I agree with Scott's post about the truth-in -Housing, and all the other city services.
When I purchased my house in 1995, I appreciated knowing certain preexisting things about it. When I sold it in 2000, I had made numerous improvements, but I am sure the new owners felt the same way I did in 1994. It is always reassuring to have an inkling of what you are getting for your money. Pamela Taylor (Tampa) --- Scott McGerik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Barbara L. Nelson wrote: > > > Tim is right in that it USED to be the way he > recalls. It was that way when I > > bought my house too. That is no longer the case. > > When were these changes instituted? I bought my > house in Sept 2000. There > were numerous issues with the house, but the seller > was not required to > fix any of them. I do seem to remember discussing > the Truth in Housing > report with my realtor and deciding that there was > nothing > sufficiently wrong with the house that would prevent > me from buying it. > > I can understand that some health and safety-related > repairs should be > mandatory, either by the sellor or by the buyer, but > some of the repairs > you list are ridiculous and place an unnecessary > burden upon you, the > seller. > > If I understand what you are saying, then I think it > is time to reexamine > and readjust the city ordinances regarding Truth in > Housing. However, I > see the program as useful for the buyers so that > they know what they are > buying. For that reason, I would rather see onerous > or unnecessary repair > requirements eliminated, rather than have the Truth > in Housing program > eliminated. > > Regarding what Timothy Connelly wrote regarding > housing inspections and > restaurant and food inspections, I agree, if we are > to eliminate housing > inspections by the City, why not consider > eliminating restaurant and food > inspections by the government? Let the buyer beware! > > However, I want none of these programs to be > eliminated as I do see them > as a basic service of the government. With regards > to restaurant > inspections, I would prefer that a restaurant clean > up its act based upon > what an inspector discovered rather than because I > decided to sue them for > food poisoning. If I am one of the unfortunate ones, > I might not be alive > to sue the restaurant because I had died because of > food poisoning. With > regards to housing inspections, I would prefer that > the seller fix a > malfunctioning furnace, based upon an inspection by > a housing inspector, > before I discover that I am suffering from carbon > monoxide poisoning. > > I see the protection of our health and safety to be > a fundamental and > basic service of our government. Sometimes, the > government can not do > anything or little to protect our health and safety, > but when it can, I > believe it ought to make a reasonable effort to do > so. In my opinion, the > Truth in Housing inspection can be a reasonable > effort to protect our > health and safety with regards to our housing stock. > > Scott McGerik > Hawthorne/Minneapolis > http://www.mcgerik.com/scott/ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _______________________________________ > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic > Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
