Pages

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Excuse Me...Please Take out the Earplugs during public hearings!!!

UPDATE: The City Council tabled this at the Council session after several councillors voted for it unanimously in committee. So... thank god... this is a dead issue.  It turns out the council did WAKE UP! I suppose the committee members had to vote the way they did to satisfy their constituents.  Gunshots throughout the day in your front yard is not a good way to live. I still maintain there are already laws for this and the police should have the tools they need, except dollars! Where are the additional cops in the schools and communities we were promised? Have they been hired?

--------- Original Post ------------

Never thought I'd say this, but Lynn Item got me the info I needed before the blogs. I subscribe to the online edition of the actual paper which updates a little before midnight each night. Tonight, I am very happy of my decision to give the hack paper $10 a month.  They did a very good job of reporting this story.

Phelan!!! Listen up.. Your council is wearing ear plugs during public hearings. At least, I think that's what's going on. What else would explain the blatant disregard and promotion of homelessness that went forward at the City Council meeting tonight.

The city council gave the slumlords of Lynn, carte blanche... to evict whoever they choose, whenever they choose.  I believe (I will wait for the Lynnhappens posting or reading the law myself) that a landlord can now evict an entire building including legal abiding citizens if they deem the activity in that building to be unlawfull.... drug activity and/or weapons (undefined).

I'm all for reducing crime in the City of Lynn. Promoting Homelessness is not the way to do it. City Council, WAKE UP!  Crime fighting is best left to the Lynn Police Department, not the Landlords of Lynn. Oh wait....you guys are landlords....Hmmm???

I've never been angrier at a decision made by this body since Cyr's Commandments for Public Access taping. Surprise, surprise.... Cyr's behind this too!

 Voters of Lynn... are you listening? Watch the taping on lynnhappens.com. I personally, cannot wait!!!
-Corey

22 comments:

  1. For all of you getting evicted, check here http://www.mass211.org/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anyone in this position should read
    http://www.masslegalhelp.org/housing/legal-tactics1/chapter13-evictions.pdf.

    The section on "Evictions for Drug-Related or Other Unlawful Activity" explains exactly what rights you have if your landlord tries to take possession of your apartment (skipping over the eviction process) because of drug allegations. It has excellent tips and strategies on exactly how to fight the eviction (what to say in court, what kind of evidence to collect on your own behalf, etc.) and on how to at least delay for more time before you move out of the apartment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I recorded two committees plus the Council last night. The videos will be up by 3-4pm today due to the extended processing and upload time.

    The Ordinance Committee Hearing is one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No one is going to be getting evicted .....
    The city can pass whatever ordinance they want. State and Federal laws will out weight it. State and federal laws will protect people if an eviction like this were ever to happen. Do you know how hard it is to evict someone in Mass? (for any reason)
    Currently there are laws that allow landlords to evict people for criminal activity. The hard part is getting proof of the activity, going to court and getting a judge to agree to the eviction. This is process for people engaged in the illegal activity. The ACLU would have a field day if someone tried to evict a tenant for living next door to a criminal.
    I'm still trying to figure out the purpose of the ordinance...
    maybe it sets a "tone" that illegal activity will not be tolerated? Perhaps the "fear" of an eviction will make residents report criminal behavior? Lots of crimes are unreported since victims are scared.

    Landlords who buy property in the areas where crime is present are not all slumlords. Some are, some are not. They are providing affordable housing to those who need it most. I know of landlords and property managers who have in the past tried to keep up buildings just to have the occupants trash them,litter them,& not pay rent etc... Most property managers/landlords go in with good intentions but are slowly exhausted from the lifestyles these people live and simply give up! (They cannot control who the single mom on section 8 moves into the apartment or who the father of her next child will be...or if her son or daughter is a gang banger etc.) So many factors are beyond their control. It starts with educating the people who live these lives and in these communities to change. It starts with helping prior criminals with jobs and housing so they are not reentering society with no opportunities!
    The police are the best ones left to fighting crime.
    It will be interesting to see where this ordinance goes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Condos. What are they going to do about them? Many owners and property managers?
    What about bank owned houses?

    The more I think about this the more of a mess it seems to be.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm separating my thoughts here between Drug users and Drug Pushers.

    I am all for punishing the Drug Pushers.
    does the unlawful activity occur mostly at a Drug Pushers dwelling or a Drug Users? A Drug Pusher would have the money to find another place to live.
    Isn't there plenty evidence on Drug Pushers, but the authorities do not take action right away because they try to build their cases for extended jail time?

    are there more drug users than drug pushers?
    some are one in the same to support their habit. would we then worry about the whole world getting evicted?
    Would this cause more dealings to occur in public places? good-bad? easier arrests?

    Its those who can't help themselves I hope to survive.

    ReplyDelete
  7. this would also evict unlawful acts of those using their dwellings as a brothel as well?

    and again. i don't believe in the eviction of innocent people of an entire building for suspicions. The source needs to be pinpointed.

    what about hardworking parents or responsible people who have a troubled child or troubled relative living with them?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm tired of the Lynn Item using ear plugs too.

    i like how anyone can comment on your blog, without review/ approval/ denial

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous et. all- Can we please stop laying so much blame on single mothers? There are plenty of people who end up screwed up born to married couples. Let's just as a collective stop using the term "single mothers" as an interchangeable term for "bad lifestyles". Instead, let's acknowledge just how very, very difficult it is to raise a child, and give them some credit. If Roe vs Wade is overturned, there are going to be many more single mothers than there are now, so let's just get used to the fact that men don't always, and can't always, help raise a child. That doesn't make the woman a bad person, and doesn't mean she should stop looking for a different life partner with whom to create a family.

    I know plenty of single mothers who are doing fantastic jobs raising their children. Not only that, but it's also pretty insulting to lump all women who don't have partners together and use the term in a negative connotation. Some have lost their husbands tragically, others have been abandoned by their partners. Please don't disparage- just one more way women can be marginalized.

    Please, just stop.

    And as far as the housing issue, women and children who are displaced will feel the brunt of this if it comes to pass, sadly. If you get convicted, you get evicted from public housing. I do believe Section 8 should have the same rules- not sure what the rules currently are.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What does any of this have to do with Rowe vs Wade or is this just another chance for you to spout your liberal views?

    Yes some women have lost their husbands to tragedy but the majority of them make bad decisions leaving them to raise their kids alone. And sadly many of them do it over and over again at the cost of their children. Get your facts straight!


    Think about it.
    Its a town ordinance.
    No one is going to be evicted.

    Does Mass make sure they all have a nice warm hotel room waiting?

    ReplyDelete
  11. oh, boy, go back to the item. they miss you. You are actually quite wrong. You should look at the facts, I've been studying them for years. Mrs. Palin would surely disagree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And who have you been "studying for years"?

    I sure hope you are not referring to a group of humans. Your statement reflects that you are "studying a group of primates or birds". I feel this statement is a poor choice of words to describe a member of the human or animal species. Word choice can hurt feelings and I feel your comment was insensitive. Please stop, just stop!

    ReplyDelete
  13. The preceding subject was "facts", which is what the following pronoun, "them" would be in reference to...

    I'm curious to know which of the thoughts I proposed was liberal. When did valuing human life and supporting those who chose life become liberal?

    ReplyDelete
  14. funny... my head is spinning trying to follow which anonymous is which or if there is more than 2 in the arguement

    ReplyDelete
  15. i question the same...

    who or what have you been studying for years?

    I have a study too, called ... friends.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anyone who would like to look further into this can read the U.S. census on custodial parents in the U.S. There are less single parents living in poverty than there are fully employed single parents (by far), and the majority of single parents have one child.

    Anyway, the point was to stop using generalized, misleading language to describe or make reference to, a group of people in a manner that is derogatory.

    ReplyDelete
  17. why should you subject a study to a person.

    what is your point? you're being vague

    ReplyDelete
  18. Turns out the council has tabled this. Our Ward 5 Councilor to the rescue. I will blog more about this later, but Mr. Crighton did the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Not sure how this got removed. I looked and it was in my draft folder. Sorry about that. It's back now! You may continue to conversation if you wish. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  20. I hope your enjoying yourself. Please get your facts straight. They might have their faults, but nobody on the city council would have anything to do with evicting inncent people.None of them, like them or not, would want to do any of the things you are claiming. Please get your facts straight. Then you will be bettor able to continue your crusade to ruin the reputations of some good people.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I believe that is why the City Council tabled this? The ordinance committee listened to everyone object for the reasons I listed above, they then voted unanimously to adopt the ordinance anyway. Did that not happen? The City Council then later tabled it which I have blogged about as well. Which facts do I not have straight. You can contact city hall for full text of the ordinance. I'd post it here, but I don't know if that's allowed?

    -Corey

    ReplyDelete
  22. When I wrote this, I was relying on the Item's reporting. I won't do that again. They messed with the facts and timeline of all of this as you will see in my follow up post regarding Crighton.

    ReplyDelete

Search This Blog

Web Analytics