Click Here to send this discussion to a friend
Insider deals
(by cz [or])
Feb 24, 2004 4:38 PM
RE:
Insider deals
(by CAW [OR])
Feb 24, 2004 5:06 PM
RE:
Insider deals
(by David [fl])
Feb 24, 2004 6:20 PM
RE:
Insider deals
(by saoool [MO])
Feb 24, 2004 7:01 PM
RE:
Insider deals
(by CAW [OR])
Feb 24, 2004 7:29 PM
RE:
Insider deals
(by Jeff S [MI])
Feb 24, 2004 8:02 PM
RE:
Insider deals
(by gordon [oh])
Feb 24, 2004 8:04 PM
RE:
Insider deals
(by SAM [OR])
Feb 24, 2004 9:12 PM
RE:
Insider deals
(by Eliie [IL])
Feb 25, 2004 9:13 AM
Click Here to send this discussion to a friend|
Here in Portland OR its hard to get good deals on rehab housing. This morning's paper told us why. Seems that the housing inspectors write up rundown houses, red-tag them, and before the houses are made available to the public at auction they buy them for themselves. Then they rehab the houses and sell at big profits. A councilman jumped on this and is investigating. The mayor and other councilmen see nothing wrong with this and claim he's grandstanding. They say that the inspectors are doing the city a service by improving the housing stock, so who cares? Well, I care. This reduces opportunities for me! It also raises the specter of crooked inspectors red-tagging houses that are only marginally bad. How about the rest of you Oregonians who do business in Portland, do you care? --216.239.177.113 |
|
Just as a matter of principle, I am against vice and graft in the local government. My first worry would be that they will be condemning buildings with litle reason. My second thought is that they are probably buying them for less than they would bring at auctin, so they are dipping money out of someone's pocket, the owner of the house, or the taxpayer who should be seeing that money go into the city coffers. Oh wait a monute. Isn't taking money out of someone's pocket without their permission called "theft"? The mayor had better teach herself to care whether or not her officials are stealing from the public. --216.228.163.41 |
| They burned one inspectors butt here a couple years ago for the same thing. Even the blind can see conflict of intrest in this. --24.129.53.155 |
|
There's a home here in St. Louis where the owner lost his airline job recently, is dying from cancer and has been living in another state with relatives who help take care of him. The house has been vacant for about 2 years and got in pretty bad shape (roof leaks, etc.) The city will not issue an occupancy permit has decided to bull doze the building. The owner's sister is trying to fight to save the house. The next door neighbor works for the city and wants to buy the land I smell a rat somewhere here. --65.64.152.90 |
| Unfortunately, I have not been able to see the article. The Oregonian on-line won't let you look without signing in and their privacy statement informs me that they will share my informatin with their "affiliates" . No thanks, I don't need any more spam than I already receive. --216.228.163.41 |
| Absolutely agree with David, like to see a standard agreement for all government employees that does not allow any business pursuits in the county in which they are employed (on a full time basis). Where would you draw the line, though ? A city or county employee - ok outside of the county/city ? What about state or federal employees, though ?? Any thoughts ?? --12.75.18.75 |
|
that is totally disgusting and outrageous! I myself havent heard of this sort of thing at all, but it makes sense. Thats our government working for us; always looking out for the good of the cause! gordon --65.27.150.25 |
|
Landgrab! Legalized theft... A farmer here had a plot of his land condemmed as buffer zone for endangered spotted owls. Well about 10 years later, a new high-end subdivision is blossoming on the very same plot. Seems the owls must of been "bought-out". --12.180.42.46 |
| We had a case in St louis where they condemed a resturant business that had been in business for forty years to give they land to a new business that would be better for the city. Wonder whose pockets got lined on that one. --67.64.223.57 |