- 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 9:12 am to bluedragon
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:12 am to bluedragon
quote:
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?"
Throw in all of the structures on your property must be “x feel/miles” away from your property line so your neighbor’s stuff doesn’t catch fire if/when you’re crappy setup goes up in flames, and we have a deal. Enjoy your little piece of anarchy.
0
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:18 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:quote:If theyre paying sure they should.
No city services should be allowed to the property either.
You’d honestly expect the city/county to just go with running natural gas to a house with fire hazards out the arse, have no say in that matter and be responsible for the maintenance and continued operation of those lines?
Nobody sane would agree to that. If a private entity wouldn’t do it, why on earth should a government entity do it?
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:31 am to TackySweater
In this case partial collapse doesn't do justice to what I saw, half of the house was completely open to the elements and an exterior wall of the house fell over and was leaning on the neighbors house. Additionally, I'm sure they have to cut of electric and gas to the house, maybe water too.
Answer to the OP, in most cases no, but when there is an immediate danger to neighbors and the general public the answer is yes.
Answer to the OP, in most cases no, but when there is an immediate danger to neighbors and the general public the answer is yes.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:32 am to Dadren
quote:
You’d honestly expect the city/county to just go with running natural gas to a house with fire hazards out the arse,
Subjective. Most of those pussies consider everything a fire hazard.
What ends up happening is people create their own "utilities" which are far more dangerous.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:34 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
The reason society is broken is we keep saving people from natural selection.
Therefore the service personnel should not go into help them.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:34 am to olemc999
quote:
Therefore the service personnel should not go into help them.
Are they paying taxes?
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:41 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Are they paying taxes?
I’m personally good with them not paying any property taxes.
If you want to be all “free state libertarian” then go all the way. No public school for your kids, no fire, no police. Dig a well, figure out your own trash hauling and sewerage.
As long as your questionable decisions don’t imperil anyone else who’s fine with being a part of a functioning, governed society, knock your lights out.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:41 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Are they paying taxes?
At that point, probably not.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:42 am to Dadren
quote:
I’m personally good with them not paying any property taxes.
If you want to be all “free state libertarian” then go all the way.
Your adding to the issue in order to make a point.
Who said they were Libertarians?
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:43 am to Dadren
quote:
As long as your questionable decisions don’t imperil anyone else who’s fine with being a part of a functioning, governed society, knock your lights out.
So, if youre in a tent in your backyard, and you have a heart attack, no one should enter to help you since its an "unsafe structure?"
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:47 am to TackySweater
City governments have had the power to condemn unsafe housing for as long as I remember.
Is it constitutional? Who knows but unless we as a people want to shrug our collective shoulders when a house falls in on someone the options are pretty limited.
Is it constitutional? Who knows but unless we as a people want to shrug our collective shoulders when a house falls in on someone the options are pretty limited.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:47 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Your adding to the issue in order to make a point.
I’m actually not. You brought up taxes, so it should be a binary on/off switch for simplicity.
Either you get city/local services or you don’t. If you do, there are certain things you have to abide by just like any end-user agreement. If you don’t want to, opt out and keep your tax dollars.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:51 am to Dadren
quote:
You brought up taxes
I brought up zero ideology.
You decided to make that a sticking point.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:51 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
So, if youre in a tent in your backyard, and you have a heart attack, no one should enter to help you since its an "unsafe structure?"
From the government? No. Again you’re not paying taxes in this scenario correct?
Didn’t you make a statement about natural selection in this thread? Make sure you’re friends with your neighbors I guess.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:57 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
So, if youre in a tent in your backyard, and you have a heart attack, no one should enter to help you since its an "unsafe structure?"
As long as it’s a park/forest ranger that shows up.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:57 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I brought up zero ideology.
Is this not ideological to you?
quote:
This is a good trial.baloon to see who is a nanny stater and who supports classic conservative property rights.
You posted that on page two.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 9:58 am to Dadren
quote:
From the government? No. Again you’re not paying taxes in this scenario correct?
Who said this person isnt paying taxes?
Posted on 1/6/25 at 10:03 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Who said this person isnt paying taxes?
What the hell man.
Half way through this exchange, you asked “if this person is paying taxes”. I said “I am good with them not paying taxes” and have based my subsequent replies on that premise.
I think I’m done here. Have a good one.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 10:06 am to TackySweater
"Unsafe", in the right (or wrong) political sense could mean a lot of things including the type of pet you own, your political bumper stickers, the type of vehicle parked in your driveway, religious icons, gun ownership, etc. The list could go into infinity. A hoarder to one person could be a collector to another.
I believe it is a slippery slope for such a thing.
I believe it is a slippery slope for such a thing.
Posted on 1/6/25 at 10:23 am to Dadren
quote:
I said “I am good with them not paying taxes
That dont answer the question, Forrest.
If they are paying taxes, they better get the services they pay for.
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News