Law Common Abatement: Fill & Download for Free

I would not support a law that prohibits a private owner of property from erecting structures on their property that make that property inhospitable. It’s their property, and thus they have the right to put pretty much anything they want on it as long as what they erect doesn’t amount to a public nuisance.I would, however, support laws that make the owners of property who erect things like anti-homeless spikes legally liable for any injuries that their anti-homeless-person measures cause to any person who is injured while lawfully on their property. The spikes that are commonly used make it much more likely that someone who accidentally falls will be seriously injured, and I think a property owner who sets up such intentional hazards in or near places where the public travel should be liable for damages when someone is injured as a result. Furthermore, if a particular anti-homeless-person measure is so hazardous to the general public as to amount to a public nuisance, it would be appropriate for legal action to abate that nuisance to be undertaken, which would presumably lead to the removal of the spikes.I would not, however, oppose a law that prohibits the government from erecting measures intended to deter homeless persons. The government should not be taking affirmative measures to make life more difficult for homeless people.For me, personally, the thing that pisses me off are public benches with overly-narrow seating that have been engineered to be impossible to sleep on, and which are thus also essentially impossible to sit on. If you’re going to do this, just remove the bench entirely; it’s not like it’s useful for any purpose as it is.

DISCLOSURE: I do not now, nor have I ever had a CCW.There are a few interrelated factors to the continuing expansion of CCW permits:BECAUSE THEY CAN: Back in 1988, only 10 states had shall-issue CCW laws. Today it is 42 (if you include the few states that have dropped permitting altogether). As with any new opportunity, there are early adopters, majority-phase adopters and laggards. Hence, even states like Florida (passed shall-issue CCW in 1988) have new adopters every day from the pre-existing population.PREPAREDNESS: I have no hard numbers (yet) but I suspect the majority of people who get a CCW do not actively carry. Having a CCW is like having a torque wrench — you don’t use it often, but you want it around just in case. So some people just “eventually get around to it.”BELIEF CONVERSION: The history of national CCW expansion was a case study in belief conversion. There was a lag after Florida passed shall-issue CCW and before the next state did. The country was watching a rather big experiment in the making. When mayhem and bloodshed did not occur in Florida, other states said “Well, why the heck not?” and enacted their own CCW laws. People are similar. When a state passes CCW laws, a lot of folks — even gun owners — says “Why would I want a CCW? That’s just dangerous.” But after a few years pass, and they meet numerous people with CCWs, the fear abates and they decide to get one as well (see “laggards” in the chart above).One bit of polite pushback. The questionnaire believes that Americans are arming themselves at “unprecedented levels”. However, between the colonial and the mid 20th century, people were very commonly armed and commonly carried in public, including this old gal. America went through a spasm of gun control adoration between 1969 and 1990, then reversed course back toward how it was before.

I’ve come close, from both perspectives.The most common suits filed by landlords are evictions, followed by recovery for damages.The most common suits filed by tenants against landlords are for security deposits, followed by pest abatement, and then attempted early lease terminations (implied warranty of habitability, etc.).In many cases, a landlord ends up showing up, and pointing to the binding arbitration clause in the lease, and the judge kicks it back to arbitration.