I understand where you are coming from, but violence is not the answer here.
This may seem foolish, but my intention at this point is to reject any offers below my minimum expectations for compensation.
On the plus side, from the research I did back when he started suggesting he might have my house taken, it appears that they are required by law to give us the fair market value of the home, or the balance of the mortgage, whichever is higher - even if they take the house by force. So even if it was appraised lower than my mortgage, I still won't be out anything except for my equity.
We've been living in this place for just over a year, so we don't exactly have a lot of equity at the moment. My wife and I picked it as somewhere to spend the rest of our lives, not especially as an investment.
Since his offers up to this point weren't all that generous (barely enough to cover the agents fees and moving costs with the remainder paying capital gains tax on the property since we've lived there less than two years) we haven't accepted one yet.
The small town I live in is also very old-fashioned, so I suspect such an action would not be accepted by local government very readily.
Interestingly enough, I've heard statements like your last paragraph before. Who from? The agent himself. I don't trust that logic. Even if we do eventually lose our house, we will make it hurt. I'm already planning to oppose the rezoning of the property next door when that comes around. Quite loudly, in fact.
A real estate agent has been trying to buy my home recently for use in a development project. (The church immediately behind my property has been sold to a group that intends to build a retirement community.)
His dealings with me were very suspicious (I knew nothing about the development project, and he did not volunteer that information - I had to find out about it myself).
We decided not to accept his offer, as we didn't really want to move and like our home just fine. We were willing to move, but for a price, one which is apparently higher than he wants to pay. Several times he has come to us with offers, each slightly higher than the last. He is also making somewhat threatening statements to our real estate agent regarding our property. (We ended up getting representation to protect our interests.) The statements were along the lines of 'if you don't sell, we will take your property anyway'. Attempting to scare us into selling, essentially.
But this ruling seems to suggest he MIGHT be able to get away with it. Not that I wouldn't fight tooth and nail. If forced, I may have to pull an Arthur Dent and lay in my driveway in my bathrobe.
But still, this is troubling news for property owners. I guess this means we don't really "own" the land after all. We own it until the government decides to take it away. Sounds like tyranny to me.
Actually, my college's Computer Science Department ran Solaris, and shunned Windows completely except for the courses not intended for CS majors. Although I've since heard that there has been a bit of a shift, as one of the intro to programming courses apparently now uses Visual Studio.
As to running Linux, I don't. But I have in the past (was dual booting Red Hat/Win 2000). The only reason I don't anymore is not a lack of interest, but a lack of time. That and the fact that I work in a Windows-only environment, and all my relatives use Windows exclusively. So I have to know that like the back of my hand.
That is not to say that I don't appreciate Open Source. I think some of the neatest things to happen in the computing industry lately are centered around open source. Firefox, for example. Firefox has literally changed the way I use the web.
And we will be able to notice what difference?
on
SBC CWA Strike Imminent
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I mean, honestly. Having no technicians to fix things will mean what exactly?
An anecdote from my personal experience with them...
SBC was supposed to install DSL at my home. The equipment for my end came and I hooked it up, waiting for the date service was supposed to start. The day comes and goes with no DSL. I call them the next day and spend several hours on the phone with a tech. Finally, he comes to the conclusion that I don't seem to have DSL service.
In fact, he can't even find record of the order, despite them having sent me equipment. We get off the phone, and I am called not once, but three times by different companies they apparently contract with to let me know that my DSL service is down.
Finally, they get their act together and fix the problem. Over the next three days I received four phone calls and two in-person visits letting me know that they fixed my DSL service.
Never mind how SBC used to call me at my old address trying to sell me DSL (which wasn't offered in my area at the time). We actually ordered it the first time, and it took them two months of hassles to get the to admit they don't offer it in our area and get a refund for the two months of service they charged us for.
So I ask, how would I be able to tell that there was a strike? Oh, my phone wouldn't ring off the hook with notifications of information I already know.
Slashdot Mirror
You are already being paid for the use of your bandwidth. I'm paying you. What I do with that bandwidth is none of your business. Data is data.
Kindly shove off.
Thanks, ~Dan
I understand where you are coming from, but violence is not the answer here.
This may seem foolish, but my intention at this point is to reject any offers below my minimum expectations for compensation.
On the plus side, from the research I did back when he started suggesting he might have my house taken, it appears that they are required by law to give us the fair market value of the home, or the balance of the mortgage, whichever is higher - even if they take the house by force. So even if it was appraised lower than my mortgage, I still won't be out anything except for my equity.
We've been living in this place for just over a year, so we don't exactly have a lot of equity at the moment. My wife and I picked it as somewhere to spend the rest of our lives, not especially as an investment.
Since his offers up to this point weren't all that generous (barely enough to cover the agents fees and moving costs with the remainder paying capital gains tax on the property since we've lived there less than two years) we haven't accepted one yet.
The small town I live in is also very old-fashioned, so I suspect such an action would not be accepted by local government very readily.
Interestingly enough, I've heard statements like your last paragraph before. Who from? The agent himself. I don't trust that logic. Even if we do eventually lose our house, we will make it hurt. I'm already planning to oppose the rezoning of the property next door when that comes around. Quite loudly, in fact.
I find this ruling very troubling.
A real estate agent has been trying to buy my home recently for use in a development project. (The church immediately behind my property has been sold to a group that intends to build a retirement community.)
His dealings with me were very suspicious (I knew nothing about the development project, and he did not volunteer that information - I had to find out about it myself).
We decided not to accept his offer, as we didn't really want to move and like our home just fine. We were willing to move, but for a price, one which is apparently higher than he wants to pay. Several times he has come to us with offers, each slightly higher than the last. He is also making somewhat threatening statements to our real estate agent regarding our property. (We ended up getting representation to protect our interests.) The statements were along the lines of 'if you don't sell, we will take your property anyway'. Attempting to scare us into selling, essentially.
But this ruling seems to suggest he MIGHT be able to get away with it. Not that I wouldn't fight tooth and nail. If forced, I may have to pull an Arthur Dent and lay in my driveway in my bathrobe.
But still, this is troubling news for property owners. I guess this means we don't really "own" the land after all. We own it until the government decides to take it away. Sounds like tyranny to me.
Very troubling.
~Dan
Actually, my college's Computer Science Department ran Solaris, and shunned Windows completely except for the courses not intended for CS majors. Although I've since heard that there has been a bit of a shift, as one of the intro to programming courses apparently now uses Visual Studio.
As to running Linux, I don't. But I have in the past (was dual booting Red Hat/Win 2000). The only reason I don't anymore is not a lack of interest, but a lack of time. That and the fact that I work in a Windows-only environment, and all my relatives use Windows exclusively. So I have to know that like the back of my hand.
That is not to say that I don't appreciate Open Source. I think some of the neatest things to happen in the computing industry lately are centered around open source. Firefox, for example. Firefox has literally changed the way I use the web.
I mean, honestly. Having no technicians to fix things will mean what exactly?
An anecdote from my personal experience with them...
SBC was supposed to install DSL at my home. The equipment for my end came and I hooked it up, waiting for the date service was supposed to start. The day comes and goes with no DSL. I call them the next day and spend several hours on the phone with a tech. Finally, he comes to the conclusion that I don't seem to have DSL service.
In fact, he can't even find record of the order, despite them having sent me equipment. We get off the phone, and I am called not once, but three times by different companies they apparently contract with to let me know that my DSL service is down.
Finally, they get their act together and fix the problem. Over the next three days I received four phone calls and two in-person visits letting me know that they fixed my DSL service.
Never mind how SBC used to call me at my old address trying to sell me DSL (which wasn't offered in my area at the time). We actually ordered it the first time, and it took them two months of hassles to get the to admit they don't offer it in our area and get a refund for the two months of service they charged us for.
So I ask, how would I be able to tell that there was a strike? Oh, my phone wouldn't ring off the hook with notifications of information I already know.
~Dan