Member Since Jul 29th, 2008
Are you Holly? If So, Login Here.
Aug 16th 2013 7:32PM I agree. I've lived in Albuquerque over 25 years and not one natural disaster. In the time I've been here, we've had 2 "big" snowstorms that would be laughed at as just normal snow where I grew up grew up in Missouri. Then, I remember a year when heavy rainfall caused the sewer drains near downtown to overflow and some people and businesses got about an inch of water on their floors. Never had any mile high dust storms roll through like in AZ or tornados. Those who live in the mountainous regions of NM can be at risk for wildfires but they rarely account for as much damage as the ones that always are breaking out in California. The only big one that's happened since I've been here was one up in Los Alamos quite a few years ago. If they want to ignore the safety of our states from natural disasters, that's fine with me. Our cities don't need an influx of people to turn them into, God forbid, New York City.
Jul 8th 2013 6:39PM Who do cash offers really hurt? The banks and finance companies that don't get to collect interest from loans. "If a lot of people think home prices will rise, they will put money into the market, and that increases demand and pushes up prices." The government pushing lenders to make sub-prime loans to unqualified buyers inflated the housing market with investors using borrowed money to bet that the bubble wouldn't burst. At least with cash buys, the single buyers are saving big amounts of interest and the investors are betting their OWN money that prices will rise.
Mar 23rd 2013 7:16PM Insurance companies aren't fools and have high priced attorneys. When they make policy or coverage changes, you always get a notice in the mail. Odds are she received notice and didn't read it. You don't have to sign anything accepting the change. The companies have a right to make changes. When made aware of changes by notice, you can change companies if you don't like it. If she can prove the date she got the dog, she may be able to have her premiums returned for the period her policy would have been considered cancelled, unless there's some provision in the policy that she should have informed them when she got the banned dog.
It's no big secret that most insurance companies will not insure homes which have certain breeds of dogs known to be agressive and that the few companies that do offer coverage for them will charge higher premiums. They don't care about how nice your dog may be, they deny coverage to breeds known to have cost them the most money to insure from past claims. I highly doubt that legally she has a leg to stand on.
Feb 9th 2013 11:28AM I'd rather live next door to well cared for and contained leopards and tigers than unpredictable pit bulls. Considering the cats have been there for over 25 years and haven't bit or eaten anyone, they don't seem to pose much of a danger to anyone. I don't see how the cats are affecting home values. The cats were there when the cat-hater bought his home in 2006 and didn't keep him from buying.
Jan 20th 2013 10:14PM You'ld think so. These whiners buy in communities with HOA's and then get upset when the board ruffles their feathers and doesn't let them have things their way. The dogs don't care what color their house is.
She's in a tizzy because her childhood dream of having a pink Malibu Barbie doghouse has been quashed. The woman's nothing but a crybaby. The HOA is probably happy she's selling.
Dec 20th 2012 8:35PM True. Any apartment building that isn't smokefree should put a clause in the lease advising that it is not smokefree and that the tenant assumes the risk of being exposed to secondhand smoke. Bye, bye lawsuits. If you're allergic to dogs or cats, don't rent in a building that allows pets. If you're so afraid that secondhand smoke will seep into your apartment from your neighbor's, don't rent in a building that allows people to smoke in their own residence.
Dec 13th 2012 7:37PM I agree. Some people just aren't happy unless they find something they can complain about. You can't see it from the street and the man with the rink has already applied for a permit to put up a fence.
Sep 29th 2012 11:11PM Who told them to buy a house next to a freeway? This was their free choice. If you buy a house next to a freeway, you know you'll be contending with traffic noise, possible construction in the future or even having your home taken by eminent domain. Acceptable noise levels are set by the state and they were accommodated during construction, however, the current noise levels are within the acceptable range and don't require a noise wall. It isn't the state's fault that they have an autistic child who's noise sensitive and chose to buy by a freeway.
They want the government to buy their house but unless their land is needed, the government isn't going to buy it. They're underwater on their mortgage and believe the location now makes it unsellable. Not many would have been in the market to buy their property anyway, even before the new construction. The govenment wouldn't be paying them what they paid for it anyway. They'd still owe the bank. They'd only receive fair market value. The only reason that they're getting public sympathy is because they have an autistic child.
Anyone else, who bought next to an expressway and claimed the noise was louder after new construction, would just be told "Tough luck", no one told you to buy there and you should have anticipated problems could arise when you did. No different than the house next door being sold to obnoxious neighbors. You deal with it or move.
Aug 26th 2012 1:51PM The main reason for the facekini is probably to maintain a higher social status. They don't want anyone to think they're rural peasants who've been working in the fields.
Aug 15th 2012 9:37PM Humble abode? Nothing humble about a NYC apartment. Small and pricey is typical for digs in NYC.