Jul 23rd 2013 3:42PM Well, the photo that was associated with the article showed that the bock of the house and the pool areas were clearly visible to other homeowners (at least fromwhere the photo was taken.)
If the "nude parties"can be held out of view from the neighbors; and as long as they are not "disturbing the peace", or clogging up the streets, then the guy shouldn't have any problems that will give the neighbors a basis to complain. However, I think that the article mention all three of these problems, PLUS being able to see homosexuals having sex on the pool patio area. So, that ffairly well puts the guys "rights" into perspective. "One man's rights end where the other man's rights begin."
Jul 23rd 2013 1:25PM The homosexuals and transgenders want "equality" in everything; and that is fine.
However, the public has the right to not be affronted with lewd or obscene "public displays" in a house like this, or in gay pride demonstrations, etc.
"Equality" means that everyone has to respect the "public decency laws and ordinances. This guy is just trying to make a buck and to exploit the situation . . . andhe doesn't mind if it inconveniences (clogged street parking) or affronts his neighbors (nude public sex around the pool)
One man's right "end" where the other man's rights begin."
Jul 19th 2013 1:11PM This is EXACTLY yhe type of incompetence and "corruption" that has contributed so greatly to the demise of Detroit.
Insipid bureaucrats and politicians who irresponsibly do things like this. These relatively "new" homes in good conditions could help to house people who could contribute to the revitalization of the city. STUPID and irresponsible people need to be fired from government jobs.
Dec 6th 2011 4:13PM The man took out a business loan using his house as collateral; and now because of health reasons, he cannot replay the loan . . . .it is unfortunate; but it is the "breaks of life". The bank should foreclose on him, which is the the RIGHT THING to do. If anyone esle wants to help him with charitable contributions, that is fine; but the tax payers should have NO INVOLVEMENT in this personal business deal. Such is the way of life.
Dec 6th 2011 1:15PM I think that I am as compassionate as most people if not moreso; however, I really don't agree with OWS on this one. It seems to me that this is more of a case for CHARITY more so than asking the financial institutions or the tax payers to bail this guy out of his financial difficulties. (I'm a Nam vet also.) When people fun into financial diffiuclties due to hard times or the result of buying something that they can't really afford, it is NOT the tax payers responsibility to bail them out. This guy took out a "business loan", using this home for collateral. Due to his medical problems he can't pay the loan. That is no basis for him to be bailed out except as an act of "charity" by people who are willing to contribute to a fund to bail him out. Personally, I hate the corrupt corporation; but they DO have a legitimate basis for foreclosure in this case. This is a private matter; OWS needs to set up a charitable fund to help him; but it isn't a basis to criticize the financial institution for a legitimate foreclosure.
Nov 10th 2011 2:56PM Haven't we had enough of all of this "bail out " stuff yet. There are simply too many people "trying to 'game' the mortgage bailout programs, such as they are; if people (including massive numbers of speculators) bought condos and houses that they could not afford the mrotgages on, then they simply need to be FORECLOSED ON,and moved out of those houses. I really do NOT see any legitimate basis (OR VALUE) to "bailing out" these people who irresponsibly signed mortgage contracts that they cannot (or are not willing) to pay for. The hard economic reality is: "If you cannot afford the mortgage that you contracted to pay, then you should be foreclosed on . Period! All of these protracted shennigans about "saving these irresponsible people' is costing everyone else in society a lot of money and lost property values. In the "adult world" people are responsible for thier own financies, AND the consequences of thrie foolish actions or even their misfortunes . . THAT is the way the world operates, isn't it. Oh, I almost forgot, "exxcept under "Socialism" where almost EVERYONE becomes a "loser" of sorts, except for the wealthy.
Nov 2nd 2011 1:27PM It REALLY ISN'T "the corporation" (the stock holders0, who committed these blatant and orchestrted FRAUDS, it is the CEOs and upper management . . . the PAID EMPLOYEES, of the corporation whohave committed these BLAANT CRIMES. Yes, the sotck holders are, and should be partially liable for the managmen's CRIMES (but as Congress & the SEC have somewhat limited the stockholders ability to exercise oversight and influence over corporate managment.) TheGARING MISSING consideration and actions is holding the CEOs and upper management PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for their participation in White Collar CRIMES . .. . without the threat of holding managment rsponsible for their crimes, there is little deterrence to corporate white collar crimes. The CEOs and upper management are the REAL white collar criminals in all of this fraud; they MUST be indicted and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Nov 2nd 2011 1:33AM I have finally reached the point where I just do not see the basis for anyone to get amortgage reduction . . . . perhaps they should be allowed to qualify for a lower interests rate; but that is it. There are just too many people trying to "gamethe system". People should be required to pay the debts that they contracted to pay or face the consequences. No one forced them to buy their homes or condos at the prices that they signed the mortgages for. . . . and the sellers were paid that amount of money by the mortgage companies based on those contracts. All of this mortgage "refinancing" (passing the "difference off ontostock holders and tax payers" is generating a cultureof people who do not think they should be responsible for their legaldebts; and that undermines our economy overall. Either pay your mortgage as agreed upon or be foreclosed on . . . that is a simple and basic principle. (I certainly do not have a moral, ethical or legal "obligation" to bail those people our of their irresponsible debts with my life savings.)
Nov 1st 2011 1:51AM LOL . . . all this article does is to emphasize the FACT that most Americans are just too apathetic to really bother to learn the basic facts about buying a home/condo, insurance requirements, or the reality of the financial and legal aspects of buying a home/condo. People don't want "to be bothered with the details" . . . they just want someone to simplify all of the information and the mortgage industry 9salesmen) rely on this to earn "extra profits" from these sales. If people do not want to bother learning about the basic facts involved in all of these matters, then they set themselves up to be taken advantage of by others . . . like believing everything that a used car salesman tells them . . . Ha! "Stupid is, as Stupid does". One doesn't have to be an "expert" in all of this; just knowledgable about what they obligate themselves to.
Oct 29th 2011 6:34AM Isn't this a rather dumb question? They don't move because they cannot afford the costs of moving and they do not have decent secure job opportunities to motivate them to move.
In turn, this reduces the income for people in the real estate indstry, in the moving industry, and for those in industries that benefit from people fixing up newly purchased homes (Home Depot, Lowes,and other specialty companies). This contributes to a slow down in business, businesses closing or cutting back, and increased unemployment. It is the vicious cycle of "bad begatting bad". It is a DIRECT RESULT of CORRUPTIONS in business and politics. The wealthy became wealthier; but they exploited the people to the point of substantially dmaging their customer base for the future.