A victory for polyamorous rights! (1 Viewer)

[parasaurolophus]

One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.

Link

 

[BladeRunner]

One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.

Not joking.

Your link is broken. Unless your intent was to show as much JavaScript as possible.

 

[(HULK)]

One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.

Not joking.

Did he keep paying the rent?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.

Not joking.

Sorry, not following. What’s the problem?

 

[Mitchie]

Sounds like an episode of Three's Company

 

[parasaurolophus]

One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.

Not joking.

Did he keep paying the rent?

I have zero clue and dont care one bit.

 

[moleculo]

One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.

Not joking.

Did he keep paying the rent?

I have zero clue and dont care one bit.

You care enough to start a thread on the subject, apparently.

 

[parasaurolophus]

One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.

Not joking.

Did he keep paying the rent?

I have zero clue and dont care one bit.

You care enough to start a thread on the subject, apparently.

I dont care if he was paying rent. He wasnt on the lease and I dont believe in rights for polyamorous throuples. So him paying rent is inconsequential to me in any way.

Good try at a gotcha though! Thanks for your contribution!

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Not joking.

Did he keep paying the rent?

I have zero clue and dont care one bit.

You care enough to start a thread on the subject, apparently.

I dont believe in rights for polyamorous throuples.

Of course this is really the main reason for this thread.

 

[TheMagus]

One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.

Not joking.

Did he keep paying the rent?

That's not the issue. The issue is the defendants are trying to hold onto a rent controlled apartment at the same rent and the landlord is trying to get rid of them after the lease holder died. It seems a gay couple was residing in the apartment with a rent-stabilized lease under a different (gay) person's name who died. This probably isn't even a legitimate polyamorous situation - it sounds more like a typical stunt people will go through to hold onto these properties at the current rent which is typically well below market value. I suspect the OP doesn't know much about rent control in the nation's largest cities and is also unaware that there are probably 100s if not 1000s of situations like this every year in urban areas and associates of the deceased pulling out all stops to try to keep the properties at the current rent. They just don't all (many, any) make the national news and social media outrage machine because they don't involve gay dudes and "polyamory" that the right wing social media propagandists can glom onto to generate outrage about the death of our republic.

I couldn't read the original link because it brought me to a wall of html code for a site I have never heard of. I had to google the story. And from what I read, from strongly slanted sites at that, the judge didn't even rule but issued a temporary stay on the eviction until a full court hearing could take place. Again these types of disputes are pretty common in my limited anecdotal experience - associates of a deceased lease holder trying to claim a rent-stabilized property by any means possible and the landlord fighting it by any means possible.

In any case I think OP should definitely send an angry letter to someone and spread this all over the internet because it is super important and outrageous.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I can't imagine being so wrapped up in how other people live their lives.

 

[the moops]

Can we get the link corrected @parasaurolophus ? I have no idea what is going on in here

 

[(HULK)]

One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.

Not joking.

Did he keep paying the rent?

That's not the issue. The issue is the defendants are trying to hold onto a rent controlled apartment at the same rent and the landlord is trying to get rid of them after the lease holder died. It seems a gay couple was residing in the apartment with a rent-stabilized lease under a different (gay) person's name who died. This probably isn't even a legitimate polyamorous situation - it sounds more like a typical stunt people will go through to hold onto these properties at the current rent which is typically well below market value. I suspect the OP doesn't know much about rent control in the nation's largest cities and is also unaware that there are probably 100s if not 1000s of situations like this every year in urban areas and associates of the deceased pulling out all stops to try to keep the properties at the current rent. They just don't all (many, any) make the national news and social media outrage machine because they don't involve gay dudes and "polyamory" that the right wing social media propagandists can glom onto to generate outrage about the death of our republic.

I couldn't read the original link because it brought me to a wall of html code for a site I have never heard of. I had to google the story. And from what I read, from strongly slanted sites at that, the judge didn't even rule but issued a temporary stay on the eviction until a full court hearing could take place. Again these types of disputes are pretty common in my limited anecdotal experience - associates of a deceased lease holder trying to claim a rent-stabilized property by any means possible and the landlord fighting it by any means possible.

In any case I think OP should definitely send an angry letter to someone and spread this all over the internet because it is super important and outrageous.

I couldn't read the article either, so I was trying to understand the problem. As a former landlord, I've only wanted to evict renters who don't pay rent. It takes like half a year to do it and it sucks.

So, this is about rent control? Hmmm. Were the current residents living there and contributing to the rent payment prior to this dude's death? Essentially a sub-lease? I'd treat it like that situation. If there is no legal connection between the dead guy and these other guys, then I don't know why we should pretend there is.

 

[BladeRunner]

I can't imagine being so wrapped up in how other people live their lives.

And yet here you are, everyday, making comments on and posting away on how people live their lives!

 

[moleculo]

One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.

Not joking.

Did he keep paying the rent?

I have zero clue and dont care one bit.

You care enough to start a thread on the subject, apparently.

I dont care if he was paying rent. He wasnt on the lease and I dont believe in rights for polyamorous throuples. So him paying rent is inconsequential to me in any way.

Good try at a gotcha though! Thanks for your contribution!

not a gotcha, it's just not clear what your point was. Thank you for articulating it.

 

[parasaurolophus]

One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.

Not joking.

Your link is broken. Unless your intent was to show as much JavaScript as possible.

Are you on a desktop or mobile?

 

[djmich]

I can't imagine being so wrapped up in how other people live their lives.

It’s a political forum and we have an example where the changing political environment is driving existing law to be disputed and potentially changed.

I mean it’s not the Ukraine but this seems pretty germane to the forum.

Pardon me while I go into the gardening forum on Reddit and ask why people give a damn about their little oregano plants.

 

[Captain Cranks]

It’s a political forum and we have an example where the changing political environment is driving existing law to be disputed and potentially changed.

I mean it’s not the Ukraine but this seems pretty germane to the forum.

Pardon me while I go into the gardening forum on Reddit and ask why people give a damn about their little oregano plants.

Huh? You're attacking "why would you post this here?" which isn't anywhere close to what I said.

You all want to control how other people live their lives. Great. I don't understand it. I've got better things to worry about.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I can't imagine being so wrapped up in how other people live their lives.

Until you buy a rental property and lease it out to someone. Then when that person dies, a third party tries to enforce the terms of the lease agreement that you didn't have with that third party.

 

[Zow]

I can't imagine being so wrapped up in how other people live their lives.

Until you buy a rental property and lease it out to someone. Then when that person dies, a third party tries to enforce the terms of the lease agreement that you didn't have with that third party.

Right. I can definitely see both sides of the issue here. The landlord has a point as the landlord probably never contemplated that this third party could be a candidate to take over the lease.

 

[djmich]

It’s a political forum and we have an example where the changing political environment is driving existing law to be disputed and potentially changed.

I mean it’s not the Ukraine but this seems pretty germane to the forum.

Pardon me while I go into the gardening forum on Reddit and ask why people give a damn about their little oregano plants.

Huh? You're attacking "why would you post this here?" which isn't anywhere close to what I said.

You all want to control how other people live their lives. Great. I don't understand it. I've got better things to worry about.

They’re called laws, they are important to many people and to society at large…that shouldn’t be surprising and yes it’s ok you don’t care about them but the holier than thou “why would you care” is unnecessary

 

[parasaurolophus]

Not joking.

Did he keep paying the rent?

I have zero clue and dont care one bit.

You care enough to start a thread on the subject, apparently.

I dont believe in rights for polyamorous throuples.

Of course this is really the main reason for this thread.

Wasn't trying to hide that. My thread title should have given it away to everybody.

 

[parasaurolophus]

It’s a political forum and we have an example where the changing political environment is driving existing law to be disputed and potentially changed.

I mean it’s not the Ukraine but this seems pretty germane to the forum.

Pardon me while I go into the gardening forum on Reddit and ask why people give a damn about their little oregano plants.

Huh? You're attacking "why would you post this here?" which isn't anywhere close to what I said.

You all want to control how other people live their lives. Great. I don't understand it. I've got better things to worry about.

They’re called laws, they are important to many people and to society at large…that shouldn’t be surprising and yes it’s ok you don’t care about them but the holier than thou “why would you care” is unnecessary

Why would you care is just a way to try and silence people. He obviously cares. These "why would you care" or "I am just waiting for the facts" people will take up full residence in a thread and try and maintain that they don't care or are just being objective.

It is all so phony. There is nothing wrong with caring about what other people are doing. Literally everybody does it.

I care when people steal. I care when people grift. I care when people behave inappropriately around my kids.

I care when people park in handicapped parking spaces. I care when people litter. I care when people don't return their carts. I care when some rando will try and pretend that I can't care about people not returning shopping carts because kids are starving in Africa(or whatever other cause they pretend to be devoted to) as if I can't care about 1 million things in my life.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Not joking.

Did he keep paying the rent?

I have zero clue and dont care one bit.

You care enough to start a thread on the subject, apparently.

I dont believe in rights for polyamorous throuples.

Of course this is really the main reason for this thread.

Wasn't trying to hide that. My thread title should have given it away to everybody.

Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment.

 

[djmich]

Not joking.

Did he keep paying the rent?

I have zero clue and dont care one bit.

You care enough to start a thread on the subject, apparently.

I dont believe in rights for polyamorous throuples.

Of course this is really the main reason for this thread.

Wasn't trying to hide that. My thread title should have given it away to everybody.

Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment.

What’s the underlying sentiment?

 

[parasaurolophus]

Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment

I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?

 

[Captain Cranks]

Why would you care is just a way to try and silence people. He obviously cares. These "why would you care" or "I am just waiting for the facts" people will take up full residence in a thread and try and maintain that they don't care or are just being objective.

It is all so phony. There is nothing wrong with caring about what other people are doing. Literally everybody does it.

I care when people steal. I care when people grift. I care when people behave inappropriately around my kids.

I care when people park in handicapped parking spaces. I care when people litter. I care when people don't return their carts. I care when some rando will try and pretend that I can't care about people not returning shopping carts because kids are starving in Africa(or whatever other cause they pretend to be devoted to) as if I can't care about 1 million things in my life.

Just so I understand this, you're simply a defender of the law here and make no judgment regarding how these people choose to live their lives. In fact, you actively seek out all cases where the law is defended and the relationship element of the story is irrelevant to that purpose. If the law was changed to include polyamorous relationships, you'd have no problem with that.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment

I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?

Well, that’s not your primary focus. Your primary focus appears to be a disregard for the nature of their relationship. At least, based on the exchange we just had — that was your focus. And I don’t care how consenting adults choose to spend their time or how they structure their personal relationships.

If instead you want to talk about rent control, legal rights, etc…..well, then we are likely in full agreement. I lived in two cities with rent control — it’s absurd how much gamesmanship takes place in an attempt to abuse the system.

 

[BladeRunner]

One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.

Not joking.

Your link is broken. Unless your intent was to show as much JavaScript as possible.

Are you on a desktop or mobile?

Desktop

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I hate to break it to you guys, but the link in the OP wasn't to a news article, it was to the IMDB page for "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry 2"

 

[djmich]

Why would you care is just a way to try and silence people. He obviously cares. These "why would you care" or "I am just waiting for the facts" people will take up full residence in a thread and try and maintain that they don't care or are just being objective.

It is all so phony. There is nothing wrong with caring about what other people are doing. Literally everybody does it.

I care when people steal. I care when people grift. I care when people behave inappropriately around my kids.

I care when people park in handicapped parking spaces. I care when people litter. I care when people don't return their carts. I care when some rando will try and pretend that I can't care about people not returning shopping carts because kids are starving in Africa(or whatever other cause they pretend to be devoted to) as if I can't care about 1 million things in my life.

Just so I understand this, you're simply a defender of the law here and make no judgment regarding how these people choose to live their lives. In fact, you actively seek out all cases where the law is defended and the relationship element of the story is irrelevant to that purpose. If the law was changed to include polyamorous relationships, you'd have no problem with that.

If the law was changed to allow people with one eyed dogs to be grandfathered under rent control then I’d think that would also be silly, but probably not political. The expanding definition(s) of genders and relationships is clearly political and hence worthy of psf posting and discussion.

You may support the plaintiffs in this case and think those that don’t are terrible people…that’s ok, it’s called politics.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment

I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?

Well, that’s not your primary focus. Your primary focus appears to be a disregard for the nature of their relationship. At least, based on the exchange we just had — that was your focus. And I don’t care how consenting adults choose to spend their time or how they structure their personal relationships.

If instead you want to talk about rent control, legal rights, etc…..well, then we are likely in full agreement. I lived in two cities with rent control — it’s absurd how much gamesmanship takes place in an attempt to abuse the system.

When I lived in Manhattan, I had a rent-stabilized apartment (one level down from rent-control, which means far more common, far more expensive, and far less hated by landlords). One day I was talking to the woman who lived directly above me, who said she was moving out. She explained that the apartment was RCd, and the leaseholder had moved out like a decade prior. For most of that time, his brother was living there; the landlord unofficially knew but didn't really care. Then the brother moved out and this woman, who had zero connection to them, moved in. The landlord hired a PI to document the fact that she was living there, then confronted the leaseholder with the evidence and said they weren't going to fight him for back-rent or anything like that, he just had to give up the lease.

Best part was when I asked the woman if the landlord was going to go after her at all, and she said no, because it wasn't her fault and she had no idea it was an illegal sublease. I didn't say this to her, but I was thinking, "You were renting a 1BR on the Upper West Side for $600/month. Did you really not know it was an illegal sublet?"

 

[Captain Cranks]

Why would you care is just a way to try and silence people. He obviously cares. These "why would you care" or "I am just waiting for the facts" people will take up full residence in a thread and try and maintain that they don't care or are just being objective.

It is all so phony. There is nothing wrong with caring about what other people are doing. Literally everybody does it.

I care when people steal. I care when people grift. I care when people behave inappropriately around my kids.

I care when people park in handicapped parking spaces. I care when people litter. I care when people don't return their carts. I care when some rando will try and pretend that I can't care about people not returning shopping carts because kids are starving in Africa(or whatever other cause they pretend to be devoted to) as if I can't care about 1 million things in my life.

Just so I understand this, you're simply a defender of the law here and make no judgment regarding how these people choose to live their lives. In fact, you actively seek out all cases where the law is defended and the relationship element of the story is irrelevant to that purpose. If the law was changed to include polyamorous relationships, you'd have no problem with that.

If the law was changed to allow people with one eyed dogs to be grandfathered under rent control then I’d think that would also be silly, but probably not political. The expanding definition(s) of genders and relationships is clearly political and hence worthy of psf posting and discussion.

You may support the plaintiffs in this case and think those that don’t are terrible people…that’s ok, it’s called politics.

Ultimately it comes down to why do you care, just as my first post suggested. It's not really about the law. It's about you caring about "expanding definitions of genders and relationships". Thus, I'll repeat, I don't get it.

 

[djmich]

Why would you care is just a way to try and silence people. He obviously cares. These "why would you care" or "I am just waiting for the facts" people will take up full residence in a thread and try and maintain that they don't care or are just being objective.

It is all so phony. There is nothing wrong with caring about what other people are doing. Literally everybody does it.

I care when people steal. I care when people grift. I care when people behave inappropriately around my kids.

I care when people park in handicapped parking spaces. I care when people litter. I care when people don't return their carts. I care when some rando will try and pretend that I can't care about people not returning shopping carts because kids are starving in Africa(or whatever other cause they pretend to be devoted to) as if I can't care about 1 million things in my life.

Just so I understand this, you're simply a defender of the law here and make no judgment regarding how these people choose to live their lives. In fact, you actively seek out all cases where the law is defended and the relationship element of the story is irrelevant to that purpose. If the law was changed to include polyamorous relationships, you'd have no problem with that.

If the law was changed to allow people with one eyed dogs to be grandfathered under rent control then I’d think that would also be silly, but probably not political. The expanding definition(s) of genders and relationships is clearly political and hence worthy of psf posting and discussion.

You may support the plaintiffs in this case and think those that don’t are terrible people…that’s ok, it’s called politics.

Ultimately it comes down to why do you care, just as my first post suggested. It's not really about the law. It's about you caring about "expanding definitions of genders and relationships". Thus, I'll repeat, I don't get it.

I dont care about expanding definitions, they are a curiosity to me if anything, sometimes taking on a circus like feel.

But expanding definitions starts to impact law, education, sports. I care about those things. I don’t think the use of an expanding definition is cause to change the law in this case. I’m not in an uproar, clutching my pearls nor am I going to take to the streets in protest. But in my view the law should not change in this case.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Why would you care is just a way to try and silence people. He obviously cares. These "why would you care" or "I am just waiting for the facts" people will take up full residence in a thread and try and maintain that they don't care or are just being objective.

It is all so phony. There is nothing wrong with caring about what other people are doing. Literally everybody does it.

I care when people steal. I care when people grift. I care when people behave inappropriately around my kids.

I care when people park in handicapped parking spaces. I care when people litter. I care when people don't return their carts. I care when some rando will try and pretend that I can't care about people not returning shopping carts because kids are starving in Africa(or whatever other cause they pretend to be devoted to) as if I can't care about 1 million things in my life.

Just so I understand this, you're simply a defender of the law here and make no judgment regarding how these people choose to live their lives. In fact, you actively seek out all cases where the law is defended and the relationship element of the story is irrelevant to that purpose. If the law was changed to include polyamorous relationships, you'd have no problem with that.

I make just about the most unambiguous statements on this board. I literally said I don't believe polyamorous throuples should have rights*. So why would I be ok with them having rights if the law was changed giving them rights?

*Please don't now make some stupid reply that I think people involved in these relationships should have all of their personal rights taken away. Like we can just throw them in dungeons or tar and feather them. It is pretty obvious what I mean, but clearly I need to clarify.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment

I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?

Well, that’s not your primary focus. Your primary focus appears to be a disregard for the nature of their relationship. At least, based on the exchange we just had — that was your focus. And I don’t care how consenting adults choose to spend their time or how they structure their personal relationships.

If instead you want to talk about rent control, legal rights, etc…..well, then we are likely in full agreement. I lived in two cities with rent control — it’s absurd how much gamesmanship takes place in an attempt to abuse the system.

Of course I have a disregard for their relationship. I have a disregard for all sorts of things. I just don't have an actionable disregard for these things until they cross over into certain areas.

We make these distinctions all the time. When they crossover into public policy decisions, such things become fair game.

If some guy has sex with 20 other guys weekly at their house, I definitely make a moral judgment on that guy. Somebody cheats on their wife, oh yeah, that guy gets judged too. But that's the extent of it. I don't want a law putting either of them in jail or getting a ticket or something stupid like that.

However if those people seek legal protections or free gym memberships for their mistresses and misteresses well then yeah, I am going to speak up and I definitely want that door slammed firmly in their face.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment

I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?

Well, that’s not your primary focus. Your primary focus appears to be a disregard for the nature of their relationship. At least, based on the exchange we just had — that was your focus. And I don’t care how consenting adults choose to spend their time or how they structure their personal relationships.

If instead you want to talk about rent control, legal rights, etc…..well, then we are likely in full agreement. I lived in two cities with rent control — it’s absurd how much gamesmanship takes place in an attempt to abuse the system.

Of course I have a disregard for their relationship. I have a disregard for all sorts of things. I just don't have an actionable disregard for these things until they cross over into certain areas.

We make these distinctions all the time. When they crossover into public policy decisions, such things become fair game.

If some guy has sex with 20 other guys weekly at their house, I definitely make a moral judgment on that guy. Somebody cheats on their wife, oh yeah, that guy gets judged too. But that's the extent of it. I don't want a law putting either of them in jail or getting a ticket or something stupid like that.

However if those people seek legal protections or free gym memberships for their mistresses and misteresses well then yeah, I am going to speak up and I definitely want that door slammed firmly in their face.

Understood. I can appreciate the response and your position, even if I disagree with you. Thanks for further clarifying.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I make just about the most unambiguous statements on this board. I literally said I don't believe polyamorous throuples should have rights*. So why would I be ok with them having rights if the law was changed giving them rights?

*Please don't now make some stupid reply that I think people involved in these relationships should have all of their personal rights taken away. Like we can just throw them in dungeons or tar and feather them. It is pretty obvious what I mean, but clearly I need to clarify.

Don't you worry. It's all been abundantly clear from the get-go.

 

[Zow]

Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment

I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?

Well, that’s not your primary focus. Your primary focus appears to be a disregard for the nature of their relationship. At least, based on the exchange we just had — that was your focus. And I don’t care how consenting adults choose to spend their time or how they structure their personal relationships.

If instead you want to talk about rent control, legal rights, etc…..well, then we are likely in full agreement. I lived in two cities with rent control — it’s absurd how much gamesmanship takes place in an attempt to abuse the system.

When I lived in Manhattan, I had a rent-stabilized apartment (one level down from rent-control, which means far more common, far more expensive, and far less hated by landlords). One day I was talking to the woman who lived directly above me, who said she was moving out. She explained that the apartment was RCd, and the leaseholder had moved out like a decade prior. For most of that time, his brother was living there; the landlord unofficially knew but didn't really care. Then the brother moved out and this woman, who had zero connection to them, moved in. The landlord hired a PI to document the fact that she was living there, then confronted the leaseholder with the evidence and said they weren't going to fight him for back-rent or anything like that, he just had to give up the lease.

Best part was when I asked the woman if the landlord was going to go after her at all, and she said no, because it wasn't her fault and she had no idea it was an illegal sublease. I didn't say this to her, but I was thinking, "You were renting a 1BR on the Upper West Side for $600/month. Did you really not know it was an illegal sublet?"

I've actually represented a number of landlords in eviction proceedings and I actually have a decent amount of sympathy for them. In most cases, it really does seem like the tenant is doing the best he or she can to live rent free without consequence.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment

I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?

Well, that’s not your primary focus. Your primary focus appears to be a disregard for the nature of their relationship. At least, based on the exchange we just had — that was your focus. And I don’t care how consenting adults choose to spend their time or how they structure their personal relationships.

If instead you want to talk about rent control, legal rights, etc…..well, then we are likely in full agreement. I lived in two cities with rent control — it’s absurd how much gamesmanship takes place in an attempt to abuse the system.

When I lived in Manhattan, I had a rent-stabilized apartment (one level down from rent-control, which means far more common, far more expensive, and far less hated by landlords). One day I was talking to the woman who lived directly above me, who said she was moving out. She explained that the apartment was RCd, and the leaseholder had moved out like a decade prior. For most of that time, his brother was living there; the landlord unofficially knew but didn't really care. Then the brother moved out and this woman, who had zero connection to them, moved in. The landlord hired a PI to document the fact that she was living there, then confronted the leaseholder with the evidence and said they weren't going to fight him for back-rent or anything like that, he just had to give up the lease.

Best part was when I asked the woman if the landlord was going to go after her at all, and she said no, because it wasn't her fault and she had no idea it was an illegal sublease. I didn't say this to her, but I was thinking, "You were renting a 1BR on the Upper West Side for $600/month. Did you really not know it was an illegal sublet?"

I've actually represented a number of landlords in eviction proceedings and I actually have a decent amount of sympathy for them. In most cases, it really does seem like the tenant is doing the best he or she can to love rent free without consequence.

Oh I can only imagine. The irony is that rent-control apartments are kind of a poisoned chalice. Or maybe a golden handcuff. In any event, they're invariably crappy apartments with completely outdated furnishings because the landlord has a strong disincentive to upgrade anything beyond the bare minimum. I lived in a different building in NYC that had some RC units, and the landlord was telling me how the people who lived there were extremely wealthy professionals who nonetheless felt the need to hold on to their undersized studio apartments because they couldn't bear to give them up.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment

I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?

Well, that’s not your primary focus. Your primary focus appears to be a disregard for the nature of their relationship. At least, based on the exchange we just had — that was your focus. And I don’t care how consenting adults choose to spend their time or how they structure their personal relationships.

If instead you want to talk about rent control, legal rights, etc…..well, then we are likely in full agreement. I lived in two cities with rent control — it’s absurd how much gamesmanship takes place in an attempt to abuse the system.

When I lived in Manhattan, I had a rent-stabilized apartment (one level down from rent-control, which means far more common, far more expensive, and far less hated by landlords). One day I was talking to the woman who lived directly above me, who said she was moving out. She explained that the apartment was RCd, and the leaseholder had moved out like a decade prior. For most of that time, his brother was living there; the landlord unofficially knew but didn't really care. Then the brother moved out and this woman, who had zero connection to them, moved in. The landlord hired a PI to document the fact that she was living there, then confronted the leaseholder with the evidence and said they weren't going to fight him for back-rent or anything like that, he just had to give up the lease.

Best part was when I asked the woman if the landlord was going to go after her at all, and she said no, because it wasn't her fault and she had no idea it was an illegal sublease. I didn't say this to her, but I was thinking, "You were renting a 1BR on the Upper West Side for $600/month. Did you really not know it was an illegal sublet?"

I've actually represented a number of landlords in eviction proceedings and I actually have a decent amount of sympathy for them. In most cases, it really does seem like the tenant is doing the best he or she can to love rent free without consequence.

Appreciate the Freudian slip here

 

[moleculo]

Why would you care is just a way to try and silence people. He obviously cares. These "why would you care" or "I am just waiting for the facts" people will take up full residence in a thread and try and maintain that they don't care or are just being objective.

It is all so phony. There is nothing wrong with caring about what other people are doing. Literally everybody does it.

I care when people steal. I care when people grift. I care when people behave inappropriately around my kids.

I care when people park in handicapped parking spaces. I care when people litter. I care when people don't return their carts. I care when some rando will try and pretend that I can't care about people not returning shopping carts because kids are starving in Africa(or whatever other cause they pretend to be devoted to) as if I can't care about 1 million things in my life.

Just so I understand this, you're simply a defender of the law here and make no judgment regarding how these people choose to live their lives. In fact, you actively seek out all cases where the law is defended and the relationship element of the story is irrelevant to that purpose. If the law was changed to include polyamorous relationships, you'd have no problem with that.

I make just about the most unambiguous statements on this board. I literally said I don't believe polyamorous throuples should have rights*. So why would I be ok with them having rights if the law was changed giving them rights?

*Please don't now make some stupid reply that I think people involved in these relationships should have all of their personal rights taken away. Like we can just throw them in dungeons or tar and feather them. It is pretty obvious what I mean, but clearly I need to clarify.

I agree. It makes zero sense to me to assign marriage privileges to people not married, especially if they have a legal right to be married and choose to not be.

 

[djmich]

Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment

I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?

Well, that’s not your primary focus. Your primary focus appears to be a disregard for the nature of their relationship. At least, based on the exchange we just had — that was your focus. And I don’t care how consenting adults choose to spend their time or how they structure their personal relationships.

If instead you want to talk about rent control, legal rights, etc…..well, then we are likely in full agreement. I lived in two cities with rent control — it’s absurd how much gamesmanship takes place in an attempt to abuse the system.

Of course I have a disregard for their relationship. I have a disregard for all sorts of things. I just don't have an actionable disregard for these things until they cross over into certain areas.

We make these distinctions all the time. When they crossover into public policy decisions, such things become fair game.

If some guy has sex with 20 other guys weekly at their house, I definitely make a moral judgment on that guy. Somebody cheats on their wife, oh yeah, that guy gets judged too. But that's the extent of it. I don't want a law putting either of them in jail or getting a ticket or something stupid like that.

However if those people seek legal protections or free gym memberships for their mistresses and misteresses well then yeah, I am going to speak up and I definitely want that door slammed firmly in their face.

Understood. I can appreciate the response and your position, even if I disagree with you. Thanks for further clarifying.

I’m curious which part you disagree with?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment

I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?

Well, that’s not your primary focus. Your primary focus appears to be a disregard for the nature of their relationship. At least, based on the exchange we just had — that was your focus. And I don’t care how consenting adults choose to spend their time or how they structure their personal relationships.

If instead you want to talk about rent control, legal rights, etc…..well, then we are likely in full agreement. I lived in two cities with rent control — it’s absurd how much gamesmanship takes place in an attempt to abuse the system.

Of course I have a disregard for their relationship. I have a disregard for all sorts of things. I just don't have an actionable disregard for these things until they cross over into certain areas.

We make these distinctions all the time. When they crossover into public policy decisions, such things become fair game.

If some guy has sex with 20 other guys weekly at their house, I definitely make a moral judgment on that guy. Somebody cheats on their wife, oh yeah, that guy gets judged too. But that's the extent of it. I don't want a law putting either of them in jail or getting a ticket or something stupid like that.

However if those people seek legal protections or free gym memberships for their mistresses and misteresses well then yeah, I am going to speak up and I definitely want that door slammed firmly in their face.

Understood. I can appreciate the response and your position, even if I disagree with you. Thanks for further clarifying.

I’m curious which part you disagree with?

I don’t have a disregard for their relationship. Just because I don’t personally have a desire to be in a polyamorous relationship, that doesn’t mean I consider their relationship invalid or immoral.

 

[rockaction]

Yeah, I can chime in and safely say Captain Cranks is doing exactly that - trying to shut up people he disagrees with by asking "Why do you care?"

Here, i'll just change this long settled-law. Why do you care?

It's an old internet trick, and people have figured it out.

Tough **** for Cranks.

 

[rockaction]

Don't you worry. It's all been abundantly clear from the get-go.

Then why ask and waste him time? This was all a waste of time. You were being a troll. Why not just say you disagreed and move along instead of wasting all our time reading your **** and all his time responding to it? I'm half-tempted to report you as a troll.

Good work.

 

[rockaction]

Forget it.

 

[Zow]

Why would you care is just a way to try and silence people. He obviously cares. These "why would you care" or "I am just waiting for the facts" people will take up full residence in a thread and try and maintain that they don't care or are just being objective.

It is all so phony. There is nothing wrong with caring about what other people are doing. Literally everybody does it.

I care when people steal. I care when people grift. I care when people behave inappropriately around my kids.

I care when people park in handicapped parking spaces. I care when people litter. I care when people don't return their carts. I care when some rando will try and pretend that I can't care about people not returning shopping carts because kids are starving in Africa(or whatever other cause they pretend to be devoted to) as if I can't care about 1 million things in my life.

Just so I understand this, you're simply a defender of the law here and make no judgment regarding how these people choose to live their lives. In fact, you actively seek out all cases where the law is defended and the relationship element of the story is irrelevant to that purpose. If the law was changed to include polyamorous relationships, you'd have no problem with that.

I make just about the most unambiguous statements on this board. I literally said I don't believe polyamorous throuples should have rights*. So why would I be ok with them having rights if the law was changed giving them rights?

*Please don't now make some stupid reply that I think people involved in these relationships should have all of their personal rights taken away. Like we can just throw them in dungeons or tar and feather them. It is pretty obvious what I mean, but clearly I need to clarify.

I agree. It makes zero sense to me to assign marriage privileges to people not married, especially if they have a legal right to be married and choose to not be.

Yeah it made far more sense before the legalization of gay marriage.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Forget it.

Lol

 

[Captain Cranks]

Don't you worry. It's all been abundantly clear from the get-go.

Then why ask and waste him time? This was all a waste of time. You were being a troll. Why not just say you disagreed and move along instead of wasting all our time reading your **** and all his time responding to it? I'm half-tempted to report you as a troll.

Good work.

Do me a favor. Take everything you and para have said in this thread, but replace polyamorous with homosexuals. Now rewind to the 1990s and tell me if you'd be saying anything different. "It's settled law," right? If there is a difference, explain why. Then, I will get the answer to my question, "why do you care?"

If you need to label that as trolling in an attempt to silence me, have at it. It makes for a great bit of irony.