On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:39:16 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 May 2010 11:49:02 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 14:40:02 -0400, blake murphy
>
>>>> that's all well and good, but in my mind i lump in the HOAs with property
>>>> covenants forbidding sales to jews or blacks. i suppose in those days
>>>> selling to gays would be too ridiculous to even think about.
>
>>> That attitude was history by 1970. It was called red lining out here.
>>> Nothing was in writing.
>
>>red-lining (having to do with issuing home-purchase loans) may have been
>>tacit, but many housing covenants were quite explicit: 'thou shalt not
>>sell thy home to a jew or a black.'
>
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer>
>
>><http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1067.html>
>
> Actually red-lining was also explicit, in that the Federal Government
> (the FHA and its precursors) established red-line limits that
> the insurers and lenders then followed. This drove segregation --
> integrated communities which got redlined exhibited white flight.
> Places like Chicago and New York were more segregated in 1960
> than they had been in 1940, even before bussing kicked in and created
> additional white panic.
>
> So while racial covenants and red-lining were two different
> things, they were both explicit (in at least certain phases of
> their history). It is reasonable to view them as two aspects
> of the same underlying phenomenon.

jeez, i should have made the connection between red-lining and an actual
red line on a map, meaning something tangible and explicit.

but it wasn't in any contracts, because those contracts simply weren't
written.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 16 May 2010 20:23:29 +0200, Giusi wrote:

> "blake murphy" > ha scritto nel messaggio>
>
>> red-lining (having to do with issuing home-purchase loans) may have been>
>> tacit, but many housing covenants were quite explicit: 'thou shalt not
>> sell thy home to a jew or a black.'
>
> I have a collection of antique magazines and the high end shelter magazines
> had home ads and hotel ads right into the 50s that said they were
> restricted. It's always blacks, usually Jews but sometimes also Catholics.
> They didn't have to say against whom. Everyone knew. It turns my stomach.

those were the days, huh?

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 16 May 2010 20:28:21 +0200, Giusi wrote:

> "blake murphy" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>
>> i must be DK too, because i had much the same reaction.
>
> I thought the search for status was gettting desperate. Everybody here
> hangs out the wash. We like the smell of sunshine. Multimillion euro
> villa, high rise apartment building, cottage small by a waterfall, we all
> hang out the sheets. Older folks don't hang the underwear, whereas I think
> it is cruder to look like you don't have any than to on inspection prove to
> have some. Nobody looks but tourists, who like to photograph our laundry.

ohnoes!!! upskirt photos!!!

your pal,
blake

Pete C. wrote:
>
> The rest of CA's bankruptcy is due it's insane nanny entitlement state,
> that is driving the productive workers and businesses out of the state
> in droves, never to return, resulting in even more burden being shifted
> to the remaining taxpayer, driving them out, etc. in a lovely welfare
> death spiral that will ultimately end in total bankruptcy as you run out
> of other people's money to fund the insane entitlements.

I live here and except that you omitted the innumerable ballot
propositions stated by petitions that propose to spend more money by
issuing general obligation (read: unsecured) bonds without providing a
way to pay the money back regardless of what they want the money for, I
think you have it pretty much nailed.

On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:38:04 -0700, Samantha Hill
> wrote:

> Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > The rest of CA's bankruptcy is due it's insane nanny entitlement state,
> > that is driving the productive workers and businesses out of the state
> > in droves, never to return, resulting in even more burden being shifted
> > to the remaining taxpayer, driving them out, etc. in a lovely welfare
> > death spiral that will ultimately end in total bankruptcy as you run out
> > of other people's money to fund the insane entitlements.
>
> I live here and except that you omitted the innumerable ballot
> propositions stated by petitions that propose to spend more money by
> issuing general obligation (read: unsecured) bonds without providing a
> way to pay the money back regardless of what they want the money for, I
> think you have it pretty much nailed.

Don't forget the governor who would not allow the car tax to go back
to the level it should have been when the lowered rate expired. It
had been lowered during good economic times by the previous governor
as "rebate" to tax payers. The new one came in on a "no new taxes"
platform and that was his stand, yeah. Well it's not a *new* tax,
buddy. Five years later, multiply the state debt by what the car tax
would have brought into the coffers and hmmm. He was a fool.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Mon, 17 May 2010 17:09:02 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 May 2010 20:28:21 +0200, Giusi wrote:
>
> >
> > I thought the search for status was gettting desperate. Everybody here
> > hangs out the wash. We like the smell of sunshine. Multimillion euro
> > villa, high rise apartment building, cottage small by a waterfall, we all
> > hang out the sheets. Older folks don't hang the underwear, whereas I think
> > it is cruder to look like you don't have any than to on inspection prove to
> > have some. Nobody looks but tourists, who like to photograph our laundry.
>
> ohnoes!!! upskirt photos!!!
>
You haven't see laundry until you've been to China. There's laundry
hanging out windows 20 stories up. I tried to take pictures but
either the ride was too bumpy or we passed the perfect shot too
quickly and the private bus didn't stop for photos on elevated
throughways for some strange reason.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> Well, if you mean rude, crude, boorish, loud, etc., ad nauseum, then
> you've definitely defined the majority of my neighbors, with the
> lucky exception of those immediately on either side of us. I wasn't
> raised that way, and I prefer not to ivde that way.

I don't know why it's a stretch to imagine that some people would
be more pleasant to live around than other people. I'm lucky so far,
no one keeps junk on their property and while they might have a
loud party once in a while (fine with me) they are all good neighbors.

nancy

On 5/16/2010 11:04 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> J. > wrote:
>
>> Without an HOA, who enforces the CC&R?
>
> I imagine any neighbor could take any other neighbor to
> court for violating a deed condition, same as if they
> violated an easment or whatever.

If the deed is a contract between the homeowner and the neighbor they
could sue, however if it is not then they have no standing.

> Here in California neighbors are suing each other all
> the time actually.

You can sue anybody for anything at any time. That doesn't mean that
your suit will be successful.

On May 16, 5:24*pm, brooklyn1 > wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:02:29 +0100, Janet Baraclough
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >The message >
> >from brooklyn1 > contains these words:
>
> >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 02:41:49 -0400, "Paco" > wrote:
>
> >> >Building codes do not automatically equate to building permits. *If
> >> >work is
> >> >done by a licensed contractor (plumber, electrician, etc.), at the very
> >> >minimum, national codes must be adhered to. *State, municipal codes would
> >> >take precedence over national. *If a homeowner does the work, well
> >> >they are
> >> >on their own.
>
> >> This is true. *When a homeowner or other unlicenced person does an
> >> electrical renovation and later the house burns down due to an
> >> electrical fire homeowners insurance very likely won't pay...
>
> > *In the UK, if you want to sell your property, potential buyers will
> >demand to see proof that any
> > major work you did, complies with building and safety codes. If *you
> >can't produce the evidence, then
> >mortgage lenders and cash buyers alike, *may *devalue the price
> >accordingly, and a new insurer may refuse cover.
>
> > * *Janet.
>
> The same in the US, it's called a Full Disclosure Statement, the deed
> can't transfer without it. *The seller also needs to present a
> Certificate of Occupancy, essentially states the premises is habitable
> and complies with all permits. *Those who say they can do whatever
> they want haven't a clue or are lying.-

No CO is required in Michigan, except at initial construction. I've
bought and sold houses here three times, and never saw a CO.
Each time was a conforming mortgage.

Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On May 16, 5:24 pm, brooklyn1 > wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:02:29 +0100, Janet Baraclough
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> The message >
>> >from brooklyn1 > contains these words:
>>
>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 02:41:49 -0400, "Paco" > wrote:
>>>>> Building codes do not automatically equate to building permits. If
>>>>> work is
>>>>> done by a licensed contractor (plumber, electrician, etc.), at the very
>>>>> minimum, national codes must be adhered to. State, municipal codes would
>>>>> take precedence over national. If a homeowner does the work, well
>>>>> they are
>>>>> on their own.
>>>> This is true. When a homeowner or other unlicenced person does an
>>>> electrical renovation and later the house burns down due to an
>>>> electrical fire homeowners insurance very likely won't pay...
>>> In the UK, if you want to sell your property, potential buyers will
>>> demand to see proof that any
>>> major work you did, complies with building and safety codes. If you
>>> can't produce the evidence, then
>>> mortgage lenders and cash buyers alike, may devalue the price
>>> accordingly, and a new insurer may refuse cover.
>>> Janet.
>> The same in the US, it's called a Full Disclosure Statement, the deed
>> can't transfer without it. The seller also needs to present a
>> Certificate of Occupancy, essentially states the premises is habitable
>> and complies with all permits. Those who say they can do whatever
>> they want haven't a clue or are lying.-
>
> No CO is required in Michigan, except at initial construction. I've
> bought and sold houses here three times, and never saw a CO.
> Each time was a conforming mortgage.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

It varies by state and is not a national law in the US. I do a lot of my
home repairs myself and follow the Uniform Building Code. Some people
don't, Louisiana just adopted the UBC in the last few years and they
still have the buyer beware attitude toward homes. I've bought two here
in the last 22 years and both times had them inspected very thoroughly
by an approved housing inspector firm. Turned down a couple of houses
due to badly done repairs and/or severe problems with different things.
In most of the US it's "Caveat emptor", "buyer beware." You might have
no recourse if someone screws you on the deal.

"J. Clarke" wrote:

>On 5/16/2010 11:04 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
>> J. > wrote:
>>
>>> Without an HOA, who enforces the CC&R?
>>
>> I imagine any neighbor could take any other neighbor to
>> court for violating a deed condition, same as if they
>> violated an easment or whatever.
>
>If the deed is a contract between the homeowner and the neighbor they
>could sue, however if it is not then they have no standing.


This is true. You can sue the municipality/governing body for non
enforcement but not the non compliers directly.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> On Sat 15 May 2010 07:26:14a, Pete C. told us...
>
> >
> > Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> >>
> >> We didn't inspect the neighborhood sufficiently when we bought
> >> our lot. At the same time, we couldn't afford financially to be
> >> too picky. We like our lot and the house we built, but I'd give
> >> almost anything to live in a controlled neighborhood with
> >> manicured lawns free of children's toys, RVs, boats, nad junk, as
> >> well as the type of people who live that way.
> >
> > The type of people who live that way are real people, not plastic
> > phonies who insist on controlling everyone around them and living
> > in the most disgusting character free "neighborhood" of identical
> > little prison cells.
>
> Well, if you mean rude, crude, boorish, loud, etc., ad nauseum, then

Well, now you are taking about something entirely different and
stereotyping too. "rude, crude, boorish, loud, etc." is behavior and has
nothing whatsoever to do with having a truck, boat or RV parked at your
house. Pretty much all of my neighbors have a truck, boat or RV parked
in their driveway, and none of them are "rude, crude, boorish, loud,
etc.". I would think that you would have some perspective on the whole
stereotyping issue.

> you've definitely defined the majority of my neighbors, with the
> lucky exception of those immediately on either side of us. I wasn't
> raised that way, and I prefer not to ivde that way. Your opinion of
> me is of little interest.
>
> >> Last year we lived with a tractor trailer
> >> rig parked across the street for six months. It wasn't removed
> >> until I called the sheriff's department who cited the owner and
> >> had it towed away.
> >
> > My opinion of you has just dropped immeasurably. Only the most
> > insecure, petty little turd would complain about a neighbor's
> > truck. I guess only yuppmobiles are acceptable in your sad little
> > world.
>
> Well, Pete, that's too bad. I'm not the least bit insecure, but I
> prefer not to live among unpleasant people and surroundings.

Funny, since "unpleasant people" are those who complain about other
peoples trucks, RVs or boats, and "unpleasant surroundings" are those
where everything looks like some phony neighborhood in some 50's
advertising.

>
> >> In past years we've lived in several neighborhoods with
> >> HOAs. It was never a problem, although I do realize that some
> >> are horrendous. IF I ever have a chance to move again, you can
> >> be sure I won't make the same mistake as our last move.
> >
> > When I was house hunting, I told my agent I wouldn't consider
> > anything with a HOA, restrictions, or less than two acres. I'm
> > exceedingly happy with my neighborhood, people have RVs and boats,
> > and room to park them properly, several people have horses, etc.
> > and nobody snoops into others business.
>
> If I could afford two acres to insulate myself I would be happy, too.
> I would also welcome people who had horses, cows, chickens, or other
> animals on their property. As it is, our lot is 80 feet wide and 110
> feet deep, and one of the larger lots on our street. People here do
> not have appropriate places to park RVs or boats, or anything other
> than their primary vehicles, so the RVs, boats, rusted out cars, and
> junk litter their front yards, as do weeds as tall as mature corn.

Well, blame the lack of proper space on the developers of the area, and
the greedy city zoning folks allowing too high density development.

> We mind our own business, but we do attempt to greet people on our
> street. However, when there is either no response or a negatuve one,
> it's not very pleasant. I think you would have to be IN the
> situation to undestand it.

I've been here almost 6 years and I just barely know the neighbors on
either side of me. Outside of that, when the other folks in the
neighborhood drive by while you're out mowing the lawn or getting the
mail, they wave, and that's about it.

>
> You must be luckier than most, or at least luckier than I am.

More care in selecting where I will live. I told my agent when I was
house hunting that I would not consider anything with a HOA, CCR, or
less than 2 acres. The fact that I work from home makes these criteria
easier to meet, but I would drive a long commute rather than ever put up
with a HOA, CCR or lack of elbow room.

On May 18, 9:46*am, George Shirley > wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On May 16, 5:24 pm, brooklyn1 > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:02:29 +0100, Janet Baraclough
>
> >> > wrote:
> >>> The message >
> >> >from brooklyn1 > contains these words:
>
> >>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 02:41:49 -0400, "Paco" > wrote:
> >>>>> Building codes do not automatically equate to building permits. *If
> >>>>> work is
> >>>>> done by a licensed contractor (plumber, electrician, etc.), at the very
> >>>>> minimum, national codes must be adhered to. *State, municipal codes would
> >>>>> take precedence over national. *If a homeowner does the work, well
> >>>>> they are
> >>>>> on their own.
> >>>> This is true. *When a homeowner or other unlicenced person does an
> >>>> electrical renovation and later the house burns down due to an
> >>>> electrical fire homeowners insurance very likely won't pay...
> >>> *In the UK, if you want to sell your property, potential buyers will
> >>> demand to see proof that any
> >>> major work you did, complies with building and safety codes. If *you
> >>> can't produce the evidence, then
> >>> mortgage lenders and cash buyers alike, *may *devalue the price
> >>> accordingly, and a new insurer may refuse cover.
> >>> * *Janet.
> >> The same in the US, it's called a Full Disclosure Statement, the deed
> >> can't transfer without it. *The seller also needs to present a
> >> Certificate of Occupancy, essentially states the premises is habitable
> >> and complies with all permits. *Those who say they can do whatever
> >> they want haven't a clue or are lying.-
>
> > No CO is required in Michigan, except at initial construction. *I've
> > bought and sold houses here three times, and never saw a CO.
> > Each time was a conforming mortgage.
>
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> It varies by state and is not a national law in the US. I do a lot of my
> home repairs myself and follow the Uniform Building Code. Some people
> don't, Louisiana just adopted the UBC in the last few years and they
> still have the buyer beware attitude toward homes. I've bought two here
> in the last 22 years and both times had them inspected very thoroughly
> by an approved housing inspector firm. Turned down a couple of houses
> due to badly done repairs and/or severe problems with different things.
> In most of the US it's "Caveat emptor", "buyer beware." You might have
> no recourse if someone screws you on the deal.

Yeah, and the Full Disclosure Statement isn't worth the toilet paper
it's
printed on. The previous owner of our current house said that the
fireplace was in working order, but the steel firebox was rusted
through.
Nobody caught it during the inspections (you really had to stick your
head in the fireplace and search for it); we didn't find out until we
lit
our first fire and smelled smoke all over the house. We ended up
putting in a gas insert, so all's well that ends well. But if we were
typical clueless homeowners, we could've burned down the house
or asphyxiated ourselves.

Cindy Hamilton

On Tue, 18 May 2010 07:18:45 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> > Well, if you mean rude, crude, boorish, loud, etc., ad nauseum, then
> > you've definitely defined the majority of my neighbors, with the
> > lucky exception of those immediately on either side of us. I wasn't
> > raised that way, and I prefer not to ivde that way.
>
> I don't know why it's a stretch to imagine that some people would
> be more pleasant to live around than other people. I'm lucky so far,
> no one keeps junk on their property and while they might have a
> loud party once in a while (fine with me) they are all good neighbors.
>
The secret to being a good neighbor (I learned this during my
apartment days) is to invite the neighbors to your parties. That way
they've been warned and they have the option to attend or leave for
the evening. That strategy works beautifully and nobody has ever
complained.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

sf wrote:


> The secret to being a good neighbor (I learned this during my
> apartment days) is to invite the neighbors to your parties. That way
> they've been warned and they have the option to attend or leave for
> the evening. That strategy works beautifully and nobody has ever
> complained.

Sometimes that is a good rule of thumb, but it might depend on who your
neighbours are. I have really nice neighbours around me now but when I
first moved here we had a farmer on one side of us who was a miserable
SOB that he had several lawsuits going with other neighbours, and no one
would come if he were here. He probably would have scoffed at an
invitation anyway. Then there is the widow two doors down would
considers anyone who has even one drink to be an alcoholic. When the
miserable farmer moved out the property was bought by a family of Dutch
people, the fundamentalist christian type who don't associate with
people outside of their church. Now we have great neighbours and
everyone socializes together.

Cindy Hamilton wrote:

>On May 16, 5:24*pm, brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:02:29 +0100, Janet Baraclough
>> > wrote:
>> >The message >
>> >from brooklyn1 > contains these words:
>>
>> >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 02:41:49 -0400, "Paco" > wrote:
>>
>> >> >Building codes do not automatically equate to building permits. *If
>> >> >work is
>> >> >done by a licensed contractor (plumber, electrician, etc.), at the very
>> >> >minimum, national codes must be adhered to. *State, municipal codes would
>> >> >take precedence over national. *If a homeowner does the work, well
>> >> >they are
>> >> >on their own.
>>
>> >> This is true. *When a homeowner or other unlicenced person does an
>> >> electrical renovation and later the house burns down due to an
>> >> electrical fire homeowners insurance very likely won't pay...
>>
>> > *In the UK, if you want to sell your property, potential buyers will
>> >demand to see proof that any
>> > major work you did, complies with building and safety codes. If *you
>> >can't produce the evidence, then
>> >mortgage lenders and cash buyers alike, *may *devalue the price
>> >accordingly, and a new insurer may refuse cover.
>>
>> > * *Janet.
>>
>> The same in the US, it's called a Full Disclosure Statement, the deed
>> can't transfer without it. *The seller also needs to present a
>> Certificate of Occupancy, essentially states the premises is habitable
>> and complies with all permits. *Those who say they can do whatever
>> they want haven't a clue or are lying.-
>
>No CO is required in Michigan, except at initial construction. I've
>bought and sold houses here three times, and never saw a CO.
>Each time was a conforming mortgage.
>
>Cindy Hamilton

Like many people your mind was blank during closing... all you did is
sign wherever the attorney pointed. With new construction typically
the builder or his agent secures the CO. With resales typically the
seller or his agent (realtor/attorney) secures the CO. A copy of the
CO should be with your closing papers, like many people you probably
never looked at them. In some states the CO is called something else
but it's still essentially a CO.

Obviously you are misinformed:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dl...o_275160_7.pdf

On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:31:22 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> Sometimes that is a good rule of thumb, but it might depend on who your
> neighbours are. I have really nice neighbours around me now but when I
> first moved here we had a farmer on one side of us who was a miserable
> SOB that he had several lawsuits going with other neighbours, and no one
> would come if he were here. <snip>

If I lived out in the boonies like you and Cathy, I wouldn't bother
with the niceties. It works like a charm in closer situations though.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

sf wrote:
>
> Don't forget the governor who would not allow the car tax to go back
> to the level it should have been when the lowered rate expired. It


*shudder* Don't get me started on the governor. I can't believe how
many people bought into his, "The way to solve the states budget crisis
is to refinance the staggering amount of debt we have at the lower
interest rates around today, and then we can afford the payments," snow
job.

Samantha Hill > wrote:

>sf wrote:

>> Don't forget the governor who would not allow the car tax to go back
>> to the level it should have been when the lowered rate expired. It

>*shudder* Don't get me started on the governor. I can't believe how
>many people bought into his, "The way to solve the states budget crisis
>is to refinance the staggering amount of debt we have at the lower
>interest rates around today, and then we can afford the payments," snow
>job.

Bad as our current governer is, anyone on the Republican side
of the ballot in the upcoming gubenatorial election is going
to be far far worse.

S.

sf wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 07:18:45 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:

>> I don't know why it's a stretch to imagine that some people would
>> be more pleasant to live around than other people. I'm lucky so far,
>> no one keeps junk on their property and while they might have a
>> loud party once in a while (fine with me) they are all good
>> neighbors.
>>
> The secret to being a good neighbor (I learned this during my
> apartment days) is to invite the neighbors to your parties. That way
> they've been warned and they have the option to attend or leave for
> the evening. That strategy works beautifully and nobody has ever
> complained.

I have warned people, not actually invited them. I'm out of the loud
party business, anyway. Heh. One time I had let one neighbor know
a lot of people would be over, I guess her youngest son was in
earshot. Maybe he was 5 or so. Day of the party, all kinds of people
arriving and the doorbell rings. It's the kid next door bearing a bottle
of tonic water. My mother sent this for your party! Oh ... thanks!
Okay, that's weird. Whatever. Later I figured out he was trying to
be invited. Some people bring wine, why not tonic water? (laughing)

Some time later I thanked the neighbor for the wretched stuff.
She said I didn't send him over. And I was wondering where the
tonic water went, I was sure I had a bottle. Kids.

nancy

On Tue, 18 May 2010 18:18:52 -0400, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

> Day of the party, all kinds of people
> arriving and the doorbell rings. It's the kid next door bearing a bottle
> of tonic water. My mother sent this for your party! Oh ... thanks!
> Okay, that's weird. Whatever. Later I figured out he was trying to
> be invited. Some people bring wine, why not tonic water? (laughing)
>
> Some time later I thanked the neighbor for the wretched stuff.
> She said I didn't send him over. And I was wondering where the
> tonic water went, I was sure I had a bottle. Kids.

That *is* funny! LOL I wonder how that kid turned out as an adult?
He certainly wasn't shy and picked up on social cues.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On May 18, 4:08*pm, brooklyn1 > wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >On May 16, 5:24*pm, brooklyn1 wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:02:29 +0100, Janet Baraclough
> >> > wrote:
> >> >The message >
> >> >from brooklyn1 > contains these words:
>
> >> >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 02:41:49 -0400, "Paco" > wrote:
>
> >> >> >Building codes do not automatically equate to building permits. *If
> >> >> >work is
> >> >> >done by a licensed contractor (plumber, electrician, etc.), at the very
> >> >> >minimum, national codes must be adhered to. *State, municipal codes would
> >> >> >take precedence over national. *If a homeowner does the work, well
> >> >> >they are
> >> >> >on their own.
>
> >> >> This is true. *When a homeowner or other unlicenced person does an
> >> >> electrical renovation and later the house burns down due to an
> >> >> electrical fire homeowners insurance very likely won't pay...
>
> >> > *In the UK, if you want to sell your property, potential buyers will
> >> >demand to see proof that any
> >> > major work you did, complies with building and safety codes. If *you
> >> >can't produce the evidence, then
> >> >mortgage lenders and cash buyers alike, *may *devalue the price
> >> >accordingly, and a new insurer may refuse cover.
>
> >> > * *Janet.
>
> >> The same in the US, it's called a Full Disclosure Statement, the deed
> >> can't transfer without it. *The seller also needs to present a
> >> Certificate of Occupancy, essentially states the premises is habitable
> >> and complies with all permits. *Those who say they can do whatever
> >> they want haven't a clue or are lying.-
>
> >No CO is required in Michigan, except at initial construction. *I've
> >bought and sold houses here three times, and never saw a CO.
> >Each time was a conforming mortgage.
>
> >Cindy Hamilton
>
> Like many people your mind was blank during closing... all you did is
> sign wherever the attorney pointed. *With new construction typically
> the builder or his agent secures the CO. *With resales typically the
> seller or his agent (realtor/attorney) secures the CO. *A copy of the
> CO should be with your closing papers, like many people you probably
> never looked at them. *In some states the CO is called something else
> but it's still essentially a CO.
>
> Obviously you are misinformed:http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dl...o_275160_7.pdf

The page you pointed me to doesn't say squat about a CO at the
time a house is resold; only when it is built or altered.
My house was built in 1948; I doubt it EVER had a CO.
We've done a couple of permitted projects (new heating/air,
new water/sewer), and no CO was issued at the end of those,
either.

Learn to read, numbnuts.

Cindy Hamilton

sf wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:31:22 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> Sometimes that is a good rule of thumb, but it might depend on who your
>> neighbours are. I have really nice neighbours around me now but when I
>> first moved here we had a farmer on one side of us who was a miserable
>> SOB that he had several lawsuits going with other neighbours, and no one
>> would come if he were here. <snip>
>
> If I lived out in the boonies like you and Cathy, I wouldn't bother
> with the niceties. It works like a charm in closer situations though.

True. It's not as if we were so densely packed that even conversation is
going to disrupt their sleep. The son of our cranky (former) next door
neighbour used to have a big outdoor birthday bash in late January. They
would let us know and tell us in advance and warn us that it might be
noisy, and invited us to come. Other than the cars going in and out, I
could hardly hear it.

We used to have neighbourhood pot luck BBQs for the neighbours at least
once a year. They never went late, and since it was all neighbours, no
one had reason to complain. Our new neighbours have parties every two or
three months and always invite us. Being mostly older folks, they aren't
rowdy and don't run late.

On Wed, 19 May 2010 07:13:44 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On May 18, 4:08*pm, brooklyn1 > wrote:
>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> >On May 16, 5:24*pm, brooklyn1 wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:02:29 +0100, Janet Baraclough
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >The message >
>> >> >from brooklyn1 > contains these words:
>>
>> >> >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 02:41:49 -0400, "Paco" > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >Building codes do not automatically equate to building permits. *If
>> >> >> >work is
>> >> >> >done by a licensed contractor (plumber, electrician, etc.), at the very
>> >> >> >minimum, national codes must be adhered to. *State, municipal codes would
>> >> >> >take precedence over national. *If a homeowner does the work, well
>> >> >> >they are
>> >> >> >on their own.
>>
>> >> >> This is true. *When a homeowner or other unlicenced person does an
>> >> >> electrical renovation and later the house burns down due to an
>> >> >> electrical fire homeowners insurance very likely won't pay...
>>
>> >> > *In the UK, if you want to sell your property, potential buyers will
>> >> >demand to see proof that any
>> >> > major work you did, complies with building and safety codes. If *you
>> >> >can't produce the evidence, then
>> >> >mortgage lenders and cash buyers alike, *may *devalue the price
>> >> >accordingly, and a new insurer may refuse cover.
>>
>> >> > * *Janet.
>>
>> >> The same in the US, it's called a Full Disclosure Statement, the deed
>> >> can't transfer without it. *The seller also needs to present a
>> >> Certificate of Occupancy, essentially states the premises is habitable
>> >> and complies with all permits. *Those who say they can do whatever
>> >> they want haven't a clue or are lying.-
>>
>> >No CO is required in Michigan, except at initial construction. *I've
>> >bought and sold houses here three times, and never saw a CO.
>> >Each time was a conforming mortgage.
>>
>> >Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> Like many people your mind was blank during closing... all you did is
>> sign wherever the attorney pointed. *With new construction typically
>> the builder or his agent secures the CO. *With resales typically the
>> seller or his agent (realtor/attorney) secures the CO. *A copy of the
>> CO should be with your closing papers, like many people you probably
>> never looked at them. *In some states the CO is called something else
>> but it's still essentially a CO.
>>
>> Obviously you are misinformed:http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dl...o_275160_7.pdf
>
>The page you pointed me to doesn't say squat about a CO at the
>time a house is resold; only when it is built or altered.
>My house was built in 1948; I doubt it EVER had a CO.
>We've done a couple of permitted projects (new heating/air,
>new water/sewer), and no CO was issued at the end of those,
>either.
>
>Learn to read, numbnuts.
>
>Cindy Hamilton

You said: "No CO is required in Michigan, except at initial
construction."

Well that's simply not true... you are who can't read.

*A new building OR a building that is altered shall not be used OR
occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the
code official.*

Obviously a CO exists in MI. And any normal person would
comprehend that it needs to be presented each time the property is
transfered, not necessarilly that a new (updated) one be issued, not
if nothing was altered. That you don't remember a CO at closing
doesn't mean there wasn't one, just means you are unaware. In many
instances the CO is held by the town clerk, the realtor/attorneys
would typically request a copy rather than burdon the dumb home owner.

You obviously got caught in a lie, so like a spoiled child you resort
to name calling.

Steve Pope wrote:

> Bad as our current governer is, anyone on the Republican side
> of the ballot in the upcoming gubenatorial election is going
> to be far far worse.

The reason money is so tight is that the voters can't do math, and they
won't vote for any candidate who can.

Bob

Jill replied to Janet:

>> Back in the 60's my landlady dried her washing in the yard which was
>> the entry to our flat. She always hung out her ancient husband's
>> enormous underwear in weird contorted shapes so that it wouldn't make
>> us young ladies think about male anatomy.
>>
>> Janet

> The HOA here would frown upon such a thing. No one wants to see laundry
> flapping in the breeze. I haven't seen a clothes line since the 1970's
> and hope not to see one any time soon.

I know I'm getting in late on this thread, but this was on the Colbert
Report a week or so ago. Timely, and very funny.

"The Enemy Within -- Backyard Clothesline"

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...rd-clothesline

--Lin

Bob Terwilliger > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Bad as our current governer is, anyone on the Republican side
>> of the ballot in the upcoming gubenatorial election is going
>> to be far far worse.

>The reason money is so tight is that the voters can't do math, and they
>won't vote for any candidate who can.

And here I thought the reason money is tight is because voters
don't want to fund a system that has underfunded by $525 billion
its pension plans and health plans, until such time as said system
is totally reformed.

In other words, because the voters CAN do the math.

Steve

On May 19, 11:31*am, "Bob Terwilliger" >
wrote:
> Steve Pope wrote:
> > Bad as our current governer is, anyone on the Republican side
> > of the ballot in the upcoming gubenatorial election is going
> > to be far far worse.
>
> The reason money is so tight is that the voters can't do math, and they
> won't vote for any candidate who can.
>
> Bob

They'd rather vote for the guy who looks good on tv.

Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton > wrote:

>On May 19, 11:31*am, "Bob Terwilliger" >

>> Steve Pope wrote:

>> > Bad as our current governer is, anyone on the Republican side
>> > of the ballot in the upcoming gubenatorial election is going
>> > to be far far worse.

>> The reason money is so tight is that the voters can't do math, and they
>> won't vote for any candidate who can.

>They'd rather vote for the guy who looks good on tv.

Here's what the current edition of the Pacific Sun had to say about
the Republican contenders:

Out of the eight candidates on the Republican ballot, state
Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former eBay CEO
Meg Whitman are the two contenders for the nod. Whitman's
run a nasty and record-breakingly expensive campaign,
while billionaire Poizner has tried to paint her as a
billionaire trying to buy her way into office.well, more
of a billionaire than he, a former Silicon Valley CEO,
is anyway. It's a depressing state of affairs, indeed,
when even the multimillionaires are priced out of politics.

Poizner, 53, found little success running for Assembly
six years ago as a moderate Republican in favor of women's
choice, *** rights and the environment.so now he's reinvented
himself as an anti-***-marriage, anti-choice immigration
hardliner who has apologized for his earlier support of
Prop. 39, which would've made it easier for voters to raise
taxes in favor of school bonds. (A sad reversal, given his
admirable support for education throughout his career.)

The 53-year-old Whitman, meanwhile, has been so disinterested
in politics for so long that she didn't begin voting until
2002 (she claims that's incorrect and she distinctly
"remembers" voting once in 1984) and, according to the
Sacramento Bee, wasn't even registered as a Republican
until 2007. Listening to her dodge questions from reporters
borders on the painful (we recommend a YouTube search for
her tete-a-tete with reporters at last year's California
Republican Party Convention). So far her strategy to
improve her interview results has been to stop granting
them. Whitman's campaign platform has largely revolved
around promises to "run the state like a business." We seem
to recall George W. Bush saying that a lot.

California's long-term fiscal and political crisis can be
blamed on a lot of things.plummeting property values, a
crippling anti-property tax attitude, shameless district
gerrymandering, the list goes on. But the last time
voters put a wealthy political neophyte (yes, that's a
reference to our current governor) at the helm of such a
convoluted political structure, things went from bad to
much worse. Whitman's obvious lack of interest in politics
and avoidance of answering tough questions really does make
the charge that she's a billionaire trying to buy her way
into office ring quite true.


Steve

On Wed, 19 May 2010 10:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton wrote:

> On May 19, 11:31*am, "Bob Terwilliger" >
> wrote:
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>>> Bad as our current governer is, anyone on the Republican side
>>> of the ballot in the upcoming gubenatorial election is going
>>> to be far far worse.
>>
>> The reason money is so tight is that the voters can't do math, and they
>> won't vote for any candidate who can.
>>
>> Bob
>
> They'd rather vote for the guy who looks good on tv.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

someone said of rand paul 'He won with his father's name and somebody
else's hair.'

your pal,
blake

blake wrote:

> someone said of rand paul 'He won with his father's name and somebody
> else's hair.'

I hear that Ron Paul's brother his son Rand too. So that there wouldn't be
confusion, that guy is called Also-Rand.

Bob

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
...
| blake wrote:
|
| > someone said of rand paul 'He won with his father's name and somebody
| > else's hair.'
|
| I hear that Ron Paul's brother his son Rand too. So that there wouldn't be
| confusion, that guy is called Also-Rand.

Not Ayn Rand?

pavane > wrote:

>"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message

>| blake wrote:

>>> someone said of rand paul 'He won with his father's name and
>>> somebody else's hair.'

>> I hear that Ron Paul's brother his son Rand too. So that
>> there wouldn't be confusion, that guy is called Also-Rand.

> Not Ayn Rand?

Naming your kid after Ayn Rand. How creepy.

S.

On 5/20/2010 10:59 AM, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> blake wrote:
>
>> someone said of rand paul 'He won with his father's name and somebody
>> else's hair.'
>
> I hear that Ron Paul's brother his son Rand too. So that there wouldn't
> be confusion, that guy is called Also-Rand.

Well, is he his brother or his son? :-)

>
> Bob

dsi1 wrote:

>> I hear that Ron Paul's brother his son Rand too. So that there wouldn't
>> be confusion, that guy is called Also-Rand.
>
> Well, is he his brother or his son? :-)

Ah, good catch. I left out the word "named". The joke goes that Ron Paul's
brother NAMED his son Rand. And so forth.

Bob

On Thu, 20 May 2010 13:59:26 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> blake wrote:
>
>> someone said of rand paul 'He won with his father's name and somebody
>> else's hair.'
>
> I hear that Ron Paul's brother his son Rand too. So that there wouldn't be
> confusion, that guy is called Also-Rand.
>
> Bob

it will be interesting to see how paul does. he sounds like a sho-nuff
full-blown libertarian kook.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 21 May 2010 00:11:52 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

> pavane > wrote:
>
>>"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
>
>>| blake wrote:
>
>>>> someone said of rand paul 'He won with his father's name and
>>>> somebody else's hair.'
>
>>> I hear that Ron Paul's brother his son Rand too. So that
>>> there wouldn't be confusion, that guy is called Also-Rand.
>
>> Not Ayn Rand?
>
> Naming your kid after Ayn Rand. How creepy.
>
> S.

ron paul is a nut, but he didn't name his son after übercrank ayn rand.
his given name is randall.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul>

your pal,
dagny

In article 0>,
Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

> > City codes take care of the problems you describe. HOA's can tell
> > you what you can or can't plant in your yard, what colors your
> > house can be, etc. I'm glad we have fairly strict city codes with
> > good enforcement. and no HOA.
> >
>
> City codes work in some places and in others they are ignored by
> authorities. Clearly they are not enforced in our area.

IMHO HOA's lower property values. I'd avoid them at all costs!
They tend to way overstep their bounds.

But then, city ordinances are heavily enforced where I live and I've no
objection to that.

A good city council trumps any greedy-assed HOA's!

Welcome back Wayne. We missed you. :-)
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> We have recently decided to rid ourselves of this house and
> neighborhood and move to an upscale apartment complex in central
> Phoneix which is very close to both of our offices. Solves all the
> problems we've been concerned with.

Wow, that's a bold move. Getting rid of that killer commute
should make your lives a lot more pleasant. You could buy
another place down the road in a more enjoyable neighborhood.

nancy

On Wed, 26 May 2010 13:08:13 +0100, Janet Baraclough
> wrote:

> visit the locale in late evening at weekends

I bet that's why they're moving to that locale. It's probably near
the action... I'd certainly move downtown to be closer to shops,
theaters and restaurants.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.