Print

Welcome, Guest

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

[Jayhawk]

if you do the math, the million bucks or so owed by the 1,000 worst deadbeats works out to about $200 apiece -- 4 monthly bills' worth -- for every one of the other 4 or 5 thousand who pays on time. And in fact i think i read the delinquency rate is or was as high as 25% of all users.

Since the operating staff still and debt payments still have to be paid no matter what, the longer and the more people who get away scot-free, the more the honest residents get dunned.

it's still amazing that all this debt for the worst users added up in the mere 10 or 12 years that the city had even had a sewer fee (it had been part of taxes). And since the rate accelerated to $50 a month just a couple years ago, as an individual home user, you pretty much had to blow off a couple years of bills completely to rack up a grand of delinquency.

[Lifetime]

But..... Going back to an aforementioned situation.... Scumlords who own more than say..... FIVE dumps....( saw some with 15 I think ) ....It doesn't take long at what... $54/month, to rack up impressive numbers.
 
The main premise for these Landlords is..... "it isn't MY bill" so they don't pay. They think it is the bill of the resident. Well who pays the bill on duplexes when ONE side isn't rented out? I know that the bill continues...even when the unit is empty.
 
The other "premise" is.... "please feel sorry for me  .... I have been charging the MAX for my Sec. 8 Units and under State LAW, I cannot charge more to retrieve the $54. If I take that out of the MAXIMUM I can charge..I can't vacation or buy that new car or truck that I write off anyway."
 
GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK!!!!! 
 
If you want a fast shakey dime.... go see Madoff, if you want a slow, steady nickel.... do what is right.

[Lifetime]

http://www.sharon-herald.com/local/local_story_049214704.html
 
 
What I found interesting..... some property "owners" were worm food and.... one property identified ...was sold 4...FOUR times in one year? WTF. And "Land Contract" isn't land contract...it is fancy RENT!!!!! This is a cesspool of landowner legalities. Maybe there should be a tax on ....Oh... they already tax that. My Bad....
 
Maybe if a demolition crew was placed outside the homes in question?    No Pay...No Poop.
 
Seriously... this is just a matter of a Judge telling all involved to pay up or leave. But...no judge has the cajones to do that. I understand if there is an HONEST, GOOD reason considered but..it seems that there hasn't been any. I have 2 homes on my street that are on the list and one has the OWNER of record having been dead almost 2 decades and the other is a burn victim...and these are side by side.

[NightmarePatrol]

So all the parties are fighting over whose responsible to pay? Maybe a judge should give them 30 days to work out an agreement amongst themselves and hand the moeny over or they will all get billed for the full amount? That might instill some cooperation.

[Jayhawk]

So all the parties are fighting over whose responsible to pay?

The law seems pretty clear to me: Whoever owns the property is responsible for the bill. Period.

Even if the place isn't rented, trying to get out of the sewer bill is a bit of bogus argument. When someone moves out, to protect the place from the weather you don't usually completely shut off the gas, water or electricity. If the place is vacant for a long time, perhaps the authority needs to refine its definition of when a house is inhabited (i.e., if any other utilities are turned on)

As for the house that sold a whopping 4 times in a year, who says the sharon real estate market is stagnent?

[Lifetime]

"As for the house that sold a whopping 4 times in a year, who says the sharon real estate market is stagnent?"
 
LOL We have houses here that are sold, bought and then the owner decides they didn't want them. They do this long distance and it is more of a pain to try to resell than to just leave it sit. Sooner or later it becomes cinders.
 
STAGNANT!!!!! No..... but it does remind me of a lot of Swamp Water.... wanna sip? LOL

[Jayhawk]

We have houses here that are sold, bought and then the owner decides they didn't want them. They do this long distance and it is more of a pain to try to resell than to just leave it sit.

I've seen several sharon and farrell houses for sale on ebay at extremely low prices. Don't recall seeing any of them actually sell.

the description and photos often actually looks good. It's just that when you look at the addresses that you realize those marks on the siding likely came from stray bullets or heat from the burning house next door.

[JimV]

I saw an ad in yesterday's Herald saying that the Wave restaurant ($9,000 in sewer bills owed) is closing and "moving to a new location that will better serve its customers."  Let's hope they do a better job of paying their bills--and holding on to their liquor license--when/if their new location opens.

[JimV]

[url=http://www.thewaveitalianrestaurant.com/Home.html]http://www.thewaveitalianrestaurant.com/Home.html[/url]
 
[url=http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jerry-sovesky/4/315/416]http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jerry-sovesky/4/315/416[/url]

Hmm, turns out that Mr. Sovesky is a sewer deadbeat too...hardly surprising!

I stopped going to the Wave quite a while ago when the place became run down and the food quality went (no pun intended) into the toilet. 

[JimV]

Frankly, given the Wave's past bill-paying prowess, I wouldn't be surprised if it's bailing because its building will soon be under new ownership--that of the IRS.

[Jayhawk]

it is hard to understand how a business that thrived for 63 years in an odd little building -- which presumably is long paid-for -- would find it advantageous to say it is closing in a matter of weeks and moving (without saying where or when it will reopen) to a location that presumably would involve thousands a month in rent or mortgage costs.

i like the place, wish them well and hope things work out for the best. Their niche seemed to be being one of the last everyday restaurants (lube is different and doesn't count) downtown for shoppers and business workers, so the idea that they will blossom in some strip-mall storefront just seems to defy the character of the restaurant.

[JimV]

it is hard to understand how a business that thrived for 63 years in an odd little building -- which presumably is long paid-for -- would find it advantageous to say it is closing in a matter of weeks and moving (without saying where or when it will reopen) to a location that presumably would involve thousands a month in rent or mortgage costs.

i like the place, wish them well and hope things work out for the best. Their niche seemed to be being one of the last everyday restaurants (lube is different and doesn't count) downtown for shoppers and business workers, so the idea that they will blossom in some strip-mall storefront just seems to defy the character of the restaurant.

No idea...at the very least, I always thought it was common knowledge that a business shouldn't close an existing location before a new location opens.  That's why I think it has something to do with bills...

[Jayhawk]

As for them having an outstanding sewage bill...I would think that the city has a little blame for that...a resident is one thing but a business is something else...

did you mean "the city deserves little blame"?

Otherwise, a business IS something else -- a super user of greater volume than a residence, and a user who has no less responsibility than you or I to pay its bills.

[Jayhawk]

I would think that the city could have shut off the water...or something...there should have been something that the city could do to a business...which would be different then a resident...so yes I am saying that the city shares some blame...in that the bill had gone up so high

It's unclear if this is even the case, but theoretically it's not the city's fault if any customer, residential or commercial, ends up in dire straits because they not only were unable to pay an ongoing bill but may have gotten seriously behind.

Either you're saying the city should have put such a user out of their misery long ago before a bill got out of hand, or that now that the total bill is out of hand, it's the city's fault for giving them slack and the city should offer magic hardship deals at the expense of all other users who somehow WERE able to pay.

One known deal -- and who knows what others there were -- swapped overdue sewer bills for paving services that probably by law should have been bid out. It's one thing to offer economic incentives and grants to bonafide businesses that expand, relocate, etc., but city govt. shouldn't be in the business of offering special help to those who are no less needy than a poor widow woman on a fixed income who can't afford her utilities but gets no break.

[Jayhawk]

I apologize if it came across as putting words in your mouth. I was merely stating some of the what-ifs.

I am saying it may be the city's fault that it had gotten that far and I am talking Business not Resident...could the city have tried to work with the resturant sooner

i disagree. At the end of the day, the money not paid to the sewer fund by a business is just as green as the debt of a poor widow.

The city could have acted sooner to prevent a business' bill from getting so high, but the only thing they should have done was cut 'em off, not cut 'em a break.

I'm guessing they DID approach the deadbeats -- in the form of a bill every month. And if they didn't already know, anyone who had the courtesy to contact the city would have been offered payment-arrangement terms (which i understand are "pay half now, pay double the monthly charge till you're caught up")

Any other deal or outcome ("here, we'll waive part of your debt") would be an insult to every other customer who somehow manages to pay on time.