Any realtors reading?

Let's say someone like Kip Kinkel - schizophrenic kid who killed his
parents and shot up his school about 10 years ago - got a commutation
of his sentence as some people think he should since they feel he was
a "victim" who didn't get the help he needed and was treated unfairly,
and was in the market to buy a house. They're convinced that with meds
and supervision he would probably have no problems living as a free
man.

I assume realtors aren't going to turn down his money so I imagine
he'd find someone to sell him a house, but even if they make an
effort to conceal who the new neighbor is, I imagine at some point
word is going to get out that he lives in that house.

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses once it
became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts to conceal this
fact when selling a neighboring house, do the buyers have any recourse?

wrote:
Any realtors reading?

Let's say someone like Kip Kinkel - schizophrenic kid who killed his
parents and shot up his school about 10 years ago - got a commutation
of his sentence as some people think he should since they feel he was
a "victim" who didn't get the help he needed and was treated unfairly,
and was in the market to buy a house. They're convinced that with meds
and supervision he would probably have no problems living as a free
man.

I assume realtors aren't going to turn down his money so I imagine
he'd find someone to sell him a house, but even if they make an
effort to conceal who the new neighbor is, I imagine at some point
word is going to get out that he lives in that house.

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses once it
became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts to conceal this
fact when selling a neighboring house, do the buyers have any recourse?
Hi,
Word predisposition comes to mind.

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:57:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Any realtors reading?

Let's say someone like Kip Kinkel - schizophrenic kid who killed his
parents and shot up his school about 10 years ago - got a commutation
of his sentence as some people think he should since they feel he was
a "victim" who didn't get the help he needed and was treated unfairly,
and was in the market to buy a house. They're convinced that with meds
and supervision he would probably have no problems living as a free
man.

I assume realtors aren't going to turn down his money so I imagine
he'd find someone to sell him a house, but even if they make an
effort to conceal who the new neighbor is, I imagine at some point
word is going to get out that he lives in that house.

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses once it
became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts to conceal this
fact when selling a neighboring house, do the buyers have any recourse?


So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?

Any person who has served his time in incarceration, is entitled to
live somewhere. Technically, YOU, the prospective neighbor is not
necessarily entitled to know that this person WAS ever incarcerated.

Even if you did find out, there is no legal recourse you can take to
force him to move elsewhere.

On Jun 17, 11:34*pm, richard wrote:

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses once it
became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts to conceal this
fact when selling a neighboring house, do the buyers have any recourse?

So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?


Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd be
fine with it if you for example had small kids and found out you just
bought a house next to someone who'd done a stretch for pedophilia
related crimes?

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of people at some point
because "the voices" told him to?


Even if you did find out, there is no legal recourse you can take to
force him to move elsewhere.


I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not
disclosing the information.

wrote
richard wrote

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses once it
became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts to conceal this
fact when selling a neighboring house, do the buyers have any recourse?

So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?

Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd be fine
with it if you for example had small kids and found out you just bought a
house next to someone who'd done a stretch for pedophilia related crimes?

No, but thats the reason few places allow that sort of thing to be
publicised, where those who have been convicted are currently 'living'

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of
people at some point because "the voices" told him to?

Why would it be any better if they had murdered just one ?

The only alternative is to keep all those with mental problems locked up till they die.

Even if you did find out, there is no legal recourse you can take to force him to move elsewhere.

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not disclosing the information.

If there was, they'd just avoid becoming aware of the information deliberately.

In article ,
says...
wrote
richard wrote

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses once it
became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts to conceal this
fact when selling a neighboring house, do the buyers have any recourse?

So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?

Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd be fine
with it if you for example had small kids and found out you just bought a
house next to someone who'd done a stretch for pedophilia related crimes?

No, but thats the reason few places allow that sort of thing to be
publicised, where those who have been convicted are currently 'living'

Huh? Most places have laws specifically addressing pedophiles and
other sex criminals (whether they should and how it's run is another
issue). Many have web sites where you can look up the names and
addresses of those convicted of sex crimes and search for any in
your neighborhood. Criminal records are public information.

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of
people at some point because "the voices" told him to?

Why would it be any better if they had murdered just one ?

Serial murderers are the same as those who have committed "crimes of
passion"?

The only alternative is to keep all those with mental problems locked up till they die.

Well...

Even if you did find out, there is no legal recourse you can take to force him to move elsewhere.

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not disclosing the information.

If there was, they'd just avoid becoming aware of the information deliberately.

As it is with many such things. Then there is "should have
known"...


--
Keith

krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
richard wrote

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses once
it became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts to
conceal this fact when selling a neighboring house, do the buyers
have any recourse?

So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?

Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd be fine
with it if you for example had small kids and found out you just bought a
house next to someone who'd done a stretch for pedophilia related crimes?

No, but thats the reason few places allow that sort of thing to be
publicised, where those who have been convicted are currently 'living'

Huh? Most places have laws specifically addressing pedophiles and
other sex criminals (whether they should and how it's run is another issue).

Few places allow where those are currently 'living' to be publicised to anyone who wants to know.

Many have web sites where you can look up the names and addresses
of those convicted of sex crimes and search for any in your neighborhood.

**** all do, actually.

Criminal records are public information.

But not the current location of criminals who are no longer in jail.

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of
people at some point because "the voices" told him to?

Why would it be any better if they had murdered just one ?

Serial murderers are the same as those who have committed "crimes of passion"?

Irrelevant to what risk you run from either sort of criminal.

The only alternative is to keep all those with mental problems locked up till they die.

Well...

Pathetic.

Even if you did find out, there is no legal recourse you can take to force him to move elsewhere.

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not disclosing the information.

If there was, they'd just avoid becoming aware of the information deliberately.

As it is with many such things. Then there is "should have known"...

Nope. Not with something like that that isnt common knowledge.

krw wrote:

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of
people at some point because "the voices" told him to?

Why would it be any better if they had murdered just one ?

Serial murderers are the same as those who have committed "crimes of
passion"?


Well, no. If you ever drive past a prison, you'll probably see "outside
trustys" mowing the grass, etc. Virtually all of the outside trustys are
murderers, crime of passion murderers. You see, they are basically
rule-followers; tell 'em to go outside and sweep the sidewalks, be back at
4:30, and they'll be back. Theirs was a crime of unique opportunity, they
didn't plan it. They just got swept up in the heat of the moment.

A robber or burglar or contract killer, on the other hand, has no respect
for the rules or law. Put them outside the wall and they'll bolt. Every
time.

So, with a crime-of-passion criminal, if you can put him in a situation
where the same circumstances to not repeat, he'll be fine.

In article ,
says...

On Jun 17, 11:34=A0pm, richard wrote:

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses once it
became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts to conceal this
fact when selling a neighboring house, do the buyers have any recourse?

So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?


Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd be
fine with it if you for example had small kids and found out you just
bought a house next to someone who'd done a stretch for pedophilia
related crimes?

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of people at some point
because "the voices" told him to?


Even if you did find out, there is no legal recourse you can take to
force him to move elsewhere.


I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not
disclosing the information.


You're asking "for a friend" huh?

Richard is right. You can't expect to be protected against everything you don't
like, or might maybe be a danger.

Banty

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:55:57 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 17, 11:34*pm, richard wrote:

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses once it
became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts to conceal this
fact when selling a neighboring house, do the buyers have any recourse?

So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?


Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd be
fine with it if you for example had small kids and found out you just
bought a house next to someone who'd done a stretch for pedophilia
related crimes?

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of people at some point
because "the voices" told him to?


Even if you did find out, there is no legal recourse you can take to
force him to move elsewhere.


I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not
disclosing the information.

That will depend on state laws if disclosure is required. NOT your
personal beliefs.

You can not get recourse against the seller or realtor. Unless state
law requires them to do so.

Your long time neighbor has his face plastered all over the front page
of the newspaper, highlighted in the tv news for having killed someone
while drunk at the wheel. He goes to jail for 5 years. Meanwhile, his
wife and kids live in the same house. He's released from jail and
returns home. Your attitude says he can't live here no more because
he's a known danger to society.

Or maybe you find out some guy is moving in next door for the same
reason.

The person has served their time in prison. They have to live
somewhere. They have the same rights you do. Why can't you accept the
fact that people need to live somewhere.

Then how do you know you're not already living next door to a
convicted criminal who served his time?


John Walsh, of America's Most Wanted, pushed for "Megan's Law" on the
control of pedophiles. Do you recall the case? Megan was the vicitm of
a murder. So why aren't murderer's treated the same? Megan's law is a
travesty of American justice in that convicted pedophiles who are
registered, MUST notify their new neighbors of their previous
incarceration while serial killers, drunk drivers, rapists, and drug
dealers don't have to do jack ****.

How do you know one of your neighbors you've know for years isn't
already a pedophile? Or one of the others mentioned?

You want the law changed? Get active and get it done.

thedarkonelives wrote

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not
disclosing the information.

Laws may not *allow* the relator to disclose such even if they are aware of
it. The home owner may or may not be required to disclose such, rather area
dependant on disclosure laws.

In my area for example, folks selling are advised to 'not disclose' as you
can't be sued later for anything that comes up. If you do 'disclose' you
can be sued even years later for just about anything even if you can prove
you did NOT know about it (obviously hard to prove such, and wont save you
here).

'Technically' my house was bought 'non-disclosed' but folks have a way here
of working out basic stuff 'off the record'. Seller for example quietly
warned us that with a house built in 1963, it was largely code-spec to 1963
and that future work, depending on what it was, would sometimes entail
additional costs. He was real careful to explain the back room was codespec
only to 'enclosed porch' for example and now we understand why ;-). Reality
is at the time it was a rental bedroom for a roomate, bed and all. It's a
'legal thing' to call my home a 3BR 1.5 bath, vice a 4 BR 1.5 bath. Had he
tried to market it as a 4 BR officially, he would have been required to pay
to bring that encloser to codespec of the time for a BR.

cshenk wrote:

In my area for example, folks selling are advised to 'not disclose'
as you can't be sued later for anything that comes up. If you do
'disclose' you can be sued even years later for just about anything
even if you can prove you did NOT know about it (obviously hard to
prove such, and wont save you here).

Are you sure about that? I would think it would be the reverse: Disclosure
immunizes you from being sued in that the buyer knew what he was getting.
Non-disclosure allows the buyer to presume nothing abnormal about the
property.

"HeyBub" wrote
cshenk wrote:

In my area for example, folks selling are advised to 'not disclose'
as you can't be sued later for anything that comes up. If you do
'disclose' you can be sued even years later for just about anything
even if you can prove you did NOT know about it (obviously hard to
prove such, and wont save you here).

Are you sure about that? I would think it would be the reverse: Disclosure
immunizes you from being sued in that the buyer knew what he was getting.
Non-disclosure allows the buyer to presume nothing abnormal about the
property.

Nope, as explained to me thats how it works 'here'. If you say you
'disclose' here, you are liable for anything and everything, even stuff you
didnt know about.

It's bad as partial disclosure would be better (if allowed).

In article ,
says...
thedarkonelives wrote

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not
disclosing the information.

Laws may not *allow* the relator to disclose such even if they are aware of
it. The home owner may or may not be required to disclose such, rather area
dependant on disclosure laws.

Nonsense. It *is* public information.

In my area for example, folks selling are advised to 'not disclose' as you
can't be sued later for anything that comes up. If you do 'disclose' you
can be sued even years later for just about anything even if you can prove
you did NOT know about it (obviously hard to prove such, and wont save you
here).

You certainly do live in a strange world. We had a lengthy
disclosure form to fill out that went through the entire house. I
looked at it as a good thing. As long as I answered the questions
honestly there was nothing to come back after me for, though that
wouldn't stop an ambulance chaser.

'Technically' my house was bought 'non-disclosed' but folks have a way here
of working out basic stuff 'off the record'. Seller for example quietly
warned us that with a house built in 1963, it was largely code-spec to 1963
and that future work, depending on what it was, would sometimes entail
additional costs. He was real careful to explain the back room was codespec
only to 'enclosed porch' for example and now we understand why ;-). Reality
is at the time it was a rental bedroom for a roomate, bed and all. It's a
'legal thing' to call my home a 3BR 1.5 bath, vice a 4 BR 1.5 bath. Had he
tried to market it as a 4 BR officially, he would have been required to pay
to bring that encloser to codespec of the time for a BR.

My house had a building permit and CO as a two bedroom[*] house,
even though there were clearly three. Before I could even put it on
the market I had to get the permit and CO "upgraded" to three
bedrooms. It cost me $3500, for nothing but paper and five minutes
of the town clerk's time.
[*] who in their right mind would build (or allow to be built) a two
bedroom 2-1/2 bath house?

--
Keith

"krw" wrote
Laws may not *allow* the realtor to disclose such even if they are aware
of
it. The home owner may or may not be required to disclose such, rather
area
dependant on disclosure laws.

Nonsense. It *is* public information.

I never said it wasn't. What your area (state) requires may match another
or may not be the same. I advised to look up the laws for the area
involved. Normally pretty easy to find.

In my area for example, folks selling are advised to 'not disclose' as
you
can't be sued later for anything that comes up. If you do 'disclose' you
can be sued even years later for just about anything even if you can
prove
you did NOT know about it (obviously hard to prove such, and wont save
you
here).

You certainly do live in a strange world. We had a lengthy
disclosure form to fill out that went through the entire house. I
looked at it as a good thing. As long as I answered the questions
honestly there was nothing to come back after me for, though that
wouldn't stop an ambulance chaser.

Just wierd to me, but got same info from several realtors. I do not live in
a 'must disclose' state.

'Technically' my house was bought 'non-disclosed' but folks have a way
here
of working out basic stuff 'off the record'. Seller for example quietly
warned us that with a house built in 1963, it was largely code-spec to
1963
and that future work, depending on what it was, would sometimes entail
additional costs. He was real careful to explain the back room was
codespec
only to 'enclosed porch' for example and now we understand why ;-).
Reality
is at the time it was a rental bedroom for a roomate, bed and all. It's
a
'legal thing' to call my home a 3BR 1.5 bath, vice a 4 BR 1.5 bath. Had
he
tried to market it as a 4 BR officially, he would have been required to
pay
to bring that enclosure to codespec of the time for a BR.

My house had a building permit and CO as a two bedroom[*] house,
even though there were clearly three. Before I could even put it on
the market I had to get the permit and CO "upgraded" to three
bedrooms. It cost me $3500, for nothing but paper and five minutes
of the town clerk's time.

I'm not sure what the costs would have been in 1995 to bring it up to code,
only an estimate in 2007 that was very open ended as in 'we expect to find
more'. Of what I can recall besides the roof having to go up was the slab
had to be raised to level to the rest of the house (it's a 1.5 inch or so
drop). I thought that one very odd indeed. They seemed quite happy to make
it with no windows but spec'd out that if it had a window it had to be a
certain size... (The room has 2 doors so the window apparently isnt
required but i already have one bedroom with no windows and 2 doors).

[*] who in their right mind would build (or allow to be built) a two
bedroom 2-1/2 bath house?

Grin, does sound odd!

krw wrote
wrote
thedarkonelives wrote

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not disclosing the information.

Laws may not *allow* the relator to disclose such even if they
are aware of it. The home owner may or may not be required
to disclose such, rather area dependant on disclosure laws.

Nonsense.

Your sig is supposed to be at the bottom, with a line with just -- on a line by itself in front of it.

It *is* public information.

The current location of an ex prisoner isnt.

In my area for example, folks selling are advised to 'not disclose'
as you can't be sued later for anything that comes up. If you do
'disclose' you can be sued even years later for just about anything
even if you can prove you did NOT know about it (obviously hard
to prove such, and wont save you here).

You certainly do live in a strange world. We had a lengthy
disclosure form to fill out that went through the entire house.

But which didnt include anything about the neighbours.

I looked at it as a good thing. As long as I answered the
questions honestly there was nothing to come back after
me for, though that wouldn't stop an ambulance chaser.

So it was in fact completely useless.

'Technically' my house was bought 'non-disclosed' but folks have
a way here of working out basic stuff 'off the record'. Seller for
example quietly warned us that with a house built in 1963, it was
largely code-spec to 1963 and that future work, depending on what
it was, would sometimes entail additional costs. He was real careful
to explain the back room was codespec only to 'enclosed porch' for
example and now we understand why ;-). Reality is at the time it
was a rental bedroom for a roomate, bed and all. It's a 'legal
thing' to call my home a 3BR 1.5 bath, vice a 4 BR 1.5 bath. Had he
tried to market it as a 4 BR officially, he would have been required
to pay to bring that encloser to codespec of the time for a BR.

My house had a building permit and CO as a two bedroom[*] house,
even though there were clearly three. Before I could even put it on the
market I had to get the permit and CO "upgraded" to three bedrooms. It
cost me $3500, for nothing but paper and five minutes of the town clerk's time.

Your problem.

[*] who in their right mind would build (or allow to be built) a two bedroom 2-1/2 bath house?

Those who arent stupid enough to spend more on more house when they dont need that.

The only way killers, rapists, molesters, etc should get out of jail
is in a casket!!!!


On Jun 17, 11:34*pm, richard wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:57:03 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:





Any realtors reading?

Let's say someone like Kip Kinkel - schizophrenic kid who killed his
parents and shot up his school about 10 years ago - got a commutation
of his sentence as some people think he should since they feel he was
a "victim" who didn't get the help he needed and was treated unfairly,
and was in the market to buy a house. They're convinced that with meds
and supervision he would probably have no problems living as a free
man.

I assume realtors aren't going to turn down his money so I imagine
he'd find someone to sell him a house, *but even if they make an
effort to conceal who the new neighbor is, I imagine at some point
word is going to get out that he lives in that house.

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses once it
became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts to conceal this
fact when selling a neighboring house, do the buyers have any recourse?

So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?

Any person who has served his time in incarceration, is entitled to
live somewhere. Technically, YOU, the prospective neighbor is not
necessarily entitled to know that this person WAS ever incarcerated.

Even if you did find out, there is no legal recourse you can take to
force him to move elsewhere.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote

Any realtors reading?

Let's say someone like Kip Kinkel - schizophrenic kid who killed his
parents and shot up his school about 10 years ago - got a commutation
of his sentence as some people think he should since they feel he was
a "victim" who didn't get the help he needed and was treated unfairly,
and was in the market to buy a house. They're convinced that with meds
and supervision he would probably have no problems living as a free man.

I assume realtors aren't going to turn down his money
so I imagine he'd find someone to sell him a house,

That assumes he has enough income to be able to buy one. Unlikely.

but even if they make an effort to conceal who the new neighbor is, I
imagine at some point word is going to get out that he lives in that house.

You've clearly got a vivid imagination.

Would you even be able to give away any of the
nearby houses once it became common knowledge?

Depends on the state of the market when that happens.

Or, if a realtor made efforts to conceal this fact when selling
a neighboring house, do the buyers have any recourse?

Nope.

On Jun 18, 12:29*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:

but even if they make an effort to conceal who the new neighbor is, I
imagine at some point word is going to get out that he lives in that house.

You've clearly got a vivid imagination.


You've clearly never heard of Lawrence Singleton.

wrote
Rod Speed wrote

but even if they make an effort to conceal who the new neighbor is, I
imagine at some point word is going to get out that he lives in that house.

You've clearly got a vivid imagination.

You've clearly never heard of Lawrence Singleton.

Corse I have. The reality is that you're more likely to end up
dead as a result of one of them who hasnt been caught yet.

You're always welcome to hide under the bed.

wrote:

Let's say someone like Kip Kinkel - schizophrenic kid who killed his
parents and shot up his school about 10 years ago - got a commutation
of his sentence as some people think he should since they feel he was
a "victim" who didn't get the help he needed and was treated unfairly,
and was in the market to buy a house. They're convinced that with meds
and supervision he would probably have no problems living as a free man.

Let's change this to Lee (a gender neutral name), a convicted
sex offender sentenced to probation only, wants to buy or rent.

1) Who has a obligation to investigate Lee's background
before becoming Lee's agent or selling or renting to
Lee?

A landlord was be negligent not to investigate renting
to Lee. Agents who have a concern for long-term
reputation in a community should investigate. But to
a seller, this is a single period relationship with no
subsequent repercussions.

2) What distinguishs Kip from Lee?

Kip can change his name. Lee has to register whenever
he/she moves and the registration is public knowledge.
Lee is similar to Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo's "Les
Miserables" - a person who rejected by society for
past crimes.

Dick

On Jun 18, 1:14*am, (Dick Adams) wrote:

Let's change this to Lee (a gender neutral name), a convicted
sex offender sentenced to probation only, wants to buy or rent.

1) Who has a obligation to investigate Lee's background
* *before becoming Lee's agent or selling or renting to
* *Lee?



To clarify, I'm thinking of the realtor or seller of a house in close
proximity to the killer, not the killer's realtor.

wrote
(Dick Adams) wrote

Let's change this to Lee (a gender neutral name), a convicted
sex offender sentenced to probation only, wants to buy or rent.

1) Who has a obligation to investigate Lee's background
before becoming Lee's agent or selling or renting to Lee?

To clarify, I'm thinking of the realtor or seller of a house
in close proximity to the killer, not the killer's realtor.

There is still no legal obligation, and if there was, they'd just
avoid finding out the information you want them to disclose.

And its just not feasible to require everyone to check on all
new tenants or purchasers of property to see if they have
ever had a criminal conviction, or have ever been a loony etc.

And the reality is that you are FAR more likely to end up with
a bad result from someone who hasnt got caught yet anyway.

On Jun 18, 1:03*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
wrote

(Dick Adams) wrote
Let's change this to Lee (a gender neutral name), a convicted
sex offender sentenced to probation only, wants to buy or rent.
1) Who has a obligation to investigate Lee's background
before becoming Lee's agent or selling or renting to Lee?
To clarify, I'm thinking of the realtor or seller of a house
in close proximity to the killer, not the killer's realtor.

There is still no legal obligation, and if there was, they'd just
avoid finding out the information you want them to disclose.

And its just not feasible to require everyone to check on all
new tenants or purchasers of property to see if they have
ever had a criminal conviction, or have ever been a loony etc.

And the reality is that you are FAR more likely to end up with
a bad result from someone who hasnt got caught yet anyway.

It has happened but there were a couple of more murders and he went
back to jail

butwhat wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote

(Dick Adams) wrote
Let's change this to Lee (a gender neutral name), a convicted
sex offender sentenced to probation only, wants to buy or rent.
1) Who has a obligation to investigate Lee's background
before becoming Lee's agent or selling or renting to Lee?

To clarify, I'm thinking of the realtor or seller of a house
in close proximity to the killer, not the killer's realtor.

There is still no legal obligation, and if there was, they'd just
avoid finding out the information you want them to disclose.

And its just not feasible to require everyone to check on all
new tenants or purchasers of property to see if they have
ever had a criminal conviction, or have ever been a loony etc.

And the reality is that you are FAR more likely to end up with
a bad result from someone who hasnt got caught yet anyway.

It has happened but there were a couple of more murders and he went back to jail

Sure, that certainly happens, but its MUCH more likely that you will
end up with a bad result from someone who hasnt got caught yet.

AND the only alternative is to lock up all criminals until they die anyway.

wrote:
(Dick Adams) wrote:

Let's change this to Lee (a gender neutral name), a convicted
sex offender sentenced to probation only, wants to buy or rent.

1) Who has a obligation to investigate Lee's background
before becoming Lee's agent or selling or renting to
Lee?

To clarify, I'm thinking of the realtor or seller of a
house in close proximity to the killer, not the killer's
realtor.

How many people purchased a house with any knowledge
of the history of their neighbors?

Dick

In article , Dick Adams says...

wrote:
(Dick Adams) wrote:

Let's change this to Lee (a gender neutral name), a convicted
sex offender sentenced to probation only, wants to buy or rent.

1) Who has a obligation to investigate Lee's background
before becoming Lee's agent or selling or renting to
Lee?

To clarify, I'm thinking of the realtor or seller of a
house in close proximity to the killer, not the killer's
realtor.

How many people purchased a house with any knowledge
of the history of their neighbors?

Also, neighbors move away and new people move in.

Not everything in life is in our control. One of the first tenets in wisdom,
IMO.

Banty

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:31:41 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jun 18, 1:14*am, (Dick Adams) wrote:

Let's change this to Lee (a gender neutral name), a convicted
sex offender sentenced to probation only, wants to buy or rent.

1) Who has a obligation to investigate Lee's background
* *before becoming Lee's agent or selling or renting to
* *Lee?



To clarify, I'm thinking of the realtor or seller of a house in close
proximity to the killer, not the killer's realtor.

That's not their job. Just because an agent lives near the person does
not mean the agent MUST know of the person's incarceration or court
rulings.

Since it so happens it is 10 years since the Columbine shooting, I
believe you are referring to this case?

On Jun 18, 8:32*am, richard wrote:

Since it so happens it is 10 years since the Columbine shooting, I
believe you are referring to this case?


No, this was a different school shooting. The killers at Columbine
both killed themselves as their final act. Kinkel apparently had also
planned to kill himself but was subdued by classmates before he
finished his rampage.

wrote:
On Jun 18, 1:14 am, (Dick Adams) wrote:

Let's change this to Lee (a gender neutral name), a convicted
sex offender sentenced to probation only, wants to buy or rent.

1) Who has a obligation to investigate Lee's background
before becoming Lee's agent or selling or renting to
Lee?



To clarify, I'm thinking of the realtor or seller of a house in close
proximity to the killer, not the killer's realtor.


I would guess that disclosure not necessary and if it were murderer's
residence, it would probably be up to local laws. For example, I'm
pretty sure that here, you could disclose it but if everybody in the
house died of AIDS, disclosure is not allowed by law. The people to ask
are your local real estate association.

In article ,
frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet says...
wrote:
On Jun 18, 1:14 am, (Dick Adams) wrote:

Let's change this to Lee (a gender neutral name), a convicted
sex offender sentenced to probation only, wants to buy or rent.

1) Who has a obligation to investigate Lee's background
before becoming Lee's agent or selling or renting to
Lee?



To clarify, I'm thinking of the realtor or seller of a house in close
proximity to the killer, not the killer's realtor.


I would guess that disclosure not necessary and if it were murderer's
residence, it would probably be up to local laws. For example, I'm
pretty sure that here, you could disclose it but if everybody in the
house died of AIDS, disclosure is not allowed by law. The people to ask
are your local real estate association.

That disclosure may not be allowed by medical persons, but it would
hardly be against the law for anyone else (not having access to
privileged records). Slander/libel might be an issue, unless it's
true.

--
Keith

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:14:05 +0000 (UTC), (Dick
Adams) wrote:

wrote:

Let's say someone like Kip Kinkel - schizophrenic kid who killed his
parents and shot up his school about 10 years ago - got a commutation
of his sentence as some people think he should since they feel he was
a "victim" who didn't get the help he needed and was treated unfairly,
and was in the market to buy a house. They're convinced that with meds
and supervision he would probably have no problems living as a free man.

Let's change this to Lee (a gender neutral name), a convicted
sex offender sentenced to probation only, wants to buy or rent.

1) Who has a obligation to investigate Lee's background
before becoming Lee's agent or selling or renting to
Lee?

A landlord was be negligent not to investigate renting
to Lee. Agents who have a concern for long-term
reputation in a community should investigate. But to
a seller, this is a single period relationship with no
subsequent repercussions.

Unless state law requires it, no real estate agent is required to do a
background check. In most states, it is illegal to deny an ex-con
housing based on this fact. Let alone a person on probation.



2) What distinguishs Kip from Lee?

Kip can change his name. Lee has to register whenever
he/she moves and the registration is public knowledge.
Lee is similar to Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo's "Les
Miserables" - a person who rejected by society for
past crimes.

In most cases, according to Megan's law, Lee only has to notify the
sheriff of the county he wants to live in.
There are other conditions that would then direct the sheriff to
notify the prospective neighbors.

It is not the job of the real estate agent to make these disclosures
unless required by state law.

richard wrote:

Unless state law requires it, no real estate agent is required to do a
background check. In most states, it is illegal to deny an ex-con
housing based on this fact. Let alone a person on probation.

Huh? In my state, an ex-con cannot be a lawyer, schoolteacher, accountant,
become a barber, cosmetologist, surveyor, architect, get a hazardous
chemical endorsement for their driver's license, own an exterminating
company, nursery (either plant or kid), vote, become a notary, sell
securities, be a REALTOR(!), or drive a cab.

I'd be astonished to learn that ANY state outlaws discrimination against a
felon.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:43:16 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

richard wrote:

Unless state law requires it, no real estate agent is required to do a
background check. In most states, it is illegal to deny an ex-con
housing based on this fact. Let alone a person on probation.

Huh? In my state, an ex-con cannot be a lawyer, schoolteacher, accountant,
become a barber, cosmetologist, surveyor, architect, get a hazardous
chemical endorsement for their driver's license, own an exterminating
company, nursery (either plant or kid), vote, become a notary, sell
securities, be a REALTOR(!), or drive a cab.

I'd be astonished to learn that ANY state outlaws discrimination against a
felon.




Which state would this be in?

The issue is housing. Not employment.

richard wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:43:16 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

richard wrote:

Unless state law requires it, no real estate agent is required to
do a background check. In most states, it is illegal to deny an
ex-con housing based on this fact. Let alone a person on probation.

Huh? In my state, an ex-con cannot be a lawyer, schoolteacher,
accountant, become a barber, cosmetologist, surveyor, architect, get
a hazardous chemical endorsement for their driver's license, own an
exterminating company, nursery (either plant or kid), vote, become a
notary, sell securities, be a REALTOR(!), or drive a cab.

I'd be astonished to learn that ANY state outlaws discrimination
against a felon.




Which state would this be in?

The issue is housing. Not employment.

My state is Texas. Frankly, I'm distressed that my state even allows them to
marry, own property, or attend a church.

Discrimination is not, per se, illegal.

I recall when Peter Lawford and his wife tried to buy an apartment in New
York and the resident's committee turned down their application. When
pressed, the committee said: "He's an actor and she's a Democrat. We don't
allow either on the property."

In article , Larry
says...

In article ,
richard wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:14:05 +0000 (UTC), (Dick
Adams) wrote:

wrote:

Let's say someone like Kip Kinkel - schizophrenic kid who killed his
parents and shot up his school about 10 years ago - got a commutation
of his sentence as some people think he should since they feel he was
a "victim" who didn't get the help he needed and was treated unfairly,
and was in the market to buy a house. They're convinced that with meds
and supervision he would probably have no problems living as a free man.

Let's change this to Lee (a gender neutral name), a convicted
sex offender sentenced to probation only, wants to buy or rent.

1) Who has a obligation to investigate Lee's background
before becoming Lee's agent or selling or renting to
Lee?

A landlord was be negligent not to investigate renting
to Lee. Agents who have a concern for long-term
reputation in a community should investigate. But to
a seller, this is a single period relationship with no
subsequent repercussions.

Unless state law requires it, no real estate agent is required to do a
background check. In most states, it is illegal to deny an ex-con
housing based on this fact. Let alone a person on probation.

Richard, we've been through this before. Being a convicted criminal is
not a protected class and someone can refuse to rent/sell to them based
on that factor.

A seller can refuse to sell. A landlord can refuse to rent *if* its an
owner-occupied situation and under a certain number of units, particulars
depending on laws and ordinances. Based on the right of association.

But that's far different from what a *realtor* should, or even can, do.


Suppose a single woman with three daughters has a room to rent in her
house, and a convicted child molester who was just released from prison
wants to live there. You think she is required by law to rent him the
room? Do you really?

That would an owner-occupied rental case - she is not required to. But that is
fundamentally different from the question the original poster posed.

Banty

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:53:42 -0400, Larry wrote:

In article ,
richard wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:14:05 +0000 (UTC), (Dick
Adams) wrote:

wrote:

Let's say someone like Kip Kinkel - schizophrenic kid who killed his
parents and shot up his school about 10 years ago - got a commutation
of his sentence as some people think he should since they feel he was
a "victim" who didn't get the help he needed and was treated unfairly,
and was in the market to buy a house. They're convinced that with meds
and supervision he would probably have no problems living as a free man.

Let's change this to Lee (a gender neutral name), a convicted
sex offender sentenced to probation only, wants to buy or rent.

1) Who has a obligation to investigate Lee's background
before becoming Lee's agent or selling or renting to
Lee?

A landlord was be negligent not to investigate renting
to Lee. Agents who have a concern for long-term
reputation in a community should investigate. But to
a seller, this is a single period relationship with no
subsequent repercussions.

Unless state law requires it, no real estate agent is required to do a
background check. In most states, it is illegal to deny an ex-con
housing based on this fact. Let alone a person on probation.

Richard, we've been through this before. Being a convicted criminal is
not a protected class and someone can refuse to rent/sell to them based
on that factor.

Suppose a single woman with three daughters has a room to rent in her
house, and a convicted child molester who was just released from prison
wants to live there. You think she is required by law to rent him the
room? Do you really?

The issue deals with real estate agents. Not landlords.
Besides, under Megan's law, he would not be allowed to live in those
conditions.
A landlord has the legal right to deny anyone.
Specially a homeowner who is just renting out space.

wrote:
Any realtors reading?

Let's say someone like Kip Kinkel - schizophrenic kid who killed his
parents and shot up his school about 10 years ago - got a commutation
of his sentence as some people think he should since they feel he was
a "victim" who didn't get the help he needed and was treated unfairly,
and was in the market to buy a house. They're convinced that with meds
and supervision he would probably have no problems living as a free
man.

I assume realtors aren't going to turn down his money so I imagine
he'd find someone to sell him a house, but even if they make an
effort to conceal who the new neighbor is, I imagine at some point
word is going to get out that he lives in that house.

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses once it
became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts to conceal this
fact when selling a neighboring house, do the buyers have any
recourse?

Sure. First you have to recognize that there are some things the government
won't or can't do to help you - you must take matters into your own hands.
You, and several of your burly neighbors, could organize a little
house-warming party for your new best friend. You could make it clear to
your new neighbor, partly though a show of weapons, but mainly through the
letting of blood, that his continued presence is cause for discord and
conflict within the community.

Guy I used to work with came home one day and his wife told him that a new
neighbor had groped or otherwise molested their six-year old daughter. My
friend and three of his buddies visited the perv and beat him so badly he
couldn't even lie down. Told him he had 48 hours to be out of the county.

It worked.

In article , HeyBub says...

wrote:
Any realtors reading?

Let's say someone like Kip Kinkel - schizophrenic kid who killed his
parents and shot up his school about 10 years ago - got a commutation
of his sentence as some people think he should since they feel he was
a "victim" who didn't get the help he needed and was treated unfairly,
and was in the market to buy a house. They're convinced that with meds
and supervision he would probably have no problems living as a free
man.

I assume realtors aren't going to turn down his money so I imagine
he'd find someone to sell him a house, but even if they make an
effort to conceal who the new neighbor is, I imagine at some point
word is going to get out that he lives in that house.

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses once it
became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts to conceal this
fact when selling a neighboring house, do the buyers have any
recourse?

Sure. First you have to recognize that there are some things the government
won't or can't do to help you - you must take matters into your own hands.
You, and several of your burly neighbors, could organize a little
house-warming party for your new best friend. You could make it clear to
your new neighbor, partly though a show of weapons, but mainly through the
letting of blood, that his continued presence is cause for discord and
conflict within the community.

That's called assault and battery, and possibly tresspass as well, and the
government most certainly can and will help *him* in that regard.


Guy I used to work with came home one day and his wife told him that a new
neighbor had groped or otherwise molested their six-year old daughter. My
friend and three of his buddies visited the perv and beat him so badly he
couldn't even lie down. Told him he had 48 hours to be out of the county.

It worked.



Lucky him.

Banty

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:50:04 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:
Any realtors reading?

Let's say someone like Kip Kinkel - schizophrenic kid who killed his
parents and shot up his school about 10 years ago - got a commutation
of his sentence as some people think he should since they feel he was
a "victim" who didn't get the help he needed and was treated unfairly,
and was in the market to buy a house. They're convinced that with meds
and supervision he would probably have no problems living as a free
man.

I assume realtors aren't going to turn down his money so I imagine
he'd find someone to sell him a house, but even if they make an
effort to conceal who the new neighbor is, I imagine at some point
word is going to get out that he lives in that house.

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses once it
became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts to conceal this
fact when selling a neighboring house, do the buyers have any
recourse?

Sure. First you have to recognize that there are some things the government
won't or can't do to help you - you must take matters into your own hands.
You, and several of your burly neighbors, could organize a little
house-warming party for your new best friend. You could make it clear to
your new neighbor, partly though a show of weapons, but mainly through the
letting of blood, that his continued presence is cause for discord and
conflict within the community.

Guy I used to work with came home one day and his wife told him that a new
neighbor had groped or otherwise molested their six-year old daughter. My
friend and three of his buddies visited the perv and beat him so badly he
couldn't even lie down. Told him he had 48 hours to be out of the county.

It worked.


And the perv could have filed assault and battery charges as well have
sued in civil court and won.
Guess who the jail bird is now?

This isn't the days of the wild west where vigilante style law
enforcement is the law of the land.