Most opponents of the City Rental Housing Code were defeated Tuesday. When it comes to support for establishing a civilian oversight board, council factions barely shifted.
This post demonstrates that Mr. Victor is not at all a "reporter" but rather a highly biased blogger.
He falsely states that the lawsuit challenging the unlawful rental regulations was "decided in the city's favor" when in fact the regulations were ruled to violate the constitutional due process rights of BOTH tenants and landlords. They are null and void until and unless Council revises them... and then are still subject to additional challenges. Among other things, they impose an illegal tax upon rentals; conflict with state law; exempt cherry-picked organizations and thus violate the "equal protection" clauses of the Wyoming Constitution; do not cover rentals outside the city limits; do not cover UW-owned properties even if they're managed by private corporations; and have already stimulated increases in rents. If they go into effect, they will also create a shortage of rentals that will drive rents up yet further... all while bloating the city bureaucracy and creating NO additional protections for tenants that state law does not already provide. The wise Joe Shumway, who has been Mayor twice and understands the workings of the city government and the dangers of its bureaucracy, opposes them. Let's hope that they never actually go into effect.
If you were a serious person with a serious claim, you would bring the lawsuit yourself. The people who did were told in no uncertain terms that Laramie has the right to pass rental regulations. They just needed to tweak the language. If you think that was wrongly decided and that your rights are going away in less than two months, you could bring a lawsuit and I would gladly cover it. But you just want to throw out this word salad.
But all of that's unimportant. Legal cases are not decided in the comments on a news story. What's more important is this:
You won't admit you got something wrong, even if it's small and doesn't really matter, even if it's just some weird lie you farted out because you were clearly upset about my other stories and looking for a reason to attack me, even if it's a year old and you have literally no reason to keep doubling down. It's like you have a pathological inability to be humble or admit mistakes. You think you know better than everyone. Always. On every subject.
I pointed out that you got something wrong. And it's honestly sad that you won't admit it, that you can't admit it. How broken you must be.
You should apologize for claiming without evidence that I made up a quote.
Here you go - spreading the stereotype that all landlords are rich. No, I do not have enough money to bring a lawsuit against City Hall, which would use my own tax dollars - and the public's - to defend its irresponsible actions. The City does not just need to "tweak the language;" City Council needs to recognize that it was about to do tremendous harm and repeal the rental regulations altogether.
As for "word salad:" that's what you throw out as you obfuscate and spread disinformation. And it is YOU who refuse to admit that you were wrong. Apologize for the falsehoods you've promulgated above.
owning a rental property automatically puts you in a higher material wealth bracket than most americans, even if you don't have enough liquid cash to fund a frivolous lawsuit. i'm also sure that your fellow laramie landlords would love to help fund such a lawsuit if your premise weren't so patently ridiculous
"Owning" a rental property (it's really owned by the bank) means you were able to scrape together a down payment and take out a loan - placing yourself in serious debt - and start a demanding small business that might or might not succeed. (There are frequent foreclosures on rental properties; see the notices in the newspaper.) And in this town, you have to work hard to break even on a rental, because there's a glut. I gave up owning my own private home to instead make the down payment on the rental in which I live (yes, I live in one of my family's rental properties, not on some fancy single family home). I am one of Laramie's strongest advocates of affordable, quality housing and of tenants' welfare.... This ordinance is counterproductive and has already harmed tenants.
The first suit challenging the ordinance was brought by Bell Leasing, which is owned by the family of the late Bob Bell (who was very well liked in the community; he still holds the record for the longest continuous tenure on City Council). The judge made a bad call on the issue of state pre-emption (and this will hopefully be appealed, because it defies case law that she didn't consider), noted one way in which the ordinance was unconstitutional, and at that point stopped... failing to reach the many other ways in which the ordinance is illegal and violates the rights of tenants as well as hard working landlords. If Council doesn't repeal it, expect more challenges; they're well deserved.
Who is the owner of the property and how long before this thinking infects the entire State?
I'm sorry, I don't understand. What property are you asking about?
This post demonstrates that Mr. Victor is not at all a "reporter" but rather a highly biased blogger.
He falsely states that the lawsuit challenging the unlawful rental regulations was "decided in the city's favor" when in fact the regulations were ruled to violate the constitutional due process rights of BOTH tenants and landlords. They are null and void until and unless Council revises them... and then are still subject to additional challenges. Among other things, they impose an illegal tax upon rentals; conflict with state law; exempt cherry-picked organizations and thus violate the "equal protection" clauses of the Wyoming Constitution; do not cover rentals outside the city limits; do not cover UW-owned properties even if they're managed by private corporations; and have already stimulated increases in rents. If they go into effect, they will also create a shortage of rentals that will drive rents up yet further... all while bloating the city bureaucracy and creating NO additional protections for tenants that state law does not already provide. The wise Joe Shumway, who has been Mayor twice and understands the workings of the city government and the dangers of its bureaucracy, opposes them. Let's hope that they never actually go into effect.
You should apologize for claiming without evidence that I made up a quote.
You should apologize for repeatedly publishing disinformation in your blog. I point out one example above.
If you were a serious person with a serious claim, you would bring the lawsuit yourself. The people who did were told in no uncertain terms that Laramie has the right to pass rental regulations. They just needed to tweak the language. If you think that was wrongly decided and that your rights are going away in less than two months, you could bring a lawsuit and I would gladly cover it. But you just want to throw out this word salad.
But all of that's unimportant. Legal cases are not decided in the comments on a news story. What's more important is this:
You won't admit you got something wrong, even if it's small and doesn't really matter, even if it's just some weird lie you farted out because you were clearly upset about my other stories and looking for a reason to attack me, even if it's a year old and you have literally no reason to keep doubling down. It's like you have a pathological inability to be humble or admit mistakes. You think you know better than everyone. Always. On every subject.
I pointed out that you got something wrong. And it's honestly sad that you won't admit it, that you can't admit it. How broken you must be.
You should apologize for claiming without evidence that I made up a quote.
Here you go - spreading the stereotype that all landlords are rich. No, I do not have enough money to bring a lawsuit against City Hall, which would use my own tax dollars - and the public's - to defend its irresponsible actions. The City does not just need to "tweak the language;" City Council needs to recognize that it was about to do tremendous harm and repeal the rental regulations altogether.
As for "word salad:" that's what you throw out as you obfuscate and spread disinformation. And it is YOU who refuse to admit that you were wrong. Apologize for the falsehoods you've promulgated above.
ratio
Hate-tio
owning a rental property automatically puts you in a higher material wealth bracket than most americans, even if you don't have enough liquid cash to fund a frivolous lawsuit. i'm also sure that your fellow laramie landlords would love to help fund such a lawsuit if your premise weren't so patently ridiculous
"Owning" a rental property (it's really owned by the bank) means you were able to scrape together a down payment and take out a loan - placing yourself in serious debt - and start a demanding small business that might or might not succeed. (There are frequent foreclosures on rental properties; see the notices in the newspaper.) And in this town, you have to work hard to break even on a rental, because there's a glut. I gave up owning my own private home to instead make the down payment on the rental in which I live (yes, I live in one of my family's rental properties, not on some fancy single family home). I am one of Laramie's strongest advocates of affordable, quality housing and of tenants' welfare.... This ordinance is counterproductive and has already harmed tenants.
The first suit challenging the ordinance was brought by Bell Leasing, which is owned by the family of the late Bob Bell (who was very well liked in the community; he still holds the record for the longest continuous tenure on City Council). The judge made a bad call on the issue of state pre-emption (and this will hopefully be appealed, because it defies case law that she didn't consider), noted one way in which the ordinance was unconstitutional, and at that point stopped... failing to reach the many other ways in which the ordinance is illegal and violates the rights of tenants as well as hard working landlords. If Council doesn't repeal it, expect more challenges; they're well deserved.
Brett, why would the city's rental regulation cover rentals outside the city limits?