Aaaargh!

Why is it that Project Sentinel can't provide accurate information in the Rent Watch column published in the real estate sections of newspapers around the State? Really, don't they have a lawyer they can call for information? Are they too cheap to pay for research? My only hope is that most people don't read the column and won't be confused.

In this letter a tenant is evicted after foreclosure from a house owned by the tenant's father. The father does not live at the property, but at another property that also was foreclosed. The realtor handling the eviction gave the tenant a 3-days' notice to quit. Project Sentinel did note that the tenant's lease probably would not survive the foreclosure, as the tenant was a close relative of the owner. So the tenant's two year lease would not survive foreclosure, nor would the lender be required to give the 90-days' notice required under the federal law.

BUT that does not mean that the tenant must move within 3 days or face an unlawful detainer action. Simply not true. Only the owner of the property can be evicted on a 3-days' notice to quit. If the tenant son is not an owner, he should receive the 60-days' notice required under California law. The only exception to the 60-days' notice requirement is that the owner of the property cannot live with the tenant. (This can cause problems for tenants who share housing with the owner of the property, but that does not apply in this case.)

I used to propel myself around the Internet, stamping out incorrect information wherever I found it. But the various forums all required login and passwords, and I found that it wasn't worth my trouble to keeping hunting down error. But I hope that people find information from more reliable sources that the various forums--or Project Sentinel, for that matter.

Stupidity in the World

J and I were talking last night about the oil slick heading for the Gulf Coast. I suggested that BP should pay the cost of everything--the booms, the chemicals, the Coast Guard, the National Guard, the cleanup, the salaries of the fisherpersons until they can be fisherpersons again. All of it. Every penny. J informed me that the liability of BP is limited to $75 million, thanks to the members of the US Congress, and that BP had lobbied for the limit.

I wonder at what point a campaign contribution becomes a bribe?

Not only that, BP lobbied against requiring a blowout cap that is required, yes required, on all of the oil rigs in the North Sea. It would have cost $500K.

Oh, I so hope that Obama is serious about lifting the liability cap and that they go after BP for the total cost of their slick. And not only the immediate costs, but all the long-term damage and costs. They could be paying out for 30 or 40 years.

And while I don't ever want to do this, I must, painful though it is, give the Governator credit for changing his mind. He may not have been paying attention the the Santa Barbara spill, but did note what could happen if an offshore rig blew up. And decided that he didn't want to be remembered for an oil slick when one of the proposed rigs blew up.