Print

Welcome, Guest

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Valley Exile]

http://www.sharonherald.com/local/local_story_182203856.html

(1)  Is this an example of the city changing the rules after the fact?  If the tenants are responsible for water and sewer, how can the city now be suing the landlord?  It's kind of like the phone or cable company trying to collect from the landlord.

(2)  That said, shouldn't the city always have always billed the property owners anyway like other municipalities in PA do?  The landlords could then (try to) collect from the tenants, and I'm sure the problem would never have gotten this big.

[NightmarePatrol]

Isn't this kind of stuff negotiated at lease time? If the tenants are responsible for paying for the water ans sewer then it should not be the landlords responsibility to chase them down. In the end it comes down to whose name is on the bill, right?

[precisionpest]

when i have rented in the past, landlord always paid water & sewer bills & forwarded it to me, that way they know it was paid. of course after they paid it.

[Lifetime]

Easy one to fix...... Add the Sewer Bill to the rent/lease in a monthy increase..... or... ask for the money upfront from the client.
 
But here is a way.... have a "POOP SHUTE" valve installed on the address's sewer line...kinda like the way the water company and gas company turns service on or off to the facility. If the Water is turned on..... so is the "POOP SHUTE VALVE". Landlords should know when their clients move in and out...and WHO is living there... ( their responsibility) and the proper authorities should be called to open or close the service. If someone DOES NOT do this.... and it is closed and a client tries to utilize it....."Right Back Atcha!!!!"  ..
 
"POOP SHUTE" closed...... No fee.... OPEN..... Have at them. To flush or not to flush..... make the call. LOL... IMHO

[lifefeedsonlife]

That's an interesting solution. Of course you'd have national housing advocacy reps going bananas if they ever caught wind (pun intended) of something like that - it'd be a litigation circus. However - if the sewer authorities across the country become federalized (like every other damn thing seems to be) I could see it "being OK" - because it seems to me that the issue isn't what's being done, but who's allowed to do it.

[Spicoli]

Is the WHOLE family a bunch of deadbeats?  Sure seems like it!

[lifefeedsonlife]

Maybe they could institute and Flush and Trade system wherein you would be penalized for producing too much fecal matter . . . but if you had a neighbor that tended to be bound up, you could buy some of his flush credits so you could go at your leisure . . . .

[CindyLouWho]

The sales of depends would skyrocket.  I'd buy stock.

[Spicoli]

Maybe they could institute and Flush and Trade system wherein you would be penalized for producing too much fecal matter . . . but if you had a neighbor that tended to be bound up, you could buy some of his flush credits so you could go at your leisure . . . .

That's a good one!

[Jayhawk]

[url=http://www.sharonherald.com/local/local_story_182203856.html]http://www.sharonherald.com/local/local_story_182203856.html[/url]

(1)  Is this an example of the city changing the rules after the fact?  If the tenants are responsible for water and sewer, how can the city now be suing the landlord?  It's kind of like the phone or cable company trying to collect from the landlord.

(2)  That said, shouldn't the city always have always billed the property owners anyway like other municipalities in PA do?  The landlords could then (try to) collect from the tenants, and I'm sure the problem would never have gotten this big.

because of tenants' dine 'n' dash tendencies, i'm pretty sure the city changed the rules years ago so that the property owner (landlord) was officially responsible for the bill. It goes with the property, just like taxes; cities don't bill tenants for property taxes, so for both landlords would build those costs-of-doing-business into the rent.

It sounds as if this family is contesting the concept of them paying the sewer bills, which is a separate legal matter maybe they should have said something about before it got this far. If they expected their tenants to be paying all along, they should have forwarded that bill to them long ago, not ignored it. Same goes for any utility that is/isn't in tenants' name.

“They want to sue me and my family — we don’t even live in Sharon — because these people aren’t paying their bills,” he said. Again, what, you're exempt from property taxes, too, 'cause you don't live in sharon?

i like how the family's paving company graciously repaired a city street and got a big human interest story out of it. Only now we find out it was working off a debt through community service like a celebrity ladeling bowls of chowder at a soup kitchen.

i wonder how many poor little old widows were given the option of shoveling snow at the city building to work off their sewer debts or whether the city would accept payments in chickens or sacks of potatoes.

[GROK]

I hope this family of scofflaws get their come-uppance. The rationale for the rather exhorbitant recent increase in our sewer bills was partially due to "landlords" such as these. Wouldn't it be nice if the board reduced our monthly bills if the sewer board is successful in recovering the debts owed. (I know...the chance of that is between nil and 0).
I also found it disturbing that the Herald did not research their piece on the road paving episode adequately to unveil the real reason for the work being done ( debtor's payment not altruistic benevolence) Maybe if the Herald had uncovered that it could have pre-empted our rate hike by exposing the family sooner to public scrutiny (wishful thinking I know.)

[CindyLouWho]

If the bill is in the landlords name then the landlord is responsible to pay.  What's so hard to understand.  He pays and in turn charges the tennants.  It's his problem if the tennants don't pay him.  If he doesn't like it, don't do the renting thing.   I have rented and my share was included in the rent.

[Jayhawk]

I also found it disturbing that the Herald did not research their piece on the road paving episode adequately to unveil the real reason for the work being done ( debtor's payment not altruistic benevolence)

It sound as though BOTH sides at the time portrayed the event glowingly as good citizenship and conveniently left out that critical detail, thus leaving no reason for anyone to be suspicious.

it's sad, but apparently necessary, that anyone would need to cast a critical eye on what is billed as an act of charity. It's also interesting that such a special, work-it-off deal could be reached in secret in the first place. Makes ya wonder what other surprises are on the list of sewer deadbeats.

[GROK]

I agree. It just saddens me that the fourth estate has become so lax that it accepts at face value anything that is spoon-fed to it by the local government. Given that this is now out in the open, I would think that a stronger investigative action by the Herald should be initiated to try to uncover other "surprises" as you alluded to. True transparency in most government actions/interactions is (or should be) our right. The only caveat to this is that the transparency should not compromise our nation's defense/safety or delicate diplomacy. (There may be other viable caveats, but they should be minimal in number and application)

[TiFeMb]

man, y'all use them big GRE words.

I agree, scoffaws should pay. Thename on the bill is who is responsible. You hit the nail on the head CLW, the landlord needs to get out of the renting business, but he is responsible for the debt. tough.