Refugees force woman out of the home she lived in for 23 YEARS after migrant influx

a reply to: 8675309jenny

So, in American terms, this lady has been living in low-income welfare housing for 23 years, long enough to raise two sons that don't live at home. So she's now mad that somebody that is in far more dire straights than her is being given the house.

She's 58 far from a doddering old lady, is she disabled and doesn't have the ability to still be working to get non-regulated housing?

Interesting thought, if a large enough number of people with no money or assets suddenly flood into a country I wonder if it creates a new "poverty" line, where many people who considered themselves below the poverty line before are now lower-middle-class to middle-class. Of course, I have no idea how many refugees that would require (it would probably be in the millions i'm guessing) but its strange to think how that might affect the country's economy.

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: projectvxn

What do you mean? Are you saying that this woman who is renting a government owned home is given everything she wants?

Government giveth, and government taketh away.

Yeah? So what do you mean? Is this supposed to be justification for this action?

Here is a similar story from earlier this week.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Why the hell are people defending these actions? Acting like this should be expected when living in government owned property. Acting like these people have had this coming because they are welfare receiving parasites, and that these refugees somehow deserve this more.

What is wrong with you?

This is not justifiable.

Although the building belongs to the local municipality, it is not social housing and Ms Halbey pays the full market rent.

In Germany, where 52 per cent of people rent their homes, it is unheard of to be asked to leave under such circumstances. Tenants are strongly protected by law, and can normally only be evicted if they have broken the terms of their rental agreement.

“Normally, only a natural person can terminate for personal use A municipality cannot move into a flat as a legal entity, so the process is legally highly questionable,” Ulrich Ropertz, spokesman of the German Tenants' Federation, said.

Obviously. So why are people defending this BS? I seriously wonder.

So...

Refugess are not kicking the woman out as the op title suggest.

The woman has not been paying rent and damages her property.

She is over occupying which means she is not eligible to live in the property anymore.

So what was this op about again?

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

The woman has not been paying rent and damages her property. She is over occupying which means she is not eligible to live in the property anymore.

Says who?

And as my previous post shows, there are other cases where this certainly is not the case.

How can you justify this?

originally posted by: BMorris
I too was incensed when I read this, but after talking to a few German friends, they told me according to the German press, she is severely behind on her rent, the eviction is for non-payment of her rent and damage to the property. They have given her to the end of the year to find alternative accommodation, but her landlord no longer wants her as a tenant, because it costs them too much time to keep recovering the rent off her.

Thats only what my German friends tell me, I have no idea if its true.

Yet it was enough for people to adopt this and poison this story with unfounded accusations(lies), discrediting one woman that chose to step to the foreground.

If you read the actual OP article it becomes clear that this is not an isolated case, and the reason for eviction has nothing to do with this woman not paying her rent or whatever.

Gabrielle Keller and her neighbours are being kicked out of their properties by the local council because a mass influx of refugees need housing.

Are all her neigbours not paying rent either?


From the horse's mouth,

But the authority defended the controversial decision. Mayor Mario Schlafke said: "The council hasn’t taken a frivolous decision. "The alternative would have been to set up beds in the gym. "We have no other homes and no land."

Nothing about a breach of contract by those renting. They simply have to leave because it is the easiest and cheapest solution for the authority.


I wonder about the intentions of people injecting this disinformation into this thread. I also find it worrying that people try to justify this from a standpoint of hate against anything that involves supposed welfare recipients, acting like these natural born citizens have less rights than refugees of whom their intent is not even clear.

originally posted by: RogueWave

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: projectvxn

What do you mean? Are you saying that this woman who is renting a government owned home is given everything she wants?

Government giveth, and government taketh away.

Yeah? So what do you mean? Is this supposed to be justification for this action?

You need to calm down.

This is what happens when all authority is given to government. Trade your rights for privileges and don't be surprised when privileges are revoked.

It's not right, but it is wholly expected.

a reply to: projectvxn

This is what happens when all authority is given to government. Trade your rights for privileges and don't be surprised when privileges are revoked.

This is a notion that has nothing to do with these cases, as I have made clear.

This is not about people receiving government benefits that are being revoked.

You need to read what was posted.

a reply to: RogueWave

This is government controlled housing right?

The "council" that controls the housing project is making these decisions right?

Sounds like government is very involved.

a reply to: projectvxn

Yes, the authority happens to be the owner. So what does this have to do with people trading rights for priviliges.

Nothing. At all.

You are arguing from a misplaced notion here. You need to stop making this about something that it isn't.

a reply to: RogueWave

Yes, the authority happens to be the owner. So what does this have to do with people trading rights for priviliges.

Nothing. At all.

I disagree. I've already stated how this happens and why these people are now having their privileges revoked.

You are arguing from a misplaced notion here. You need to stop making this about something that it isn't.

Except this is exactly about government abuse isn't it? It's an injustice being done to the people living there who are being evicted to house refugees. It is the government that is doing this.

a reply to: projectvxn

Except this is exactly about government abuse isn't it? It's an injustice being done to the people living there who are being evicted to house refugees. It is the government that is doing this.

So at what point did people trade rights for priviliges as you put it?

Like i said, this has nothing to do with what you are trying to make this about.

Yes, the government is wrong here, obviously. You are acting like the people that are evicted did something wrong too.

As if this is their own fault and that this was to be expected just because they rented from the government.

This is abolute BS.

a reply to: RogueWave

So at what point did people trade rights for priviliges as you put it?

Obviously since no breech of contract took place, the government is simply doing what it wants. If you accept government housing, financial help, or any other service, you can expect to have some or all of your rights revoked.

Like i said, this has nothing to do with what you are trying to make this about.

So government kicking people out to house Syrians is not the problem then? No one is responsible for this? It just happened in a vacuum I assume?

Yes, the government is wrong here, obviously. You are acting like the people that are evicted did something wrong too.

They did do something wrong. They put their faith in a government that said it would provide this for them. Now that government is saying "F you, we do what we want because we're the law".

As if this is their own fault and that this was to be expected just because they rented from the government.

Governments don't have to honor contracts. Most European governments tend to have extremely distasteful contract practices. You sign a contract expecting it to be honored, and yet when the government does what it PREDICTABLY will do, everyone acts surprised.

All I'm saying is that I am not surprised. This is exactly what should be expected when dealing with a government.

a reply to: projectvxn

So government kicking people out to house Syrians is not the problem then?

Sigh, the government obviously is the problem, like I said. It has nothing to do with people trading rights for priviliges.

Obviously since no breech of contract took place, the government is simply doing what it wants. If you accept government housing, financial help, or any other service, you can expect to have some or all of your rights revoked.

These people didn't receive financial help. All they did was rent a place that happened to be owned by local government. They did nothing wrong.

All I'm saying is that I am not surprised. This is exactly what should be expected when dealing with a government.

Please, you are obviously trying to make this about people receiving benefits, and how they aren't allowed to complain when it gets taken from them, when this obviously doesn't apply at all.

Governments don't have to honor contracts. Most European governments tend to have extremely distasteful contract practices. You sign a contract expecting it to be honored, and yet when the government does what it PREDICTABLY will do, everyone acts surprised.

And you know what you are talking about as an American?

Still acting like these people had this coming.

a reply to: RogueWave

You are making accusations without addressing my points at all.

These homes are rented out to people for a purpose. They are typically cheap, you must apply for them, and get approval before a rental contract is drawn up.

I blame these people for not reading the contract and associated regulations with regard to government housing.

I would suggest you do the same as I have and read the contracts and regulations regarding government owned housing, what the stated purpose is for the housing in the first place, and how it is administered.

I'll wait.

a reply to: projectvxn

Although the building belongs to the local municipality, it is not social housing and Ms Halbey pays the full market rent.

In Germany, where 52 per cent of people rent their homes, it is unheard of to be asked to leave under such circumstances. Tenants are strongly protected by law, and can normally only be evicted if they have broken the terms of their rental agreement.

“Normally, only a natural person can terminate for personal use A municipality cannot move into a flat as a legal entity, so the process is legally highly questionable,” Ulrich Ropertz, spokesman of the German Tenants' Federation, said.

Do you have trouble understanding this, or did you simply not read my other posts.

I blame these people for not reading the contract and associated regulations with regard to government housing.

See that's the problem. You are blaming these people from a standpoint of misplaced hate against people depending on the government. This doesn't apply here.

These people did nothing wrong, and are being screwed by the local government who are breaking the rules. I expect there to be legal action.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about, acting like this is legal and to be expected, by contract.

a reply to: RogueWave

Still waiting.

a reply to: projectvxn

To get a clue?

You obviously have nothing of value to add.