Member Since Jul 29th, 2008
Are you Holly? If So, Login Here.
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.
Jun 19th 2012 7:30PM So true about the variations in Mexican food. I've eaten all around the country and in the Mexican interior. Mexican interior food was so good--- Real beef burritos, not hamburger, just dripping with the tastiest au jus, the best tasting pollo asado I've ever had--- cooked and bought in the outside marketplace, and giant cast iron pots filled with oil that strips of meat were thrown into to make the best chicharonnes. Outside of the SW, Mexican food is mediocre at best and a version of Tex-Mex. California Mexican is pretty pathetic. Tex-Mex tends to be a heavier cusine and uses red chile sauce. Since I moved to New Mexico, I've been in heaven. Green chiles rule but we do have the red sauce too. A common question when you place your order is, Red or Green? Although, some people like Christmas which is both. New Mexican tends to be lighter than Tex-Mex. Another thing we have out here are Indian tacos, which are made of delicious Native American fry bread wrapped around traditional taco fillings. My son when stationed at the Navy Submarine base in Connecticut was having withdrawal symptoms. The only "Mexican" restaraunt within miles was a Taco Bell, where no lover of Mexican food would ever step foot. I helped him survive by sending lots of salsa from his favorite home eatery. When he came home on leave, he was like an addict who hadn't had a fix. He was insisted on going out to get New Mexican every night. You couldn't get him to go to any other kind of restaurant because it would be a long time before he got the good stuff again. lol
Jun 7th 2012 5:26PM One of the realities of California real estate is that in prime locations, such as beachfront properties, people aren't purchasing the home that exists there but the land. There is nothing uncommon about tearing down a smaller, older existing structure to build one that suits your family's needs in a prime location. That's all that Romney is doing and he can build anything the current building code allows.