- 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: Should the government be able to force someone to move out of their house if it’s “unsafe”
Posted on 1/6/25 at 12:36 am to TackySweater
Posted on 1/6/25 at 12:36 am to TackySweater
Should a person be allowed the legal right allowed by a municipality to live in a house that does not meet that municipality’s current building, health, & safety standards/codes?
No, but the bar for enforcement must be rational and enforced fairly to all.
First responders are at risk, as well as neighbors.
There’s an old legal axiom: “Your right to swing your fists end where my nose begins.”
No, but the bar for enforcement must be rational and enforced fairly to all.
First responders are at risk, as well as neighbors.
There’s an old legal axiom: “Your right to swing your fists end where my nose begins.”
0
Posted on 1/6/25 at 12:53 am to TackySweater
quote:
What if the house is in a rural area with no neighboring structures for miles and only one resident ?
Then who is the "government" in this case? Unincorporated rural areas generally do not have building ordinances concerning unsafe structures on private property.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 12:57 am to TackySweater
quote:
What’s hoarding have to do with this?
You should watch the show ‘hoarders’.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 12:59 am to TackySweater
It looks half collapsed and the collapse is partially leaning on the neighbor’s house. I saw news clip earlier.
Looks beyond being deemed “unsafe”
Looks beyond being deemed “unsafe”
Posted on 1/6/25 at 1:36 am to TackySweater
I did a sales internship working under this prolific insurance agent in Iowa my last year of school. I got sent up to this farm house on a request from a guy who was a warm lead. My job was to do get him to divulge info and set up the second meeting for the limber dick.
I get out there and he heads me off in the drive, it is like 12 degrees out in middle of winter. He asks to conduct the meeting in my car, then proceeds to just get in the passenger back seat. I get back in the drivers seat. He was cool. We talked for an hour, he led on that he had some cash built up, I’m looking around, not seeing much, but I set up the appointment.
We get there for round 2 and he cuts us off and says he wants to drive 15 min into town and meet at the cafe. We oblige. Guy ends up relatively wealthy. Ends up a good client. After a few months, I had to get wet ink on some stuff and drove out. He went to get in my car, but I insisted we go inside. I can’t remember how, but I did, and I damn near shite myself when he let me in. Two story farm house just completely filled with shite. Stacks of newspapers—decades of them. Magazines, excess furniture. He was really embarrassed, told me he’d tear up all his policies if I tried to offer him help.
I just took it in. Sat there and talked for half an hour sitting on a stack of magazines. Guys worth 7 figures in rural Iowa 20 years ago and living like that. Blew me away.
I get out there and he heads me off in the drive, it is like 12 degrees out in middle of winter. He asks to conduct the meeting in my car, then proceeds to just get in the passenger back seat. I get back in the drivers seat. He was cool. We talked for an hour, he led on that he had some cash built up, I’m looking around, not seeing much, but I set up the appointment.
We get there for round 2 and he cuts us off and says he wants to drive 15 min into town and meet at the cafe. We oblige. Guy ends up relatively wealthy. Ends up a good client. After a few months, I had to get wet ink on some stuff and drove out. He went to get in my car, but I insisted we go inside. I can’t remember how, but I did, and I damn near shite myself when he let me in. Two story farm house just completely filled with shite. Stacks of newspapers—decades of them. Magazines, excess furniture. He was really embarrassed, told me he’d tear up all his policies if I tried to offer him help.
I just took it in. Sat there and talked for half an hour sitting on a stack of magazines. Guys worth 7 figures in rural Iowa 20 years ago and living like that. Blew me away.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 5:12 am to TackySweater
Absolutely not.
This is a good trial.baloon to see who is a nanny stater and who supports classic conservative property rights.
This is a good trial.baloon to see who is a nanny stater and who supports classic conservative property rights.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 7:16 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Absolutely not.
This is a good trial.baloon to see who is a nanny stater and who supports classic conservative property rights.
Personally I agree with you. Many people are not capable of allowing people to live with the consequences of their actions. Some decent points have been brought up in the thread. Home owner needs to acknowledge that no form of assistance will be provided if the house collapses on them, and if their property is threatening a neighbor's property, they need to be held liable for that, and the city should require a retainer to pay for possible damages until the issues are remedied in that scenario. No city services should be allowed to the property either. If the house is at risk of blowing up a gas line or causes a water issue for the community, the government should not allow that risk to exist.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 7:29 am to WhiskeyThrottle
quote:
No city services should be allowed to the property either.
If theyre paying sure they should.
I dont buy the "first responder" argument. Those guys go in broken cars, buildings and high rises all the time.
If someone wants to live in squalor and its not affecting kids, let them. The reason society is broken is we keep saving people from natural selection.
This post was edited on 1/6/25 at 7:32 am
Posted on 1/6/25 at 7:39 am to Requiem For A Dawg
My problem is that the initial guidance will be favorable then we'll never hear about it and before we know the government will change the guidance to looser standards.
I'm not in favor of a government doing anything because it always gets changed and weaponized.
Hoarding is still a problem just needs to be addressed differently.
I'm not in favor of a government doing anything because it always gets changed and weaponized.
Hoarding is still a problem just needs to be addressed differently.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 7:40 am to TackySweater
quote:
Should the government be able to force someone
Never
Posted on 1/6/25 at 7:43 am to TackySweater
quote:
Educate me on hoarding and why it is unsafe.
If there is no clear path to walk inside the house, first responders will have trouble taking a person out on a stretcher if the need should arise.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 7:45 am to TackySweater
quote:If society had zero safety nets and you suffered the FULL consequences of your actions, no.
But if there was no risk of danger to surrounding buildings, should the government be able to make a homeowner leave their home?
Since people demand that every other person in our society carry the burden of your poor decisions, yes.
Scruffy will support the idea of complete freedom the minute he no longer has to support people who make poor decisions.
Freedom to do whatever you want and freedom to solely suffer the consequences.
This post was edited on 1/6/25 at 7:47 am
Posted on 1/6/25 at 7:55 am to TackySweater
Unsafe dwelling, yes they can and they will.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 8:08 am to TackySweater
quote:
Should the government
NO!
Posted on 1/6/25 at 8:31 am to TackySweater
quote:
No chance if anyone else getting injured except that person.
If it collapses, there's a ton of shite going into the air. If it burns, even more will go into the air.
If it's a biohazard, it can very easily affect land & soil quality beyond their own property. And all of this is before pointing out that you'd be an obvious dick to your neighbors and lower their property values.
In theory, if nobody else is getting hurt they could do what they want. In practice, somebody else is going to be affected.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 8:36 am to TackySweater
quote:
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.
I bet it's been unsafe for quite awhile.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 8:49 am to TackySweater
quote:
Educate me on hoarding and how it’s unsafe.
There have been several TV series about hoarders on both A&E and Lifetime.
We have YouTubeTV, so we have he entire catalog on demand. My wife loves those shows.
The main safety issue that I see is from fire and the danger it can pose to neighboring properties. Same goes for rodent infestations.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 8:51 am to Thundercles
quote:
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 libertarian in me says the government should stay out of it. If a person is a hoarder, that is a problem for family and friends to take care of.
But those people often times don't have family or friends.
I'm not so much concerned about the person who owns the property as I am about the surrounding properties.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:00 am to wm72
Simple fix.
Zero Insurance Coverage.
Zero fire or ambulance service.
Zero Police coverage.
Now have a ball.
I've inspected houses for bank loans, that my vocal comment was "Do you the money to rent a bulldozer?"
Zero Insurance Coverage.
Zero fire or ambulance service.
Zero Police coverage.
Now have a ball.
I've inspected houses for bank loans, that my vocal comment was "Do you the money to rent a bulldozer?"
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:12 am to TackySweater
No, but the government should have the right to declare a house exempt from emergency services if clear hazards aren’t fixed within a reasonable time (maybe 6 months).
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News