Friday, October 23, 2009

Friday Funnies: 2009 Emerald City Municipal Election Update

The latest tactic in the 2009 "Lawn Sign Wars"

On or about September 29, the Standard-Examiner published the following Don Carver letter, making note of the proliferation of ghastly Council Seat "B" Candidate David Phipps signs scattered all across Ogden City, on the scores of residential properties owned and/or managed by corporate landlords like Provident Partners Commercial Real Estate:
Phipps buys election influence
Mr. Carver launched into a quite savvy discussion of the ethical and legal nuances concerning the placement by property management companies of political lawn signs upon the leaseholds of innocent lessees who may or may not support any particular Ogden City council candidate. He then came through with a sensible tactic for politically-involved renters to combat the overreaching of Ogden's greed-driven real estate property management faction:
I would like to call on local residents who've had Phipps' signs foisted on them to contact Blair's people and get a sign supporting him. Post the sign next to the original to clarify who you support. The people of Ogden must speak out for themselves. Do not let a few people interested in buying up our land have the only say.
Thanks to a morning tip from one of our alert readers, it would appear that at least one politically-oppressed Ogden City renter has taken taken up Mr. Carver on his suggestion, adopted Mr. Carver's tactic and decided to fight back (click to enlarge image):


A Weber County Forum Tip O' The Hat to a Gentle Reader and an Ogden renter whose true identities will go undisclosed. Hopefully many other aggrieved Ogden City renters will follow suit.

As our submitting reader remarked, "Phipps may be the only Ogden renter casting a ballot for David Phipps on election day."

Pretty funny, ainnit?

Power to the people, right on!

43 comments:

Stephen M. Cook said...

Excellent guerrilla tactics; and a nice photo.

Speaking Truth To Power? +5 hit points.
K'ching.

Bill C. said...

Why Phipps? Word is Provident partners, Fisher, Spain and ilk, managed to buy up 110 properties during their buying spree. Many have huge financial needs before they can be flipped or leased.
The local realtors are talking about a rift in the investors of PPL, due to losses and many desire to get out from under the burden of their grand scheme. This is why lying little matty spent the money on their properties on Washington Blvd. and why Fisher has mounted his renewed campain to change the ordinance for hight restrictions on 25th st.
Phipps is being paid to try and find tennants for PPL which is the basis for his claims of recruiting business to Ogden. Being on the Council would also give him a hand in funnelling money to PPL and changing zoning and such.
This guy has zero loyalty to anyone in Ogden other than Fisher and lying little matty and when his election bid is over will be leaving asap.

beaver said...

Provident's strategy in other communities has been to snatch up all available properties with the buying power of their pool of investors, which quickly drives prices skyward. Then they sell off as many as possible at the inflated prices, and dump the rest. This, of course, causes the the once artificially inflated property values to plummet, adversely affecting people who actually care about the town and call it home. By then, Thaine and his minions are off to find the next town to pillage.

I guess they hadn't planned on the housing collapse, or they'd have already cut and run. I guess they're left with trying to buy elections to affect zoning ordinances in their favor. Oh, and dozens of properties they can't rent or sale or, judging by the looks of most, maintain.

Think anyone at PPL is shitting his pants about now?

Curious 1 said...

Is Fischer's vehicles still registered in AZ to avoid the higher Utah rates? Are they still driving on out of state drivers licenses? Is Phipps still using his Georgia license for ID?

Seems like Griener should be on top of these issues or the police to bring their quota up by issueing tickets.

DOCTOR OPPOSITE said...

Here's another great idea of mine. Somebody should print some cheap but weatherproof sign add-ons, with the messages included in this morning's WCF graphic:

"I support"
"My property management company supports"

With a probable 100 or more Ogden City rental PPC properties displaying Phipps lawnsigns, this situation creates a fabulous opportunity for Bart Blair to plant even more lawnsigns.

(Just another thought from a sadly so far unrecognized political genius.)

Stephen M. Cook said...

If our we were renting and out management company said we HAD to put a political signage on the lawn: We Hate Fags, or White Power Now, or Phipps for Whatever...

We would just move out, and sue.

RudiZink said...

Bingo, Steven.

ozboy said...

As a rental property owner on a busy and highly visible street I usually put up signs to back candidates of my choice. However, I always make sure it doesn't give my tenants any heart burn. If it does I don't put the signs up.

It is very rare that I have a tenant who objects, as the vast majority of tenants are not tuned into local politics anyway. It seems to be those vested in property ownership who are most concerned and involved in local politics.

I am a landlord said...

And I am for Blair and VanHooser. Unlike the people who support Phipps and Hains, who want to rape and move on, I also live in Ogden.

The police told me that as the property owner I can place the signs and the tenant my not remove them. I suppose if the tenant placed signs, I could remove those.

But it is an excellent point the letter writer makes. When one sees Phipps or Hains signs, they should assume a decent chance that they were placed by paid campaigners and placed on land owned by out of state interests who only seek a bump in property values so they can sell and run.

They are natural Godfrey supporters, therefore.

The independents in the race are VanHooser, Blair, Garcia, and Stephens.

Ernie the Attorney said...

Excuse me. I believe some of the upper commentators are wrong about the rights of landlords and lessees in re Utah property law.

When a lessor grants a leasehold to a lessee, the landlord generally grants all possessory rights to the tenant.

Unless there's a special provision in any given Utah Lease, reserving to the owner of the property the right to erect campaign signs on the tenant's leasehold, it seems pretty obvious to me that any Utah tenant, Under Utah Law, has the absolute right to remove his landlord's political lawnsigns.

Whether any given tenant will assert their rights as a practical matter however, is an entirely separate question, of course.

Stephen M. Cook said...

We would be curious to know what police personnel informed you in this civil matter, as police departments almost never give legal advice; without a court order, no policeman could LEGALLY interfere in a contractual dispute.

If someone deposits something on your lawn without your permission, you have the right to dispose of this property as you see fit, without any notice to anyone whatsoever.

If the landlord tells you you have to leave it there, you should insist that he puts this order in writing. You should then call an attorney immediately, as you cannot usually sign away your free speech rights in ANY contract.
It would be unenforceable for numerous reasons.

Burning the sign is not recommended.

Biker Babe said...

no sign burning? bummer. sweet memories of my youth ...

but I digress, lol

BB

Sign guy said...

Sign burnings, calling attorneys, legal advice from lay people for tenants, challenging your landlord, assume signs have been put up by paid campaigners, sue the management company over a sing in the lawn, Phipps, if elected can "funnel money," Haines, an Ogden residence for years, is ready to "rape and move on." For hell sakes, people, re-read this crap and then get a grip. It's just election season and the name of the game is name recognition, not lynching, rapes and funneling. You guys are acting as if the Chicago political machine has taken up roots right here in Hub City.

Haines leads the sign count (has since the beginning), followed by Phipps and then Van Hooser. Stephens has a handful put out, I counted 2 for Garcia during my travels and 1 for the guy running against Stephens. Blair has some scattered about town but they're mostly obscure.

So much rage over this. You couldn't even get Geiger in jail for a weekend and here ya go again, issuing advice, et al.

Relax....it'll be all over in about 10 days.

Dan S. said...

Sign guy:

Two years ago, Eccles was way ahead of Wicks in the sign count. Guess who won--by the largest margin of any of the contested races.

As for funneling, I believe we saw some of that two years ago as well.

In many ways, Ogden's political machine seems to be modeled on Chicago's. Smaller, yes, but just as influential relative to the city's size.

sign dude said...

Sign guy, you need to travel around more of the town. In some parts there is nary a Phipps sign to be seen and a plethora of Blair signs. Almost all of the Phipps signs I've seen are on vacant lots, places up for rent/sale/lease or a few businesses. Blair's signs are prominent on the front yards of homes.
But of course, the # of signs don't win the election.

Landlord said...

Sign Guy is a troll.

Ernie the Attorney is not an attorney.

But I would like a definitive answer on the landlord-sign issue.

When you see Haines, Phipps and Garner getting checks for over $1000 from realty groups who exist only by home turnover, suggesting we "get a grip" is gratuitous. Dan is right. This is Chicago.

Ernie the Attorney said...

Screw your head on straight and think about it "Landlord."

When you lease a residential property to your tenant, you're transferring your "possessory rights" to your tenant for the period of time specified in the lease (subject to whatever possessory rights you've "reserved" in specific provisions of the lease agreement).

Once a lease is executed, whatever possessory rights you might have otherwise have enjoyed as an "owner" are secondary to those you've transferred to your tenant under terms of the lease.

Unless your lease reserves your right to post signage on "your" now leased property, you commit a trespass to your tenants' right to exclusive possession of the property if you post signs of any kind on the property.

Most standard form residential leases do contain provisions allowing a landlord to post signs, such as real estate brokerage "for sale signs" for instance.

Look at your own form leases, and you'll note you probably don't even have the legal right to enter your property for inspection without timely advance notice (24-48 hours are typical form provisions).

That's the law.

When you lease your residential property, once again, you've transferred away a broad bundle of your property rights to your tenant, with exception of those rights you've reserved to yourself in your lease.

Far too often, even long time landlords like you don't understand the rules.

You asked, "But I would like a definitive answer on the landlord-sign issue."

You asked; and I've answered.

If you don't believe me; talk about it with your own lawyer.

Landlord said...

Ernie the Attorney:

I didn't want to "think about it." I wanted a definitive answer.

The policeman told me they would cite the tenant for removing a political sign, just as they would cite him for removing the landlord's stove or other property.

Typically, under the law, the landlord has full access at all times to the outside of the property, and needs no request.

Your comment about accessing the interior is therefore also not useful.

But I suppose the easiest approach is to put it in the lease. Even easier, is to rent month to month. Then I can do about whatever I want, assuming the tenant likes the overall deal, which mine do.

But to reiterate, I think the essential point that a lot of Phipps and Hains signs are being placed by out of state "rape and run" landlords like Provident Partners of Scottsdale, Arizona, is a good one.

Ernie the Attorney said...

I already gave you the "definitive answer;" but you apparently weren't paying attention, Landlord.

The law makes no distinction between your access to the "interior or "exterior" of your leased property, by the way, unless those distinctions are contained in your lease agreement. If you've leased a single family home with attached front, back and sideyards, without providing for your access to these portions without notice, you've leased the entire property, and you have no right to trespass upon any part of your tenant's property except in exigent circumstances (emergencies for instance).

You're definitely right. It's probably time to review your lease(s), preferably with the with the help of a good real estate lawyer.

(Sidenote: If you want legal advice, call your lawyer, not a policeman.)

Colonel Jessup said...

All I know is that Geiger Stole Hansen's Sign and Bobbie is above the law. why? because the attorneys paid the fine and that is not even a slap on the wrist. So when some signs are missing go over to Geiger's house and see if his truck that is reg. to Eccles is there, if not then Bobbie is out picking up signs and making sure they are put up straight.
OH one other thing is, Geiger is now an ex-convict because they did find him guilty. So the story goes. So much for the honor of being a west point grad.

AWM said...

Depending on what year group you're speaking of, there wasn't a lot of honor to be had at W.P..I mention 1976 as an example..what years did he grad?

Stephen M. Cook said...

I have no idea what the hell you all are on about, but you should definitely sign up for pre-paid legal plan.

Fact: Property that is acknowledged at the time of lease signing, and included in the owner/lessee inventory, is entirely different than, post-lease signing, waking up and having a sign on your lawn.
If anyone leaves something on your lawn without your expressed permission, it belongs to you unless proven otherwise in a civil court of law.

If your lease says you will allow signage for business purposes i.e. leasing, selling, etc, that in no way includes putting up campaign signs, and if the landlord thinks it does, they need to take you to civil court in a filed contractual dispute.
Either way, the sign could come down until the issue went to court.

Police have nothing to do with this until a judge signs off on it.

The police do not issue citations for Missing Property, in a he-said she-said sign dispute, they take a report and give it to the detectives; who file it away under "You have got to be kidding me".

It is not theft, it is legally disposing of abandoned property, unless your lease specifically states otherwise, and then again, it is a civil matter.

If you still don't understand the difference between a policeman showing up and arresting you for theft of your landlords fridge, v. showing up and trying to settle a contract dispute between tenant/landlord, please sign up for pre-paid legal. Cause right now, you have a foo for a client.

Marion said...

Colonel

Bobby graduated from Annapolis, not West Point.

I also do not believe that being convicted of a class C misdemeanor like Bobby was makes him an ex-con any more than getting convicted of a traffic offense does.

Stealing campaign signs like that however casts a huge shadow over all military academy graduates. Pretty petty thing for any military, or ex-military officer to be doing.

keisha said...

Regarding the signage, I'll just say that I never cease to be amazed at how clever Ogden City residents really are.

Phipps and his cretin real estate buddies have as all wrongly pegged as country bumpkins, of course.

Being underestimated is always an advantage of course, in situations such as this.

Curmudgeon said...

Marion:

Well put, on both points.

Doug B. said...

Today I drove around the neighborhood where Mr. Phipps lives. I noticed one large sign in his own yard and one large one about half a block west on the other side of the street. The second one was in front of a parking lot. Next to the Phipps house was another small yard sign on a house that looked like it might be un-lived in. Across the street was another small sign in front of a multi unit dwelling. I got curious and ended up driving around the four square blocks around the Phipps house and there was only one other Phipps sign in the whole area. It seems to me that this is the Phipps ward which then made me wonder why people in his own neighborhood and ward are not supporting him with yard signs. There were a lot of "Trolley neighborhood" signs through this area so it occurs to me that people around there were willing to put signs up for things they believed in. Also two houses west of the Phipps house was a large Blair sign.

Perhaps the Phipps ward and neighborhood isn't particularly enamored with the new guy on the block?

sign guy said...

"Do this and don't do that, can't you read the signs."

An ex-con....for signage?
Gee-zust!

A policeman rendering legal opinions on landlord/tenant rights?
Caramba!

And Dan S., I didn't in the least suggest that he with the most signs wins. I wrote that I was amazed at all of the frenzy and frantic hype over sign placement, etc. As for Eccles, you're right, and myabe he learned that it takes more than signage to win an election.

But well placed signage sure as hell helps. Much of campaigning is showbiz, pal. Like it or not, it does get one a lot of votes.

goonga galoonga said...

To Landlord: I would like to see ANY Utah law that states a landlord has full access to the outside/inside or any other part of property he/she has leased to someone and doesn't have to give notice to go on the property. I will never see that law because one doesn't exist. Like Ernie the Attorney says, unless it is specifically spelled out in the lease that the landlord can enter ANY part of the property without notice, then they have no right to do so. Just like a landlord cannot hold a tenant's property as collateral if a tenant is in default on the lease. A landlord can't even evict a tenant without going through the courts first.

What ever police officer told you they would cite you for removing a political sign on the property you leased is completely wrong.

In this matter, the police officer, if they know what they're doing, they would advise you that it's a civil matter between you and your landlord and the only way they could do anything about it is with a court order.

I have a friend who is leasing a commercial piece of property in a neighboring city and candidates for office that he doens't support have put their signs on his property right next to the entrance to his doors. He went out and removed the signs and took them inside the building and put them in the office. One of the candidates whose signs were removed was livid about the fact the signs were removed and tried to tell the tenant that the landlord said he could put them there. My friend told him that he has a legal binding lease with the landlord and that the landlord has no right to tell someone else they can do something to that property he leased and that it's up to him what goes on in regards to the property within the scope of the lease. My friend checked with his attorney and his attorney confirmed that the landlord has no legal right to tell anyone that they can do anything to that property. My friend even contacted his landlord to see if he authorized the placement of the signs and he didn't. My friend and his landlord have both stated they will not allow anyone to place any campaign signs on their property in the future, regardless if they support the candidate or not.

Tell you what. Any tenant who removes political signs of candidates they don't support from property they are leasing and have legal rights to occupy and they get cited by the police for removing the signs and are found guilty of breaking the law I will pay their fine for them. All I ask is for the tenant to take the sign place it in their building, not destroy the sign and return it to the candidate. If the landlord tries to do something to the tenant, I will pay to sue the landlord. Any takers?

By the way, Utah Criminal Code 76-8-104 states that it is a class A misdemeanor if a person threatens any harm to a public servant, party official, or VOTER with a purpose of influencing his ACTION, decision, opinion, RECOMMENDATION, nomination, vote or other exercise of discretion.

I would say a landlord who forces you to put a political sign for a candidate you don't support has violated this statute. By forcing you and threatening you with violation of your lease, they are influencing your actions by making you leave that sign there. They are also violating this statute by placing that sign there to lead others to believe that you are supporting and RECOMMENDING this candidate for election when you really aren't. I would even go so far as to say the police officer who threatened to cite you for removing the sign is also in violation of this statute.

What does everyone else think?

Landlord said...

Here's what I think.

I need to put it in the lease!

I don't want my renter to take down my Blair and VanHooser signs!

(But I do suggest renters take down the Phipps and Hains signs and put them in their garage.)

milt said...

"What does everyone else think?"

I think the placement of a Phipps yard sign is the equivalent of placing a sign that says,

"I'm an Idiot!"

What will it cost us said...

After the last election those businesses that had Godfrey signs were not patronized by me or my family. Most businesses in retail or restaurants should realize not all of their customers agree with their their politics.

My money is spent wisely and I do pay attention to what business I support. I pay a little more but by not shopping at Wal-Mart my conscience is clear, plus I hated the kids run amock atmosphere in their stores.

Stephen M. Cook said...

goonga galoonga:

I have to note that you make a lot of expensive promises for an anonymous poster.
Belly up to the bar good person, and put your name on the line.

Otherwise, that valid and defensible position you take has little weight.

Thanks in advance.

Stephen M. Cook said...

Landlord:
You can put anything you want in a lease, and the tenant can sign it.

But, doesn't mean a thing. Landlords put unenforceable/unlawful provisions in leases all the time, and they know it.
They count on the Tenant to be "a good little income-stream", and if not they will evict on other, more enforceable grounds.

Note: take all this with a grain or two. 9 years of post secondary ed with a focus in constitutional law, does not one a contractual lawyer make. ;)

Goonga Galoonga said...

Stephen M Cook: The promises I make are only expensive if I'm wrong and I assure you, in these matters, I'm not.

I know the criminal code due to my 15 years of experience in the law enforcement field. I know the civil laws governing leases and police procedure in regards to civil laws due to my 9 years of experience in owning my own business and my 15 years experience in law enforcement.

In my law enforcement career, I have handled tenant, landlord disputes over their leases and my answers have been the same for years. "It is a civil matter and we can't do anything without a court order." Regardless of the issue, unless it is blatantly criminal, like arson or something like that. Property disputes are civil in nature and have to go through the courts.

I have built a business from one location to three locations in 9 years. I have grown sales from $600,000 to over $2,500,000 in those same 9 years. I even compete with a business that Ogden City has subsidized millions of dollars to, but I continue to grow. I have leases at two of my three business locations. It is my job to know mine and my landlord's legal rights in regards to the property I am leasing.

I have read your posts on this issue and it seems like we agree on the issues in question. I do not live in Ogden, thank god, and I have watched the people on this blog bitch and complain about what goes on, but very few really step up and take action.

When someone has the guts to stand up to those who are threatening them, to take a stand for what is right, then I will stand up and defend them. Due to my business and law enforcement obligations, I will never reveal my identity. Call me Robin Hood, because I will defend the poor against the rich when the stand up for themselves.

Show me the citation, provide me with the details of the incident for which that person was cited and I will make a judgement of whether or not that person is guilty. If I feel they are not I will defend. If they are found guilty I will pay.

If a landlord tries to take action against a tenant, give me the lease and the facts surrounding the the incident. I will make my own determination if the tenant was wrong and violated the lease.

99% of the time the tenant did not violate the law or the terms of the lease. I'm tired of people being beaten into submission because they are scared or can't afford the price of fighting for what's right.

Like I said, you seem to agree with me on this issue. If what you are writing is what you really believe, then stand up with me offer to stand up for and defend those who can't. Don't tell me that my refusal to name myself makes "my valid and defensible position have little weight." If you're not willing to stand up with me then it's your position that holds little weight.

Goonga Galoonga said...

One more thing, I'm a huge believer in doing what's right without expecting anything in return. I donate to lots of charities and help lots of people anonymously. I don't do if for the recognition. I do it because I can, it's what I should do and it's right. I don't want to bring attention to myself. It's not about me, it's about others. I want to defend those who can't defend themselves, I want to help those who need it and I want to do it as quietly as possible. It's no one's business but my own what I do and how I help other people. I want to stand up for what's right and take those down who take advantage of other people. I don't give a crap who gets the credit as long as the job gets done.

Wm III said...

You say goonga galoonga ...

I say gunga galunga ...

So we got that goin' for us, which is nice ...

Curmudgeon said...

GG:

I'm not competent to comment on the legalities of lease requirements, etc., but your post above reminded me again of how much change began, historically, in the US. Someone decided one day to say "No. I won't. " Sometimes, that's all it takes, as you note. It will be interesting to see if a tenant steps up, says "no" and what happens then.

Interesting post.

ozboy said...

GG

Great posts. It is always nice to have a new poster inject some new angles here on the WCF. It tends to raise the intellectual bar when someone comes on with good info backed up by rational thought like you have.
Hope to read more of your take on things.

Phineas said...

Gotta agree with Mr. Cook, at least this once! If no one knows who you are, how can they show you the citation or the lease?
Seems impossible.

anonymous naysayer said...

Phineas

We could all meet in the dark alley behind the Sundowner's club house at midnight. Wear your black hat so we know you are one of us. No penny loafers please, we could all be exposed.

Ferb said...

Nope, cause then everyone would know who he/she is. He/she says no one will ever know who he is, yet he offers to review leases and pay court costs associated with a legal tussle. I dont see that as possible or a serious statement. Li8ke a lot of anonymous crap on the internet, it falls flat.

Goonga Galoonga said...

Phineas: Nothing is impossible. There's a great saying that says, "Those who say it can't be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

We have a forum here and if someone runs into an issue they can post it here. Arrangements can be made, especially in today's technologically advanced world. Heck look at Boss Godfrey and the anonymous crap he's pulled. If he can do it, I'm sure any of us can.

Ferb: You'd be surprised how many things can be done anonymously.

I'm not posting to stir the pot, just trying to shed some light on the lies and misconceptions that are being spread around. If you don't believe what I'm saying about the criminal law in regards to removing a political sign from a yard you are leasing, call an attorney. Look up the Utah Criminal Code and see for yourself at http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE76/TITLE76.htm.

Read your own lease and see if there is a clause in it that says anything to the effect of a landlord's right to access the property or forbidding you to remove political signage. Every lease I have signed has provision for the landlord to access and inspect the property, but only after giving reasonable notice and the reasoning for the visit.

I don't know many people who would get into a lease where a landlord could just walk in and do whatever they want whenever they want. If that clause is in someone's lease, they should have done a better job of reading and understanding what they were signing.

I've read posts on this website for a long time. I hear the word naysayer being used alot (usually by others calling people who post here naysayers). People are posting here say that what I'm offering isn't real because I don't identify myself. What does that have to do with anything? What evidence do you have to support your claim that, because I haven't identified myself what I'm willing to do isn't true? None. You're just making an assumption. Believe it or not there are a lot of great people in this world who do a lot of amazing things for other people and no one knows who they are.

Want some proof? Join me in taking meals to families who can't afford a good Thanksgiving dinner. We take the food, give it to them and leave. We actually hand the food to them and just ask them, if they have the chance to do something for someone else to do it. Join me in taking christmas trees and presents to families who can't afford to give their children a christmas. Since the families who I give to don't know who I am, it must be too good to be true and doesn't happen. How many stories have you heard about where complete strangers have given organs to others so they may live? If you're truly interested in making a difference post it here. I will make a way for us to get together and do some good. Let's all join together and do it.

This is how change begins. A group of people say stand up and say "NO MORE!" and take action to make a difference. We are in control of our own destony.

For those of you questioning me, try taking some of that negativity and putting it to some good use. You'll be surprised what a difference you can make.

ozboy said...

GG

Another good post. I do however have one comment on the part that says:

"I don't know many people who would get into a lease where a landlord could just walk in and do whatever they want whenever they want. If that clause is in someone's lease, they should have done a better job of reading and understanding what they were signing."

There is a wide spread practice by highly predatory rental management companies in Ogden that make a lot of poor and struggling folks who don't have a lot of options sign ominous and incredibly ball busting rental agreements. I reviewed one a couple of months ago for a family I was helping financially with their rent. The lease was for a small house in central Ogden and the company that the lease was with is Froerer realty on about 27th & Washington.

The lease was the most obscenely one sided agreement I had ever seen. (except of course the agreements between Ogden City and Boyer with the Junction) It gave Froerer virtually every right to oppress and interfere in the lives and privacy of these poor people that was imaginable, they could be evicted with little or no cause and any money owed the tenant in deposits or advance rent could be forfeited. These people, like almost all the poor and prayed upon renters in Ogden would only have recourse through the courts and as we know that is really not an option for most poor folks. The legal system is out of reach for the vast majority of these people.
So the bottom line is that the predators like Froerer are praying upon and raking in very large sums of money from the people who can afford it least with these horrid rental agreements. I assume Froerer isn't the only one doing this as the people I was helping said this was the third time with different realtors that they had been renting through.

Post a Comment

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved