Skip to comments.
Couple lose their home over $120 debt
The Sacramento Bee ^
| January 24, 2004
| Michael Kolber -- Bee Staff Writer
Posted on 01/25/2004 5:49:41 AM PST by DelaWhere
Edited on 04/12/2004 6:04:31 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
Couple lose their home over $120 debt By Michael Kolber -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 a.m. PST Saturday, January 24, 2004 Get weekday updates of Sacramento Bee headlines and breaking news. Sign up here.
COPPEROPOLIS -- A retired couple's dispute with their homeowners association has spiraled out of control in this Calaveras County community -- and now they have lost their home less than a year after failing to pay $120 in annual dues.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: abuse; association; constitution; homeowner; property; propertyrights; radcliff; rights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 381-399 next last
To: Mrs Mark
forestation = firestationAh, I see. So when I was circumsized, I lost my fireskin.
241
posted on
01/25/2004 3:59:14 PM PST
by
Lazamataz
(The Republicans have turned into Democrats, and the Democrats have turned into Marxists.)
To: Lazamataz
Ah, I see. So when I was circumcised, I lost my fireskin.
A while ago there was a radio station in Detroit that had the call letters WWWW or W-4 for short.
They called their softball team the W-4-Skins.
Someone complained.
242
posted on
01/25/2004 4:05:33 PM PST
by
Mark was here
(My fan club: "Go abuse some family member, as I'm sure is your practice." - Principled)
To: Mrs Mark
Someone complained.I would have renamed them the Purple Turgid Members.
But, of course, I'm a bit of a wisea&&.
243
posted on
01/25/2004 4:15:18 PM PST
by
Lazamataz
(The Republicans have turned into Democrats, and the Democrats have turned into Marxists.)
To: ovrtaxt
"Let's remove the property aspect and insert the life aspect, or the liberty aspect. (Life, liberty or property..." The essence of liberty is to be able to freely enter into a contract for mutual benefit and have it enforced by a government when one party is in default.
Otherwise, if contracts are not protected no one will have property, free and clear, in which they can live their life on.
244
posted on
01/25/2004 4:23:25 PM PST
by
tahiti
To: Lazamataz
But, of course, I'm a bit of a wisea&&.
me too...
245
posted on
01/25/2004 4:23:53 PM PST
by
Mark was here
(My fan club: "Go abuse some family member, as I'm sure is your practice." - Principled)
To: Lazamataz
the Purple Turgid Members.Hey! Turgid is my word! I bought it under contract. ;)
246
posted on
01/25/2004 4:32:52 PM PST
by
ovrtaxt
(Sick of big government Republicans, but you have nowhere to go? Visit www.rlc.org)
To: Mrs Mark
You cant sign them away ...Exactly my point.
247
posted on
01/25/2004 4:33:42 PM PST
by
ovrtaxt
(Sick of big government Republicans, but you have nowhere to go? Visit www.rlc.org)
To: tahiti
We're in a bit of a 'chicken and egg' thing here. I contracts are to protect such rights, can you enforce a contract that limits those rights? Catch 22.
I say that the contract is flawed and the rights are unabridgeable. (I think I made that up.)
So if we follow that logic, the HOA contract here is a violation of private property rights under the Constitution. Yes, I know it happens all the time, but why doesn't anyone question it?
248
posted on
01/25/2004 4:38:15 PM PST
by
ovrtaxt
(Sick of big government Republicans, but you have nowhere to go? Visit www.rlc.org)
To: Lazamataz
How about refusing to buy a home covered by HOA encumberance?
To: ovrtaxt
"...the HOA contract here is a violation of private property rights under the Constitution." This is where you are making an incorrect assumption and thus come to conclusions that you espouse.
The Constitution is a document to limit the power of "government" only, not HOA's or any other private organization.
The private property right under the Constitution that you refer to appears to be related to Amendment V, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
If that is the case than this amendment restricts and limits "government" only.
250
posted on
01/25/2004 4:47:20 PM PST
by
tahiti
To: tahiti
I understand that aspect completely. But how can you enter into a contract which abridges inherent, intrinsic rights given by God and recognized under the Constitution? How can government justly enforce such contracts?
Are you saying that you can contractually sign away your rights? I was always told you can't, but it happens all the time.
251
posted on
01/25/2004 4:54:34 PM PST
by
ovrtaxt
(Sick of big government Republicans, but you have nowhere to go? Visit www.rlc.org)
To: ovrtaxt
"Are you saying that you can contractually sign away your rights?" Yes, free people do that everyday.
Have you ever bought or sold an automobile "as is?"
252
posted on
01/25/2004 5:23:23 PM PST
by
tahiti
To: sauropod
I did so for the express purpose of reigning in these weenies. I did so for a similar purpose and spent the next fifteen years going to meetings in which the majority made decisions about what "we" should do about things. Unfortunately, nothing ever actually got done because nobody was willing to either volunteer or pay to do it. When we finally got a majority of like-minded folks on the board, we adopted a "no unfunded mandate" code that put an end to that.
I have a particularly fond memory of one guy who wanted to pull out a diseased tree in the common area. He was opposed by several folks who "liked the way the tree looked". We went through them one by one, assigning the responsibility for future maintenance of the tree to them. When all declined, we told the guy to go ahead and pull it out.
HOA's are just little exercises in democracy, full of all the same flaws that resulted in the founding fathers chosing a republic as our form of government.
To: tahiti
I'll bite. What right does that abridge?
254
posted on
01/25/2004 5:27:44 PM PST
by
ovrtaxt
(Sick of big government Republicans, but you have nowhere to go? Visit www.rlc.org)
To: ovrtaxt
Are you saying that you can contractually sign away your rights? You can take a job that requires you to sign a confidentiality clause. While you still have the right to free speech, in some cases you get canned and/or sued if you exercise it.
255
posted on
01/25/2004 5:31:07 PM PST
by
Johnny_Cipher
(Miserable failure = http://www.michaelmoore.com/ sounds good to me!)
To: Johnny_Cipher
I know. That's the kind of stuff that I'm questioning.
256
posted on
01/25/2004 5:33:56 PM PST
by
ovrtaxt
(Sick of big government Republicans, but you have nowhere to go? Visit www.rlc.org)
To: Johnny_Cipher
Let me also say that I uphold the employer's right to fire the employee for ANY REASON. The business is his property.
But I question how the government can logically enforce such contracts.
257
posted on
01/25/2004 5:35:34 PM PST
by
ovrtaxt
(Sick of big government Republicans, but you have nowhere to go? Visit www.rlc.org)
To: ovrtaxt
That's the kind of stuff that I'm questioning. Well, the point I see is that, if you don't want to give up your free speech rights, then don't take the job. And, if you don't want to be subject to the local Mrs. Grundy nazi brownshirt HOA's rules, then don't buy into the neighborhood.
258
posted on
01/25/2004 5:43:06 PM PST
by
Johnny_Cipher
(Miserable failure = http://www.michaelmoore.com/ sounds good to me!)
To: ArmstedFragg
"When all declined, we told the guy to go ahead and pull it out." I love that story!
259
posted on
01/25/2004 5:45:59 PM PST
by
sauropod
(What happens at CPAC stays at CPAC)
To: Johnny_Cipher
Well. yes!
I'm just stirring up trouble trying to get people to think. Plus, I really do want to know what logic was used to get us to this point.
260
posted on
01/25/2004 5:48:36 PM PST
by
ovrtaxt
(Sick of big government Republicans, but you have nowhere to go? Visit www.rlc.org)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 381-399 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson