$100 Eviction Charge a Bad Idea

Proud Pig · **Posted:** Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:39 pm

maddmaxx2 wrote:

There was even a time when I had ate out of a dumpster because I had spent my food money on flyers for an event I felt was too important for the public to miss.

That was a very intelligent position, I see it worked out for you too. :pukeleft:

I knew as soon as I made any attempt to enter into a debate here you would result to your usual responses. I also know how much you like to be the "last word freak", so I'll make it simple and make this my last reply to you. You are so blinded by your own bulls!hit propaganda you can't decide yourself where or what side of the fence you sit on. :pottytrain5:

You don't hate the police, but then you say.........I hate the Police and want to kill them. (secrete Max decoder glasses) :glasses7:

bye Freak, good luck w/ eating out of the dumpster to support your cause, whatever that is. :smt023

maddmaxx2 · **Posted:** Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:09 pm

Bye Pee Pee. Go hide until the humiliation fades.

"If a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live."
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Mirage · **Joined:** Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:08 am **Posts:** 4781

Mirage wrote:

Proud Pig wrote:

Mirage wrote:

Yea right. Like most landlords ever see a dime of that back rent. Then there's the court costs. I think it's a good thing for both parties to have the cops there to keep order during the eviction process. Their time is already paid for in property taxes. As for your neighbor why don't you call the cops? Or are you afraid they'll want you to pay a fee to come out and measure sound levels?

Obviously you rent. Are you a "slum lord" Mirage? I typed a great number of responses to you on this topic and so far I got no reply. I don't get how you feel this "civil service" is owed to you at the cost of the taxpayers. In one breath you want the Sheriff to cut cost and in another you want these types of costly services provided to a person in a PRIVATE business making a profit. In other words you want to utilize the police to strong arm your business problems. I don't care how it has been done in the past; this is not what the taxpayers should be paying for. It is also not the taxpayerâ€™s problem how the landlord comes out financially. If I am a business man and enter into a private contract with someone and that someone screws me it's a civil matter. I can not use the police to bail me out. It's that simple. It's like you say to me or the police.... If you don't like your job get out, find another. If you don't like being a landlord, sell.

By your logic if a business catches a shoplifter they outta pay a convenience fee for the cops to come pick them up. LOL

sparks wrote:

Apparently Mirage doesn't understand the difference between the police making a criminal arrest vs. civil matters. I prefer that police are out on the street arresting bad guys instead of helping slumlords evict people. The $100 fee is a good decision.

You don't seem to understand that we aren't talking about the police but about the sheriff's dept. It's only benefit to North Lake County residents is it's function with the court system since we are policed locally. So we are being billed twice for the same service, which you do not seem to comprehend.

Proud Pig · **Posted:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:21 pm

Mirage wrote:

You don't seem to understand that we aren't talking about the police but about the sheriff's dept. It's only benefit to North Lake County residents is it's function with the court system since we are policed locally. So we are being billed twice for the same service, which you do not seem to comprehend.

No Mirage I understand completely. We are talking about the "police" and services in which the police provide and should be providing at the expense of ME the taxpayer. You can color it anyway you want. I don't feel I should be paying for any private service in which some slumlord thinks he/she is owed while running a very profitable business. Please also show me where in law or in some break down of your tax dollars that this elaborate service is to be provided and provided free of charge? Even if you could, which you can't, I still believe this is a service in which a fee should be charged, because I don't want to pay for your slumlord business! I hope that helps you to â€œcomprehendâ€ what Iâ€™m saying here. Aside from the FACT that this is not and should not be the job of the POLICE in any color uniform. :smt006

Mirage · **Joined:** Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:08 am **Posts:** 4781

Know why your argument doesn't hold water? Because the only reason the police are called is to maintain an orderly eviction. A slumlord wouldn't bother with going to court to evict. They'd just toss all the stuff on the front lawn and change the locks.

And come to think of it, in addition to court costs a landlord also has to pay a fee to serve papers. So for paying triple in property taxes and for that contribution if you try to do things the right way you are out back rent and have to try to collect, you pay to go to court to process the eviction, you pay to have papers served, and you pay to have the police there during the eviction to make sure there is a peaceful transition. Except the deputies' salaries are already paid for by those triple taxes. Yea, honest landlords are really making out in this situation, huh? :roll:

Proud Pig · **Posted:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:37 pm

Mirage wrote:

you pay to go to court to process the eviction, you pay to have papers served, and you pay to have the police there during the eviction to make sure there is a peaceful transition.

Just the way it should be! If you can't have a "peacefull transition", then the police need to be called and someone or someone(s) needs to go to jail. :wave:

Mirage wrote:

Except the deputies' salaries are already paid for by those triple taxes. Yea, honest landlords are really making out in this situation, huh? :roll:

"triple taxes", no sorry Mirage, you'll have to do better than that.... and the rest is the cost of doing business, so to bad! I've already said it, the taxpayers (Me) should not be paying for your civil, private business and business problems. Apparently you think the taxpayers should be and for someone who speaks as loudly as you do about government (the police) and taxes I'm very disappointed. Just because the taxpayers, â€œpay our salaryâ€ does not mean we should do whatever you want, whenever you want it. This is NOT what the taxpayers are paying the police to do!

maddmaxx2 · **Posted:** Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:03 pm

Proud Pig wrote:

Just because the taxpayers, â€œpay our salaryâ€ does not mean we should do whatever you want, whenever you want it. This is NOT what the taxpayers are paying the police to do!

Just exactly what are the taxpayers paying the police to do?

Mirage · **Joined:** Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:08 am **Posts:** 4781

maddmaxx2 wrote:

Proud Pig wrote:

Just because the taxpayers, â€œpay our salaryâ€ does not mean we should do whatever you want, whenever you want it. This is NOT what the taxpayers are paying the police to do!

Just exactly what are the taxpayers paying the police to do?

Again, for north LC they aren't actually functioning as "police," with some exceptions, but as officers of the courts since we have our own police departments. So enforcing the orders of the courts is EXACTLY what we're paying them to do within at least our jurisdictions.

BigWhiteGuy · **Posted:** Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:18 am

maddmaxx2 wrote:

Proud Pig wrote:

Just because the taxpayers, â€œpay our salaryâ€ does not mean we should do whatever you want, whenever you want it. This is NOT what the taxpayers are paying the police to do!

Just exactly what are the taxpayers paying the police to do?

Actually maxx, that is a very good question!

Geronimo · **Posted:** Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:18 am

I can see it now renters bend over along with your security deposit will be a $100.00 eviction fee refundable at the end of tenancy if not evicted.

Northwest Indiana Discussion

$100 Eviction Charge a Bad Idea

Who is online