On 7/23/2013 3:22 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:
<snip> > Poor school districts were starved for funding and for experienced teachers. Rich school districts did well on voluntary contributions from affuent parents.
Some districts around here get big "voluntary" contributions (Palo
Alto), but where I live the school boards put parcel taxes on the
ballot. I can only recall one of them ever failing and it was because
they a) didn't put a time limit on it (it went on forever) and b) it had
automatic increases based on inflation.
I suppose parcel taxes could be viewed as "voluntary" since you have to
vote for them and they typically pass with well over 70% of the votes
(they need a 2/3 vote to pass), but they aren't thousands of dollars per
year, just a couple of hundred dollars. Presently, there's $250 in
parcel taxes for elementary and middle schools, and $98 for the high
schools. The plus side is that they don't constantly beg parents for
money (other than for sports and extra-curricular activities).
The parcel taxes also mitigate the unfairness of California's
proposition 13. We have parents in the district that have moved into
their parent's houses and pay extremely low property taxes, under
$1000/year while sending multiple kids to public schools. We have
landlords that rent properties at extremely high rents to large families
while paying property tax rates set in the 1980's. They are subsidized
by recent residents that are paying 15-20x as much in property taxes for
similar value properties. The parcel taxes are a fixed amount, not a
percentage of the property value.
On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 8:31:10 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
If the tenants are physically able to bring the fan in, then I assume that they are physically able to go out and away from the townhouse. If they are out and away from the townhouse when it rains hard, they won't be there to bring it in.
In addition, umbrella's don't hold up very well in strong winds.
I think that particular solution is doomed to fail.
On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 8:31:10 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
Again with the cockamaimie, unrealistic, overcomplicated, nonexistent, ridi
culous solutions to a simple non-problem.
Automatic fan that senses second hand smoke and turns on to blow it away...
Your "second hand smoke detector" won't start the fan without some custom-h
acked electronic doohickeys.
Then you're going to trust your tenants to protect and maintain this expens
ive, complicated, fragile piece of gadgetry. You're going to trust them to
bring it in out of the rain. You'll be lucky if they don't haul it off to t
he pawn shop 5 minutes after you leave!
This isn't your problem to begin with. It's theirs. Recommend that they eit
her close the door or put a fan in the door if they find it so offensive.
Odds are they just caught a mere whiff of smoke once, and had a conniption
fit over it.
Frankly smoking should be illegal if anyone complains. Smoking around any child under 18 shopuld be called what it is CHILD ABUSE, and the abusers should be proscuted....
nationwide smokng is now under 20% of the population and a large hospital chain in pittsburgh UPMC so moving to make smoking during working hours a fireable offense, many companies refuse to hire smokers. they waste work time and run up health expenses....
smokng needs to die just like its killed many of its users.
I used to work in one UPMC area, mixed with Pitt university. Actually UPMC
is not part of Pitt university, so deciding who is who in that part of town
is impossible. Some say stopping everybody from smoking, will run up
medical expenses in the long run. Pa can't afford to loose 1 billion
dollars in smoke taxes. Some are complaining of loosing 100k dollars from
pa going to private booze stores. Smoking is bad for you.
On 7/17/2013 4:09 PM, gregz wrote:
<snip> > I used to work in one UPMC area, mixed with Pitt university. Actually UPMC
The decrease in smokers will have other side effects as well. Social
Security and Medicare were set up when smoking was much more common and
the average life expectancy was lower as a result. If not for the
explosion in obesity life expectancies would be even higher, resulting
in even more problems for Social Security and Medicare. I just read that
soda consumption is way down so perhaps there is some hope in a
reduction in obesity.
I talked to the owner of the unit with the problem tenants. She didn't
realize they were smokers when she rented the unit, all she said was "no
smoking in the unit." Next time she'll include "no smoking anywhere on
the property" _and_ rent only to non-smokers.
It's almost impossible for smokers to rent an apartment in a large
complex anymore, at least in California, but these townhouse units are
individually owned, and the ones that are rented out are almost always
owned by an owner that originally lived in the unit but that moved to a
single family home.
Unfortunately, the rental market is very tight in this area so renters
stay put unless they are buying a house, and since housing prices have
skyrocketed not many renters are buying. So the problem smokers are
unlikely to move on.
I don't think this particular city is likely to pass a law against
smoking in multi-family units. I may go to the next city council meeting
and suggest that they look into it.
1. This is a nuisance -- the tenants have to deal directly with the
neighbors unless there is something specific about this in their lease.
2. I know that if rain water drains from a neighbor's roof and flows
into your basement, the neighbor can usually be held responsible for
damages. Could be the same for smoke but the tenants.
3. Housing authority or local air pollution district probably has dealt
with this kind of thing before.
4. Eat 1/2 pound of raw peanuts. Wait 15 minutes. Go around to the
smokers' door or window upwind and let 'er rip.
its imporytant to disclose EVERYTHINHG, or risk getting sued by a new buyer........
while you may or may not win the legal costs shouldnt be ignored....
probably best to install AC in your unit to end the complaints
those here who dont understand the problem are almost certinally smokers..
I'm trying to imagine how much of the time said smokers are on the deck,
how much of the time on the deck they actually are smoking, and how much
of the time the conditions are right to blow sufficient smoke into the
bellyachers' unit. Good grief! I'd much rather lose a tenant than have
to listen to that crap.
Are the buildings connected? Got room for a fence with plants? I'd bet
a small sum that if the bellyachers can't SEE the smokers, they won't
smell the smoke.
Yeh. I smoke. Outdoors only. Gotta put up with a little neighbor kid
who shoots hoops all day and one who has a squeeky trampoline. And the
ones who come over and steal the snow from my driveway in the winter. :o)
What proportion of the house fires are started by DRUNK smokers?
And as with lotteries, govt. supported by bad behavior :o) This country
exists because of sugar, rum, slavery and tobacco.
Now, don't take this wrong....I'm a very polite smoker, but occasionally
like to rag the more fussy anti-smoking folks. A
matter of curiosity only, not advocating....how soon will data prove
that the surge in obesity and related conditions have affected
life-expectancy such that it shows smoking wasn't such a bad idea after
all? I had a full box of Oreos for a snack the other night, but I don't
do that often. (Last night's supper was three different cool vegetable
salads with home-grown veggies.) Don't like your tax dollars being spent
on self-induced illness of smokers? How about supporting
twenty-somethings disabled by obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes who
will be sick for a loooong time (after kidney transplant, etc). Ever
price the cost of renal dialysis? It is obscene! And kids are getting
fatter, thanks to schools that don't believe in phys. ed. and sell their
souls and soda-pop to save a few bucks.
On Friday, July 19, 2013 9:02:13 AM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
Of course, if smoking was illegal, fewer people would die from smoking related illnesses, further burdening an already troubled Social Security system.
It's a good thing that obesity is on the rise. That should offset the reduction in smoking related deaths.
reduction in smoking related deaths.
I read a fascinating article that I wish I had bookmarked that basically
said that if you go back 30 years and look at all the financial and
sociological predictions, they all turned out pretty far off the mark.
Anyone saying today they know what will happen in 2043 is basically blowing
smoke. (Hey, that makes its on-topic for this thread!)
I suspect by the time the dreaded "SS" collapse is scheduled to occur that
the "playing field" will be so radically different that predictions made
today just won't be accurate. Considering 9/11 and the 2008 collapse and
how few prognosticators considered anything like them, I think they were
right. What's the old saying (slightly modified)? "Life is what happens
when you were making plans/predictions."
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.