property - not a report on the habits of the neighbors.
You seem to be a good-hearted and fair person. Just remember to be fair
to yourself also when filling out legal documents. Think of them like
they were tax forms - enter the facts but only the bare legal minimum.
That's too bad about the city and the shopping center. But I think all
that should have been was that deliveries are restricted by city
ordinance to certain hours.
Back to the smoking, have you thought about filing a nuisance complaint
against your the property owner next door? If the city does not enforce
it, then it will be considered a temporary issue and not an official
nuisance to be listed.
That's exactly what the ordinance required. The problem was that the
supermarket at shopping center (Winn Dixie) disregarded the ordinance
and the city would not do anything about it. It's a pain for a
supermarket to not be able to accept deliveries at their dock early in
the morning so the supermarket just ignored the rule. I think that they
could have sued the city or the supermarket but that would have been an
Not far from where I live now there's a shopping center that backs up
against a residential neighborhood. There's a gate that stays locked
until it's legal to do deliveries so the store can't violate the city
all that should have been was that deliveries are restricted by city
ordinance to certain hours.
Sorry, my fangers slipped and I messed up that reply! Lots of words got
left out. What I meant to say was....
Only mention in the disclosure "legal" nuisances. A verbal complaint is
just an allegation - and not a legal nuisance. A complaint to the city
does not make it a nuisance until the city closes that case, which is
sounds like they never did.
Again, don't bare your soul on these legal forms. Be factual but just
enter the bare minimum. Otherwise, you're just asking for trouble that
you don't deserve.
For example, let's say you spilled a bucket of water in the house but
cleaned it up quickly and no mold ever formed. So to be "honest" you
listed this on the form. I can guaranteed that the buyer will remember
this, and if they find mold inside a wall 20 years later, there's a good
chance you would be hearling from them.
Mold?? Now there is a major health threat. It makes third and fourth hand
smoke look like a walk in the garden. A neighbor down the street had a
mold problem that cost him $25k for remediation work; and that was for just
some mold in a bathroom.
Man, that mold stuff is deadly and worse than radon.
Good luck when it comes time to sell.
That's one next step, but with the HOA, not the city. I really don't
want to get into an argument with the owner of the other unit, I've
known them for many years.
I think that a solution using either fans or squirrel cage blowers,
mounted in an unobtrusive manner, is a better solution for the short
term. For the long term, we need to amend the HOA's CC&Rs to prohibit
smoking anywhere where the smoke can enter someone elses unit.
complaint against your the property owner next door?
Sounds OK on the surface, but you're opening a can of worms getting
involved with what is basically a personal problem of the tenant.
Now you have to worry about the quality of the air being brought in. Is
it filtered? Are filters being changed? Is mold growing on the filters?
Water leaks? Is exhaust being pulled in? What if the wind blow past
drain vents on the way to the fan intake?
Best to just let the tenant deal with their own problem. Later on when
you are listing the building, the smokers could be gone.
Having survived living in a very divisive, hostile, and partially
irresponsible condo assn., I would avoid doing anything about the
smoking issue that is PERSONAL....good way to start a war. If there is
anticipated support for changes, pass a bylaw that prohibits smoking on
the property, indoors or out. Of course, practical considerations come
to play.....how many smokers own units or live there, how many previous
wars have occurred, how fussy are the OWNERS and how abiding of the
rules are the OWNERS.
I'm a smoker, and I am very respectful when I smoke to avoid passing my
pollution on to the innocent breathers around, but.......on a very
practical level, a RENTER who is fussy about cig. smoke coming from 10'
away is just a tad too fussy for me, because: it almost has to be a
windless day, with the smoker outdoors all the time and smoking
constantly to get up a cloud of smoke worthy of concern. I think I'd
rather lose a renter than get involved in an ongoing war with neighbors.
Neighbor wars can get real nasty real fast. What else is going on in
the way of smoke/fumes...grills, smokers, fireplaces?
I would still vote for landscaping...a trellis with pretty flowering
vines, some upright shrubs, or something else to act as a screen. Just
a plain wood lattice cuts the breeze substantially; BTDT.
On Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:33:50 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
No, it isn't.
It's impractical, overcomplicated, unrealistic, and expensive.
Unless you completely fill the doorway with fans blowing out, some smoke wi
ll always get sucked in.
If you put the fans anywhere but in the doorway, they won't do anything but
waste energy. At 10' in open air, only a VERY LARGE fan, like 36" to 48" i
n diameter can be felt.
You think some cheap household fan is going to affect outdoor air currents?
Neither your tenants nor the smokers will approve of the noise from a large
noisy fan, and I'm sure the smokers will object to having a large noisy fa
n blowing in their face every time they smoke just as much as your tenant o
bjects to the occasional mild smoke smell they experience.
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 08:30:45 -0700 (PDT), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
It's all stupid shit. If there is no outside air movement, a small
fan will ward off the smoke. If there is outside air movement the
smoke will be highly diffused before it gets 10 feet, unless there's
some kind of negative air pressure drawing it directly in to the
It's all about detecting the slightest odor of cigarette smoke and
having a hissy fit. That's the bottom line.
There's is no cure that works on a whiner.
When the complex was built in 1983 I think that the CC&R intentionally
did not prohibit renting because the builder was worried about selling
the units. A couple of the units were not owner occupied at the
beginning, and at least one has never been owner occupied.
It it's a slum, it's a very expensive slum.
I should have sold mine at the height of the housing boom, the highest
price paid back then was about $550K. Now I could get only about $440K.
Silicon Valley is a crazy place when it comes to housing. This
particular city has also been very good about turning around its
formerly depressed downtown area, and since I bought the unit the county
has added light rail service which has boosted values.
Thanks, but I grew up in Florida and a cheap house in Florida is of no
interest to anyone that's lived in Northern California.
The house I referred to sold for so much because of its location and
because of the very highly rated public schools. Once my kids are done
with public school we can move to an area where bad schools don't matter.
On Monday, July 22, 2013 12:48:48 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Sorry if I sound preachy -- but bad schools *always* matter, sooner or late
Shouldn't we be equally concerned with "bad" schools that are turning out i
nadequately educated kids who are more likely to become anti-social, thus c
osting you & me way more more money down the road? $1.00 invested in really
good teachers saves hundreds of dollars later on in drugs, violence, priso
ns, unemployability, etc.
There have been shining examples of dedicated teachers and administrators g
oing into hell-hole schools and turning them around over time, with hard wo
rk, innovation, and administration support. Those kids go on to college on
a par with "good school" graduates and, presumably, became productive memb
ers of society.
Funny that there's so much money available for graft and corruption in our
Asian wars of choice, and for the Wall Street criminals and the climate-des
troying oil companies -- but not enough to give our kids -- ALL OUR KIDS --
a decent education.
There is actually hope that that will change as demographics change in
places like Texas and Florida and Republicans lose more power.
Historically, it takes Democratic control of the House, Senate, and
presidency for forward progress to be made on education. Right now, the
House is the impediment because their goal is basically to prevent any
progress in education (as well as in immigration, defense, jobs, health
care, etc.). It's interesting to note that Democratic house candidates
actually received more votes, nationwide, than Republicans, but because
of gerrymandered districts the Republicans are able to elect far more
representatives than their numbers would suggest.
The reason why Republicans tend to not want to improve education is very
clear, and you can't really blame them. There is very strong causation
and correlation between educational attainment and voter preference. If
you look at the states with the highest educational levels, Obama won 18
out of 20 of them in the last election. One he lost was Utah, which
makes sense considering Romney is Mormon. The other was Kansas.
Ironically, the preference of the more highly educated for Democratic
politicians is not affected by income levels.
It's self-fulfilling. More educated voters are Democratic because
Republicans keep attacking education. For example, since 1980, college
educated voters have moved from favoring Reagan to favoring Obama. The
only hope for the Republican party, if it remains controlled by the Tea
Party, is to create more dumber voters.
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 4:27:00 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
our Asian wars of choice, and for the Wall Street criminals and the climate
-destroying oil companies -- but not enough to give our kids -- ALL OUR KID
S -- a decent education.
The far-far-far Right wing of what was once a responsible Republican Party
is way ahead of you. For at least the last 40 years, maybe more -- approx
since Reagan -- the kingmakers of the GOP have been methodically dumbing do
wn the voters, on the reasonable premise that those who cannot think critic
ally are much more likely to swallow what toxic lies they are fed against t
heir own interests.
Poor school districts were starved for funding and for experienced teachers
. Rich school districts did well on voluntary contributions from affuent p
Bush's minions instituted a "No Chld Left Behind" policy (slogan stolen fro
m Marion Wright Edelman's respectable child-oriented organization) which t
ied school funding to test scores, These scores were not only easily manip
ulated by teachers/principals but contained no elements of critical thinkin
g or of knowledge about history, geography, the arts -- anything that would
help create a thinking voter.
It was working very well, with the help of the radical religious Right and
of the 5-4 Supreme Court majority that ignored Gore's gigantic popular vote
majority and awarded the (stolen) 2000 election to Bush. (Why Gore just ca
ved instead of demanding the state-wide recount that was his option, I'll n
ever know..." And the rest is history. Money that should have gone to imp
roving voters' lives went instead to our Asian wars of choice -- a giant va
cuum cleaner sucking up money and spewing it out to corrupt contractors and
a military that had no idea what they were doing in those countries.
But when the consequences of the Wall Street grand theft of 2008 began to s
ink in, some of the electorate began to wake up from their numbed slumber
(hey, that's neat -- numbed slumber!) and began to investigate why they we
re being thrown out of their jobs and homes.
It hurts a LOT that the country where I lucky enough to be born has lost it
s way. Does anybody still remember there once was Right and Wrong? That m
oney was not the measure of all things? That people counted?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.