Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Ashland, henry clay hotel apartments

  1. #1
    Regular Member Undertaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Wood, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    146

    Ashland, henry clay hotel apartments

    THERE ARE 2 THREADS RUNNING REGARDING THE SAME APARTMENT BUILDING. I started one a couple of weeks ago and I noticed that there is a new one 'Public Housing'.

    Here's the scene: The former Henry Clay Hotel in Ashland is now owned and operated as a 52 unit apartment building by Perry and Susan Madden. They also own the former Sears building and are in the process of making it high end condo's.

    The Maddens rent apartment units in the Henry Clay to the general public through private lease agreements. They also rent units, in an effort to maintain capacity, through the Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

    As I posted in my other thread...what constitutes "Public Housing" ? Is it the entire building or only those units leased to HUD ?

    I am going to speak with the local retired HUD rep tonight to find out where HUD stands on the issue.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917
    I believe these are different issues, though others believe differently. In regards to public housing, you pretty much have the government owned/operated that lease directly to the public, and Section 8 housing where private landlords lease to the public with the gov't subsidizing most of their rent.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917
    I do not think these threads should be merged. Just because you believe the legal opinion is the same for public vs. private housing does not mean those circumstances are the same. They both have their separate interpretations.

    We have private housing, semi-private/section 8 housing, and public housing. Undertaker's question is about the former, mine is about the 2 latter. I think it's very clear to everyone that because of 237.115, the government cannot ban weapons in public housing. The big question is, can a private landlord include an anti-guns clause to a lease. I happen to think yes, Gutshot thinks no. Gutshot has given me quite a bit to think about and I respect his opinion. The disagreement seems to boil down to, can someone sign away their constitutional rights? I happen to think yes, Gutshot thinks no.

    People waive their rights to a speedy trial, people waive their rights to a trial by jury (pleading guilty). When people join HOAs, they sometimes sign away their some of their 1st amendment privileges in agreeing not to display certain things.

    And it would appear by answering this, we've cemented a merge haha

  4. #4
    Regular Member neuroblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post

    The SCOTUS has just issued a ruling, in Heller, that the federal government can't restrict the right of a American to keep a gun in his residence.

    Define "SCOTUS"? Is that anything like SPOTUS?
    Got SIG? MOLON LABE

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917
    Supreme Court Of The United States. POTUS= President Of The United States

  6. #6
    Regular Member Undertaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Wood, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    146

    Great Discussion

    Isn't it fantastic that we can have this discussion, and even disagree on some points, while armed, and no one has been shot. MAYBE GUNS DON'T KILL AFTER ALL. PERHAPS IT IS PEOPLE. (HA HA)

  7. #7
    Regular Member neuroblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Undertaker View Post
    Isn't it fantastic that we can have this discussion, and even disagree on some points, while armed, and no one has been shot. MAYBE GUNS DON'T KILL AFTER ALL. PERHAPS IT IS PEOPLE. (HA HA)
    Doctors vs. Gun Owners

    Doctors
    (A) The number of physicians in the U. S. Is 700,000.
    (B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
    (C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

    Statistics courtesy of U. S. Dept of Health and Human Services.

    Now think about this:

    Guns
    (A) The number of gun owners in the U. S. Is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)
    (B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
    (C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.

    Statistics courtesy of FBI

    So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

    Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

    FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN,
    BUT

    Almost everyone has at least one doctor.
    This means you are over 900 times more likely to be killed by a doctor as a gun owner!!!
    Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.
    We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!
    Out of concern for the public at large,
    I withheld the statistics on Lawyers for fear the shock would cause
    People to panic and seek medical attention!

    See, Guns don't kill people, Doctors do! *LMBO*
    Last edited by neuroblades; 08-30-2010 at 12:45 PM.
    Got SIG? MOLON LABE

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •