Topic: Idiot Apartment Manager in CO sends notice to tenants banning guns

[Libertas]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/7/colorado-renters-told-toss-guns-or-move-out/

Somebody needs to sue this miserable little sh*t into bankruptcy!  Reasonable my ass!  My God-given rights trump asshats and their illegal rules!

[trapeze]

That's a tricky one for a conservative because of the more or less sovereign private property rights angle.

A property owner should be able to create and enforce rules for anyone who lives on his property. Paying rent does not give you the right to violate the lease agreement. No one is forced to live there and anyone who willingly moved into a "gun free zone" gets exactly what they deserve.

I would move and deny the landlord access to my money. He doesn't deserve it. He deserves to have his property targeted by criminals who would take advantage of unarmed tenants. And the tenants who agreed to live by those rules deserve to be assaulted.

But it is his property and if he wants to be an ass about it that is his right.

[Pandora]

That's a tricky one for a conservative because of the more or less sovereign private property rights angle.

A property owner should be able to create and enforce rules for anyone who lives on his property. Paying rent does not give you the right to violate the lease agreement. No one is forced to live there and anyone who willingly moved into a "gun free zone" gets exactly what they deserve.

I would move and deny the landlord access to my money. He doesn't deserve it. He deserves to have his property targeted by criminals who would take advantage of unarmed tenants. And the tenants who agreed to live by those rules deserve to be assaulted.

But it is his property and if he wants to be an ass about it that is his right.

Absolutely; you're quite correct, nothing tricky about it.

I'd move and let him suck it.

[Libertas]

Normally I would agree but unless the reporting on this is exceptionally libtarded then it appears this clown is changing the rules mid-stream...the contract is the lease, a lease is good for a term...it says he sent a notice out...I call BS on that, if he wants to put new terms in new leases as they come due, fine, try it, if people think it sucks they'll leave...but you cannot change the lease terms without both parties agreeing to it.

[Predator Don]

Normally I would agree but unless the reporting on this is exceptionally libtarded then it appears this clown is changing the rules mid-stream...the contract is the lease, a lease is good for a term...it says he sent a notice out...I call BS on that, if he wants to put new terms in new leases as they come due, fine, try it, if people think it sucks they'll leave...but you cannot change the lease terms without both parties agreeing to it.

Agreed. Can't change the rules midstream. The landlord can whine and cry about it, but it better be part of the lease agreement. Plus, good luck enforcing it. What's gonna happen? Just because you may have a carry permit does not mean you own a gun.

I would throw it in the landlords face. I wouldn't move if it's not in my lease. If the landlord wants me out before my lease expires, would cost them a buyout.

[Libertas]

Normally I would agree but unless the reporting on this is exceptionally libtarded then it appears this clown is changing the rules mid-stream...the contract is the lease, a lease is good for a term...it says he sent a notice out...I call BS on that, if he wants to put new terms in new leases as they come due, fine, try it, if people think it sucks they'll leave...but you cannot change the lease terms without both parties agreeing to it.

Agreed. Can't change the rules midstream. The landlord can whine and cry about it, but it better be part of the lease agreement. Plus, good luck enforcing it. What's gonna happen? Just because you may have a carry permit does not mean you own a gun.

I would throw it in the landlords face. I wouldn't move if it's not in my lease. If the landlord wants me out before my lease expires, would cost them a buyout.

Agreed, and as painful as possible!   

[LadyVirginia]

private property rights--how quaint

[trapeze]

Turns out the guy who changed the rules is a manager, not the owner. The owner is...the "public" because it's public housing. The board of directors got together in an emergency session and overturned the "rule" which had been done unilaterally by the management company. They are now investigating to see if the same management company has done the same thing at other public housing properties that they manage.

So...problem mostly solved. It would be completely solved if the people who did this (without ownership knowledge or agreement) were fired.

[Pandora]

Turns out the guy who changed the rules is a manager, not the owner. The owner is...the "public" because it's public housing. The board of directors got together in an emergency session and overturned the "rule" which had been done unilaterally by the management company. They are now investigating to see if the same management company has done the same thing at other public housing properties that they manage.

So...problem mostly solved. It would be completely solved if the people who did this (without ownership knowledge or agreement) were fired.

Totally solved if we could get government out of the "public" housing business entirely.  And not by seeding Section 8ers throughout the suburbs EITHER.

The "public" needs to find and pay for their own damn "housing".

[Pandora]

Turns out the guy who changed the rules is a manager, not the owner. The owner is...the "public" because it's public housing. The board of directors got together in an emergency session and overturned the "rule" which had been done unilaterally by the management company. They are now investigating to see if the same management company has done the same thing at other public housing properties that they manage.

So...problem mostly solved. It would be completely solved if the people who did this (without ownership knowledge or agreement) were fired.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/07/board-of-directors-intervenes-says-it-will-not-allow-apartment-complex-to-implement-controversial-policy-banning-guns/

[Libertas]

Surprised a board of such a thing (The complex was purchased with federal funds and is “supported by local, state and federal tax dollars,”) made the right call.

I bet that hasn't happened much.

I'll bet in Chitcago similar boards have no problem implementing stupid ideas...and they probably piggyback on retarded local decisions as a guide and think that insulates them from criticism...after all if the city council says its OK, then it's OK for us, right?

Anyway...Pan is right...government has no right being in housing...but since the laid the crony foundation that their big donors (not just libiots either!) rely upon for fleecing, it's not likely to change anytime soon.

First - collapse, then - survive...and then finally rebuild the Founders way.