause problems for the city in the long run.
The kind of person that would live in a possibly unsafe house in perpetuity would also cause problems for the city in the long run.
Posted on 1/5/25 at 11:15 pm to olemc999
What’s hoarding have to do with this?
Posted on 1/5/25 at 11:18 pm to TackySweater
quote:
house if it’s “unsafe”
Posted on 1/5/25 at 11:21 pm to olemc999
Educate me on hoarding and how it’s unsafe.
Posted on 1/5/25 at 11:23 pm to Thundercles
quote:
but then think about a house that would eventually collapse or set on fire and kill the person inside or a person on the property.
What if it’s only one person that lives there and they do not allow others or guests in. No chance if anyone else getting injured except that person.
Posted on 1/5/25 at 11:23 pm to TackySweater
From Google AI
quote:
Hoarding can create many dangers, including: Fire hazards: Hoarded items can block exits and heating vents, or crowd cooking and heating equipment. Structural dangers: The weight of hoarded items can cause structural damage to a building. Health issues: Hoarding can lead to respiratory problems, allergies, and asthma from dust mites and poor air quality. Clutter can also make it hard for emergency personnel to enter a home to help someone who is sick. Plumbing issues: Hoarding can lead to plumbing issues like clogs and sewer backups. Pest infestations: Pests like cockroaches, rats, and flies can be attracted to rotting food and animal waste in hoarded homes. These pests can spread disease.
Posted on 1/5/25 at 11:24 pm to TackySweater
The problem is that the government gets to decide what’s unsafe, so my answer is no.
Posted on 1/5/25 at 11:26 pm to TackySweater
I've seen it done. The city condemned the house and the old man had to move out and fix stuff that the city would validate was completed before he could move back in. He moved into his sister's house and died before the repairs were completed.
It was probably for the best. His grandkids were cooking meth in it and someone called APS which started the whole thing.
It was probably for the best. His grandkids were cooking meth in it and someone called APS which started the whole thing.
Posted on 1/5/25 at 11:26 pm to TackySweater
I believe in this regulation personally. A non-maintained house could be a problem for the mailman or neighbors.
Imagine if dumbasses started running their own gas lines because they didn’t need a permit. Yikes.
Imagine if dumbasses started running their own gas lines because they didn’t need a permit. Yikes.
Posted on 1/5/25 at 11:26 pm to olemc999
What if the house is in a rural area with no neighboring structures for miles and only one resident ?
Posted on 1/5/25 at 11:28 pm to TackySweater
Like unsafe if it shifts off the piers it might rupture a gas service or electric service? If it has spin in fuses vs a breaker it may be considered unsafe but I wouldn't feel they have to leave. Just operate the house within it's parameters.
Now if it's a rental that may be a different deal. It's a commercial entity and you should fix it.
Now if it's a rental that may be a different deal. It's a commercial entity and you should fix it.
Posted on 1/5/25 at 11:30 pm to TackySweater
quote:
What if the house is in a rural area with no neighboring structures for miles and only one resident ?
Then I wouldn’t give a shite unless their place creates a forest fire and they need to have an agreement with the city, county, and state that they will not render emergency services if they need emergency assistance.
Posted on 1/5/25 at 11:48 pm to TackySweater
quote:
They had a house partially collapse in New Orleans this weekend.
quote:
Not sure the details of what makes it unsafe.
If a house has started to collapse but hasn't finished yet, that seems like an important detail.
To answer your question, YES, the should be forced to move. I am surprised they are even giving the option to enter the house.
Posted on 1/5/25 at 11:52 pm to TackySweater
No. Without evidence. Never
To clarify. Evidence can be fabricated so easily these days I'm not sure the line.
To clarify. Evidence can be fabricated so easily these days I'm not sure the line.
This post was edited on 1/5/25 at 11:54 pm
Posted on 1/6/25 at 12:02 am to TackySweater
quote:
What if the house is in a rural area with no neighboring structures for miles and only one resident ?
Chances are the govt doesn’t care and doesn’t do anything about it
Posted on 1/6/25 at 12:04 am to TackySweater
If they are going to expect tax dollar financed services to save them when it becomes an emergency then hell yes we should.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 12:10 am to Thundercles
quote:
The kind of person that would live in a possibly unsafe house in perpetuity would also cause problems for the city in the long run.
Life is dangerous, and I think it's better to accept that, than to try and protect everyone from themselves
I think in a healthy community you wouldn't see these issues though. There would be family, or just people in the town, who would step in to make the house safe. Because they wouldn't see these people as strangers, and they would have a sense of obligation to them.
I can't imagine this scenario occurring in an Amish community for example.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 12:22 am to TackySweater
quote:
What if the house is in a rural area with no neighboring structures for miles and only one resident ?
There's sure a lot decrepit houses in the rural south that it takes a nervy EMT or firefighter to pull someone out of. But, I imagine no one really checks that stuff unless they're ritzy rural areas or child services etc are involved.
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News