1918
1919

Biden needs a comfy pair of Presidential memory foam sketchers, with good tread on the bottom.

1920

No president has ever slipped on the stairs to Air Force One while wearing UGG boots. Just sayin’.

1921

It’s an issue with regards to banking and the like as well.

It’s the ideal State’s Rights issue (it’s de facto at this point) and yet, everyone just kicks the ball around the room instead of affirming what is already a resolved issue.

1922

Quite possibly my least favorite pick by Biden. Despite Jim Bridenstine, very questionable credentials he turned out to be one of the best NASA administrators. In agency which more than most needs to focus on the future. Nelson is a throwback, Biden, Nelson and my brother-in-law, are born within months of each other. Biden is remarkably energetic, and embraces new ideas pretty impressively. He isn’t typical of 77 year-olds.

1923

Really good news for some of you! @Menzo I think had mentioned needing to amend his last year’s return.

1924

Oh that’s awesome. Thanks for the tag!

1925

Can Biden go down a ramp?

1926

Happy to help, and super-glad the IRS is taking that step. Obviously, probably worthwhile to keep pretty good tabs on what that refund should be and double check it, but still.

1927

Biden can build a ramp!

1928

We signed a lease late last year, which included a specific no-marijuana clause. The landlords said they don’t actually give a shit, but they’ve been told that as mortgages are federally regulated, they can theoretically be held responsible for their tenants breaking federal law even while they own and rent property in Colorado where Marijuana is legal.

1929

This sounds ridiculous. Not that your landlords are trying to pull something over on you - I’m sure they believe it - but that advice they got sounds super sketchy. I wonder if they found it on a website or something.

I highly doubt landlords can be held responsible for what their tenants do in nearly any situation.

Found some info that sounds reasonable. Tl;dr - Landlords can potentially be held liable if they knowingly allow illegal activity to continue on their property. But that doesn’t say that a clause in a rent agreement is necessary. It seems like the landlord(s) would only get wrapped up if the authorities think they are accomplices, and my guess is your landlords are just taking the most risk-adverse advice.

I can say that I’ve rented a couple places in California since weed was made legal and have never seen a clause like that.

If they don’t know you’re smoking weed, no issues. And generally these rules seem to only apply to drug dealers. The Feds aren’t looking for casual users.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/criminal-acts-activities-landlord-liability-faq.html

What kind of legal trouble do landlords face from tenants who deal illegal drugs on the property?

Drug-dealing tenants can cause landlords all kinds of practical and legal problems:

  • Anyone who is injured or annoyed by drug dealers—be it other tenants or people in the neighborhood—may sue the landlord on the grounds that the property is a public nuisance that seriously threatens public safety or morals.
  • Local, state, or federal authorities may levy stiff fines against the landlord for allowing illegal activity to continue.
  • Law enforcement authorities may seek criminal penalties against the landlord for knowingly allowing drug dealing on the rental property.
  • In extreme cases, the presence of drug dealers may result in the government confiscating the rental property.
  • A drug-dealing environment can make it difficult to find and keep good tenants, and the value of the rental property will plummet.

How can a property owner avoid liability because of tenants who deal drugs or otherwise break the law?

There are several practical steps landlords can take to avoid trouble caused by criminal tenants and to limit their liability in any lawsuits that are filed:

  • Screen tenants carefully and choose tenants who are likely to be law-abiding and peaceful citizens. Weed out violent or dangerous individuals to the extent allowable under privacy and anti-discrimination laws that may limit questions about a tenant’s past criminal activity, drug use, or mental illness.
  • Don’t accept cash rental payments.
  • Do not tolerate tenants’ disruptive behavior. Include an explicit provision in the lease or rental agreement prohibiting drug dealing and other illegal activity and promptly evict tenants who violate the clause.
  • Be aware of suspicious activity, such as heavy traffic in and out of the rental premises.
  • Respond to tenant and neighbor complaints about drug dealing on the rental property. Get advice from police immediately upon learning of a problem.
  • Consult with security experts to do everything reasonable to discover and prevent illegal activity on the rental property.

In any case, the fact that landlords feel the need to prevent tenants from engaging in legal behavior does illustrate how necessary it is to make changes to the law at the Federal level.

1930

So before mom lost her place, they sent around a letter trying to claim that no one was allowed to have the plants on their property or in their homes. Here’s the thing about mobile homes… the landlord has the property but the homes are theirs… as in the landlord doesn’t have landlord rights for what’s in the home… almost at all. I say almost because it’s almost an HOA kind of thing for like painting the home and maintain it but otherwise…

It’s very murky here and until the courts take it up it’s going to remain that way. No one wants to be the first court case I’m sure. It will be expensive, confusing and then still totally different between state and federal.

I am not sure why they even know to go the legal angle though. There are plenty of rentals that don’t allow smoking or pets… both of which are legal.

1931

Yeah, it’s not so much that I was convinced the legal theory made sense, just that it was an interesting example of the knock-on effects of the federal law in this case. A risk averse bank and risk averse landlords end up effectively cancelling state law.

Not that I’m particularly bothered. Gin & Tonic is my drug of choice anyway.

1932

Go big or go home

1933

I wonder how the GOP will react?

image

1934

This is just another pork-laden package from an ultra-left-wing Democratic caucus who want us to pay for roads, educating young children, and saving humanity from run-away climate destruction. We will, of course, try to stop it at all costs.

1935

I just performed a spit-take.

1936

Now that the GOP has decided they are the party of the blue collar workers, it’s gonna be cool watching them explain how spending tons of money SPECIFICALLY to have those people build up the country is bad.

Honestly, as what I like to think of a pragmatic libertarian, a lot of the stuff in the COVID bill was stuff I’ve been advocating for for years… mainly, large tax cuts, but for the people who will benefit most from them. Not benefit most in terms of raw dollars saved, but most in terms of how it will actually impact their lives.

Tax cuts targeted at the middle class will have dramatically more economic impact in terms of stimulative effect than cuts targeting the upper class. Those folks in the middle class are actually gonna spend that money… pretty much immediately.

1937

Hahahahhahahahahahahahahaha I’m sorry hahahahhahahahahahahahahaha