It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iowa city forces everyone to give them the keys to their commercial property

page: 2
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
While I certainly don't agree with mandatory requirements of this sort, I do support a voluntary lock box program.

In my small city, senior citizens and local businesses may sign up for a voluntary lock box program which would allow police, fire and rescue access businesses and the homes of seniors in an emergency access 911 situation. In most cases this is a better alternative to breaking down doors and breaking windows especially in the homes of senior citizens. Again this is a voluntary program. My elderly neighbor signed up for it and the program gives her some piece of mind in the event that she must dial 911 or hit her panic button while being unable to access her locked doors.

Actually, I am very surprised to see a mandatory program like this come out of Iowa. These good people will not stand for this intrusion.




posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Everything and I mean everything to the point that if it isn't everything ? It may as well be everything. It's all rigged so any profit that can be made? Even from working your ass off they make sure there is someone there to get it. A country befallen to ravenous wolves and it's dinner time.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


That's the kicker ain't it? Did they even try a voluntary program?
No. let's just shove mandates down people's throats.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Its says "unfunded mandate"...means there is no money to enforce it...oooops



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
The NAZIS would have loved THIS SYSTEM.

Now they can get people in their home in the middle of the night without the neighbours even noticing it.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


Tar & feathered?
They'd be publicly drawn and quartered for that little piece of "legislation" where I'm from. (Politically, of course.
)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Just like the Indiana Supreme court case that sought to overrule the 4th amendment, this is another situation that I just shake my head at. I simply can't believe this sort of crap is even considered in these United State.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I could see this being an option for business owners. If they so choose, they can put a lockbox near the front door and give the city a key to use. If not, no harm done, just let Fire, Police and Emergency services break through the door and insurance will pay to repair it.

However, to make it mandantory is outrageous to the Nth degree.

They can say all they want, but I agree with the one guy that stood and talked about the potential for theft by city officials. Several government agencies have had laptops, hard drives, flash drives stolen over the last few years, and data copied from secure locations, meaning it was a ranked individual with clearance enough to go into the system. If the US Gov't cannot secure a laptop or hard drive from theft, what makes these yokles think they are uncorruptable? I agree about liability and privacy being the major two factors that should fail this and stand with the choice of the citizens in hopes that they will not comply.

To summarize a great statement from the clip; today its businesses and apartments, tomorrow its single units and homes.

Get rid of these boneheads while you can and force this bill to be eradicated.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
What happened? The Police not making enough money robbing people on the highway now they want the keys so they can rob your stores too? Times sure are tough.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 



This is more then a little disturbing. But I haven't noticed it here yet, but, wouldn't this do away with having a search warrant? I mean, your giving the city the keys to your business and homes and wouldn't that give implied consent to go into those homes?



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
While I certainly don't agree with mandatory requirements of this sort, I do support a voluntary lock box program.

In my small city, senior citizens and local businesses may sign up for a voluntary lock box program which would allow police, fire and rescue access businesses and the homes of seniors in an emergency access 911 situation. In most cases this is a better alternative to breaking down doors and breaking windows especially in the homes of senior citizens. Again this is a voluntary program. My elderly neighbor signed up for it and the program gives her some piece of mind in the event that she must dial 911 or hit her panic button while being unable to access her locked doors.

Actually, I am very surprised to see a mandatory program like this come out of Iowa. These good people will not stand for this intrusion.


Voluntary is fine, if that is what the local businesses want. Obviously not a problem. Though I'd disagree with saying apartment complexes could volunteer, as not all tenants can be represented, so it would either have to be put to a vote whenever a new tenant arrives (obviously not feasible), or the tenants would have to sign an agreement when renting.

Either way, it's just a waste, in my opinion. A man speaking in the video said it perfectly, when asked does he think it's okay for firemen to bust down a door on a false alarm? He said, yes.. That's why I have insurance, it covers things like that.

You shouldn't be messing around, worrying about "false alarms" in something like an apartment complex anyway. False alarm or not, you go in there immediately.

However, even voluntary has issues. They could say it's voluntary, but if you have a fire, they can fine you anyway for not having a knox-box, or they could go another mile and say it challenges your insurance claim because "You didn't do everything necessary to protect your assets."

Slippery slope. Consequences need to be weighed before a decision like this needs to be made.
edit on 13-6-2011 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
The messed up part about it...is that some people will say oh they are here to help....like Katrina...well that area of the coutry doesn't need the handouts like the getto rats of Katrina, the government want to take away your rights to privacy and freedoms, and tell us what we can and cannot do...they wanna justify there dumb ass existance so that they can take away more of our rights and freedoms...out there the towns and neighbors help eachother and are able to survive...the government don't like that cuz then they aren't needed....they always come and take away your liberties when its a dissaster...cuz many will gladly give them up for food and shelter...but then you never get back what they take from you.

FYI I know because I grew up out there...I know the area well.
edit on 13-6-2011 by saltdog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I'm not trying to hijack the thread or anything, especially not nit-picking.. but just an FYI, your title makes it read like Iowa City (which is a city in Iowa, home of the University of Iowa).



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 

Sorry, but I have a HUGE problem with this happening! I've seem some similar boxes here though I'm not sure its mandatory here....yet? I'm a locksmith. Let's say one of these access keys gets lost through either accidental loss or an employee/firefighter (NOT to demean our fine firefighters! But we are all Human with human frailties and weaknesses) that is disgruntled...... this key can access ALL the boxes in an area. And let's say theft occurs as a result of this missing key. Who is responsible? A business could have the finest locks in the world but the key might be vulnerable? A copy could be made without the owner's knowledge? Unless every box is alarmed, and even then..... if a box is removed, a key is made to the existing lock, and the key now fits all the other boxes? What would the insurance company have to say about this? Would this embarrassing loss of a key be admitted to by a fire station? Who would pay for all the rekeying of all the businesses? Yes, this makes the job of a firefighter easier, but I assure you, good security and convenience often do NOT go hand in hand.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


My favorite points made by the citizens:

1. "What if someone untrustworthy makes copies of the keys?" Yeah that's a lot of power to be wielding. You literally have the keys to city. I would never want to put that burden of responsiblity on anyone because corruption is all powerful. If this new system gets implemented they are setting themselves up for failure. It's obvious no good can come from this. And that leads me to my next point, where's the logic in this?

2. "If my house is on fire I'm pretty sure I'm not worried about the door bill" Exactly! The place is on fire so kick in doors, break windows, do whatever it is you do to put out fires! Hopefully, & usually by law, I have house insurance, insurance for my Fing house!

I agree these 6 who thought up this moronic ordinance do indeed Need to be fired & blacklisted from any position of power, responsiblity, supervisory, etc. They must be split up & put to work immediately because it's obvious you cant leave this group together with time on their hands.


edit on 14-6-2011 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   



This is more then a little disturbing. But I haven't noticed it here yet, but, wouldn't this do away with having a search warrant? I mean, your giving the city the keys to your business and homes and wouldn't that give implied consent to go into those homes?



Correct. By giving keys to the Government you have consented to give them access. No warrants would be required any longer.

Welcome to the Fourth Reich. Heil Obama! Heil Obama!



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Simple solution. Refuse to accept this mandate, any attempts to force you to adhere to this unconstitutional law would be... guess what? a violation of the constitution. Take the matter into your own hands if necassary and refuse.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
Actually, I am very surprised to see a mandatory program like this come out of Iowa. These good people will not stand for this intrusion.


Normally I'd agree with you; however, the city of Cedar Falls is a bit of an anomaly. Cedar Falls is a small city with a major university (U.N.I.) that almost doubles the city's population while students are attending there during the school year.

Personally, having a few extended family members that live in Cedar Falls, I can say that it is the LAST community I would ever want to have such a program in. Over the years, through visiting relatives there, I know the small city quite well, and the C.F.P.D. has long been referred to as "Storm Troopers" by students and local residents alike.

They were known for pressuring residents and visitors (without probable cause) into long and drawn out vehicle searches back in the 80s & 90s, and I hear they continue the practice through to today. On one visit, back in 96, I had the unfortunate experience of witnessing first hand the riot that the C.F.P.D. instigated, at the U.N.I. homecoming celebration, which received nation-wide coverage. I can recall another trip when I visited a local downtown bar. As I was leaving a fight was breaking out just outside the doors. I passed right by and a block and a half up, on a side street, I saw a squad car; so I stopped to inform the officer of the altercation. His response... "I haven't heard anything on the radio"; so he just turned his head from me and sat there. Apparently, in Cedar Falls, if you see a crime, or someone who is in potential danger, you have to telephone dispatch; the old childhood advice of "tell a cop" is absolutely meaningless there.

From everything I've experienced and heard over the years, this is the LAST community someone would want to give unfettered access to their P.D. when it comes to personal businesses and residences. Their department's reputation for laziness, sense of entitlement, and corruption are of the sort that give all cops a bad reputation.
edit on 6/14/11 by redmage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join