|
|
Post by High Priestess on Nov 26, 2016 15:19:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by helgaparis on Nov 26, 2016 19:20:39 GMT
The place IS a hotel,at least six rooms occupied at the day of the building inspector 's visit, maybe there are more.
For hotels, there are safety rules and legal obligations, which she decided to ignore. She turned away the inspector twice - bad luck he came back with backup.
Even if there are only six rooms, that means 36.000 / months. Quite some charges and taxes to pay on that, if you run it as an official business.
The locks are a cosmetic question in all that.
Imagine what people would say of NY if it burns down with tourists dying and the building inspector just went away at the second visit.
Seems she had 2 months grace period between visits and did not use them to demand the necessary permits and comply with regulations.
|
|
|
|
Post by High Priestess on Nov 29, 2016 13:42:02 GMT
I just don't agree that anyone should be the subject of so much government artillery over such tiny and meaningless violations. I also dont' think it's any of the government's business if people choose to rent rooms with locks on the doors, fire or no fire. People can be responsible for their own lives, they dont' need a nanny state doing that. In comparision to all the artillery thrown at this trivial issue of "illegality", I'd like to compare the way that many cities actually take a very firm stance against supporting the law in another case -- where they consider the law to be "unjust" -- as regards illegal immigrants, whom many insist on calling "undocumented immigrants" because they so oppose the law(s) that exist around this issue. www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/us/cities-vow-to-fight-trump-on-immigration-even-if-they-lose-millions.htmlIf city government can refuse to "follow the law" on one thing, this shows that they absolutely have discretion not only not to follow any law they would rather not follow, but to revoke and annul bad local legislation at any time. Hence, my argument is that these are all political issues, not legal issues. |
|
|
|
Post by cc on Nov 29, 2016 17:38:50 GMT
Sounds like the 2 different ways of coming at this are well put. I'm always on the side of deregulation, freedom, capitalism, and ingenuity, but problem is you never know when the other side is gonna throw the book at you. You get away with it as long as you can. Shrug shoulders.
|
|
