What does it mean when a house is condemned?

Discussion in 'Home Repair' started by JoseGomez@dotcom.com, Jun 2, 2011.

  1. Guest

    A guy told me that a friend of his had a tornado rip off part of his
    roof. The guy intended to repair the roof and other damage. He put
    up some temporary framing and covered the whole roof with a giant
    tarp. (I saw some photos). He was still living in the house since
    much of it's still intact. However the city put a "Condemned" sign on
    the door, and told him he could not live in the house. He said that
    he thinks that when a house is deemed "Condemned", it means the house
    is going to be demolished.

    What the hell...... Why cant the guy fix his roof, and who the hell
    gives the city permission to tell this guy he cant live in his own
    house. That's outrageous. From the photos, that house is not damaged
    beyond repair. It lost about 1/3 of it's roof. All the walls are
    fine except for some missing siding along the top, and several windows
    are broken, and have plywood on them. The debris has been cleaned up.

    This isn't right or fair. When an addition is being added to a house,
    there is a point when the additions has walls but no roof, and the
    original part of the house can be lived in. What makes this
    different? Not only do the pictures show that the walls are all
    intact, but the guy said it's all still solid. The tornado just
    ripped off the roof on that one end of the house tearing ir off the
    top plate of the walls. (Probably because it has a large overhang).

    Somehow I dont think this is right. Does anyone know the legal
    definition of "Condemned"? (in the USA).
     
    , Jun 2, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >A guy told me that a friend of his had a tornado rip off part of his . . .
    > However the city put a "Condemned" sign on
    > the door, and told him he could not live in the house. He said that
    > he thinks that when a house is deemed "Condemned", it means the house
    > is going to be demolished.


    A telephone to city hall will settle this point.

    > What the hell...... Why cant the guy fix his roof, and who the hell
    > gives the city permission to tell this guy he cant live in his own
    > house. That's outrageous. From the photos, that house is not damaged
    > beyond repair. . . . Does anyone know the legal
    > definition of "Condemned"? (in the USA).


    American law on this point is either municipal or state-wide.
    The city hall building permits office can tell you. Most
    jurisdictions allow local government emergency powers
    in emergency situations (e.g. may order you to vacate
    your home if it is threatened by fire.) This authority may
    prohibit entry into or sleeping in damaged buildings.

    --
    Don Phillipson
    Carlsbad Springs
    (Ottawa, Canada)
     
    Don Phillipson, Jun 2, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 08:12:48 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
    <> wrote:

    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >
    >>A guy told me that a friend of his had a tornado rip off part of his . . .
    >> However the city put a "Condemned" sign on
    >> the door, and told him he could not live in the house. He said that
    >> he thinks that when a house is deemed "Condemned", it means the house
    >> is going to be demolished.

    >
    >A telephone to city hall will settle this point.
    >
    >> What the hell...... Why cant the guy fix his roof, and who the hell
    >> gives the city permission to tell this guy he cant live in his own
    >> house. That's outrageous. From the photos, that house is not damaged
    >> beyond repair. . . . Does anyone know the legal
    >> definition of "Condemned"? (in the USA).

    >
    >American law on this point is either municipal or state-wide.
    >The city hall building permits office can tell you. Most
    >jurisdictions allow local government emergency powers
    >in emergency situations (e.g. may order you to vacate
    >your home if it is threatened by fire.) This authority may
    >prohibit entry into or sleeping in damaged buildings.


    If the guy cant enter the building, how the heck can he repair it?
    Dumb dumb dumb !!!!
    If you ask me, these governmental agencies have far too much power.
    This is America, "Land of the free". Free to do what????

    I've never been in this situation, but if my home is damaged by storm
    or fire, or they have one of these so called mandatory evacuations,
    they can kiss my assm and will have to forcibly drag me out of my
    home, unless I WANT to leave. I paid for my home, I pay the taxes,
    and I have legal title to it. What I do on my property is MY BUSINESS
    and mine alone. If I decide to stay in my home when a river is
    flooding, the only life I will risk is mine, and/or other family
    members if THEY decide to stay too. I'm sick of the government trying
    to protect us from ourselves. It started with forcing us to wear
    seatbelts, now they can FORCE us to leave our own homes when they
    trhing there is a danger, to save us from ourselves. (Not that they
    know any better, and they proved how little they know after hurricane
    katrina). Next they'll come on my property and tell me I cant smoke
    in my yard or home, or I cant grow flowers in my yard because they
    smell, or I cant eat certain foods (oh, wait a minute, they're already
    controling food in our schools).

    I'm not a violent person, but if they want to protect me from myself
    during a disaster, by forcing me out of my home, they just might end
    up looking down the barrel of one of my weapons. And if they shoot
    and kill me, they proved what a great job they did in saving my life,
    and I hope this proves to the world what these modern Nazi-like
    politicians are all about. Hell, wasn't it just a week ago they
    banned outdoor smoking in NYC?

    We have NO freedoms in america, except the freedom to wave the
    american flag, and to place a nearly worthless vote for some crooked
    politician, who in the end will be chosen by the electoral college.


    Reading shit like this really pisses me off. A guy cant even catch a
    fish anymore without a goddamn license, yet the govt. claims they are
    broke. Well, maybe if they stop paying a large salary to some moron
    who will follow me thru the woods and across a lake because I am
    carying a fishing pole, maybe they would not be broke.

    We just celebrated Memorial day, and while I do support our military
    men (especially those who were sent to foreign countries in the last
    10 years, to fight for for nothing), I do get real sickened seeing
    these brainless morons waving their flags as if they really think it
    stands for freedom. Those who do believe it, are brain dead. America
    WAS a great nation, but not anymore.... Everything we do is
    documented, requires some paperwork, and hell, even out pets need a
    license these days.

    I almost hope the govt does go broke. Maybe then we can start over.
    Personally, I'd start by eliminating both major political parties.
    Both are corrupt and worthless.
     
    , Jun 2, 2011
    #3
  4. Guest

    On Jun 2, 8:59 am, wrote:
    > On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 08:12:48 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > ><> wrote in message
    > >news:...

    >
    > >>A guy told me that a friend of his had a tornado rip off part of his . .. .
    > >> However the city put a "Condemned" sign on
    > >> the door, and told him he could not live in the house.  He said that
    > >> he thinks that when a house is deemed "Condemned", it means the house
    > >> is going to be demolished.

    >
    > >A telephone to city hall will settle this point.

    >
    > >> What the hell...... Why cant the guy fix his roof, and who the hell
    > >> gives the city permission to tell this guy he cant live in his own
    > >> house.  That's outrageous.  From the photos, that house is not damaged
    > >> beyond repair. . . .  Does anyone know the legal
    > >> definition of "Condemned"? (in the USA).

    >
    > >American law on this point is either municipal or state-wide.
    > >The city hall building permits office can tell you.  Most
    > >jurisdictions allow local government emergency powers
    > >in emergency situations (e.g. may order you to vacate
    > >your home if it is threatened by fire.)   This authority may
    > >prohibit entry into or sleeping in damaged buildings.

    >
    > If the guy cant enter the building, how the heck can he repair it?
    > Dumb dumb dumb !!!!  
    > If you ask me, these governmental agencies have far too much power.
    > This is America, "Land of the free".  Free to do what????  
    >
    > I've never been in this situation, but if my home is damaged by storm
    > or fire, or they have one of these so called mandatory evacuations,
    > they can kiss my assm and will have to forcibly drag me out of my
    > home, unless I WANT to leave.  I paid for my home, I pay the taxes,
    > and I have legal title to it.  What I do on my property is MY BUSINESS
    > and mine alone.  If I decide to stay in my home when a river is
    > flooding, the only life I will risk is mine, and/or other family
    > members if THEY decide to stay too.  I'm sick of the government trying
    > to protect us from ourselves.  It started with forcing us to wear
    > seatbelts, now they can FORCE us to leave our own homes when they
    > trhing there is a danger, to save us from ourselves.  (Not that they
    > know any better, and they proved how little they know after hurricane
    > katrina).  Next they'll come on my property and tell me I cant smoke
    > in my yard or home, or I cant grow flowers in my yard because they
    > smell, or I cant eat certain foods (oh, wait a minute, they're already
    > controling food in our schools).  
    >
    > I'm not a violent person, but if they want to protect me from myself
    > during a disaster, by forcing me out of my home, they just might end
    > up looking down the barrel of one of my weapons.  And if they shoot
    > and kill me, they proved what a great job they did in saving my life,
    > and I hope this proves to the world what these modern Nazi-like
    > politicians are all about.  Hell, wasn't it just a week ago they
    > banned outdoor smoking in NYC?  
    >
    > We have NO freedoms in america, except the freedom to wave the
    > american flag, and to place a nearly worthless vote for some crooked
    > politician, who in the end will be chosen by the electoral college.
    >
    > Reading shit like this really pisses me off.  A guy cant even catch a
    > fish anymore without a goddamn license, yet the govt. claims they are
    > broke.  Well, maybe if they stop paying a large salary to some moron
    > who will follow me thru the woods and across a lake because I am
    > carying a fishing pole, maybe they would not be broke.  
    >
    > We just celebrated Memorial day, and while I do support our military
    > men (especially those who were sent to foreign countries in the last
    > 10 years, to fight for for nothing), I do get real sickened seeing
    > these brainless morons waving their flags as if they really think it
    > stands for freedom.  Those who do believe it, are brain dead.  America
    > WAS a great nation, but not anymore....  Everything we do is
    > documented, requires some paperwork, and hell, even out pets need a
    > license these days.  
    >
    > I almost hope the govt does go broke.  Maybe then we can start over.
    > Personally, I'd start by eliminating both major political parties.
    > Both are corrupt and worthless.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    One would think that a call to the authorities who condemned
    the property would be the only way to determine exactly what
    it means. My best guess is that it means the place may not
    be used for habitation until the necessary remedies are made.
    Condemned could also mean that the govt is taking the
    property under eminent domain, but I highly doubt that is
    the case here.

    Whether that is just or not I'd say depends on the specific
    damage. If it is as described and the damage is limited to
    one section, the rest of the building is structurally sound,
    then I would agree it's yet another example of an overly
    intrusive govt. On the other hand, if the soundness of
    the structure is in question, children are living there, etc.,
    then it's a different story.

    Another horrendous example of big govt intrusion and
    stupidity is going on in Joplin, MO. You have some
    thugs from the federal govt overseeing the mortuary
    containing the bodies of victims. There are families
    missing loved ones and these thugs will not allow
    them to just make a visual ID of the bodies to see
    if it is their missing family member. They insist it
    can only be done via DNA and that it could take
    two weeks. That is just plain wrong. I can see
    using DNA when necessary, but to impose that
    arbitrary rule and leave families in the dark for
    weeks is totally wrong.
     
    , Jun 2, 2011
    #4
  5. Hell Toupee Guest

    On 6/2/2011 2:41 AM, wrote:
    > A guy told me that a friend of his had a tornado rip off part of his
    > roof. The guy intended to repair the roof and other damage. He put
    > up some temporary framing and covered the whole roof with a giant
    > tarp. (I saw some photos). He was still living in the house since
    > much of it's still intact. However the city put a "Condemned" sign on
    > the door, and told him he could not live in the house. He said that
    > he thinks that when a house is deemed "Condemned", it means the house
    > is going to be demolished.
    >
    > What the hell...... Why cant the guy fix his roof, and who the hell
    > gives the city permission to tell this guy he cant live in his own
    > house. That's outrageous.


    You realize there are always (at least) two sides to every story, and
    that you've only heard one side. For all you know, you've been told
    only what little this fellow understands, or remembers. Or you may
    have been told a carefully-edited or creatively-enhanced account. You
    just don't know, until you hear the city's POV.

    As for permission, that's the whole building codes thing. You live
    within an organized community, you agree to abide by whatever laws or
    rules the community establishes. So quit whining and follow the laws,
    or git.

    From the photos, that house is not damaged
    > beyond repair. It lost about 1/3 of it's roof. All the walls are
    > fine except for some missing siding along the top, and several windows
    > are broken, and have plywood on them. The debris has been cleaned up.


    And what about utilities? It's not unusual for a municipality to
    condemn a home as unfit for habitation when utilities (especially
    water) are unavailable. Several tornado-struck communities have been
    dealing with broken water and gas lines that have rendered
    neighborhoods unhabitable for the time being. Once those repairs are
    done, service will be restored and people will be permitted to
    re-occupy homes that, though damaged, are otherwise habitable. You
    haven't mentioned the state of utilities in his neighborhood. Maybe
    your friend hasn't mentioned it to you. Maybe this is the reason his
    home has been (temporarily) condemned.

    > This isn't right or fair. When an addition is being added to a house,
    > there is a point when the additions has walls but no roof, and the
    > original part of the house can be lived in. What makes this
    > different?


    Why don't you phone the city and ask _them_ that question? They, and
    only they, have the answer. Well, actually, they probably shared that
    with your friend, too - and he probably "forgot" to tell that to you,
    because that'd derail his whine about how "unfair" the city is being
    to him.

    Sheesh. If he's that gung-ho about remaining *on* his property for the
    duration, he should pitch a tent. Then again, if it _is_ a utilities
    issue behind the non-occupancy order, he won't be allowed to do that,
    either, until service is restored.
     
    Hell Toupee, Jun 2, 2011
    #5
  6. jamesgangnc Guest

    On Jun 2, 9:22 am, "" <>
    wrote:
    > On Jun 2, 8:59 am, wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 08:12:48 -0400, "Don Phillipson"

    >
    > > <> wrote:
    > > ><> wrote in message
    > > >news:...

    >
    > > >>A guy told me that a friend of his had a tornado rip off part of his .. . .
    > > >> However the city put a "Condemned" sign on
    > > >> the door, and told him he could not live in the house.  He said that
    > > >> he thinks that when a house is deemed "Condemned", it means the house
    > > >> is going to be demolished.

    >
    > > >A telephone to city hall will settle this point.

    >
    > > >> What the hell...... Why cant the guy fix his roof, and who the hell
    > > >> gives the city permission to tell this guy he cant live in his own
    > > >> house.  That's outrageous.  From the photos, that house is not damaged
    > > >> beyond repair. . . .  Does anyone know the legal
    > > >> definition of "Condemned"? (in the USA).

    >
    > > >American law on this point is either municipal or state-wide.
    > > >The city hall building permits office can tell you.  Most
    > > >jurisdictions allow local government emergency powers
    > > >in emergency situations (e.g. may order you to vacate
    > > >your home if it is threatened by fire.)   This authority may
    > > >prohibit entry into or sleeping in damaged buildings.

    >
    > > If the guy cant enter the building, how the heck can he repair it?
    > > Dumb dumb dumb !!!!  
    > > If you ask me, these governmental agencies have far too much power.
    > > This is America, "Land of the free".  Free to do what????  

    >
    > > I've never been in this situation, but if my home is damaged by storm
    > > or fire, or they have one of these so called mandatory evacuations,
    > > they can kiss my assm and will have to forcibly drag me out of my
    > > home, unless I WANT to leave.  I paid for my home, I pay the taxes,
    > > and I have legal title to it.  What I do on my property is MY BUSINESS
    > > and mine alone.  If I decide to stay in my home when a river is
    > > flooding, the only life I will risk is mine, and/or other family
    > > members if THEY decide to stay too.  I'm sick of the government trying
    > > to protect us from ourselves.  It started with forcing us to wear
    > > seatbelts, now they can FORCE us to leave our own homes when they
    > > trhing there is a danger, to save us from ourselves.  (Not that they
    > > know any better, and they proved how little they know after hurricane
    > > katrina).  Next they'll come on my property and tell me I cant smoke
    > > in my yard or home, or I cant grow flowers in my yard because they
    > > smell, or I cant eat certain foods (oh, wait a minute, they're already
    > > controling food in our schools).  

    >
    > > I'm not a violent person, but if they want to protect me from myself
    > > during a disaster, by forcing me out of my home, they just might end
    > > up looking down the barrel of one of my weapons.  And if they shoot
    > > and kill me, they proved what a great job they did in saving my life,
    > > and I hope this proves to the world what these modern Nazi-like
    > > politicians are all about.  Hell, wasn't it just a week ago they
    > > banned outdoor smoking in NYC?  

    >
    > > We have NO freedoms in america, except the freedom to wave the
    > > american flag, and to place a nearly worthless vote for some crooked
    > > politician, who in the end will be chosen by the electoral college.

    >
    > > Reading shit like this really pisses me off.  A guy cant even catch a
    > > fish anymore without a goddamn license, yet the govt. claims they are
    > > broke.  Well, maybe if they stop paying a large salary to some moron
    > > who will follow me thru the woods and across a lake because I am
    > > carying a fishing pole, maybe they would not be broke.  

    >
    > > We just celebrated Memorial day, and while I do support our military
    > > men (especially those who were sent to foreign countries in the last
    > > 10 years, to fight for for nothing), I do get real sickened seeing
    > > these brainless morons waving their flags as if they really think it
    > > stands for freedom.  Those who do believe it, are brain dead.  America
    > > WAS a great nation, but not anymore....  Everything we do is
    > > documented, requires some paperwork, and hell, even out pets need a
    > > license these days.  

    >
    > > I almost hope the govt does go broke.  Maybe then we can start over.
    > > Personally, I'd start by eliminating both major political parties.
    > > Both are corrupt and worthless.- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > > - Show quoted text -

    >
    > One would think that a call to the authorities who condemned
    > the property would be the only way to determine exactly what
    > it means.   My best guess is that it means the place may not
    > be used for habitation until the necessary remedies are made.
    > Condemned could also mean that the govt is taking the
    > property under eminent domain, but I highly doubt that is
    > the case here.
    >
    > Whether that is just or not I'd say depends on the specific
    > damage.  If it is as described and the damage is limited to
    > one section, the rest of the building is structurally sound,
    > then I would agree it's yet another example of an overly
    > intrusive govt.   On the other hand, if the soundness of
    > the structure is in question, children are living there, etc.,
    > then it's a different story.
    >
    > Another horrendous example of big govt intrusion and
    > stupidity is going on in Joplin, MO.  You have some
    > thugs from the federal govt overseeing the mortuary
    > containing the bodies of victims.   There are families
    > missing loved ones and these thugs will not allow
    > them to just make a visual ID of the bodies to see
    > if it is their missing family member.   They insist it
    > can only be done via DNA and that it could take
    > two weeks.   That is just plain wrong.  I can see
    > using DNA when necessary, but to impose that
    > arbitrary rule and leave families in the dark for
    > weeks is totally wrong.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Get a grip.

    Just means that the local authorities do not consider the house to be
    presently fit for occupancy. The main intent is to prevent people
    from living in abandoned property with no services. Typically only
    found in more densly populated areas where it's desirable to not let
    people live and crap in the corner of the lot. Or perhaps you
    wouldn't mind that going on next door to you?
     
    jamesgangnc, Jun 2, 2011
    #6
  7. George Guest

    On 6/2/2011 8:12 AM, Don Phillipson wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> A guy told me that a friend of his had a tornado rip off part of his . . .
    >> However the city put a "Condemned" sign on
    >> the door, and told him he could not live in the house. He said that
    >> he thinks that when a house is deemed "Condemned", it means the house
    >> is going to be demolished.

    >
    > A telephone to city hall will settle this point.
    >
    >> What the hell...... Why cant the guy fix his roof, and who the hell
    >> gives the city permission to tell this guy he cant live in his own
    >> house. That's outrageous. From the photos, that house is not damaged
    >> beyond repair. . . . Does anyone know the legal
    >> definition of "Condemned"? (in the USA).

    >
    > American law on this point is either municipal or state-wide.
    > The city hall building permits office can tell you. Most
    > jurisdictions allow local government emergency powers
    > in emergency situations (e.g. may order you to vacate
    > your home if it is threatened by fire.) This authority may
    > prohibit entry into or sleeping in damaged buildings.
    >


    Unfortunately some government folks tend to be "overenthusiastic".
    Clearly we have no idea of the damage and the OPs friend needs to start
    making phone calls if the level of damage does not justify the
    condemnation order.

    As far as "overenthusiastic" folks. My brother lives not far from a
    stream. There has never been a recorded flood on his or adjoining
    properties. The government had a project to line the creek (concrete
    floor and walls) to protect a lower area but the total job was not complete.

    We had very heavy rains and water was running on the outside of the new
    walls and it flooded the road and was close to my brothers and his
    neighbors houses.

    My brother walks their dog along the stream and knew the problem was
    branches and debris were blocking the uncompleted head end forcing water
    to travel outside the walls.

    There is a large parking lot that was filled with all sorts of
    government emergency management vehicles so he went over to tell them
    where the problem was. They told him it was now an "emergency zone" and
    they would have him arrested if he didn't leave. After a few hours there
    were even more vehicles with flashing lights in the parking lot and the
    water was rising. One of my brothers neighbors has a construction
    business so they compared notes and he went off to his business and
    brought a backhoe back and drove right into the "emergency zone" and up
    the the area where it was blocked and cleared it.

    I went down to the area and it looked like a movie set with all of the
    flashing lights and speakers announcing 10-99, unit 56, 10-62 10-4.
     
    George, Jun 2, 2011
    #7
  8. Hell Toupee Guest

    On 6/2/2011 8:22 AM, wrote:

    > Another horrendous example of big govt intrusion and
    > stupidity is going on in Joplin, MO. You have some
    > thugs from the federal govt overseeing the mortuary
    > containing the bodies of victims. There are families
    > missing loved ones and these thugs will not allow
    > them to just make a visual ID of the bodies to see
    > if it is their missing family member. They insist it
    > can only be done via DNA and that it could take
    > two weeks. That is just plain wrong. I can see
    > using DNA when necessary, but to impose that
    > arbitrary rule and leave families in the dark for
    > weeks is totally wrong.


    Oh, for ****'s sake. Here we have yet again another numbnut who
    assumes he knows just as much about the situation as the people who
    are actually DEALING WITH IT. You, sir, are a fool. Here's the awful
    truth:

    1. They don't just have bodies. They have PARTS of bodies. Worse yet,
    the parts don't all match up.
    2. Many of the intact bodies are so battered as not to be
    recognizable. In these cases, the only way these remains can be ID'd
    is either from identifiable marks such as tattoos, or by DNA testing.
    3. At the beginning, they DID permit visual IDs of some bodies. Some
    remains were thus ID'd and claimed by family members. Who sent them to
    funeral homes, had them embalmed and cleaned up, and then, prior to
    the services, took another look and realized they body they'd claimed
    was that of a stranger. This accomplished nothing but traumatizing the
    grieving family all over again. And who did the families blame? The
    authorities, for not applying sufficiently stringent standards to
    ensure this couldn't happen. Which is why the coroners clamped down.

    I suppose you think the gov't should just open up the morgue, invite
    everybody in, and let the families sort it all out themselves. A body
    parts swap meet.

    The problem is people like you. Idiots who assume they know just as
    much as the people who are actually dealing with the situation. You
    don't think anything through. You don't start with the idea that the
    experts could possibly have information you don't posses. No, because
    you have the analytic and whining capacity of an eight-year-old: "But
    WHY? You're just a big meanie!"

    Grow the **** up. And acknowledge that there are people who know more
    than you.
     
    Hell Toupee, Jun 2, 2011
    #8
  9. Guest

    On Jun 2, 10:06 am, Hell Toupee <> wrote:
    > On 6/2/2011 8:22 AM, wrote:
    >
    > > Another horrendous example of big govt intrusion and
    > > stupidity is going on in Joplin, MO.  You have some
    > > thugs from the federal govt overseeing the mortuary
    > > containing the bodies of victims.   There are families
    > > missing loved ones and these thugs will not allow
    > > them to just make a visual ID of the bodies to see
    > > if it is their missing family member.   They insist it
    > > can only be done via DNA and that it could take
    > > two weeks.   That is just plain wrong.  I can see
    > > using DNA when necessary, but to impose that
    > > arbitrary rule and leave families in the dark for
    > > weeks is totally wrong.

    >
    > Oh, for ****'s sake. Here we have yet again another numbnut who
    > assumes he knows just as much about the situation as the people who
    > are actually DEALING WITH IT. You, sir, are a fool. Here's the awful
    > truth:
    >
    > 1. They don't just have bodies. They have PARTS of bodies. Worse yet,
    > the parts don't all match up.


    Provide a link that says the majority of the bodies that
    authorities refuse to allow victims families to ID are in
    that condition. I've heard many news reports and NONE
    indicate that this is the core of the issue.




    > 2. Many of the intact bodies are so battered as not to be
    > recognizable.


    The fact that some are so battered doesn't mean you
    should not allow identification of those that are.



    > In these cases, the only way these remains can be ID'd
    > is either from identifiable marks such as tattoos, or by DNA testing.


    Yes, but again, if you have a body that isn't in that
    condition, the above is no excuse. Let's say they
    have one 75 year old female body, intact, that
    matches the description of a family with a missing
    person. No excuse for not allowing access.




    > 3. At the beginning, they DID permit visual IDs of some bodies. Some
    > remains were thus ID'd and claimed by family members. Who sent them to
    > funeral homes, had them embalmed and cleaned up, and then, prior to
    > the services, took another look and realized they body they'd claimed
    > was that of a stranger. This accomplished nothing but traumatizing the
    > grieving family all over again. And who did the families blame? The
    > authorities, for not applying sufficiently stringent standards to
    > ensure this couldn't happen. Which is why the coroners clamped down.


    If that happened, it's still no excuse to tell grieving families they
    have to wait 2 weeks for DNA instead of being able to identify
    their bodies. Geez, DNA testing has only been around for a couple
    of decades. How do you think we got along until then? There
    was no widespread calamity from allowing personal ID of
    bodies.



    >
    > I suppose you think the gov't should just open up the morgue, invite
    > everybody in, and let the families sort it all out themselves. A body
    > parts swap meet.


    Never said that. Nor did that occur prior to the miracle of
    DNA testing.




    >
    > The problem is people like you. Idiots who assume they know just as
    > much as the people who are actually dealing with the situation. You
    > don't think anything through. You don't start with the idea that the
    > experts could possibly have information you don't posses. No, because
    > you have the analytic and whining capacity of an eight-year-old: "But
    > WHY? You're just a big meanie!"
    >
    > Grow the **** up. And acknowledge that there are people who know more
    > than you.


    That surely doesn't include you, who are a profanity spouting imbecile.
     
    , Jun 2, 2011
    #9
  10. Guest

    On Jun 2, 9:28 am, Hell Toupee <> wrote:
    > On 6/2/2011 2:41 AM, wrote:
    >
    > > A guy told me that a friend of his had a tornado rip off part of his
    > > roof.  The guy intended to repair the roof and other damage.  He put
    > > up some temporary framing and covered the whole roof with a giant
    > > tarp.  (I saw some photos).  He was still living in the house since
    > > much of it's still intact.  However the city put a "Condemned" sign on
    > > the door, and told him he could not live in the house.  He said that
    > > he thinks that when a house is deemed "Condemned", it means the house
    > > is going to be demolished.

    >
    > > What the hell...... Why cant the guy fix his roof, and who the hell
    > > gives the city permission to tell this guy he cant live in his own
    > > house.  That's outrageous.

    >
    > You realize there are always (at least) two sides to every story, and
    > that you've only heard one side. For all you know, you've been told
    > only what little this fellow understands, or remembers. Or you may
    > have been told a carefully-edited or creatively-enhanced account. You
    > just don't know, until you hear the city's POV.
    >
    > As for permission, that's the whole building codes thing. You live
    > within an organized community, you agree to abide by whatever laws or
    > rules the community establishes. So quit whining and follow the laws,
    > or git.
    >
    >   From the photos, that house is not damaged
    >
    > > beyond repair.  It lost about 1/3 of it's roof.  All the walls are
    > > fine except for some missing siding along the top, and several windows
    > > are broken, and have plywood on them.  The debris has been cleaned up..

    >
    > And what about utilities? It's not unusual for a municipality to
    > condemn a home as unfit for habitation when utilities (especially
    > water) are unavailable.


    A clear example of govt over-reaching. Ever hear of a generator?
    Utilites are nice, but clearly not a necessity. And if some disaster
    victim wanted to live in his house without utilities, I say it should
    be up to him, not guys like you, who think the typical guy is stupid
    and needs control freaks like you to decide for him.




    >Several tornado-struck communities have been
    > dealing with broken water and gas lines that have rendered
    > neighborhoods unhabitable for the time being. Once those repairs are
    > done, service will be restored and people will be permitted to
    > re-occupy homes that, though damaged, are otherwise habitable. You
    > haven't mentioned the state of utilities in his neighborhood. Maybe
    > your friend hasn't mentioned it to you. Maybe this is the reason his
    > home has been (temporarily) condemned.



    I guess the idea that a man's home is his castle is foreign
    to you. How is it that people go camping without utilities?
    I guess big govt should ban that as unsafe too.


    >
    > > This isn't right or fair.  When an addition is being added to a house,
    > > there is a point when the additions has walls but no roof, and the
    > > original part of the house can be lived in.  What makes this
    > > different?

    >
    > Why don't you phone the city and ask _them_ that question? They, and
    > only they, have the answer. Well, actually, they probably shared that
    > with your friend, too - and he probably "forgot" to tell that to you,
    > because that'd derail his whine about how "unfair" the city is being
    > to him.
    >
    > Sheesh. If he's that gung-ho about remaining *on* his property for the
    > duration, he should pitch a tent. Then again, if it _is_ a utilities
    > issue behind the non-occupancy order, he won't be allowed to do that,
    > either, until service is restored.


    Typical. Instead of living in his own house, govt should force him
    into a tent.
     
    , Jun 2, 2011
    #10
  11. On Jun 2, 8:59 am, wrote:
    > On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 08:12:48 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
    > (oh, wait a minute, they're already
    > controling food in our schools).  


    Why shouldn't they control it? They're paying for it.
    Since it's tax dollars that pay for the food in the schools,
    perhaps you would prefer to vote on what is served in the
    lunchroom.

    > We have NO freedoms in america, except the freedom to wave the
    > american flag, and to place a nearly worthless vote for some crooked
    > politician, who in the end will be chosen by the electoral college.


    Perhaps you should visit countries that really have no
    freedoms. There are places where you could be "disappeared"
    for writing what you just wrote.

    Yes, we need to be vigilant about protecting our freedoms, but
    America is far from the dictatorship you seem to think it is.

    Cindy Hamilton
     
    Cindy Hamilton, Jun 2, 2011
    #11
  12. harry Guest

    On Jun 2, 1:59 pm, wrote:
    > On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 08:12:48 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > ><> wrote in message
    > >news:...

    >
    > >>A guy told me that a friend of his had a tornado rip off part of his . .. .
    > >> However the city put a "Condemned" sign on
    > >> the door, and told him he could not live in the house.  He said that
    > >> he thinks that when a house is deemed "Condemned", it means the house
    > >> is going to be demolished.

    >
    > >A telephone to city hall will settle this point.

    >
    > >> What the hell...... Why cant the guy fix his roof, and who the hell
    > >> gives the city permission to tell this guy he cant live in his own
    > >> house.  That's outrageous.  From the photos, that house is not damaged
    > >> beyond repair. . . .  Does anyone know the legal
    > >> definition of "Condemned"? (in the USA).

    >
    > >American law on this point is either municipal or state-wide.
    > >The city hall building permits office can tell you.  Most
    > >jurisdictions allow local government emergency powers
    > >in emergency situations (e.g. may order you to vacate
    > >your home if it is threatened by fire.)   This authority may
    > >prohibit entry into or sleeping in damaged buildings.

    >
    > If the guy cant enter the building, how the heck can he repair it?
    > Dumb dumb dumb !!!!  
    > If you ask me, these governmental agencies have far too much power.
    > This is America, "Land of the free".  Free to do what????  
    >
    > I've never been in this situation, but if my home is damaged by storm
    > or fire, or they have one of these so called mandatory evacuations,
    > they can kiss my assm and will have to forcibly drag me out of my
    > home, unless I WANT to leave.  I paid for my home, I pay the taxes,
    > and I have legal title to it.  What I do on my property is MY BUSINESS
    > and mine alone.  If I decide to stay in my home when a river is
    > flooding, the only life I will risk is mine, and/or other family
    > members if THEY decide to stay too.  I'm sick of the government trying
    > to protect us from ourselves.  It started with forcing us to wear
    > seatbelts, now they can FORCE us to leave our own homes when they
    > trhing there is a danger, to save us from ourselves.  (Not that they
    > know any better, and they proved how little they know after hurricane
    > katrina).  Next they'll come on my property and tell me I cant smoke
    > in my yard or home, or I cant grow flowers in my yard because they
    > smell, or I cant eat certain foods (oh, wait a minute, they're already
    > controling food in our schools).  
    >
    > I'm not a violent person, but if they want to protect me from myself
    > during a disaster, by forcing me out of my home, they just might end
    > up looking down the barrel of one of my weapons.  And if they shoot
    > and kill me, they proved what a great job they did in saving my life,
    > and I hope this proves to the world what these modern Nazi-like
    > politicians are all about.  Hell, wasn't it just a week ago they
    > banned outdoor smoking in NYC?  
    >
    > We have NO freedoms in america, except the freedom to wave the
    > american flag, and to place a nearly worthless vote for some crooked
    > politician, who in the end will be chosen by the electoral college.
    >
    > Reading shit like this really pisses me off.  A guy cant even catch a
    > fish anymore without a goddamn license, yet the govt. claims they are
    > broke.  Well, maybe if they stop paying a large salary to some moron
    > who will follow me thru the woods and across a lake because I am
    > carying a fishing pole, maybe they would not be broke.  
    >
    > We just celebrated Memorial day, and while I do support our military
    > men (especially those who were sent to foreign countries in the last
    > 10 years, to fight for for nothing), I do get real sickened seeing
    > these brainless morons waving their flags as if they really think it
    > stands for freedom.  Those who do believe it, are brain dead.  America
    > WAS a great nation, but not anymore....  Everything we do is
    > documented, requires some paperwork, and hell, even out pets need a
    > license these days.  
    >
    > I almost hope the govt does go broke.  Maybe then we can start over.
    > Personally, I'd start by eliminating both major political parties.
    > Both are corrupt and worthless.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    It's called the "Nanny State". We have it in the UK too. There are
    a whole lot of useless bastards around that have to be found a job.
    After a while they start to create more work for themselves. They
    usually have a degree in "television studies", "polotics" or
    "Psychology" or some such crap.
    We call it "empire building". They create it from behind their desks.
    You are becoming a socialist state. Next step is the Marxist state.
    You need to get your guns out. Heh Heh. I thought you were allowed to
    shoot trespassers over there?
     
    harry, Jun 2, 2011
    #12
  13. harry Guest

    On Jun 2, 3:47 pm, Cindy Hamilton <> wrote:
    > On Jun 2, 8:59 am, wrote:
    >
    > > On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 08:12:48 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
    > > (oh, wait a minute, they're already
    > > controling food in our schools).  

    >
    > Why shouldn't they control it?  They're paying for it.
    > Since it's tax dollars that pay for the food in the schools,
    > perhaps you would prefer to vote on what is served in the
    > lunchroom.
    >
    > > We have NO freedoms in america, except the freedom to wave the
    > > american flag, and to place a nearly worthless vote for some crooked
    > > politician, who in the end will be chosen by the electoral college.

    >
    > Perhaps you should visit countries that really have no
    > freedoms.  There are places where you could be "disappeared"
    > for writing what you just wrote.
    >
    > Yes, we need to be vigilant about protecting our freedoms, but
    > America is far from the dictatorship you seem to think it is.
    >
    > Cindy Hamilton


    Oh yes? How about the patriot act? Gitmo? Worldwide murder, Drug
    peddling, Kidnap, Brainwashing of the population. American
    exceptionalism. Manifest Destiny. You are fast becoming fascist thugs
     
    harry, Jun 2, 2011
    #13
  14. harry Guest

    On Jun 2, 3:47 pm, Cindy Hamilton <> wrote:
    > On Jun 2, 8:59 am, wrote:
    >
    > > On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 08:12:48 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
    > > (oh, wait a minute, they're already
    > > controling food in our schools).  

    >
    > Why shouldn't they control it?  They're paying for it.
    > Since it's tax dollars that pay for the food in the schools,
    > perhaps you would prefer to vote on what is served in the
    > lunchroom.
    >
    > > We have NO freedoms in america, except the freedom to wave the
    > > american flag, and to place a nearly worthless vote for some crooked
    > > politician, who in the end will be chosen by the electoral college.

    >
    > Perhaps you should visit countries that really have no
    > freedoms.  There are places where you could be "disappeared"
    > for writing what you just wrote.
    >
    > Yes, we need to be vigilant about protecting our freedoms, but
    > America is far from the dictatorship you seem to think it is.
    >
    > Cindy Hamilton


    I HAVE visited many dictatorships, including Iraq. You could walk
    the streets in Iraq in complete safety.The kids didn't shoot one
    another in the schools.
    If you dropped your pocket book, you could go back and pick it up. it
    would still be there.
    Saddam Hussein was a fine fellow.
    Takes someone like him to govern a place like Iraq as the Yanks are
    finding out.
    Just look at the place now.
     
    harry, Jun 2, 2011
    #14
  15. Dbdblocker Guest

    wrote:
    > A guy told me that a friend of his had a tornado rip off part of his
    > roof. The guy intended to repair the roof and other damage. He put
    > up some temporary framing and covered the whole roof with a giant
    > tarp. (I saw some photos). He was still living in the house since
    > much of it's still intact. However the city put a "Condemned" sign on
    > the door, and told him he could not live in the house. He said that
    > he thinks that when a house is deemed "Condemned", it means the house
    > is going to be demolished.
    >
    > What the hell...... Why cant the guy fix his roof, and who the hell
    > gives the city permission to tell this guy he cant live in his own
    > house. That's outrageous. From the photos, that house is not damaged
    > beyond repair. It lost about 1/3 of it's roof. All the walls are
    > fine except for some missing siding along the top, and several windows
    > are broken, and have plywood on them. The debris has been cleaned up.
    >
    > This isn't right or fair. When an addition is being added to a house,
    > there is a point when the additions has walls but no roof, and the
    > original part of the house can be lived in. What makes this
    > different? Not only do the pictures show that the walls are all
    > intact, but the guy said it's all still solid. The tornado just
    > ripped off the roof on that one end of the house tearing ir off the
    > top plate of the walls. (Probably because it has a large overhang).
    >
    > Somehow I dont think this is right. Does anyone know the legal
    > definition of "Condemned"? (in the USA).
    >
    >

    It's just political intrusion into private lives.

    --
    Dbdblocker
    Planet Earth
     
    Dbdblocker, Jun 2, 2011
    #15
  16. Evan Guest

    On Jun 2, 9:22 am, "" <>
    wrote:

    > Another horrendous example of big govt intrusion and
    > stupidity is going on in Joplin, MO.  You have some
    > thugs from the federal govt overseeing the mortuary
    > containing the bodies of victims.   There are families
    > missing loved ones and these thugs will not allow
    > them to just make a visual ID of the bodies to see
    > if it is their missing family member.   They insist it
    > can only be done via DNA and that it could take
    > two weeks.   That is just plain wrong.  I can see
    > using DNA when necessary, but to impose that
    > arbitrary rule and leave families in the dark for
    > weeks is totally wrong.


    Umm, you really think that ?

    No one making comments here on this newsgroup
    knows anything about the condition of the remains
    of the victims in Joplin, MO...

    Do you think that you would be able to identify a
    family member who didn't have a face anymore ?

    Do you think that allowing random people who
    *insist* that their missing relative(s) must be
    at that mortuary to view the bodies of the victims
    damaged and all would serve any useful purpose,
    or would it possibly add to the trauma...

    DNA and dental records have become the standard
    for identifying victims of natural disasters who have
    been separated from their identification for a reason,
    there are very few chances for mis-identification...

    ~~ Evan
     
    Evan, Jun 2, 2011
    #16
  17. Oren Guest

    On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 10:27:21 -0500, "HeyBub" <>
    wrote:

    > wrote:
    >>
    >> If the guy cant enter the building, how the heck can he repair it?
    >> Dumb dumb dumb !!!!
    >> If you ask me, these governmental agencies have far too much power.
    >> This is America, "Land of the free". Free to do what????
    >>
    >>
    >> I'm not a violent person, but if they want to protect me from myself
    >> during a disaster, by forcing me out of my home, they just might end
    >> up looking down the barrel of one of my weapons. And if they shoot
    >> and kill me, they proved what a great job they did in saving my life,
    >> and I hope this proves to the world what these modern Nazi-like
    >> politicians are all about. Hell, wasn't it just a week ago they
    >> banned outdoor smoking in NYC?
    >>

    >
    >I sympathize with your position. The sad truth is that every state has laws
    >on the books giving the governor - or his representative - emergency powers
    >to do just about anything in a declared emergency. They can forcibly
    >relocate you, confiscate your property, or, until recently, sequester your
    >firearms.
    >
    >Writ smaller, city governments have similar powers
    >


    A local government in Alabama has an ordinance against single-wide
    mobile homes. Yep! They refused to wave the law.

    NO FEMA trailers allowed, so folks go homeless -- for now.
     
    Oren, Jun 2, 2011
    #17
  18. On 6/2/2011 11:01 AM, harry wrote:
    > On Jun 2, 3:47 pm, Cindy Hamilton<> wrote:
    >> On Jun 2, 8:59 am, wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 08:12:48 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
    >>> (oh, wait a minute, they're already
    >>> controling food in our schools).

    >>
    >> Why shouldn't they control it? They're paying for it.
    >> Since it's tax dollars that pay for the food in the schools,
    >> perhaps you would prefer to vote on what is served in the
    >> lunchroom.
    >>
    >>> We have NO freedoms in america, except the freedom to wave the
    >>> american flag, and to place a nearly worthless vote for some crooked
    >>> politician, who in the end will be chosen by the electoral college.

    >>
    >> Perhaps you should visit countries that really have no
    >> freedoms. There are places where you could be "disappeared"
    >> for writing what you just wrote.
    >>
    >> Yes, we need to be vigilant about protecting our freedoms, but
    >> America is far from the dictatorship you seem to think it is.
    >>
    >> Cindy Hamilton

    >
    > I HAVE visited many dictatorships, including Iraq. You could walk
    > the streets in Iraq in complete safety.The kids didn't shoot one
    > another in the schools.
    > If you dropped your pocket book, you could go back and pick it up. it
    > would still be there.
    > Saddam Hussein was a fine fellow.
    > Takes someone like him to govern a place like Iraq as the Yanks are
    > finding out.
    > Just look at the place now.


    I had a couple of Arabic terrorist customers tell me that the only
    person who could control Iraq was Saddam Hussein. Something about
    the deeply ingrained culture where the people only respect brute,
    savage force and punishment from their rulers. The citizenry behave
    only because they know they will be tortured or killed without any
    mercy for the slightest infraction.

    TDD
     
    The Daring Dufas, Jun 2, 2011
    #18
  19. On 6/2/2011 1:47 PM, Oren wrote:
    > On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 10:27:21 -0500, "HeyBub"<>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> If the guy cant enter the building, how the heck can he repair it?
    >>> Dumb dumb dumb !!!!
    >>> If you ask me, these governmental agencies have far too much power.
    >>> This is America, "Land of the free". Free to do what????
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I'm not a violent person, but if they want to protect me from myself
    >>> during a disaster, by forcing me out of my home, they just might end
    >>> up looking down the barrel of one of my weapons. And if they shoot
    >>> and kill me, they proved what a great job they did in saving my life,
    >>> and I hope this proves to the world what these modern Nazi-like
    >>> politicians are all about. Hell, wasn't it just a week ago they
    >>> banned outdoor smoking in NYC?
    >>>

    >>
    >> I sympathize with your position. The sad truth is that every state has laws
    >> on the books giving the governor - or his representative - emergency powers
    >> to do just about anything in a declared emergency. They can forcibly
    >> relocate you, confiscate your property, or, until recently, sequester your
    >> firearms.
    >>
    >> Writ smaller, city governments have similar powers
    >>

    >
    > A local government in Alabama has an ordinance against single-wide
    > mobile homes. Yep! They refused to wave the law.
    >
    > NO FEMA trailers allowed, so folks go homeless -- for now.


    That nonsense has been all over local talk radio about the town of
    Cordova. You can have a double wide trailer but not a single wide
    like the FEMA trailer. The mayor fears that it will be next to
    impossible to get rid of the trailers once they're allowed in. I
    think there should be a separate FEMA tornado refugee camp set up
    somewhere in the town with the understanding that the trailers will
    be removed as the families get their homes rebuilt and they move out
    of the FEMA trailers. The mayor has stated that many of the homeowner's
    lots are not large enough to have a trailer and a house under
    construction on them at the same time.

    TDD
     
    The Daring Dufas, Jun 2, 2011
    #19
  20. Guest

    On Jun 2, 2:20 pm, Evan <> wrote:
    > On Jun 2, 9:22 am, "" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > Another horrendous example of big govt intrusion and
    > > stupidity is going on in Joplin, MO.  You have some
    > > thugs from the federal govt overseeing the mortuary
    > > containing the bodies of victims.   There are families
    > > missing loved ones and these thugs will not allow
    > > them to just make a visual ID of the bodies to see
    > > if it is their missing family member.   They insist it
    > > can only be done via DNA and that it could take
    > > two weeks.   That is just plain wrong.  I can see
    > > using DNA when necessary, but to impose that
    > > arbitrary rule and leave families in the dark for
    > > weeks is totally wrong.

    >
    > Umm, you really think that ?
    >
    > No one making comments here on this newsgroup
    > knows anything about the condition of the remains
    > of the victims in Joplin, MO...
    >
    > Do you think that you would be able to identify a
    > family member who didn't have a face anymore ?


    Typical. First you claim no one knows the condition
    of the bodies. Then YOU drag in the no face BS.
    Show us a link that says that is the condition of
    all of the bodies being denied visual identification.
    And if the federal official I saw being interviewed had
    made that claim said that, I would not have a problem.
    His attitude was rules are rules, that's the way it
    is. Maybe you like and trust big govt, some of us
    do not.



    >
    > Do you think that allowing random people who
    > *insist* that their missing relative(s) must be
    > at that mortuary to view the bodies of the victims
    > damaged and all would serve any useful purpose,
    > or would it possibly add to the trauma...


    Who said anything about allowing random people
    to view bodies?



    >
    > DNA and dental records have become the standard
    > for identifying victims of natural disasters who have
    > been separated from their identification for a reason,
    > there are very few chances for mis-identification...
    >
    > ~~ Evan


    What did we do prior to recent history, when DNA became
    available? Did the world just start for you 15 years ago?
     
    , Jun 2, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Steve North
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    248
    impvan
    Jul 19, 2003
  2. Michael Chare

    Switch rating - what does 3(1)A mean?

    Michael Chare, Jan 11, 2004, in forum: UK DIY
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    680
    |^eekaye
    Jan 15, 2004
  3. Andrew Gabriel

    OT:- Condemned boiler in house

    Andrew Gabriel, Jul 13, 2004, in forum: UK DIY
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    322
    hudsterou
    Jul 16, 2004
  4. mm
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    495
  5. mm
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    232
Loading...

Share This Page