|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Apr 14, 2015 13:33:51 GMT -6
Mm, in your dairy dream world, where is the 69.7% poverty rate population going to get a well paying job & crawl out of the entitlement cycle? Mostly by getting the hell off of drugs, and going to work. It is no different than if you always make excuses for your kids and crutch them. Sooner or later you had better kick them in theassand let them learn to fly, or starve.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Apr 15, 2015 7:35:53 GMT -6
Does anyone have a link to the $750/day? I was pretty sure the City had some fee (like $200?) for registering a vacant home. Then they had to come up with some kind of approved action plan to try to get it habitable. There is an annual fee and if you get it ready to be lived in again it is subject to an inspection.(and more $) All of that stuff I think is a little too much to begin with, but where on Earth is a $750 daily fine? THAT is way over the top! Is it really WORSE to have vacancies than homes filled with out of town section 8 residents? We have our own problems, do we really need Rockford's, Chicago's, or any others? Well maskedman, you claim that my talking has been excessive regurgitation that you are tired of hearing. How many times do you think I posted a photo of the City's vacant building on Main Street saying that it is unfair that the City refuse to follow the ordinance that they push on others? Didn't I talk enough about the $750.00 per day fines (with each day being a separate occurrence) and it forcing people to dump their properties lowering values here even more? Did you just not believe me and think I was making it up, or did my detractors making claims that I am a crazy, illegal, and attacking my family cloud the waters to keep you from seeing clearly years ago that it was indeed way over the top? Here is the link you asked for: www.ci.streator.il.us/documents/VacantBuildingRegis_20111208114217.pdfYou will find the $750.00 per day (with each day being a separate occurrence) fines in Section L. Please note that it says the $200 registration fee is annual and on the 5th page you will see the $500.00 inspection fee. Please also note the wide and loose criteria that the individuals at City Hall allowed themselves to determine who they want to push it on. The action plan (as you call it) must also be approved by them. The penalties apply to anything they find on their inspection not being corrected or the plan not being acceptable to them or not being followed and naturally they can put liens on the property for them. Basically they use the threat of fines to force people to dump their properties no matter how low the offers are, instead of correcting the problems keeping them empty (like giving a requirement to keep a business out that doesn't follow our laws and making business owners illegal and subject to fines if "all" of the snow is not removed from the sidewalk). If people aren't buying buildings and there are only very low ball offers, but the City is threatening their $750.00 daily fines, wouldn't people just be forced to take a major loss (lowering everyones values) or be tickling the nose of the dragon? It has created a situation where commercial buildings sell for as low as $10,000.00 to bring a used plywood store and other properties(liabilities) have been donated to the City and taken off tax rolls. I have been saying for many years that they need to start doing things differently, and used their vacant building ordinance as an example many times. However, some people seem to only hear what they want to hear. Is this where people start claiming again that I am mentally ill?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Apr 15, 2015 8:52:58 GMT -6
I couldn't open the link, error on my part most likely, troubles with my reader. So does the ordinance deal with residences or commercial buildings? Have they ever actually levied it against anyone? Is it in there only as a last ditch effort to get someone to move on a troublesome property? YES, there are some excessive fees. I wonder if they could limit and impose fees on Section 8 Units instead. They are pretty profitable and oftentimes the Landlords live out of town. Since they live out of town, they really don't care how it impacts the people that live here. They just know it is a cash cow. Maybe the City should set about a way to get some of THAT Milk. If it shut down that industry here in town, would it be such a bad thing? I believe it is for commercial and residential and obviously they have used the threat of those fines to force people to dump their properties and lower values here just to avoid being burnt by the dragon.
|
|
|
Post by ironeagle on Apr 16, 2015 11:39:52 GMT -6
She had one person that was willing to pay 10 grand however we had to wait on him to get the cash. Then the city comes along with their code enforcement letter saying she had 10 days to either sell it or come up with everything the city wanted. My mother lives in assisted living and I am on ssdi the insurance the city delanded was 900 a year since the fire bug has been out. So she had to take a very lowball offer.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Apr 18, 2015 12:04:51 GMT -6
Does anyone have a link to the $750/day? I was pretty sure the City had some fee (like $200?) for registering a vacant home. Then they had to come up with some kind of approved action plan to try to get it habitable. There is an annual fee and if you get it ready to be lived in again it is subject to an inspection.(and more $) All of that stuff I think is a little too much to begin with, but where on Earth is a $750 daily fine? THAT is way over the top! Is it really WORSE to have vacancies than homes filled with out of town section 8 residents? We have our own problems, do we really need Rockford's, Chicago's, or any others? Well maskedman, you claim that my talking has been excessive regurgitation that you are tired of hearing. How many times do you think I posted a photo of the City's vacant building on Main Street saying that it is unfair that the City refuse to follow the ordinance that they push on others? Didn't I talk enough about the $750.00 per day fines (with each day being a separate occurrence) and it forcing people to dump their properties lowering values here even more? Did you just not believe me and think I was making it up, or did my detractors making claims that I am a crazy, illegal, and attacking my family cloud the waters to keep you from seeing clearly years ago that it was indeed way over the top? Here is the link you asked for: www.ci.streator.il.us/documents/VacantBuildingRegis_20111208114217.pdfYou will find the $750.00 per day (with each day being a separate occurrence) fines in Section L. Please note that it says the $200 registration fee is annual and on the 5th page you will see the $500.00 inspection fee. Please also note the wide and loose criteria that the individuals at City Hall allowed themselves to determine who they want to push it on. The action plan (as you call it) must also be approved by them. The penalties apply to anything they find on their inspection not being corrected or the plan not being acceptable to them or not being followed and naturally they can put liens on the property for them. Basically they use the threat of fines to force people to dump their properties no matter how low the offers are, instead of correcting the problems keeping them empty (like giving a requirement to keep a business out that doesn't follow our laws and making business owners illegal and subject to fines if "all" of the snow is not removed from the sidewalk). If people aren't buying buildings and there are only very low ball offers, but the City is threatening their $750.00 daily fines, wouldn't people just be forced to take a major loss (lowering everyones values) or be tickling the nose of the dragon? It has created a situation where commercial buildings sell for as low as $10,000.00 to bring a used plywood store and other properties(liabilities) have been donated to the City and taken off tax rolls. I have been saying for many years that they need to start doing things differently, and used their vacant building ordinance as an example many times. However, some people seem to only hear what they want to hear. Is this where people start claiming again that I am mentally ill? In regards to the Mushro property, what would you feel better if the city fined itself and took the $750 out of their left pocket and put it in their right pocket? Would you feel better if they spent taxpayer money to tear it down, and turn it into a green area or maybe a couple of parking spots? Personally I think the front of it looks better than the wall adjacent to it. The back could use some work, but at least the side that is seen the most doesnt look that bad. You keep wanting people to be scared of this $750 a day fine. Really this fine would only affect the people who want to be slum landlords. A good person who is looking to move here, is probably going to make sure the building is safe and structurally sound, so the fine wont affect them anyway. The seller may consider it a low ball offer, but why would someone want to pay more for a property, and then have the ewxpense of bringing up to standards? Once again, if you have a smaller or no fine at all, that will only attract the slum landlords. At a fine, of maybe $25 a day, you might not want to fix that roof right away, but at $750 a day, fixing that roof would be more of a priority for an owner to invest in his property. I would think the city would rather try to scare an owner into keeping his property up to date, rather than collecting the fine, court costs, etc, associated with trying to make some of these people pay. I also couldnt find it in the ordinance, but I think if you pay the $200 yearly fee, that also allows you not to pay for sewer service which is $30-40 a month, so that ends up being a wash. In this $10,000 building, did they get fined before they sold it? Even is it is a used plywood store, isnt there at least a business using what was previously an unused building?
|
|
|
Post by seaturtle43 in hostile forum on Apr 18, 2015 12:16:49 GMT -6
I believe it says up to $750 fine so doesn't mean it would necessarily start out at that amount. Wondering if the green apartment house over on 3rd avenue is getting fined? It's still sitting there since the fire and the owner has only boarded up the windows. burnt stuff still sitting around on the ground . it's dangerous with all the kids around the neighborhood.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Apr 18, 2015 19:22:33 GMT -6
Well maskedman, you claim that my talking has been excessive regurgitation that you are tired of hearing. How many times do you think I posted a photo of the City's vacant building on Main Street saying that it is unfair that the City refuse to follow the ordinance that they push on others? Didn't I talk enough about the $750.00 per day fines (with each day being a separate occurrence) and it forcing people to dump their properties lowering values here even more? Did you just not believe me and think I was making it up, or did my detractors making claims that I am a crazy, illegal, and attacking my family cloud the waters to keep you from seeing clearly years ago that it was indeed way over the top? Here is the link you asked for: www.ci.streator.il.us/documents/VacantBuildingRegis_20111208114217.pdfYou will find the $750.00 per day (with each day being a separate occurrence) fines in Section L. Please note that it says the $200 registration fee is annual and on the 5th page you will see the $500.00 inspection fee. Please also note the wide and loose criteria that the individuals at City Hall allowed themselves to determine who they want to push it on. The action plan (as you call it) must also be approved by them. The penalties apply to anything they find on their inspection not being corrected or the plan not being acceptable to them or not being followed and naturally they can put liens on the property for them. Basically they use the threat of fines to force people to dump their properties no matter how low the offers are, instead of correcting the problems keeping them empty (like giving a requirement to keep a business out that doesn't follow our laws and making business owners illegal and subject to fines if "all" of the snow is not removed from the sidewalk). If people aren't buying buildings and there are only very low ball offers, but the City is threatening their $750.00 daily fines, wouldn't people just be forced to take a major loss (lowering everyones values) or be tickling the nose of the dragon? It has created a situation where commercial buildings sell for as low as $10,000.00 to bring a used plywood store and other properties(liabilities) have been donated to the City and taken off tax rolls. I have been saying for many years that they need to start doing things differently, and used their vacant building ordinance as an example many times. However, some people seem to only hear what they want to hear. Is this where people start claiming again that I am mentally ill? In regards to the Mushro property, what would you feel better if the city fined itself and took the $750 out of their left pocket and put it in their right pocket? Would you feel better if they spent taxpayer money to tear it down, and turn it into a green area or maybe a couple of parking spots? Personally I think the front of it looks better than the wall adjacent to it. The back could use some work, but at least the side that is seen the most doesnt look that bad. You keep wanting people to be scared of this $750 a day fine. Really this fine would only affect the people who want to be slum landlords. A good person who is looking to move here, is probably going to make sure the building is safe and structurally sound, so the fine wont affect them anyway. The seller may consider it a low ball offer, but why would someone want to pay more for a property, and then have the ewxpense of bringing up to standards? Once again, if you have a smaller or no fine at all, that will only attract the slum landlords. At a fine, of maybe $25 a day, you might not want to fix that roof right away, but at $750 a day, fixing that roof would be more of a priority for an owner to invest in his property. I would think the city would rather try to scare an owner into keeping his property up to date, rather than collecting the fine, court costs, etc, associated with trying to make some of these people pay. I also couldnt find it in the ordinance, but I think if you pay the $200 yearly fee, that also allows you not to pay for sewer service which is $30-40 a month, so that ends up being a wash. In this $10,000 building, did they get fined before they sold it? Even is it is a used plywood store, isnt there at least a business using what was previously an unused building? I don't think they should ever have a building that looks as bad or is as unsafe as that building. For them to keep a building in that condition and then force others to dump their buildings under the threat of the $750.00/day fines is just wrong in my opinion. You say that a good person would make sure the building is safe. Are you saying then with their unsafe building that our City are not good people? If they wanted others to jump through hoops, they should have been willing to do the same for their property instead of letting it be a safety hazard eyesore bringing down property values in the area. They were using the threat of the $750.00/day fines to force people to take big losses dumping their properties and all it was doing in my opinion was lowering property values even more and attracting more undesirable people here. I think they should correct the problems that have been making the good people want to leave and do more to try to help property owners fill the vacancies instead of trying to penalize them for having them empty.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Apr 19, 2015 8:52:17 GMT -6
They were using the threat of the $750.00/day fines to force people to take big losses dumping their properties and all it was doing in my opinion was lowering property values even more and attracting more undesirable people here. How many people have actually been forced to sell their properties at big losses? Is that the way you got your property? Did you buy it cheap and then upgrade it to acceptable standards? Did you not make use for a once vacant building? Didn't you take advantage of lower property values to buy a 3 story building? If you think it attracts more undesirable people here, do you consider yourself undesirable? I don't know for the life of me why you stay here. You have no business here anymore, you have no theater to manage here. Your job is out of town now.Your family doesn't live here and they don't want to live here. You don't like the way the town is being run. Why don't you just let the bank take back your building, cut your losses and move on. It doesn't make sense to continue to pay for a building you don't utilize.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Apr 20, 2015 9:15:21 GMT -6
They were using the threat of the $750.00/day fines to force people to take big losses dumping their properties and all it was doing in my opinion was lowering property values even more and attracting more undesirable people here. How many people have actually been forced to sell their properties at big losses? Is that the way you got your property? Did you buy it cheap and then upgrade it to acceptable standards? Did you not make use for a once vacant building? Didn't you take advantage of lower property values to buy a 3 story building? If you think it attracts more undesirable people here, do you consider yourself undesirable? I don't know for the life of me why you stay here. You have no business here anymore, you have no theater to manage here. Your job is out of town now.Your family doesn't live here and they don't want to live here. You don't like the way the town is being run. Why don't you just let the bank take back your building, cut your losses and move on. It doesn't make sense to continue to pay for a building you don't utilize. Is there any way of really knowing how many people received their verbal threats of the $750.00 daily fines? Obviously there were some that were. I saw that real estate prices were negatively impacted by people becoming more desperate to dump their properties after the ordinance was enacted in 2010. Since I bought my building in 2007, I don't think there is any way of linking me to any receiving any benefit from the ordinance. Did it really do anything to benefit much of anyone here? It certainly didn't stop us from continuing to have a dilapidated, safety hazard, eyesore bringing down values in our downtown, did it? I'll be very happy to elaborate about my opinions of an influx of undesirable people that I feel their ordinance has promoted. I bought a building here at the worst possible time. Who would have known that the real estate market would come crashing down so hard nationally and then our City leaders would enact such damaging legislation just as the market was starting to recover other places? My family worked very hard to make something of our building. I wouldn't consider us to be undesirable people, but obviously our City leaders did seem to think we were. I feel that houses selling for only $6,000 is a slumlords paradise. The severe lack of people wanting to buy the houses for their families to live in, creates a situation where many more of them get purchased for rental units with minimal investments. The supply exceeding the demand creates lower rents than many other areas and seems to attract more people who seem to be more willing to take an easier way to survive than working hard(as my family was). It seems to me that this has created a situation of there being more people coming here who are willing to steal from others, sell drugs, participate in shoot outs, etc. To be clear though, I do not see everyone who may want to take advantage of lower real estate prices here, or without the means of supporting a more expensive residence, as being undesirable. I have much respect for any hard working people, but little respect for those who are so unwilling to follow our laws. I feel that their ordinance has been attracting too much of the latter. I don't understand what makes you think it is any of your business how much I utilize my building, but I was just there most of last week while working in the area. Don't worry, you will probably see me utilizing it more in the near future. Of course I don't have any theatre to manage in Streator. Streator can't even seem to support a theatre anyways, since it appears that bar violence has won out over family entertainment. I am hoping that our City leaders will keep working to change that though. Let the bank take the building back? Are you really serious? Is that way you do things? Do you really think that it is better to walk away and not live up to your obligations than to stick it out and ask for better from your government that is supposed to be "for the people"? If you don't like hearing about the positive changes that I want for our community, why don't you just walk away?
|
|
|
Post by dog on Apr 20, 2015 9:47:11 GMT -6
Let the bank take the building back? Are you really serious? Is that way you do things? Do you really think that it is better to walk away and not live up to your obligations than to stick it out and ask for better from your government that is supposed to be "for the people"? I am totally serious. I think in your case, it would be the best thing for you to do financially. Although I have never had to do it, I think bankruptcy is the best option. It is endorsed by the government and they have laws to protect a person filing for bankruptcy. Since you don't care what others think of you, and there isn't a lot of stigma attached to bankruptcy anymore, utilize the tool that the government has given you. You couldn't get your family to stick it out, and stay and fight with you, what makes your think they would move back in a few years IF things change?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Apr 20, 2015 22:57:44 GMT -6
Let the bank take the building back? Are you really serious? Is that way you do things? Do you really think that it is better to walk away and not live up to your obligations than to stick it out and ask for better from your government that is supposed to be "for the people"? I am totally serious. I think in your case, it would be the best thing for you to do financially. Although I have never had to do it, I think bankruptcy is the best option. It is endorsed by the government and they have laws to protect a person filing for bankruptcy. Since you don't care what others think of you, and there isn't a lot of stigma attached to bankruptcy anymore, utilize the tool that the government has given you. You couldn't get your family to stick it out, and stay and fight with you, what makes your think they would move back in a few years IF things change? I think it is pathetic that you pretend that caring about what is best for me is your motive for suggesting defaulting on obligations. It is even more pathetic that you pretend to have any idea of what would be best for me financially. How do you even think it is any of your business? You do realize that there are victims from defaulted mortgages and your acceptable "tools", don't you? I don't see harming others as being so acceptable. Because you don't like to hear me talk about the problems and positive changes that I want to see for a community that I have a lot invested into, is certainly no reason for me to even consider doing what you suggest. If you really just don't want to hear about the positive changes I would like for our community, maybe you should burn whatever bank you want, file bankruptcy, walk away from your investments, and move on, because I'm not.
|
|
|
Post by mommytoo4 on Apr 21, 2015 1:50:33 GMT -6
I am totally serious. I think in your case, it would be the best thing for you to do financially. Although I have never had to do it, I think bankruptcy is the best option. It is endorsed by the government and they have laws to protect a person filing for bankruptcy. Since you don't care what others think of you, and there isn't a lot of stigma attached to bankruptcy anymore, utilize the tool that the government has given you. You couldn't get your family to stick it out, and stay and fight with you, what makes your think they would move back in a few years IF things change? I think it is pathetic that you pretend that caring about what is best for me is your motive for suggesting defaulting on obligations. It is even more pathetic that you pretend to have any idea of what would be best for me financially. How do you even think it is any of your business? You do realize that there are victims from defaulted mortgages and your acceptable "tools", don't you? I don't see harming others as being so acceptable. Because you don't like to hear me talk about the problems and positive changes that I want to see for a community that I have a lot invested into, is certainly no reason for me to even consider doing what you suggest. If you really just don't want to hear about the positive changes I would like for our community, maybe you should burn whatever bank you want, file bankruptcy, walk away from your investments, and move on, because I'm not. He has no issue with his business, yours on the other hand was horrible, you charged for a pill box, the same one you can get free at streator drugs, your store stunk, it had a horrible smell and The prices you wanted were insane, I got a brand new dresser at curleys for the same price you wanted for a beat up piece of junk, second hand stores are for the poor, ya you weren't even in that realm!
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Apr 21, 2015 7:30:37 GMT -6
I think it is pathetic that you pretend that caring about what is best for me is your motive for suggesting defaulting on obligations. It is even more pathetic that you pretend to have any idea of what would be best for me financially. How do you even think it is any of your business? You do realize that there are victims from defaulted mortgages and your acceptable "tools", don't you? I don't see harming others as being so acceptable. Because you don't like to hear me talk about the problems and positive changes that I want to see for a community that I have a lot invested into, is certainly no reason for me to even consider doing what you suggest. If you really just don't want to hear about the positive changes I would like for our community, maybe you should burn whatever bank you want, file bankruptcy, walk away from your investments, and move on, because I'm not. He has no issue with his business, yours on the other hand was horrible, you charged for a pill box, the same one you can get free at streator drugs, your store stunk, it had a horrible smell and The prices you wanted were insane, I got a brand new dresser at curleys for the same price you wanted for a beat up piece of junk, second hand stores are for the poor, ya you weren't even in that realm! I didn't run a retail store. Does it make you feel good to attack my son's business because you don't like to hear me talk about the positive changes that I want for my community? I really doubt that you would have liked his business no matter how low his prices were, considering that he wasn't going to allow you to watch grown men urinate in there. There were a lot of people who did like his store. It was voted Second Best Resale Shop by the Times readers. He wasn't trying to have it be a typical second hand store catering to the poor. He would get many people trying to drop off the trash left over from their yard sales, etc.(maybe Capncrunch/emachines will tell what they tried bringing in for him to sell), but was trying to encourage his consignors to bring items that still had value to make it more upscale. Many people did find some good name brand clothing that they were happy to pay his prices for. If you wanted a store catering to the poor, maybe you should have shopped somewhere else. If you think you have a better business model, then there are many, many vacancies here for you to show how you can run a store for the poor. He had no problem making the business work, was paying his bills and making profit. The reason that he left was not because the business that he built could not make it, he just did not want to stay in a place where the City leaders declared business owners illegal for doing what the City recommended without giving them their rights, where they selectively enforced overly restrictive ordinances, and where business was stopped with a requirement that does not even follow our laws. Although his business was still doing well enough to pay the bills, seeing how negatively their illegal declaration impacted his sales figures, the feeling that he should be doing better and would be if he weren't in such a vindictive City really destroyed his desire to stay here. After he left, he did keep the store open for quite a while, but it became increasingly more of a hassle to run from a far. The point that I was trying to make is that maybe dog should just mind his own business. I have every right to talk about the positive changes that I want for my community. Just because he doesn't want to hear what I have to say is absolutely no reason why I should walk away from my investment here and default on loans. If he doesn't want to hear what I have to say and doesn't have the self control to just not read it, that is his problem, not mine.
|
|
|
Post by capncrunch on Apr 21, 2015 11:10:05 GMT -6
What are the ordinances on vacant, old, businesses, like where Medo King building, on the corner of Lundy and Powell st. Also there is a house on Lundy street that has been vacant for at least 14 to 15 years, that I know of, What will the city do with that? There is a lot of vacant buildings in this town, and has been for years, and the city has not done nothing with, until either some one complains or catches on fire.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Apr 21, 2015 11:44:11 GMT -6
The point that I was trying to make is that maybe dog should just mind his own business. I have every right to talk about the positive changes that I want for my community. Just because he doesn't want to hear what I have to say is absolutely no reason why I should walk away from my investment here and default on loans. If he doesn't want to hear what I have to say and doesn't have the self control to just not read it, that is his problem, not mine. I have not said you dont have the right to talk about positive changes. I stated many reasons why you should walk away, silencing you is NOT one of them. It saddens me that people who used to view you as a positive influence in Streator, consider you a negative influnce now. People raved about how good of a job you did at the Majestic. They felt bad for you when you basically got kicked out of the Majestic. People said you were good for the community.Now they think of you as a whiner and trouble maker. I try to get you to change your approach to create positive change and rebuild your reputation, but you continue on the same path.
|
|