in reply to OT: How to Spoil a nice place to live

Oh come on dragonchild and rir, you must be kidding when you say
Nanette is merely exercising her rights as a denizen of the United States. She has the right to expect a decent living situation and the right to sue when she is thwarted in that expectation.
and
he suggests that she spend the association's money, indirectly her money, to get council on a suit that a loudmouth hasn't even filed. What was he thinking Nanette is going to get for a judgement? for loud pipes? What did he think Nanette was going claim Sayuko did to wrong her? Conspire with upstairs neighbors to put loud water into the drain pipe?

I have seen court cases started for more frivolous reasons than that!

The neighbour from hell has no reason at all to claim against the condominium: she bought the apartment from the previous owner and should complain there, but he probably has an iron-clad contract and she's out-of-luck there, so it is easy to target your friendly board members.

We live in a society of individuals who cannot even consider the meaning of a community. Fortunately there are still some people who --against all advice to the contrary-- will take the heavy burden of supporting a community, be it as the President of a condominium board or as a volunteer in a charity or in any other community function. None or few of them are saints, most are ordinary people but they will face whatever is thrown at them and they will not duck but stand firm.

You both should be ashamed that you even dare to suggest that Sayuko should go the way of the least resistance and bail out of the board. Will it end her trouble? Not at all as she still lives in the condominium and the problems will not disappear if she leaves her post.

Sayuko clearly has taken the very moral position that someone has to do something about it and that running away is not an option, nor is dropping it in someone else's lap.

To give you a personal example: when I was a lawyer, people regularly asked me how I could bring myself to defend criminals even in cases where it was clear (to the uninformed mobs, I might add) that this criminal was guilty.

I always answered that even the worst criminal has a right to be defended in court by a professional lawyer and that by not taking such case out of moral considerations, I would simply burden another lawyer with the same moral problems I so conveniently avoided by not taking the case. I find such an attitude most immoral.

Sayuko has my best wishes and strength I can project to her. It is not much, I know, but perhaps she can take some little comfort in the idea that community feeling is not dead yet.

CountZero

"If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler." - Conway's Law

  • Comment on Re: OT: How to Spoil a nice place to live

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: OT: How to Spoil a nice place to live
by rir (Vicar) on Mar 04, 2005 at 16:01 UTC
    rir, you must be kidding when you say

    he suggests that she spend the association's money, indirectly her money, to get council on a suit that a loudmouth hasn't even filed. What was he thinking Nanette is going to get for a judgement? for loud pipes? What did he think Nanette was going claim Sayuko did to wrong her? Conspire with upstairs neighbors to put loud water into the drain pipe?

    I thought my humor was obvious when I start by blaming Sayuko's boyfriend particularly when it is apparently Intrepid, who coyly avoided stating the fact. I keep trying to soak my humor before sharing...

    But I stand by my above points: A suit against Sayuko personally sounds ridiculous. A suit against the association is pointless: the association is trying to do just what a judge would order them to try to do. Nanette is most likely a blowhard and not apt to file anything--what is she going to gain?

    Intrepid draws a charming profile of Sayuko; that is what I'll remember of this thread 15 years hence.

    I agree with what TrekNoid said in this thread.

    You state you are no longer a lawyer but you don't feel you have shirked the moral responsibilities you had. How is Sayuko quitting any different? I am not ashamed to suggest that Sayuko seek happiness and peace in her life, I am not worried that she will stop doing good in the world.

    I find your view of the moral issues of defending criminals interesting.

    the problems will not disappear if she leaves her post.

    No, they will drastically diminish.

    We live in a society of individuals who cannot even consider the meaning of a community.

    I do not live in such a society.

    Be well,
    rir

[reply]
      Oops, sorry, I didn't catch the humorous tone. Write it down to my past as a lawyer.

      I'm quite sure that Nanette's claim is no good, but it will stil take a lot of time, effort, money and stress before it is over. Don't think too fast people will not go to court. Most of them have no legal knowledge whatsoever (other than what they have seen on TV) and will readily find an unscrupulous lawyer who will represent them. "A fool and his money are easily parted!" Believe me I have been in court far too often to defend my clients against the most frivolous claims one could imagine.

      TrekNoid said some wise things and being the President of the board of a condominium takes indeed a certain psychological profile which is not given to everybody. Still, once you have taken on the job and unless you have a proven trackrecord of being bad at the job, one should not quit that easily. If Sayuko quits now, the claim will not go away, so she is really better positioned to defend herself in her function as President than as being a simple member of the condo.

      Praise yourself that you live in a society which his more than a bunch of individuals.

      CountZero

      "If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler." - Conway's Law

[reply]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

In Section Meditations