Not a posted subject but in the news (trial), who in the f**k looks at a picture of a burned up child (from the Kobe Bryant wreck trial)? It makes me sick to my stomach what society has become
Guest
Anonymous
August 16, 2022 6:00 pm
As if family court was not bad enough, that list of candidates for Dept A is an absolute mess.
Lynn has always been stand up with me, has an even temper and I think would be better than most currently on the bench.
Guest
Anonymous
August 16, 2022 6:03 pm
OK, I get resistance to tiny homes for the homeless if it's based on fire safety or something like that. But bulldozing homes for the homeless on an empty lot because it's zoned for 1200 sq foot houses is just cruel, counterproductive and absurd.
I watched video and was not persuaded by the music or Spears. Did the volunteer who built structures have permission from landowner to build them? Did he get the necessary permits to build the structures? What if one of them had caved in on one of the homeless and injured or killed the person? Who is liable? The fact is almost all of the homeless want to be homeless so they can continue using drugs and/or alcohol. That is why they do not want to go to homeless shelters because they are required to stop using and get cleaned up. A homeless person is not subject to any rules, regulations or social norms. They are completely free. Yes they are subject to arrest at any moment, but typically they are out of custody within 30 days and go back to living their free life.
@12:49 – I sincerely hope you suffer some terrible life event that turns your entire world upside down. Your comment is awful and uninformed. You deserve no sympathy, no consideration, no grace.
The volunteer was the landowner. The Conestoga huts are built with a minimum of materials. The front and rear are essentially plywood sandwiches with insulation and 2x4s giving them form. The top is flexible insulation panels attached to wire framing. There's not much to collapse, and it provides greater insulation and better protection from the elements than a tent. They attempted to provide shelters in the form of trailers, and the police deemed the trailers "abandoned" and towed them away.
Drug addiction and homelessness doesn't have to be a death sentence.
I applaud the intent of the landowner. I really do. But you can't expect to built a bunch of shacks that don't meeting building code and residential code standards and expect the city to just allow it. To me it's not even the zoning issue. Zoning codes can be changed, pieces of property are rezoned all the time. But building/residential codes are in place for a reason and that's the safety of the public. Since this is a law blog let's get to what you would do if you were advising the City once they knew this had been built? That would've been huge liability for the City if someone got hurt out there.
Hi 1:39 PM, I would bet you that the people interviewed for the tv piece are all addicts or have mental health problems that they refuse to get treatment. I do not believe any story of a normal person or family that all of sudden lost their home and are now homeless. There are always family, friends, churches and/or organizations that they would go to to get help and keep them off the streets until they get back on their feet. You put yourself out there as if you are full of sympathy, consideration and grace. If that were true, then you would find out who those people were that lost these shacks and offer your home to them. That would show all of us how much sympathy, consideration and grace you have.
2:12 – I looked for it, and maybe I just missed it, but I didn't see any reference to any code violation or safety issue. The sole explanation from the city that I saw was zoning. So we'd rather have an empty lot than provide housing for the homeless that happens to be more dense than single-family housing.
I'm not an expert on municipal liability, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a legal risk to the city. The city has discretion as to how to use its limited resources and isn't legally obligated to prioritize bulldozing people's homes to enforce zoning, right?
2:24 that is not a viable argument. It is not the role of individuals to go out into the street and take in homeless people. Here, a group and a property owner tried to provide some measure of shelter and security to homeless folks and the city bulldozed their efforts because the city clearly thinks homeless folks being exposed to the elements and defecating in alleyways is better than being housed on someone's private property with the property owner's permission. And just because you don't believe people can just be homeless with no safety net does not mean that is not how a whole lot of americans live. You're demonstrating your privilege. I'd suggest you spend some time volunteering for the homeless; not serving turkey once or twice a year, but actually volunteering for them, long term.
The article indicates that the landowner was the one who built the homes in question. The legal issues posed above regarding liability, permitting, etc. could have been remedied by, at worst, evicting the tenants while negotiating a solution which includes the necessary tenant waivers, zoning variances, permits, penalties, city ordinances, etc.
Conservative tax activists for years have argued that if you want to give money to the government, nothing prevents you from doing that. Evicting the tenants and destroying the structures themselves is not only economic waste, but also a waste of taxpayer dollars. Setting aside the demolition costs, the private landowner chose to use his land to shoulder the economic burden of housing people who otherwise would be jailed for vagrancy with their stay financed by the taxpayer. So the government has apparently decided that it was more important to spend taxpayer money sending a particular kind of message to individuals who chose to adopt a more free-market approach to altruism and use their land to advance that chosen purpose.
Perhaps the government was concerned that if projects like this were permitted to continue, large numbers of needy people could be easily compressed into similarly small areas which, in the aggregate, might eventually alter the outcome of local elections. But the image of a government using taxpayer money to destroy shelters of human beings who otherwise have none is, to me at least, the best argument for why the outcome of those elections should change anyway.
2:56 – how could the City evict tenants? The City controls land development and build structures through building, fire, and zoning codes, not tenancy.
When the water is gone, the allocation is irrelevant. California is the biggest user, and I think AZ agriculture is right up there. And of course we have to allow downstream users in Mexico water to sustain their agriculture.
But Yes, allowing the construction of huge new tracts of homes is unacceptable in this drought, and irresponsible on the part of the County Commissioners.
Housing is not the problem. It uses very little water and what it does use is nearly all recaptured. Get rid of farming in Utah and AZ, and this problem largely goes away. There is enough water for residential, but not farming in the desert. And certainly not the flood irrigation that many currently use.
Do not forget getting rid of farming in Imperial Valley, California. For anyone who has been to that county, it is desert and a sinkhole. The dead Salton Sea is there for heaven's sake. Imperial County is the worst county in California. We should offer to sell the place to Mexico and let them annex the whole thing. I believe Spanish is the primary language there anyway,
Agreed housing is not the problem. Our population has exploded as our water consumption has decreased. The problem is farming and lawns. Getting SoCal on board with lawn removal will be a critical next step for overall CO river consumption.
Lawn removal is ridiculous, regardless of whether the law bans nonfunctional "greenbelts" or goes further and asks homeowners to part with residential grass. There is plenty of food products being farmed, in California and other states, which require more water than their worth – almonds, pistachios, and walnuts all come to mind…
Lawn removal is not ridiculous. Lawns be thirsty. While some ag uses use a lot of water it at least produces food and jobs. Lawns that are not part of a backyard or park/recreational setting require a huge amount of water for not much benefit. And I'm not talking forced lawn removal in residential settings. Governments haven't required that, probably for good reason because people will lose their ever-loving minds if the gubment tried to take their lawn.
But getting rid of stupid grass areas around businesses and on major arterial roadways, and even offering cash for grass if people want to voluntarily remove their lawn would be a huge savings.
No offense intended but getting rid of farming is stupid. Where to you think your vegetables come from? Most of the produce for the entire US comes from CA, AZ and Mexico.
Guest
Anonymous
August 16, 2022 7:38 pm
Help! I am representing a tenant in a lease dispute in which the lease contains an AAA arbitration clause. The cost of AAA arbitration will exceed the monetary value of the dispute. Does anyone have any advice on avoiding arbitration, (the arb clause is boiler plate not on a separate page and without a separate signature or initial). Given that NRS 597.995 has largely been overruled by our Sup Ct. in favor of the Federal Arbitration Act, is there any way to keep the case in Court?
File in District Court. Make them enforce. If they do move to dismiss, file a countermotion to stay pending arbitration. Or tell your client that they made their bed and now get to lie in an extremely expensive dispute and hope that there is an attorneys fees clause.
James Dean Leavitt will be great. He entered to run against Gall, withdrew, then entered for vacant Villani seat, then withdrew and entered to run against Gall again. Poor guy can’t make a decision. Does he even practice anymore? I thought he was really messed up from the attempted suicide.
5:03 – what is cruel? Asking if he was messed up from the attempted suicide or the filing and withdrawing from races? All of the are simply facts. My heart goes out to him and his family that he felt that was the best option. It is sad when people are in dark places and feel death is the only escape.
If what I am saying is cruel, then you are in store for a lot of anger in life.
If both sides feel that AAA arbitration is too expensive, the parties can waive it. The question is one of gamesmanship. Will both parties agree that it is too expensive, or will someone play brinksmanship?
I agree that your best bet is to simply file in District Court and see if the other side moves to enforce arbitration.
Practice top: If you say that it is too expensive for you to be able to arbitrate, your opponent will not.
Guest
Anonymous
August 17, 2022 12:05 am
File your complaint in district court along with a motion for TRO on any of your equitable claims. Within the TRO motion, preemptively argue that the arbitration provision within the lease is unenforceable as a result of being unconscionable and that the tenant had no ability to truly understand the consequences of the arbitration provision or have the ability to negotiate. If you do not have any equitable claims, use such arguments in your opposition to any attempt by the landlord to enforce the arbitration provision. There is decent case law on how to argue unconscionability against arbitration provisions.
Guest
Anonymous
August 17, 2022 1:10 am
#freetheaaaclause
#freebonniebulla
#freeaaaauto
Guest
Anonymous
August 17, 2022 1:45 am
Surprised I cried at the end of Better Call Saul. Quality show.
Not a posted subject but in the news (trial), who in the f**k looks at a picture of a burned up child (from the Kobe Bryant wreck trial)? It makes me sick to my stomach what society has become
As if family court was not bad enough, that list of candidates for Dept A is an absolute mess.
IMO, Lynn Hughes would do a good job. The rest are……I don't have words. I do, but I am trying to keep it PG.
IMO,. Lynn Hughes would be lousy
Who put their names in? I am also no on Lynn Hughes
Lynn has always been stand up with me, has an even temper and I think would be better than most currently on the bench.
OK, I get resistance to tiny homes for the homeless if it's based on fire safety or something like that. But bulldozing homes for the homeless on an empty lot because it's zoned for 1200 sq foot houses is just cruel, counterproductive and absurd.
Amen
I watched video and was not persuaded by the music or Spears. Did the volunteer who built structures have permission from landowner to build them? Did he get the necessary permits to build the structures? What if one of them had caved in on one of the homeless and injured or killed the person? Who is liable? The fact is almost all of the homeless want to be homeless so they can continue using drugs and/or alcohol. That is why they do not want to go to homeless shelters because they are required to stop using and get cleaned up. A homeless person is not subject to any rules, regulations or social norms. They are completely free. Yes they are subject to arrest at any moment, but typically they are out of custody within 30 days and go back to living their free life.
Utah kinda proved otherwise, until they lost their nerve.
@12:49 – I sincerely hope you suffer some terrible life event that turns your entire world upside down. Your comment is awful and uninformed. You deserve no sympathy, no consideration, no grace.
The volunteer was the landowner. The Conestoga huts are built with a minimum of materials. The front and rear are essentially plywood sandwiches with insulation and 2x4s giving them form. The top is flexible insulation panels attached to wire framing. There's not much to collapse, and it provides greater insulation and better protection from the elements than a tent. They attempted to provide shelters in the form of trailers, and the police deemed the trailers "abandoned" and towed them away.
Drug addiction and homelessness doesn't have to be a death sentence.
I applaud the intent of the landowner. I really do. But you can't expect to built a bunch of shacks that don't meeting building code and residential code standards and expect the city to just allow it. To me it's not even the zoning issue. Zoning codes can be changed, pieces of property are rezoned all the time. But building/residential codes are in place for a reason and that's the safety of the public. Since this is a law blog let's get to what you would do if you were advising the City once they knew this had been built? That would've been huge liability for the City if someone got hurt out there.
Hi 1:39 PM, I would bet you that the people interviewed for the tv piece are all addicts or have mental health problems that they refuse to get treatment. I do not believe any story of a normal person or family that all of sudden lost their home and are now homeless. There are always family, friends, churches and/or organizations that they would go to to get help and keep them off the streets until they get back on their feet. You put yourself out there as if you are full of sympathy, consideration and grace. If that were true, then you would find out who those people were that lost these shacks and offer your home to them. That would show all of us how much sympathy, consideration and grace you have.
2:12 – I looked for it, and maybe I just missed it, but I didn't see any reference to any code violation or safety issue. The sole explanation from the city that I saw was zoning. So we'd rather have an empty lot than provide housing for the homeless that happens to be more dense than single-family housing.
I'm not an expert on municipal liability, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a legal risk to the city. The city has discretion as to how to use its limited resources and isn't legally obligated to prioritize bulldozing people's homes to enforce zoning, right?
2:24 that is not a viable argument. It is not the role of individuals to go out into the street and take in homeless people. Here, a group and a property owner tried to provide some measure of shelter and security to homeless folks and the city bulldozed their efforts because the city clearly thinks homeless folks being exposed to the elements and defecating in alleyways is better than being housed on someone's private property with the property owner's permission. And just because you don't believe people can just be homeless with no safety net does not mean that is not how a whole lot of americans live. You're demonstrating your privilege. I'd suggest you spend some time volunteering for the homeless; not serving turkey once or twice a year, but actually volunteering for them, long term.
The article indicates that the landowner was the one who built the homes in question. The legal issues posed above regarding liability, permitting, etc. could have been remedied by, at worst, evicting the tenants while negotiating a solution which includes the necessary tenant waivers, zoning variances, permits, penalties, city ordinances, etc.
Conservative tax activists for years have argued that if you want to give money to the government, nothing prevents you from doing that. Evicting the tenants and destroying the structures themselves is not only economic waste, but also a waste of taxpayer dollars. Setting aside the demolition costs, the private landowner chose to use his land to shoulder the economic burden of housing people who otherwise would be jailed for vagrancy with their stay financed by the taxpayer. So the government has apparently decided that it was more important to spend taxpayer money sending a particular kind of message to individuals who chose to adopt a more free-market approach to altruism and use their land to advance that chosen purpose.
Perhaps the government was concerned that if projects like this were permitted to continue, large numbers of needy people could be easily compressed into similarly small areas which, in the aggregate, might eventually alter the outcome of local elections. But the image of a government using taxpayer money to destroy shelters of human beings who otherwise have none is, to me at least, the best argument for why the outcome of those elections should change anyway.
2:26 – you missed it.
2:56 – how could the City evict tenants? The City controls land development and build structures through building, fire, and zoning codes, not tenancy.
3:05, more specifically I meant pressure to force the landowner to evict the tenants. Which in and of itself is the most drastic solution.
If Nevada will lose 8% of its Colorado River water allocation in 2023, then Nevada needs to reduce it's housing market by 8%.
When the water is gone, the allocation is irrelevant. California is the biggest user, and I think AZ agriculture is right up there. And of course we have to allow downstream users in Mexico water to sustain their agriculture.
But Yes, allowing the construction of huge new tracts of homes is unacceptable in this drought, and irresponsible on the part of the County Commissioners.
Housing is not the problem. It uses very little water and what it does use is nearly all recaptured. Get rid of farming in Utah and AZ, and this problem largely goes away. There is enough water for residential, but not farming in the desert. And certainly not the flood irrigation that many currently use.
Do not forget getting rid of farming in Imperial Valley, California. For anyone who has been to that county, it is desert and a sinkhole. The dead Salton Sea is there for heaven's sake. Imperial County is the worst county in California. We should offer to sell the place to Mexico and let them annex the whole thing. I believe Spanish is the primary language there anyway,
Agreed housing is not the problem. Our population has exploded as our water consumption has decreased. The problem is farming and lawns. Getting SoCal on board with lawn removal will be a critical next step for overall CO river consumption.
Lawn removal is ridiculous, regardless of whether the law bans nonfunctional "greenbelts" or goes further and asks homeowners to part with residential grass. There is plenty of food products being farmed, in California and other states, which require more water than their worth – almonds, pistachios, and walnuts all come to mind…
Lawn removal is not ridiculous. Lawns be thirsty. While some ag uses use a lot of water it at least produces food and jobs. Lawns that are not part of a backyard or park/recreational setting require a huge amount of water for not much benefit. And I'm not talking forced lawn removal in residential settings. Governments haven't required that, probably for good reason because people will lose their ever-loving minds if the gubment tried to take their lawn.
But getting rid of stupid grass areas around businesses and on major arterial roadways, and even offering cash for grass if people want to voluntarily remove their lawn would be a huge savings.
No offense intended but getting rid of farming is stupid. Where to you think your vegetables come from? Most of the produce for the entire US comes from CA, AZ and Mexico.
Help! I am representing a tenant in a lease dispute in which the lease contains an AAA arbitration clause. The cost of AAA arbitration will exceed the monetary value of the dispute. Does anyone have any advice on avoiding arbitration, (the arb clause is boiler plate not on a separate page and without a separate signature or initial). Given that NRS 597.995 has largely been overruled by our Sup Ct. in favor of the Federal Arbitration Act, is there any way to keep the case in Court?
Huh? I have no idea what you're saying 🙂 I'm glad I just do franchise law and sit in my office all day, but I wish you well in finding your answer
Your best bet is just to file and see if they actually move to enforce the clause. They probably wont if its a small claims thing.
Agree 100 with 102pm. I always file and force them to elect it.
Unfortunately, this case requires a court of general jurisdiction, so I need to be in District Court.
File in District Court. Make them enforce. If they do move to dismiss, file a countermotion to stay pending arbitration. Or tell your client that they made their bed and now get to lie in an extremely expensive dispute and hope that there is an attorneys fees clause.
If its equitable relief you are seeking, then definitely file first then fight the Arb Motion.
If it is arbitration, preempt Allf. She likes everyone but the famous to arbitrate
James Dean Leavitt will be great. He entered to run against Gall, withdrew, then entered for vacant Villani seat, then withdrew and entered to run against Gall again. Poor guy can’t make a decision. Does he even practice anymore? I thought he was really messed up from the attempted suicide.
434,are you that cruel? Guess so
5:03 – what is cruel? Asking if he was messed up from the attempted suicide or the filing and withdrawing from races? All of the are simply facts. My heart goes out to him and his family that he felt that was the best option. It is sad when people are in dark places and feel death is the only escape.
If what I am saying is cruel, then you are in store for a lot of anger in life.
Wow,you are an asshole. I thought you were little Elana,but you are worse . I feel sorry for your horse 🐎
since when do we get to use emojis on here? this is an exciting development
I like the horse emoji. #saveryder
If both sides feel that AAA arbitration is too expensive, the parties can waive it. The question is one of gamesmanship. Will both parties agree that it is too expensive, or will someone play brinksmanship?
I agree that your best bet is to simply file in District Court and see if the other side moves to enforce arbitration.
Practice top: If you say that it is too expensive for you to be able to arbitrate, your opponent will not.
File your complaint in district court along with a motion for TRO on any of your equitable claims. Within the TRO motion, preemptively argue that the arbitration provision within the lease is unenforceable as a result of being unconscionable and that the tenant had no ability to truly understand the consequences of the arbitration provision or have the ability to negotiate. If you do not have any equitable claims, use such arguments in your opposition to any attempt by the landlord to enforce the arbitration provision. There is decent case law on how to argue unconscionability against arbitration provisions.
#freetheaaaclause
#freebonniebulla
#freeaaaauto
Surprised I cried at the end of Better Call Saul. Quality show.
New license plate – BYELIZ
You make license plates.
haha that was a good comeback to my BYELIZ
In Nov 2020, I got a BYEDON license plate. Now do you see how lame your comment was?