A LOLA yelled out to Joe "go ahead, lie some more!!"

[Sportmotor]

Zoo brings up a good point...Hey anyone in Springfield want to buy a pistol or 8? Sell it to you cheep

[fsujax]

Well, I just want to know who the most informed poster is?

[zoo]

You really have to ask? Everyone already knows who Stephen thinks it is...

Those idiots at Brookings' Metropolitan Policy Institute and the Urban Institute should all be fired so they can hire him!

[ChriswUfGator]

Renters shouldn't have a say in the future of a neighborhood, imo. they have no stake in it, no investment. here today, gone tomorrow.

A: Unbelievably snotty thing to say/think.

B: What's next? Condo owners have no say? If somebody has an apartment building but doesn't live there, they have no say? (well I can personally vouch for that being the case) Someone has a business, but doesn't live there, they have no say? If that business sells a flavor of cupcakes you don't like, they have no say? Who said you guys get to appoint who can say anything in the first place?

You and SPAR just slice and dice the numbers any way you can, to narrow down the people who are 'allowed' to have an opinion on anything to a group that includes nothing more than yourselves and those who agree with you. I know many renters who've been in Springfield longer than any of you have, what gives you the right to exclude them from anything?

[fsu813]

(yawn) no, chris. that not what was stated.

you wasted 2 paragraphs arguing something that was never said nor inferred.

re-read the thread please.

just seems like some posters need a continuing education course in reading comp.

and a course on how to disagree without being disagreeable wouldn't hurt either.

&

think of it this way, if i own 3 shares of a company and someone else owns 300 shares.....i shouldn't have as much say in the direction of the company. they have a much larger stake in it and have earned the right to have that larger voice.

but, this is just my opinion. doesn't mean much besides that.

[Livein32206]

- Springfielder,

not that this suprises me, but you've managed to contort "renters shouldn't have as much say as property owners on the future of a neighborhood" to "property owners are better than renters". which is not what I said at all. please get that straight before you lay out another negative attack job, thanks. =P

- uptown,

like i said in the orginal post, of course there are always exceptions. but the vast majority of renters don't fall under the catagory you described.

- livin32206,

again, that's not what i said at all. your entire 5 paragraph response is based on something that was not said. see my comments to Springfielder.

of course there are exceptions, like i said in my original post, but i'm speaking to the rule rather than the exception.

i dread the day when temporary residents decide what's best for the 'hood...then leave. of course, chances are slim to none that that would ever happen, as relatively few choose to get involved in anything. which is thier choice.

think of it this way, if i own 3 shares of a company and someone else owns 300 shares.....i shouldn't have as much say in the direction of the company. they have a much larger stake in it and have earned the right to have that larger voice.

but, this is just my opinion. doesn't mean much besides that.

Funny, that's not what you said....oh, yes you did

"Once again the policy is that unless you own the house you live in, you do not count."

- that's not what i said. property owners, period.

Renters shouldn't have a say in the future of a neighborhood, imo. they have no stake in it, no investment. here today, gone tomorrow. so logically, those with a vested stake in the neighborhood should be the ones taking the lead on issues that will affect them long after the renter is gone and the next has taken his/her place. of course there are exceptions, but that's pretty much how it works in every neighborhood. which works out fine, because most renters in any neighborhood don't especially want to put in the extra time, energy, and money in the non-glamourous parts of improving the neighborhood.

Right off the bat, you clearly state that it should be property owners, period. So just how is that misunderstood? Then you go on to say that renters are here today, gone tomorrow, but of course there's exceptions. Just how was that misunderstood.

The fact is, you stated your opinion, which is very clearly understood. It doesn't matter how long my response is/was, your arrogant comments pretty much needed a response. It's only when such ignorance is overlooked, that it's allowed to continue. So don't try to back track now by saying that's not what you said, because you did say it and said it rather clearly.

[second_pancake]

It absolutely amazes me at how fired-up some of you folks can be over a fact.  Renters DO NOT have the same vested financial stake in a neighborhood that a property OWNER in that same neighborhood does.  Whether you like it or not, that is the truth.  Why?  Because a renter pays no property taxes.  A renter is not subject to HOA or other like-fees associated with the upkeep of a neighborhood.  A renter has absolutely no contracutal obligation to pay on the mortgage associated with the property, the taxes, or the insurance.  A renter is exactly what is the definition:  Someone who is paying a fee for the temporary use of goods or services.  If a group, by definition, is to be in a place for a limited time period, why in the world would they have equal say in a matter that others have vested in PERMANANTLY???  And, to answer this question:

Anyone renting a property, by law, is defined as being in "possession" of said property. How does that make "owning" the property any different?

I would hope after reading what you've read in my post above, this would be answered.  Being in "posession" of something, doesn't mean it belongs to you or that you have taken the appropriate measures to "own" it.  You, as a renter, are in posession of the property and have the right to dwell there based on the contract between yourself and the OWNER.  The owner of the property is allowing you use of the property in exchange for money or some other agreement between the two of you.  If the owner of the property defaults on his/her agreement with the bank that holds the mortgage, guess who's out of a home?  Yup, YOU are.  You have absolutely no right to that house regardless of how long you lived in it because your name is not on the deed.  You also have no right to make changes to the property without the permission of the owner.  If you can't paint the house, replace broken siding or windows, do anything to make the place you're living in contribute to the aestheic of the neighborhood, how can you even BEGIN to speak to what's in the best interest of the owners??That, my friend, is the difference. 

And to you, FSU813...Really?  Really.  Ok, since I must, here it is....

Renters shouldn't have a say in the future of a neighborhood, imo. they have no stake in it, no investment. here today, gone tomorrow.

A: Unbelievably snotty thing to say/think.

B: What's next? Condo owners have no say? If somebody has an apartment building but doesn't live there, they have no say? (well I can personally vouch for that being the case) Someone has a business, but doesn't live there, they have no say? If that business sells a flavor of cupcakes you don't like, they have no say? Who said you guys get to appoint who can say anything in the first place?

You and SPAR just slice and dice the numbers any way you can, to narrow down the people who are 'allowed' to have an opinion on anything to a group that includes nothing more than yourselves and those who agree with you. I know many renters who've been in Springfield longer than any of you have, what gives you the right to exclude them from anything?

1.  Condo Owners - The term "owner" answers your own question.  They OWN property, therefore they are not a renter, and the comment does not apply.

2.  Apartment Building Owner - Again...OWNER.  This person is what they call in the business, an "investor."  They OWN an investment property.  It's understood they don't live in it, but they do, OWN it.  Again, the comment referenced people who don't OWN property, aka RENTERs.

3.  Hmm...don't know a lot of people that live in their businesses, but to each his own I guess.  Anywho, again, provided this business owner is indeed an OWNER, then the comment doesn't apply.  Also, typically, a business generates revenue to a neighborhood that couldn't otherwise be acheived without it, and therefore falls under a different classification than a resident.  A business owner owns his/her business and is not required to purchase or mortgage a property in order to sell goods or services because it's the business and those goods services that they wholly own.  I've never met someone who RENTED the right to a business.

4.  The cupcake thing.  I have no idea what you're trying to say here.  If you are a customer and you walk into a cupcake shop to buy a cupcake, you don't yet own anything.  If you buy said cupcake, you now own it.  If you don't like the cupcake, you have every right to tell the OWNER you don't like it and the owner has every right to tell you to leave and never come back again.  Is it good business?  Probably not, but that's his/her right and yours as well.  If you asking whether the owner of the cupcake shop should have a say in things neighborhood related, see response #3.  If you're asking whether the buyer of said cupcakes should have a say in things neighborhood related, well, I'd have to ask if that customer lives and owns property in the neighborhood.  If they are a resident of D.C. spending the weekend here, why would you want that person making decisions about a place they neither know about nor have any financial interest??  You were really reaching with this comment.

Btw, I am a renter and have also OWNED several homes.

[fsu813]

"It absolutely amazes me at how fired-up some of you folks can be over a fact.  Renters DO NOT have the same vested financial stake in a neighborhood that a property OWNER in that same neighborhood does.  Whether you like it or not, that is the truth."

- manufactured outrage & defying common sense is pretty common 'round these parts, unfortunately.




"Its a crazy argument.  not worth wasting the time on.  Its source (surprisingly) is solely from the small group of the 'homeowners' who are trying to justify the types of decisions that have nothing to do with their 'homeownership'."

- actually, the source was me individually. i brought this up, prompted by your question. and you don't want to waste your time on it, because you know it's true. and there's nothing exceptionally contrversial about it.




"And even so, the 60 'homeowing' individuals or families..."

- add 100 to that number.

[fsu813]

my wife isn't currently a member actually, though i think she will be soon.

ya know, i don't recall the answer to your question. check back later and i'll have it. pretty darn sure it's memberships, not individuals. we'll see.

[CityLife]

Having taken several graduate level courses on community development, it is widely accepted that renters are not as likely to become engaged in community affairs as homeowners. That isn't to say that their opinions mean nothing, just that it may skew down SPAR's membership numbers in relation to total population. Go ask MetroNorth, Northwest Jax CDC, and Allison at ONH how hard is to engage a significant amount of residents in their communities.

Like second pancake said above, generally renters do not have the same vested interests in the long term welfare of a community. I'm sure there are quite a few who have rented here their whole life and have a great affinity for the area, but for every one of those there are probably a few who know they will only be here for the short term. I had a nice talk with a guy that was staying in a rooming/boarding house near me recently. Nice guy who was down on his luck and was trying to sell me a space heater that a friend "gave him". He didn't know much about the area and was just staying here for a few weeks till he could get enough money to go to Arlington. There's no way that you can say that a short term renter like that has the same vested interest in Springfield as does a homeowner. By the same token the long term renters and those who strive to one day own a home in Springfield, do need to be engaged and are just as vital to the area as homeowners.

I've rented places at the beach and in the inter coastal area for the past 4 years and I never once attended a community meeting, or cared about my dogs damaging the carpet and digging up the yard, but I sure as heck do now that I own a home. That same parallel can be drawn to renters at the community wide level. They are less likely to join attend a community cleanup, join an organization, etc.

[CityLife]

Having taken several graduate level courses on community development, it is widely accepted that renters are not as likely to become engaged in community affairs as homeowners. That isn't to say that their opinions mean nothing, just that it may skew down SPAR's membership numbers in relation to total population. Go ask MetroNorth, Northwest Jax CDC, and Allison at ONH how hard is to engage a significant amount of residents in their communities.

Like second pancake said above, generally renters do not have the same vested interests in the long term welfare of a community. I'm sure there are quite a few who have rented here their whole life and have a great affinity for the area, but for every one of those there are probably a few who know they will only be here for the short term. I had a nice talk with a guy that was staying in a rooming/boarding house near me recently. Nice guy who was down on his luck and was trying to sell me a space heater that a friend "gave him". He didn't know much about the area and was just staying here for a few weeks till he could get enough money to go to Arlington. There's no way that you can say that a short term renter like that has the same vested interest in Springfield as does a homeowner. By the same token the long term renters and those who strive to one day own a home in Springfield, do need to be engaged and are just as vital to the area as homeowners.

I've rented places at the beach and in the inter coastal area for the past 4 years and I never once attended a community meeting, or cared about my dogs damaging the carpet and digging up the yard, but I sure as heck do now that I own a home. That same parallel can be drawn to renters at the community wide level. They are less likely to join attend a community cleanup, join an organization, etc.

meh.  graduate level courses arent likely to take into account the atypical renters who are drawn to historic districts.

I think you may be confusing 'renters' with a sub group called 'students'.

In any case, the United States kindof moved past that a while ago. 

Many of the springfield 'homeowners' were tax subsidized and artifically inflated by speculators anyways.

Different ballgame.

Ivory tower thinkers don't take into account a lot of things. I would agree that renters in urban historic districts may differ from their counterparts, but don't think that changes that renters in Springfield aren't as engaged as homeowners. I would be willing to bet that if you went through the sign in sheet of the last community cleanup that 75%+ are homeowners even though the district probably has a higher proportion of renters to homeowners.

[sheclown]

Regardless of who picks up more trash, the bottom line is that all citizens of (fill in the blank here, USA, Florida, COJ, Springfield) deserve recognition, consideration, and representation by the leaders of (fill in the blank here). 

To say anything else is pretty darn horrid.

[ChriswUfGator]

my wife isn't currently a member actually, though i think she will be soon.

I guess it will be the "landslide of 40" then...ROFL

[sheclown]

Anyone renting a property, by law, is defined as being in "possession" of said property. How does that make "owning" the property any different?

For one thing, the renters aren't "upside down" in their homes -- they probably have more expendable income to spend in the neighborhood as a result.

[second_pancake]

Not that it's going to make any difference to you, Stephen, but for the rest of the folks that read this and take it as gospel, I have to make a correction to your comment....

ok.

1.  there is no HOA in springfield.

2.  Most of the land that the new homes are built on was either donated land or bought at the 5k per lot price with the help of the city, therefore it is tax subsidized.

3.  At what point is a homeowner a homeowner?  When they pay off the bank, I would assume.  Many of the alleged 'homeowners' who were screaming about their right to control the neighborhoods a few years ago got foreclosed on.  Their renters, the people who actually live there, are still in the buildings.

Its a crazy argument.  not worth wasting the time on.  Its source (surprisingly) is solely from the small group of the 'homeowners' who are trying to justify the types of decisions that have nothing to do with their 'homeownership'.

And even so, the 60 'homeowing' individuals or families associated with SPAR are still in the great minority of the neighborhood.

Which has boiled down to the Landslide of 39 group.

3.  I am in the mortgage industry...I know mortgages and banking like the back of my hand.  A bank is an investor.  A homeowner becomes a "homeowner" the moment they sign the promissory note and take ownership (this is how it is worded in the legal-binding documents) of that property.  The bank is merely LENDING the money to allow the person to purchase the home.  The home is collateral used to secure that investment that the bank made.  It's no different then you asking a friend to loan you $10,000 to go buy a car with the written promise that you will pay him back and if not, he gets the car.  He doesn't own the car, but he has invested in it and WILL own it if you don't pay.  Now, if you really want to get into details we could go on and on about mortgage-back securities and the housing bubble and the "speculation" you mention, but it's not really relevant to the topic of conversation.

And as far as the renters living in properties that have been foreclosed on.  Big negatory on that one.  When a property goes into foreclosure, the owner has up until the date of sale to make good on the back payments or enter into a loss mitigation workout with the lender. If they fail to do so, in the state of FL, the property is sold at auction to the highest bidder.  Usually, the lender bids in full on the property taking full ownership so that they can market the property as a Real-Estate-Owned (REO) property where they have the best chance of recooping their loss.  That is when the bank officially OWNS the property.  Anyone living in the home is evicted long before that event takes place.  While there are new laws under the Obama plan that allow a renter to stay into the home past the previously allotted time limits under foreclosure, they do not get to stay in the property indefinitely.  They are served with notice of eviction and have 30-60 days to vacate.  If they don't, the sherriff will put them out. 

It's usually around 60 days from the time a Notice of Foreclosure is posted at the courthouse (how it's done in FL), before the sale takes place.  It's during this time period that eviction proceedings are in the works.  If at the time of sale, there is still someone in the property and the bank successfully wins the bid, they will be removed right then and there.  So, if you know renters that are living in foreclosed properties, the foreclosure either has been reinstated (payments paid in full or negotiated workout in place), or those renters will be finding a new place to live pretty darn soon.