Thu 11 Jun 2009
I See Dead People And Diminishing Returns Everywhere
Posted by RichSlick under Observations, The Fed
[2] Comments
The city of Oakland is considering bankruptcy and I found this little gem in the article about said bankruptcy:
Consider the city’s cash position: Out of next year’s general fund of approximately $415 million, police costs are estimated at $212 million, fire protection service $103 million and $41 million in debt service payments. That leaves about $60 million to pay for everything else, from library services to recreation centers to public works.
If I’m not mistaken, the city of Oakland’s population is about 400,000 and maybe even 500,000 and it requires the expenditure of nearly $330 million dollar to “protect” it’s citizens? There is an incredible level of diminishing returns here that I can’t quite bring myself to fathom. I wonder what the return on investment is for fire protection services. How many fires are put out every year that justifies $103 million dollar budget? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to let the buildings burn down? Won’t this spur economic growth by letting houses burn down and then rebuilding new ones?
If we take 212 million dollars for police services and divide that by 450,000 residents then we get $471/year spent per resident to “protect” each citizen. I can buy a shotgun for $200 and if I am allowed to walk around with it, I can pretty much guarantee I won’t be a victim of crime so why don’t we just buy every citizen a gun and let them visibly carry it on their belt?
Here’s the quadruple whammy of diminishing returns that I keep seeing over and over again. First, government passes new regulations requiring structures (buildings & homes) be safer and more fire proof. This adds additional costs for home owners and business owners but there is supposedly a “payback” when the building or home doesn’t burn down. Second, government increases taxes to add fire protection services which, in theory, shouldn’t be needed because buildings are safer and more fire proof. Third, the city ultimately cuts back on services because of cash flow/insolvency issues yet the higher taxes and regulations remain until the cycle repeats itself all over again. Fourth, you pay for insurance to protect your home against fire damage and premiums always seem to go up.
I love reading articles like this because they present simple numbers which you can take then easily divide in a spreadsheet and figure out how much is being spent and what the return is at the end of the day. In essence, $300 million dollars is taken from the people to grant the illusion of “safety and protection” for the people.
The insanity doesn’t stop at the local level, ever wonder why the Department of Homeland Security has 1 million names on its watch list? The simple answer: If the DHS had 300 or 3,000 people on the list, there is no sane person in congress that would authorize this agency to spend BILLIONS of dollars to look over 300 or 3,000 people. Hell, you could hire a full time FBI agent at a 100k salary to sit and watch 300 “suspects” and that would only cost you 3 million per year. If it’s 3,000 then you’re looking at 30 million per year. But if you have 1 million people on the list then the agency can justify all the “work” it has to do to “protect” the citizens because there are so many “terrorists” out there and they need those billions.
Once again, the only thing created here is the illusion of security and we have vast diminishing returns. If the US government can’t stop 200 tons of cocaine and millions of people from crossing the border illegally each year, why would you think they could actually stop terrorist from causing mayhem?
The next time you read an article that includes a city’s, county or state budget, get the info and put it in a spreadsheet and do the math. Ask yourself if it makes sense to spend xxxx dollars on xxxx population for x services and I think about 80% of the time you’ll find diminishing returns everywhere.
I see dead people, zombie institutions sucking the lifeblood out of the economy….they’re everywhere!
June 12th, 2009 at 5:13 am
I SEE DEAD REITS AND A DOA REPUTATION FOR UDR LONG OVERDUE
CONSUMER ADVOCATE FORMS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST LANDLORD, UDR, ON BEHALF OF CA TENANTS: June 8, 2009
Bad Biz Finder, a Fremont, California-based consumer advocacy group founded in 1982, announced today the initiation of a Federal Class-Action Lawsuit against UDR, Inc. A class-action lawsuit is a civil action in which people who have been wronged in a similar way unite and sue as a group.
In the present case, the class members will include tenants that resided in one of UDR’s 48 apartment communities in the state of California during the period June, 2007 to the present. The “wrong” consists of numerous violations of tenant civil rights, California state law and California Public Utilities Commission regulations all of which are intentionally contained in UDR’s Residential Lease Agreement and Addenda to the Agreement (hereafter “RLA”).
If you belong to this class, and wish to participate or simply learn more, read the preliminary causes of action set forth below and contact us as proscribed at the end of this post and we will send you an Intake Questionnaire. There is no cost at any time for said participation and you are entitled under the law for reimbursement of fees and penalties illegally collected from you under UDR’s RLA.
Any clause in a California RLA that asks you to waive your rights under the law and to agree to the contrary, is unenforceable. This is the driving force behind this class-action lawsuit as well as the fact that UDR has deliberately capitalized monetarily on its tenants’ ignorance of the law. (California Code of Civil Procedure section 1670.5(a) and California Civil Code section 1953.)
Although this action is based on California law, it must be brought as a federal action because (1) The amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000; and (2) all members of the class to be certified are citizens of a state different from the Defendant, UDR, Inc., that is based in Highlands Ranch, Colorado and incorporated in the state of Maryland.
A current UDR tenant courageously brought these issues to the forefront through her group and blog, Tenant Advocates of California, together with her personal experience of gross oppression by UDR that continues to this day. She will be the primary contact advocate for this action with the full support of all Bad Biz Finder chapters throughout the state of California.
Our groups are now working as one to compel UDR to reimburse past and present tenants for monetary damages suffered from UDR’s malicious violation of California law, disregard for basic habitability standards, and intentional fraud by way of misrepresentation, concealment and omission of material facts.
These are the preliminary causes of action:
UDR CHARGES “EARLY LEASE TERMINATION LIQUIDATED DAMAGES” PENALTIES IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LAW
California Civil Code section 1671 states that liquidated damages clauses in California residential lease agreements are illegal.
However, UDR requires that its tenants not only waive their legal right under this law but also requires them to agree to pay a liquidated damages penalty fee equal to 2-1/4 times their base rent for terminating their lease prior to the end of the lease period, regardless of the month in which they terminate. In essence, UDR’s objective is to convince its tenants that it will take at least 68 days (2-1/4 months) to re-rent the vacant apartment as well as all associated marketing charges to advertise the vacancy.
In 1978, liquidated damages clauses were deemed illegal in residential lease agreements because landlords were distorting the true legal purpose or these clauses: “To set a flat fee when it’s impossible to determine the monetary harm that could result from a breach of the contract.”
This doesn’t apply to UDR. They know (within a slim margin) how long it’s going to take to fill a vacant apartment as they use these statistics everyday to project sales and calculate expenses. UDR, Inc. is a publicly-traded company on the New York Stock Exchange (Ticker: NYSE:UDR) and it could not sustain such a position if its financial projections were a mystery.
In order for UDR to maintain its average 95% occupancy rate, it must fill a vacancy within 18 days. Therefore, 50 of the 68 days they’re charging tenants for an early move-out penalty results in UDR collecting double rent on that unit – a violation of the law.
If it actually took UDR 68 days to fill a vacant apartment, that time frame would be three times longer than the industry standard and they could not compete in the already crowded and historically highly-competitive California marketplace – particularly in light of the overwhelming number of foreclosures in California forcing ex-homeowners into the rental market.
Also, California law states that liquidated damages may not be used as a penalty, or fee provision as follows: “Where a liquidated damages clause is seen as a penalty rather than an effort to agree upon a reasonable amount of estimated damages, the clause will not be enforceable.”
UDR CHARGES LATE FEES THAT ARE OVERSTATED CONTRARY TO RECENT CALIFORNIA CASE LAW AND RULINGS THEREON
As a result of the precedent-setting case, Orozco v. Casimiro [(2004) 121 Cal.App.4th Supp. 7], California deemed “late fees” within rental agreements to also be within the definition of liquidated damages, therefore ruling them to be subject to strict guidelines. Of course, landlords can collect late fees. However, California law specifies the manner in which the fee is to be calculated.
California Civil Code section 3302 states that the late fee amount cannot exceed the standard interest rate of 10% of the base rent (noncompounded) or 1/3650th of the base rent. For example, if your base rent is $1,700, the daily interest would be $.47 per day (3650 divided by 1700) with a maximum late fee charge of $14.10 for any given 30-day period. UDR charges a flat fee of $50.00 which, according to California law, is grossly exorbitant and as such, UDR tenants are entitled to a refund of the difference.
UDR INTENTIONALLY CONTRACTS WITH TENANTS USING FALSE NAMES TO OBTAIN & SUSTAIN A LEGAL ADVANTAGE OVER ITS TENANTS RESULTING IN SIGNIFICANTLY DIMINISHED TENANT-BASED LITIGATION
UDR fails to properly identify the legal name of “Landlord/Owner” in its California RLAs, rendering the RLA invalid. In contract law, there are three important elements: the offer, the acceptance and consideration. Therefore, UDR must use the legal name it has set up for doing business in California (as it is an out-of-state corporation).
For example, the legal name of one of its apartment complexes, Villa Venetia in Costa Mesa, is “UDR Villa Venetia Apartments, L.P.” However, UDR’s RLA for that property identifies the Landlord/Owner as “Villa Venetia.”
This name is not only factually incorrect but it’s not even a valid legal entity. Rather, it’s an expired fictitious business name that belonged exclusively to Vista Del Lago, LLC, the former owner of Villa Venetia. According to the Orange County Recorder’s office, the name expired on August 20, 2006 and UDR has knowingly and fraudulently used it to contract with tenants since the date it purchased the property in 2004.
So, UDR can not make an offer to rent you an apartment under an invalid legal entity, the parties must be properly defined in order for an offer to be effective. Now, how would a tenant know whether the legal name is on the RLA or not? They wouldn’t. But that’s where the fraud comes in mentioned above as they intentionally misrepresented, concealed and omitted a significant material fact required to form a proper contract. The law states that fraud renders a contract void, ab initio, or “from the beginning.”
The fact that you accepted the terms and conditions under the RLA does not get UDR off the hook because they knew when they presented the offer that is was improper.
A similar set of facts applies to all California UDR properties. We believe it is a conscious attempt by UDR to prevent tenants from seeking their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to file a grievance in a court of competent jurisdiction. If a tenant assumes the name of the RLA is the proper legal name and goes to file a Complaint, the Court will reject the pleading for no properly stating the parties.
In addition, UDR fails to state the name, address and telephone number of the Agent for Service of Process on the face of its RLAs as required by California Civil Code section 1962. This further prevents tenants from locating the proper person or company to whom a tenant-based complaint would be served. It is a state law that UDR must maintain an in-state Agent for Service of Process and notify in writing on the face of it RLA, the name, address and telephone number. But it does not, nor does it maintain and a complete record on the California Secretary of State website also required by law.
UDR ILLEGALLY PROFITS FROM ITS RATIO UTILITY BILLING SYSTEM (RUBS) IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION’S (CPUC) REGULATION PROHIBITING A NON-UTILITY FROM “SELLING” ENERGY OR WATER
UDR defers the cost of utilities for common areas, vacant units during repair and cleaning, property lighting, leasing offices, water for landscaping, swimming pools, and Jacuzzis, as well as its public laundry facilities. It does so via its Ratio Utility Billing System (RUBS). UDR does not have a logistical need to do so as there are a sufficient number of residential energy and water meters at each property to not require this pro-rated billing system.
In its California RLA, UDR sets forth a “RUBS” calculation that its tenants must agree is fair and equitable and by which they must rely to calculate their “fair share” of the pro-rated utilities. Unfortunately, it is incredibly vague, uncertain and unintelligible due to the fact that all the formula’s variables are outside the control and/or knowledge of its tenants:
“Total monthly utility cost for the community (minus an allowance for common area use if applicable [which is not applicable in the present case]) divided by the number of persons residing at the community times the number of persons residing in the Premises using the applicable ratio multiplier [1 person = 1; 2 persons = 1.6; 3 persons = 2.2; 4 persons = 2.6; 5 persons = 3; each additional person, add..4 to the multiplier.]”
In addition, UDR maintains another double revenue stream by not only charging its tenants to source the energy and water being supplied to the onsite public laundry rooms but by also charging them to use the coin-operated machines.
UDR ILLEGALLY DEFERS INJURY LIABILITY VIA ITS “HOLD HARMLESS” CLAUSES IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LAW AND FAILS TO MAINTAIN HABITABLE PREMISES
UDR’s California RLA contains several “hold harmless” clauses creating a perception of justifiable negligence in its failure to maintain habitable premises including, but not limited to, vector control, water quality, construction defects, as well as tenant and guest safety standards for security, apartment, garage and vehicle intrusion, sexual offenders, theft, and violence.
According to California Civil Code section 1668: “All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt any one from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.”
UDR WITHHOLDS SECURITY DEPOSIT SUMS VIA ILLEGAL FEES AND PENALTIES WHICH MUST BE PROPERLY DEFINED AS LANDLORD’S OPERATING COSTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
UDR’s California RLA Paragraph 37, “Resident’s Other Liabilities,” contains the following language: “In addition to all other obligations of Resident and remedies of Landlord under this Lease and the law, and to the fullest extent lawful, Resident shall be liable to Landlord for charges including, but not limited to those, for the following:”
Then it lists sixteen (16) items that constitute fees and penalties that may be deducted from a tenant’s security deposit. These items include such things as the leasing agent’s time to let a repairman into an apartment unit, replacing dead or missing smoke detector batteries, reasonable administrative charges for Landlord’s time and inconvenience for eviction of Resident, special trips for trash removal and so on.
UDR is attempting to defer its operating costs on to its tenants and said costs do not represent legally sufficient deductions from a tenant’s security deposit. (California Civil Code section 1950.5)
UDR ILLEGALLY EVICTS ITS TENANTS
Tenants that have been or are presently in the process of being evicted under the terms and conditions of UDR’s California RLA have significant defenses against this eviction.
If the terms and conditions of the RLA are deemed illegal under California law, and UDR has not named itself as a proper plaintiff, then UDR will have difficulty evicting a tenant under those illegal terms and conditions.
NOTICE TO ALL UDR CALIFORNIA TENANTS
For further information or an Intake Questionnaire, please send a request to badbizfinder@gmail.com with your full name, telephone number and preferred email address.
Or, you may visit our blog at http://badbizfinder.wordpress.com, find the link to your complex on the left side of the home page and leave the same information there. Please note that no comments of this type will be posted in a public forum and your complete confidentiality is our utmost priority.
ABOUT BAD BIZ FINDER
Bad Biz Finder is a consumer advocacy organization based in Fremont, California with volunteer-run chapters all over the state.
In March of 2009, we set up a southern California hub center in Orange County to handle the overwhelming demand we are facing with our present cause: CONSUMER PROTECTION FROM LOAN MODIFICATION AND RENTAL LANDLORD FRAUD.
Our mission is to offer consumers a source of unbiased facts vital to making informed decisions about issues facing them every day. We seek to educate consumers about unethical, illegal and unconscionable practices so that those who have been harmed have a remedy, and those who have not, are warned.
Our roots go back to the early 1980s when our founder began to vocalize the vulnerability of consumers and the companies, individuals and agencies that preyed on this vulnerability. Over the past three decades, Bad Biz Finder has championed hundreds of causes and has been an agent for positive change so that the so-called “little guy,” becomes “a giant” with purpose and power.
Due to constant and unnerving legal and personal threats against the organization and its volunteers, Bad Biz Finder chooses to remain anonymous. Over the past 30 years, we’ve moved locations, changed our name, added an army of volunteers and called upon consumer rights attorneys to better serve the public.
Bad Biz Finder is self-supporting and asks for nothing in return. We do not accept payment, donations, or gifts, as we must remain objective in order to be helpful to consumers. We encourage the consumers we help to “pay it forward,” and reciprocate by helping someone else for free. Every single day our organization helps scared and hopeless consumers gain footing again, armed with facts that empower them, and for that we are proud.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
FYI,
Bad Biz Finder is not any kind of organization. It is in fact one person, Erin Baldwin. She was evicted from a UDR property for not paying her rent.
She seems to specialize in these kinds of slanders and has a pretty long history of being sued for it. In fact a judgement against her for over $600k was just made for these kinds of baseless and untrue statements about a law firm. Now she’s found someone else to attack.
Bottomline is, she lives in a world of her own making. Everything she has posted above is a complete and total fabrication. There is no such organization – just one crazy lady with a website and no job who has been shot gunning this exact post on every website that lets her post.
Just thought I would fill you guys in here.