T1B

Interesting news out of Ann Arbor MI, that bastion of freedom.

http://www.michiganreview.com/a2-city-c ... -1.1654668

They should work on banning porch monkeys.

Wolfman wrote:Interesting news out of Ann Arbor MI, that bastion of freedom.

http://www.michiganreview.com/a2-city-c ... -1.1654668

So don't move to Ann Arbor.

What do your CC&Rs prohibit?

As usual you missed the point Mikey. If you've ever seen some of that "student housing" you'd know that porch couches are the least of the issues.

Wolfman wrote:As usual you missed the point Mikey. If you've ever seen some of that "student housing" you'd know that porch couches are the least of the issues.

Funny how when you post one of your always engrossing links without making any point at all I, as usual, miss the point that you didn't make.

Why do you GARA about Ann Arbor, MI anyway? Aren't there any recent liberal-inspired outrages in your own neighborhood for you to get on your soapbox about this week? You really had to search a wide radius to come up with this one.

Seems to me that one of the "points" of the article was that a major impetus of the ban on porch couches was actually because the council thinks they're ugly. So, I think my previous question was pretty relevant:

What kind of shit do your local CC&Rs prohibit? Why aren't you bitching about the lack of freedom in your own neighborhood?

Do you think your HOA would allow you to keep a raggedy mildewed old sofa in your front yard without telling you to cease and desist?

When I lived in Henderson, NV, in a nice neat subdivision they didn't allow, among other things:

• Vehicles parked on the street for more than one night.
  Inoperable vehicles parked anywhere, even in your driveway.
  Clotheslines. Even in your back yard, for Christ's sake.

I had a '69 Mercury Marquis with significant sentimental value parked in my driveway. I rarely drove it but it was definitely operable. Apparently some of the crotchety retired assholes that seemed to permeate the neighborhood and had nothing better to do than walk around noting violations and bitch all the time (remind you of anybody around here?) didn't like it there. The day the registration expired I got a letter telling me to move it or I would be assessed a penalty by the HOA.

Of course some of those guys would park their motorhomes on the street for weeks at at time with no consequences at all.

And clothselines? You could dry a pair of jeans outside in the summer in about 10 minutes vs. an hour or more in the dryer, but no you can't have a clothesline. I stuck one in a 5 gallon bucket of cement and moved around on the patio until you couldn't see it from anywhere outside my yard. A lot of stuff got dried on that line.

Mikey wrote:I stuck one in a 5 gallon bucket of cement and moved around on the patio until you couldn't see it from anywhere outside my yard. A lot of stuff got dried on that line.

Scofflaw

Smackie Chan wrote:

Mikey wrote:I stuck one in a 5 gallon bucket of cement and moved around on the patio until you couldn't see it from anywhere outside my yard. A lot of stuff got dried on that line.

Scofflaw

It's how I roll. Totally impulsive. Throw all caution to the wind.

My OL thinks I'm REALLY crazy for doing outrageous stuff like that.

Your OL should tell you to get the point. The rules and regs in my community are not at issue here. I lived in a college town fore many years and saw first hand how college students are allowed to be crammed in to older houses that are not up to safety code and are indeed fire traps. Hardly a winter goes by in those towns that you don't read about fires and fatalities. The POINT is that the powers that be in Ann Arbor should concern themselves more about things like fire safety than a couch on a porch. Get it now ?

Wolfman wrote: The POINT is that the powers that be in Ann Arbor should concern themselves more about things like fire safety than a couch on a porch. Get it now ?

Since it took you three tries to actually express a point, you really can't fault Mikey for missing your point.

It's really a simple concept. Throw up a link, offer your thoughts on the matter and open the thread to discussion. People may not miss what you are trying to say if you actually say it. I'm willing to accept that you may be a reasonably bright man, but your inability to apply the simplest rules of conversation make you look like a fucking idiot.

Wolfman wrote:Your OL should tell you to get the point. The rules and regs in my community are not at issue here. I lived in a college town fore many years and saw first hand how college students are allowed to be crammed in to older houses that are not up to safety code and are indeed fire traps. Hardly a winter goes by in those towns that you don't read about fires and fatalities. The POINT is that the powers that be in Ann Arbor should concern themselves more about things like fire safety than a couch on a porch. Get it now ?

Yea, that will happen soon.

Ann Arbor is just like any other college town. The slumlords are the ones who run the town. It was the same way in Geneseo when I was there. It wasn't until two different rented fraternity houses were burnt to the ground, killing two students, both caused by piss poor wiring that the village thought it necessary to take action. Their solution? They condemned a couple of houses, ordered repairs in a few more and a year later they stopped giving a shit.

The real problem is that 19-20 year old kids, who often have no experience whatsoever are making decisions on where to rent based on concerns that have nothing to do with "will this place burn to the ground or not?" Which is why the real solution to the problem of student rental policies is for the college to require that students live on campus or with their parents. Of course that won't fly because the college would have to invest HUGE cash upfront to build enough dorms to house 4 full classes.

BSmack wrote:Which is why the real solution to the problem of student rental policies is for the college to require that students live on campus or with their parents. Of course that won't fly because the college would have to invest HUGE cash upfront to build enough dorms to house 4 full classes.

:facepalm:


You've lost it dude.


In all sincerity... get help.

If you disagree Dins, pull away from the bong long enough to bash out a semi coherent thought. Don't bore me with your cryptic bullshit.

BSmack wrote:Of course that won't fly because the college would have to invest HUGE cash upfront to build enough dorms to house 4 full classes.

I see what you mean.

Sort of like what they're doing at UC Irvine. Except the the University didn't have to put up the cash. They've been building privately owned and run student housing on campus. My daughter, a senior, is renting a private bedroom in a furnished 4 bedroom apartment with nice amenities. It's brand freaking new. When we moved her in I was ready to rent one myself.

BSmack wrote:Which is why the real solution to the problem of student rental policies is for the college to require that students live on campus or with their parents. Of course that won't fly because the college would have to invest HUGE cash upfront to build enough dorms to house 4 full classes.

You're forgetting no one wants to live on campus.

Soviet Luis Obispo Muni code has bans the same furniture since 1995. According to the code the reason is because:
17.17.010 Purpose.
The quality of life in this city is tied to the character and conditions of its neighborhoods. The purpose of these property maintenance standards is to protect the appearance, integrity and character of the community. (Ord. 1277 § 2 Ex. A, 1995)

What a crock of shit. Fucking nazi's.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

BSmack wrote:Which is why the real solution to the problem of student rental policies is for the college to require that students live on campus or with their parents. Of course that won't fly because the college would have to invest HUGE cash upfront to build enough dorms to house 4 full classes.

You're forgetting no one wants to live on campus.

So what? Like kids are going to pass up a U of M education just because they have to live on campus? I doubt it.

But like I said, my idea will never happen anyway.

BSmack wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

BSmack wrote:Which is why the real solution to the problem of student rental policies is for the college to require that students live on campus or with their parents. Of course that won't fly because the college would have to invest HUGE cash upfront to build enough dorms to house 4 full classes.

You're forgetting no one wants to live on campus.

So what? Like kids are going to pass up a U of M education just because they have to live on campus? I doubt it.

But like I said, my idea will never happen anyway.

Good thing, because it's fucking ridiculous. You're talking about young adults who should probably have some say about where they live and how much they pay for it. Your idea sounds like an early introduction to the nanny-state.

Rack Gobbles McTubesteak.

Goober McTuber wrote:Good thing, because it's fucking ridiculous. You're talking about young adults who should probably have some say about where they live and how much they pay for it. Your idea sounds like an early introduction to the nanny-state.

You could look at it that way. In which case, it would be preparing them for the real world.

BSmack wrote:You could look at it that way. In which case, it would be preparing them for the real world.

You're kidding, right?

Screw_Michigan wrote:

BSmack wrote:You could look at it that way. In which case, it would be preparing them for the real world.

You're kidding, right?

The nanny state is all around us. Might as well get the kids used to it.

Then they came on the couch and left it on the porch.

BSmack wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

BSmack wrote:You could look at it that way. In which case, it would be preparing them for the real world.

You're kidding, right?

The nanny state is all around us. Might as well get the kids used to it.

Yeah, lay back and enjoy it, you pussy. Bobby Knight would be so proud.

Goober McTuber wrote:

BSmack wrote:The nanny state is all around us. Might as well get the kids used to it.

Yeah, lay back and enjoy it, you pussy. Bobby Knight would be so proud.

I don't see you doing anything to change it. So fuck off.

BSmack wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

BSmack wrote:The nanny state is all around us. Might as well get the kids used to it.

Yeah, lay back and enjoy it, you pussy. Bobby Knight would be so proud.

I don't see you doing anything to change it. So fuck off.

That's your answer? Really? Just get on your knees and offer up the other cheek.

You have no idea how I vote. I've never cc:d you in on any letter I sent to my congressmen. You don't see anything because you're fucking blinded by your own partisanship. Choke on nanny's sour breast milk, bitch.

Goober McTuber wrote:
You have no idea how I vote. I've never cc:d you in on any letter I sent to my congressmen. You don't see anything because you're fucking blinded by your own partisanship. Choke on nanny's sour breast milk, bitch.

You're arguing with the guy that essentially said:

"Yeah, my guy won...Wars? Deficit? Wage deflation? Didn't you hear me? I said, my guy won. Neener-neener."

Goober McTuber wrote:You have no idea how I vote. I've never cc:d you in on any letter I sent to my congressmen. You don't see anything because you're fucking blinded by your own partisanship. Choke on nanny's sour breast milk, bitch.

Oh do tell. It beats debating a cipher.

BSmack wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

BSmack wrote:You could look at it that way. In which case, it would be preparing them for the real world.

You're kidding, right?

The nanny state is all around us. Might as well get the kids used to it.

Fuck yeah...no sense in trying to prepare them to think that they have to be responsible for themselves..just keep reminding them that the government and the nanny state will take care of their dumb asses as long as they follow the correct thinking path... :doh: :doh:

Derron wrote:
Fuck yeah...no sense in trying to prepare them to think that they have to be responsible for themselves..just keep reminding them that the government and the nanny state will take care of their dumb asses as long as they follow the correct thinking path... :doh: :doh:

And here I was thinking that B_Schmuck was the dumbest motherfucker in this thread...

...then you show up.


Way to not even grasp the (lame ass) concept that B_ was trying to float.
You really are one stupid fuck.

Martyred wrote:Way to not even grasp the (lame ass) concept that B_ was trying to float.
You really are one stupid fuck.

Goobs missed it too. He just didn't look as drop dead stupid Derron in doing so.

At you, Monica, not with you

BSmack wrote:
Goobs missed it too.

Relax, dude. Goobs "got it".

BSmack wrote: He just didn't look as drop dead stupid Derron in doing so.

It would be an accomplishment of note if he had.

BSmack wrote:

Martyred wrote:Way to not even grasp the (lame ass) concept that B_ was trying to float.
You really are one stupid fuck.

Goobs missed it too.

Oh really? What did I miss? You're too damn arrogant and ignorant for any subtlety. Go back to your original premise and explain why students should be required to live in dorms their entire college careers.

Goober McTuber wrote:Oh really? What did I miss? You're too damn arrogant and ignorant for any subtlety. Go back to your original premise and explain why students should be required to live in dorms their entire college careers.

You mean other than me saying it would never happen?

As for why they should or shouldn't live in dorm rooms, that is for the folks who run their colleges to decide. That is, unless you can find for me the Constitutional Amendment that guarantees college kids the right to live in rat filled shitholes. I simply posited that, given the political realities of your average college town, that the only surefire way to stop uncaring landlords from preying on college kids would be to not allow them to live off campus.

Probably most colleges and universities at this time could not afford to build housing for all resident students.Might be a good idea for the communities to have codes/regulations that require off campus housing to at least meet the same standards as the dorms on campus. That could include density restrictions, along with all plumbing and electrical codes, and fire safety standards. The school where I work, Edison State College in Fort Myers is undergoing a growth explosion. They never had any on campus housing, but are building the first student dorm. They just completed a new nursing school building and a new education building has begun construction. They are adding two brand new chemistry labs in another building from the one where I currently oversee 5 science labs. Looks like my job is growing too.

BSmack wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:Oh really? What did I miss? You're too damn arrogant and ignorant for any subtlety. Go back to your original premise and explain why students should be required to live in dorms their entire college careers.

You mean other than me saying it would never happen?

As for why they should or shouldn't live in dorm rooms, that is for the folks who run their colleges to decide. That is, unless you can find for me the Constitutional Amendment that guarantees college kids the right to live in rat filled shitholes. I simply posited that, given the political realities of your average college town, that the only surefire way to stop uncaring landlords from preying on college kids would be to not allow them to live off campus.

Many of your hair-brained ideas shouldn't happen. I think the college kids have the right to choose where to live. The way to stop unscrupulous landlords is to enforce zoning laws. And Wolfie's right. The colleges don't have the money to build all of this housing. Not until they dip into your pocket for the capital.

BTW, here in Madison brand new privately owned high-rise student housing seems to be shooting up left and right.

Goober McTuber wrote:

BSmack wrote:You mean other than me saying it would never happen?

As for why they should or shouldn't live in dorm rooms, that is for the folks who run their colleges to decide. That is, unless you can find for me the Constitutional Amendment that guarantees college kids the right to live in rat filled shitholes. I simply posited that, given the political realities of your average college town, that the only surefire way to stop uncaring landlords from preying on college kids would be to not allow them to live off campus.

Many of your hair-brained ideas shouldn't happen. I think the college kids have the right to choose where to live.

Just because you think something doesn't mean it is law. Kids have the right to choose where to go to college. Colleges have the right to require certain things from students in return for said education. If the kid doesn't like it, he or she is free to move on.

The way to stop unscrupulous landlords is to enforce zoning laws.

WAY easier said than done. Every college town I have ever been to, the landlords by and large ran the village/town lock stock and barrel. The only thing the college has absolute control over (as far as building standards are concerned) is the land on their campus.

And Wolfie's right. The colleges don't have the money to build all of this housing. Not until they dip into your pocket for the capital.

I think I already covered it.

BSmack wrote:Of course that won't fly because the college would have to invest HUGE cash upfront to build enough dorms to house 4 full classes.

At least try to keep up. This is embarrassing.

BTW, here in Madison brand new privately owned high-rise student housing seems to be shooting up left and right.

Yea, but the poor kids have to live in Wisconsin. I bet they would kill for a couch in Ann Arbor.

Good luck to the first college that tries to make it mandatory to rent from them. So you're just putting forth stupid untenable ideas that you know will never happen. Fascinating. Not to mention the fact that Wisconsin is not a cheap education and it continues to draw a fairly large student contingent from the east coast. I'm sure you wish you could have afforded that education at any point in your pitiful life.

Goober McTuber wrote:Good luck to the first college that tries to make it mandatory to rent from them. So you're just putting forth stupid untenable ideas that you know will never happen. Fascinating. Not to mention the fact that Wisconsin is not a cheap education and it continues to draw a fairly large student contingent from the east coast. I'm sure you wish you could have afforded that education at any point in your pitiful life.

I see your land grand school is up there on Kiplinger's list of value schools. Of course they trail two SUNY schools, one of which I attended. In all, 10 SUNY schools are listed in Kiplinger's top 100. So the next time you want to try to compare Wisconsin to New York, try doing so in something in which you cheeseheads have a chance in competing. Like say hockey or fat chicks.

http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/colleges/