Rams owner....this is horrible (1 Viewer)

[LombardiGras]

He didn't own the land - he leased it. That's the whole point of all of this.

Anytime you are leasing property, you don't own it . . . someone else does. And it is fully within that person's right to decide to sell the property to a new buyer. In most states, the new buyer is not obligated to honor the existing leases, which are contracts between the old owner and the lessee. Some states (Louisiana for instance) have a process that allows the lessee to register the lease against the property that would require the new owner to honor it through the end of its term. But the new owner is never obliged to renew the lease.

It sounds like in this case, the buyer (Rams owner) provided notice in August that the lessees would terminate as of January 31, 2017. In other words, he gave them approximately five months to find alternative residence. And the reason he gave (though he didn't have to give a reason) was that he wanted to return the land to a natural setting to improve the ecosystem around the lake.

Obviously these things are never easy. But when you're a renter, you can't just expect that the contractual arrangement you have will be honored forever. It's unfortunate that this guy took it so hard and chose to end his life.

But I fail to see what's so vile about the Rams owner's actions. He bought property that was for sale and then he gave fair notice to the existing tenants. That happens every day in America.

You're a lawyer right? No offense but sometimes lawyers are unable to tell the difference between vile and illegal. Just because what he did was legal doesn't make it a decent thing to do. Throwing a bunch of poor & elderly long term residents out on the street so he can enjoy his own private 500,000+ acre vacation ranch is ugly and gross, and perfectly legal.

 

[DaveXA]

That goes with leasing. When you lease, you are at the mercy of the lease language. It's much smarter and in many cases cheaper to buy. No drama!

Lol, I see what you're saying, but buying is no simple matter. In fact, it's far more complicated than leasing. I've experienced both, and as much as I enjoyed owning a home, there are definite in and outs for both scenarios. I've leased/rented for many years with a number of different landlords and never once been evicted. Unless you don't make your rent payments, evictions are generally fairly rare. Further, even if you own your own home, you technically can still be evicted by the government due to eminent domain. Of course, in that case you're compensated, but it happens.

In a nutshell, there's usually as much drama when buying as when renting. It's just a different kind of drama, heh.

 

[DaveXA]

You're a lawyer right? No offense but sometimes lawyers are unable to tell the difference between vile and illegal. Just because what he did was legal doesn't make it a decent thing to do. Throwing a bunch of poor & elderly long term residents out on the street so he can enjoy his own private 500,000+ acre vacation ranch is ugly and gross, and perfectly legal.

Apparently, you didn't read his other posts. You can argue that what the owner did was perfectly legal and not offer commentary on the vileness of the owner. His acting within his rights doesn't make him vile, but his lack of empathy towards the tenants certainly does.

 

[Goatman Saint]

It's a bad situation sure. But, they were on a year to year lease and he gave them half of the lease to move. So while I feel terrible for this man and his family, I'm hardly faulting the landowner for his actions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoNcHiE]

As someone who owns a rent house, I don't think I should be vilified if I decide it's time to just sell it or want to use it for my family again.

Landowners provide value in this country, providing housing opportunities for people who otherwise wouldn't have access to them. Don't think it's cool to demonize them, no matter how rich they are, but whatever.

 

[RetroMcBananaFace]

I got bounced from a house in a similar circumstance. Guy bought all the properties and told everybody their rents would double in 60 days.

It sucked, and the guy was a dirtbag and so is Kroenke, regardless of them being within their legal rights to do so. Is it worth killing yourself over, not hardly.

Having said all that, this provides context for Kroenke abandoning St. Louis and shows exactly what a two-faced slimeball he is. He made promises he never intended to keep even though it would have been very easy for him to do so, financially speaking.

If you want the prestige and fame of owning a sports team you should recognize you have a civic duty and responsibility to the city that lends its name to that team. But who cares about that when you can add to your fortune.....ugh.

Landowners provide value in this country, providing housing opportunities for people who otherwise wouldn't have access to them. Don't think it's cool to demonize them, no matter how rich they are, but whatever.

Unfortunately too many of these people think that ownership gives them carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want and lord it over the tenant like they're the freaking slavemaster or something. Raise rent on short notice, skimp on the maintenance, etc. Been on the wrong end of that a couple times. The day I bought a house was one of the best days of my life because I knew I wouldn't have to deal with another dirtbag landlord again.

 

[LombardiGras]

As someone who owns a rent house, I don't think I should be vilified if I decide it's time to just sell it or want to use it for my family again.

Landowners provide value in this country, providing housing opportunities for people who otherwise wouldn't have access to them. Don't think it's cool to demonize them, no matter how rich they are, but whatever.

I see a difference between a person owning a house and deciding to sell vs a billionaire buying up an entire community and kicking them out.

 

[Filaphill]

They don't own the land. The lake is owned by the county, but the land is a part of the Waggoner Estate, and was leased to the residents. It is completely within his legal right to make them move. It doesn't, however, make it any less crappy of an action on his part.

So Kronke buys the property in February, and makes the statement that he is "...deeply committed to continuing the proud legacy of W.T. “Tom” Waggoner, his family and his descendants."

He then sends out notices in August that the leases will not be renewed, and the property must be vacated by January 31st, 2017, giving the residents less than six months, including the holiday season, to figure out where to go.

What an absolute piece of human garbage.

Two weeks after Katrina I was given 7 days from the owner of my Apartment to vacate even though the Apartment Complex was not damage and the area I lived in, close to Algiers Point, didn't flood. Come to find out the owner leased the Apartment out to someone for almost triple the amount I paid for in rent.

 

[crosswatt]

As someone who owns a rent house, I don't think I should be vilified if I decide it's time to just sell it or want to use it for my family again.

Landowners provide value in this country, providing housing opportunities for people who otherwise wouldn't have access to them. Don't think it's cool to demonize them, no matter how rich they are, but whatever.

A good friend of mine owns several multifamily properties. He's in court every month for various lease issues. He has to evict people from time to time. He raises rent when he needs to. It is a business. But he does try to work with people when he can, and provides a good safe place for people to call home.

This is not an indictment of rental property owners. This is an indictment of Stan Kroenke exhibiting yet again that he couldn't care less about anything other than his net worth.

 

[crosswatt]

Two weeks after Katrina I was given 7 days from the owner of my Apartment to vacate even though the Apartment Complex was not damage and the area I lived in, close to Algiers Point, didn't flood. Come to find out the owner leased the Apartment out to someone for almost triple the amount I paid for in rent.

How exactly did he do that? Were you on a month to month or just inconveniently at the end of your lease? Because that's a tough situation to find yourself in, and typical lease agreements cover you from that type of issue. At least until the end of the lease.

 

[superchuck500]

You're a lawyer right? No offense but sometimes lawyers are unable to tell the difference between vile and illegal. Just because what he did was legal doesn't make it a decent thing to do. Throwing a bunch of poor & elderly long term residents out on the street so he can enjoy his own private 500,000+ acre vacation ranch is ugly and gross, and perfectly legal.

He gave them five months notice that he wasn't renewing their lease. I never said he did anything good or praiseworthy.

I don't disagree that it is unfortunate and he could have handled it more delicately if he was kind-hearted . . . but that doesn't make it vile. (If we just throw around harsh words all the time, they cease to have their specific meaning). Don't forget that there was also a seller here who wanted (maybe needed) to sell the land. If a buyer is morally bound to give more than five months notice of non-renewal of a lease, it might keep some buyers from moving in the market - and that hurts the interests of those who needs to sell property. All of these things are inter-related and there is a balancing of interests.

I can understand those that think this is simply reprehensible because it harms the less fortunate. But think the interests need to be more balanced than that. Good law should always have the force of balanced interests behind it. I would never say that something is perfectly morally acceptable simply because it is legal.

 

[Nightshade]

My understanding is that the leases are on a by year basis. He is notifying them that he intends to not renew them. Legally (you're the lawyer, so correct me if I'm wrong) He doesn't have to give over thirty days notice for that action.

But it seems to me that letting them know that you will not renew the leases in 2018 would be a much kinder course of action to people who have lived in a space for 30 plus years. This five months minus the holidays just shows a true lack of compassion for people who could use it.

He is completely within his rights, and the residents have zero legal standing to dispute it. That doesn't absolve him, in my eyes anyway, from failing to show even a tiny bit of human decency where these folks are concerned. No, he doesn't have to. But it would be the right thing to do.

He bought the land back in Feb and even then I'm sure they knew his intentions back then giving them nearly a year to prepare. What Kroenke did was bad but what Ellis has put his wife through is far worse imho. I've dealt with my brothers suicide 12 years ago and you never get over it.

 

[superchuck500]

Two weeks after Katrina I was given 7 days from the owner of my Apartment to vacate even though the Apartment Complex was not damage and the area I lived in, close to Algiers Point, didn't flood. Come to find out the owner leased the Apartment out to someone for almost triple the amount I paid for in rent.

That sounds like a breach of contract action to me. If your lease was still in term and it was the same owner, they can't evict you simply to get more rent. (You could have taken this position in an eviction proceeding if you had simply refused to leave).

Also, many people don't know this but in Louisiana, you should go down to the property/mortgage office in your parish with a notorized copy of your lease and pay a small fee (probably less than $50) to have the lease recorded against the property. This will require that any buyer or successor-in-interest to the lessor (e.g. a bank in the event of foreclosure) has to honor the lease as the lessee would.

If you don't do that and the property is sold or transferred, they only have to give you legal notice.

 

[LombardiGras]

He gave them five months notice that he wasn't renewing their lease. I never said he did anything good or praiseworthy.

I don't disagree that it is unfortunate and he could have handled it more delicately if he was kind-hearted . . . but that doesn't make it vile. (If we just throw around harsh words all the time, they cease to have their specific meaning). Don't forget that there was also a seller here who wanted (maybe needed) to sell the land. If a buyer is morally bound to give more than five months notice of non-renewal of a lease, it might keep some buyers from moving in the market - and that hurts the interests of those who needs to sell property. All of these things are inter-related and there is a balancing of interests.

I can understand those that think this is simply reprehensible because it harms the less fortunate. But think the interests need to be more balanced than that. Good law should always have the force of balanced interests behind it. I would never say that something is perfectly morally acceptable simply because it is legal.

Again you are thinking 100% from a legal perspective. You're talking about legal requirements for number of days necessary to give notice of non-renewal of lease, etc.

Put aside the law for 1 minute and think about the ethics of a person taking private ownership of +500,000 acres of land, coming into an established community and making a bunch of poor and elderly people homeless so that he can privately enjoy the land they lived on. That's legal, and gross. As a billionaire he already has who knows how many other homes and amenities to enjoy, but he wants to also take the land that these people lived on simply because he can. That's the vile aspect which you are apparently missing. A wealthy man gets to trample over whoever he wants, and you and legal system have his back.

 

[crosswatt]

He gave them five months notice that he wasn't renewing their lease. I never said he did anything good or praiseworthy.

I don't disagree that it is unfortunate and he could have handled it more delicately if he was kind-hearted . . . but that doesn't make it vile. (If we just throw around harsh words all the time, they cease to have their specific meaning). Don't forget that there was also a seller here who wanted (maybe needed) to sell the land. If a buyer is morally bound to give more than five months notice of non-renewal of a lease, it might keep some buyers from moving in the market - and that hurts the interests of those who needs to sell property. All of these things are inter-related and there is a balancing of interests.

I can understand those that think this is simply reprehensible because it harms the less fortunate. But think the interests need to be more balanced than that. Good law should always have the force of balanced interests behind it. I would never say that something is perfectly morally acceptable simply because it is legal.

Interesting reads on why it was available in the first place, and what happened to finally get the sale done. It has interestingly enough been on the market since 2004.

Showdown at Waggoner Ranch

How a Dallas-led ?dream team? made sale of Texas' fabled W.T. Waggoner Ranch a reality | Business | Dallas News

For $725 Million, You Can Buy a Texas Ranch That's the Size of a Small Nation