Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;811402]"Sex offenders and perpetrators of some violent crimes would not be covered."

Anthony was convicted of three counts of providing false information to the police - not a sex offense or violent crime. Apparently, under the law as proposed, she would not need to disclose that. Sorry, she is a perfect example of why I should be able to say "Nope".[/quote]

This.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

JoeRedskin -- Exactly. She was convicted of providing false information to the police. Is that enough of a crime for you to not rent your apartment? People give false information to the cops constantly. She was acquitted of other charges.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=Daseal;811415]JoeRedskin -- Exactly. She was convicted of providing false information to the police. Is that enough of a crime for you to not rent your apartment? People give false information to the cops constantly. She was acquitted of other charges.[/quote]

Yup. Damn straight. You provide false info to the police? [I]AND[/I] are convicted of it? You're someone who would risk jail time to tell a lie? How can I believe anything you say?

"People give false information to the cops constantly"?? And are convicted for it? So I should [I]have to[/I] do business with convicted liars? Sorry - I generally don't give false informatiion to the police. Do you? Further, I generally try not to hang out with/or around people that would put me in a situation that require me to lie to the police. When looking for people to do business with, I look for those same qualities.

You don't see the problem in doing business with people convicted of deceitful behavior?

You are free to employ her, rent to her or otherwise trust her to behave responsibly and reliably. I, however, believe I can find someone more trustworthy on whom to risk my and my family's economic well being.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[url=http://www.ktvu.com/news/28586520/detail.html]SF To Shutter Courtrooms; Lay Off 200 Workers - News Story - KTVU San Francisco[/url]

but hey, let's protect the ex-cons... :doh:

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;811418]Yup. Damn straight. You provide false info to the police? [I]AND[/I] are convicted of it? You're someone who would risk jail time to tell a lie? How can I believe anything you say?

"People give false information to the cops constantly"?? And are convicted for it? So I should [I]have to[/I] do business with convicted liars? Sorry - I generally don't give false informatiion to the police. Do you? Further, I generally try not to hang out with/or around people that would put me in a situation that require me to lie to the police. When looking for people to do business with, I look for those same qualities.

You don't see the problem in doing business with people convicted of deceitful behavior?

You are free to employ her, rent to her or otherwise trust her to behave responsibly and reliably. I, however, believe I can find someone more trustworthy on whom to risk my and my family's economic well being.[/quote]

Your action and that of many is nothing more than collusive mob justice. She has no choice but to leave the country.

Ultimately, whether through tax incentives or other means society will pay.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

Fine. Buy a house, rehab it, and rent it to her. I promise not to stop you.

Society "pays" for everything. Sometimes it gets a good return on its investment, sometimes not.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

This on the heels of a recent Supreme Court ruling that California must release some 30,000 prisoners within the next two years due to overcrowding. The court ruled the overcrowding constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

[url=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcolorlines.com%2Farchives%2F2011%2F05%2Fsupreme_court_demands_california_release_prisoners.html&ei=x-YlTuDOB-Wz0AGIifHFCg&usg=AFQjCNGyPXBtlfyXYwmAJGRS0QNgIgI6nw&sig2=96hbKgKrqK4jmA7x22ekIQ]Supreme Court Demands California Release 30,000 Inmates - COLORLINES[/url]

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

There is a problem with making people second class citizens. Where do they live? If they can't rent an apartment, they will probably move into some guys house in the suburbs....or worse, they will pitch a tent in the woods and operate off the grid. You can't constantly kick the can. Eventually, these people need homes and gainful employment.

As far as I'm concerned ether lock someone up, or let them be free. Don't make them live like an animal, otherwise they will act like one.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=polywog;832916]There is a problem with making people second class citizens. Where do they live? If they can't rent an apartment, they will probably move into some guys house in the suburbs....or worse, they will pitch a tent in the woods and operate off the grid. You can't constantly kick the can. Eventually, these people need homes and gainful employment.

As far as I'm concerned ether lock someone up, or let them be free. Don't make them live like an animal, otherwise they will act like one.[/quote]

I'm guessing you don't own rental property. I do and got tired of fixing up the apartments after some ass hole trashed MY property. I started doing back ground checks and things improved 100%. The people making out in my case are the lower income people who play by the rules but just don't make allot of money.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=polywog;832916]There is a problem with making people second class citizens. Where do they live? If they can't rent an apartment, they will probably move into some guys house in the suburbs....or worse, they will pitch a tent in the woods and operate off the grid. You can't constantly kick the can. Eventually, these people need homes and gainful employment.

As far as I'm concerned ether lock someone up, or let them be free. Don't make them live like an animal, otherwise they will act like one.[/quote]

If the government wants landlords to rent out rooms to felons, then they should be responsible for giving the landlords incentive to do such a thing. What landlords risk every time they rent out to a tenant is a "bad" tenant who does not pay or damages/destroys the property. Landlords want to minimize that risk and hence do credit checks and background checks.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=firstdown;832961]I'm guessing you don't own rental property. I do and got tired of fixing up the apartments after some ass hole trashed MY property. I started doing back ground checks and things improved 100%. The people making out in my case are the lower income people who play by the rules but just don't make allot of money.[/quote]

You guessed wrong.

I have rented in very bad neighborhoods. I get rid of folks when they don't pay, and quick! The problem has to be dealt with. Like I said earlier, you can't just kick the can and send these people out to the edge of town to fly under the radar. You just end up with more crime and people who feel slighted by the government.

None of these solutions make me happy - there is only a lesser of evils.

Lots of ways for me to pick a good tenant. One is to make sure they have a drivers licence. Another is to check their credit. Also, I go to their current house to "sign something" and I see how they live.

A simple letter to the "actual" owner of the house that they currently rent [and not their [I]lying[/I] relative] is like gold.

Also, I want a copy of their current bills. That is always telling. :)

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

FD you're a walking contradiction. you don't want the Govt to tell anyone what to do. but being in the ins business its OK for them to tell people they must have car insurance? i guess its like rules suck, unless i can benefit from them

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=dmek25;833059] i guess its like rules suck, unless i can benefit from them[/quote]


Apply that to the rest of the country, and now you understand why we are in the shape we are in. People don't give a crap what the government does until it affects them.

Re: S.F. weighs protecting ex-cons seeking homes, jobs
 

[quote=dmek25;833059]FD you're a walking contradiction. you don't want the Govt to tell anyone what to do. but being in the ins business its OK for them to tell people they must have car insurance? i guess its like rules suck, unless i can benefit from them[/quote]

In Va you don't have to carry car ins. Get your facts right and I don't believe I ever said that I'm for a state forcing people to buy car ins. To be honest there are more then enough people that want car Ins for me to worry about someone who only buys something because the state forces them to buy ins. I don't need or want their busniss.