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

For those criticizing the man for killing himself, think of it this way. The GOFundMe page had raised exactly $700.00 out of the $250,000 goal that was set since August. The original story also came out in August, and was in several media outlets, to little or no concern to the general public.

Now, with his death, the story is blowing up. The absolute distastefulness of the action is being seen by millions, and public pressure is beginning to mount. I have no idea if he even thought this out, but his suicide may end up doing more good for his wife and neighbors than he ever could have if he had continued on.

I'm not trying to rationalize or excuse his actions, but there may end up some good coming from it after all.
 
So Kronke buys the property in February, and make 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.


The land was first acquired by the Waggoner family in 1850 for ranching. I know that there are many in the ranching community, Ted Turner for instance, that have become environmentalists and preservationists. In that vein, I think you're making judgment about what the Waggoner legacy may be in your skepticism about the new owner's plans for the land. I'm not sure mobile home leases next to a lake are necessarily within that view of the Waggoner legacy on the land.

I'm not defending Kronke as an individual or his motives or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that owners of land have prerogatives that may not always match up with the interests of existing tenants. This issue has many examples throughout our history.

But ownership rights are far more consistent with U.S. political and economic philosophy. Tennat rights, such as rent controls and required lease renewals are something different. Those things might fly in New York City, but good luck reconciling that with ranch land in Texas.
 
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.

Five months, including November and December, is simply not fair notice. Especially for people who have lived there for decades. It is perfectly legal, but its still a completely profoundly immoral action to take.
 
The land was first acquired by the Waggoner family in 1850 for ranching. I know that there are many in the ranching community, Ted Turner for instance, that have become environmentalists and preservationists. In that vein, I think you're making judgment about what the Waggoner legacy may be in your skepticism about the new owner's plans for the land. I'm not sure mobile home leases next to a lake are necessarily within that view of the Waggoner legacy on the land.

I'm not defending Kronke as an individual or his motives or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that owners of land have prerogatives that may not always match up with the interests of existing tenants. This issue has many examples throughout our history.

But ownership rights are far more consistent with U.S. political and economic philosophy. Tennat rights, such as rent controls and required lease renewals are something different. Those things might fly in New York City, but good luck reconciling that with ranch land in Texas.

I think the Waggoner's intentions were pretty clear, as the let people build permanent dwellings on these land leases. not all were mobile homes. There is also a recreational park attached to the lake that has been open to the public for a fee for as long as the family owned the space. This also seems to be going away, as Kroenke states that the evicted residents will be considered trespassers if the enter the property after February 1st.
 
For those criticizing the man for killing himself, think of it this way. The GOFundMe page had raised exactly $700.00 out of the $250,000 goal that was set since August. The original story also came out in August, and was in several media outlets, to little or no concern to the general public.

Now, with his death, the story is blowing up. The absolute distastefulness of the action is being seen by millions, and public pressure is beginning to mount. I have no idea if he even thought this out, but his suicide may end up doing more good for his wife and neighbors than he ever could have if he had continued on.

I'm not trying to rationalize or excuse his actions, but there may end up some good coming from it after all.


His wife and family would probably give up everything to get him back.
 
I think the Waggoner's intentions were pretty clear, as the let people build permanent dwellings on these land leases. not all were mobile homes. There is also a recreational park attached to the lake that has been open to the public for a fee for as long as the family owned the space. This also seems to be going away, as Kroenke states that the evicted residents will be considered trespassers if the enter the property after February 1st.

Permanent dwellings that he now owns. So are you disputing that someone who buys land that is for sale on the open market should be able to do what he wants with it? Or is it simply a notice issue? If that's the case what notice should he have given? Twelve months? Twenty four months?
 
Five months, including November and December, is simply not fair notice. Especially for people who have lived there for decades. It is perfectly legal, but its still a completely profoundly immoral action to take.

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!
 
On the other hand, there are responsibilities to a community that go hand in hand with a system that allows people to amass tremendous wealth and power.

Just because something is legal does not make it desirable, or necessarily fair in a grander scheme of things.

At some point, even in a free-market democracy, when things get too far out of whack, people rise up.

If nothing else, Kroenke seems tone-deaf and indifferent at best, and I'm not sure those are great qualities for cultural leaders.
 
Permanent dwellings that he now owns. So are you disputing that someone who buys land that is for sale on the open market should be able to do what he wants with it? Or is it simply a notice issue? If that's the case what notice should he have given? Twelve months? Twenty four months?

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.
 
It's a crappy thing to do to people. Maybe give them something like 5 years to get off the land if you are determined to make them move.

That said, suicide is never caused by external forces. There is something inside of a person that allows them to even consider suicide as an option. It's a mental health issue. The Rams owner didn't cause it.

5 years is usually a lot longer than the life of the lease. I think 6-12 months is a more reasonable length of time. I've moved dozens of times during the course of my lifetime, and it's a pain in the butt every time, but it's never taken me more than a month to get my stuff together to move.

While I'm sympathetic to the situation of the people leasing the property, landlords evict people all the time for all kinds of reasons. It's their property and as long as the landlord abides by the agreements spelled out in the contract, it's the owner's right to make decisions about the property. Most states have laws governing leasing agreements, notices and such.

Sometimes things happen in life that sucks, but everyone has to deal with their own personal battles. That said, it would have been nice if the owner showed a little compassion and give the tenants more time to get their situation sorted out. It doesn't make him a criminal, but it does make him look callous and uncaring.
 
Permanent dwellings that he now owns. So are you disputing that someone who buys land that is for sale on the open market should be able to do what he wants with it? Or is it simply a notice issue? If that's the case what notice should he have given? Twelve months? Twenty four months?

What if he'd given them 30 days? Or the absolute minimums under their leases?

Not everything boils down to "what's legal." He's basically bought a neighborhood and is wiping it out because he can. And whatever this particular element of his fortune is, this little part isn't even going to move the needle.

Many people of extreme wealth who are also public figures realize that they are part of something larger, and either enjoy the role, or at least recognize that there are optics involved.
 
On the other hand, there are responsibilities to a community that go hand in hand with a system that allows people to amass tremendous wealth and power.

Just because something is legal does not make it desirable, or necessarily fair in a grander scheme of things.

At some point, even in a free-market democracy, when things get too far out of whack, people rise up.

If nothing else, Kroenke seems tone-deaf and indifferent at best, and I'm not sure those are great qualities for cultural leaders.


I do agree with the sentiment here. It's something we're going to have to resolve as a society. Right now, our law and our history favors ownership. That is fundamental and deeply ingrained. But concentration of wealth challenges the foundation of these principles.
 
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!

Very true. I'm not saying that these folks have any legal standing here. I'm just saying that Kroenke could tread with a bit of compassion if he were a decent person. But I believe that we all know the answer to that question.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom