🚀 go-pugleaf

> Alex_Currier@attpls.net (Alex Currier) writes:
>>, mbrown@austin.ibm.com (Mark >Brown) wrote:
>> Nope. You get the RIGHTS when you take the RESPONSIBILITY. Meaning, buy
>> your own place, take up all of the legal responsibilities, the
>> maintenance, the taxes and mortgage (which must be paid whether or not
>> you actually *have* a renter!) -- THEN you can talk about your rights
>> having primacy.
>
>That is pure bullshit. Nowhere in the Constitution does it specify that
>you have to be a PROPERTY OWNER to have rights. You are absolutely wrong. 

I suggest that you speak to a competent attorney, who has a knowledge of
land-use issues, before you start blathering about "Constitutional
rights". The Constitution restricts the State, and only in well-defined
cases restricts agreements between individuals.

Some concrete examples: You don't really think you have the "right to
freedom of speech" on someone else's front yard, do you? You only gain
that right when you rent or own (pay for use) of that property. This is
spelled out in property law (of the state) and in the lease (for other
things).

You don't have the right to remodel the property to fit your needs (at
least not on my lease!) -- and it's my right to inspect the property
(spelled out in the lease, it specifies advance notice if possible to
notify at all - see, I'm not a TOTAL ogre) that discovered the (former)
tenants had torn out the walls in part of the house to expand the
garage! My right to protect my property overrides their right to
privacy.

>As for "responsibility"... doesn't paying a lease count? In some places it

It does indeed - never said it didn't. That's all a part of the lease
(contract). You pay for something, and you get what you negotiated for.

>most people won't rent to you unless you have a history of responsible 
>payment.

Because the law gives tenants many rights, to protect them from being
evicted without proper cause/procedure. These laws make it hard to evict
non-payers (as a side effect) and so most owners want to avoid having to
evict people - it's a pain in the butt. Most owners just want to see the
property utilized, and make a decent profit if possible (or at least
break even).

>People should not (and must not) be penalized or have their rights
>stripped simply because they have chosen not to plant roots in a
>particular property.

You are using someone else's property, and paying for its use. That
gives you certain rights and responsibilities. You negotiated those
rights and responsibilities as a part of your lease contract. You also
have the right NOT TO RENT THERE if you don't like the terms -- as long
as those terms are within the law.

>And that's what we have a problem with. The leases should be rewritten
>because they strip a persons basic rights (rights guaranteed by the
>Constitution) to privacy and are therefore unfair.

I certainly wish the "right to privacy" *was* spelled out in the
Constitution - I think if you do some research you'll find that this is
a tricky area. 

I *can* put "no firearms" in a lease and make it stick, though,
regardless of the 2nd Amendment (it restricts the State, not private
agreements!). What's worse, in some states I can tell you who you can
cohabitate with (based on the owner's religious beliefs, can exclude
non-married couples for example).

Listen: I *like* leaving whoever rents the house the h*ll alone - makes
my life easier. But it IS MY PROPERTY, not the renter's. Period.

(BTW: I prefer a clause that says something like "I'll give a day's
notice of when I need to be in (unless it is an emergency) and we can
negotiate a time. If you aren't there, and I need to be in, I have the
right to enter, and must notify you via written note that I have done
so. I must not (take/disturb/abuse) your private property without just
cause (spelled out here - immediate fire hazard, etc). You have the
right to a keyless deadbolt, and keys to any other locks must be
provided to me.)

>> Find a lease (and lessor) that gives you the rights you want; don't take
>> them by force.
>
>Oh, so all those folks in the English colonies who were upset at the
>British Crown should have just moved somewhere else instead of waging the
>Revolutionary War? The Tejanos should have moved to Louisiana instead of
>fighting Mexico for their independence? Yeah. Right. 

Heh. Okay....but expect me to fight back. Hard.

>It's really very simple. If you feel your rights are being taken away you
>have the choice to either go elsewhere or stay and fight. Some choose to
>fight. I support them in both their choice and their struggle. And if you
>don't like my opinion you can just go post in another newsgroup (sarcasm).

You certainly have the right to your opinion (however ill-chosen). I
merely wish it were better-informed. Leaping straight to the
Constitution won't help your arguments much in this arena. Civil case
law (dating back centuries) governs this area.

cheers,
mark
-- 
Mark Brown     | AIX Architecture             |   Civil Liberty
(512) 838-3926 | 11400 Burnet Rd M/S 9582     |    Through
T/L   678-3926 | Austin, TX 78758             |     Complex Mathematics!
mbrown@austin.ibm.com  -or- MBROWN at AUSVM6  |