🚀 go-pugleaf

"Tim Bruening" <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message
news:447FF9E2.CB010784@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us...
>
>
> "Michael Baldwin, Bruce" wrote:
>
> > pedo creep Gary gLitter Burnore wrote:
> > > On Sat, 27 May 2006 16:16:04 GMT, "Rusty Shackleford"
> > > <nospam@bunnyhole_entertainment.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >In the Thursday May 25 N&O in the 'Local' section (B) a column
asserts that
> > > >a buyer was just about to close on a house when the real estate agent
> > > >received an anonymous call that the person living next door was a
registered
> > > >sex offender.  The information was verified on the NC website so it
was
> > > >true. Of course, that killed the deal but the buyer could have lost
the
> > > >$3000 earnest money deposit. The seller knew about the 'defect' but
did not
> > > >disclose it. It turns out the NC law does not require this
information to be
> > > >disclosed! Given that diclosure is mandatory for any other defect in
the
> > > >property that may affect its value such as airline noise, even bad
odors
> > > >from a sanitary landfill, why is this disclosure about something that
could
> > > >make it impossible to re-sell the property, exempt from the rules?
> > >
> > > A law would need to be crafted stating it a a defect.
> > >
> > > > Do other  states allow non-disclosure of regisered sex-offenders
near/around the
> > > >property intended for sale?  It also brings up the possibility of
lawsuits
> > > >against sex offenders who move into neighborhoods on the basis of
severely
> > > >depreciated home values.
> > >
> > > How about people known for breaking and entering?  How about people
> > > convicted of Murder?  Manslaughter?   If not, why not?
> >
> > Is that a sore point for you, pedo creep?
> >
> > <snip> Ooops! That's all there was!
>
> Where in God's name should we house sex offenders who have completed their
sentences?
>

Australia?