Chicago condo residents warned to leave during NATO summit

Chicago condo residents warned to leave during NATO summit

www.foxnews.com

Residents of a Chicago condo whose building will be in the eye of the NATO storm are being warned that they should move out for the weekend or risk being trapped inside by rioters.
The people living in the 17-floor Library Tower building at 520 South State Street were warned in a letter from condo management that "we are STRONGLY recommending that all residents find places to stay during the conference from May 18 through May 21."
NATO summits often attract crowds of thousands of protesters. C

(visit the link for the full news article)

I did a search on the title "Chicago condo residents warned to leave during NATO summit" and found nothing.

The tenants of the Library Tower building are going to be held hostage by their incompetent land lord. A copy of the letter can be found here.
media.myfoxchicago.com...
Whats worse, the incompetent land lords feel that the derelict Chicago Administration is so inept in protecting property of it's tax paying citizens, that it hired two Chicago police officers to secure it's investment. Personally, I would break the lease under "constructive eviction" and file a joint law suit with the other tenants. A sad day in Amerika has come, when the apartment owners can lock you up in your dwelling.

www.myfoxchicago.com... 120420

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I have a close friend that lives there. I'll have to ask him about this.

I don't see anything wrong at all with that letter. Incompetent land lord? I say just the opposite! [*SNIP*] So if that was your property / responsibility, what would you do? Nothing? I would much rather rent from him then you!



Mod edit: Removed uncivil comments. Please be courteous to your fellow members.

All youd have to do is walk outside and pretend to protest for a few blocks then do whatever you wanted to do. Then on the way back just protest again back until you get to your apartment.

reply to post by cosmicexplorer


Can you pretend to protest with a Gucci bag in hand or while wearing a five thousand dollar suit?

------------------------------------------------------

To the OP:

What is wrong with the 'recommendation' that the residents might want to leave for a few days? They are not kicking them out the door, they are simply making an advice, and to have on hand some extra security for the safety of the residents and their property is a good thing, there is nothing wrong with this precaution. Events like this attract all kinds, and some of those kinds are looking to profit in illegal manner.

I see no problem, and I do not see how this is holding anyone hostage or kicking them to the curb!

reply to post by cosmicexplorer


As long as you can avoid being arrested or pepper sprayed.

I would set up a hot dog stand.

reply to post by Violater1


So what's the outrage?

The building owners are giving their tenets a heads up that the expected massive protest may trap them in their building.

Seems like they have their residents interests in mind.

Originally posted by cosmicexplorer
All youd have to do is walk outside and pretend to protest for a few blocks then do whatever you wanted to do. Then on the way back just protest again back until you get to your apartment.

Sounds like fun, get beaten, teargassed and perhaps arrested just so you can go get a pack of cigarettes lol.

Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "Going out for some ciggies honey!"

ETA, cavalryscout beat me to it

Originally posted by ghoulardi
I don't see anything wrong at all with that letter. Incompetent land lord? I say just the opposite! [*SNIP*] So if that was your property / responsibility, what would you do? Nothing? I would much rather rent from him then you!

 

Mod edit: Removed uncivil comments. Please be courteous to your fellow members.

edit on 4/21/2012 by AshleyD because: (no reason given)

At least your free to do what you want, these people can or are not. I see the wrong in many aspects of the letter, you do not. Providing only two police officers is akin to spitting in the ocean. Approaching city council with the Illinois Landlord Associations,
www.thelpa.com...
and The Chicagoland Apartment Association
www.caapts.org...
would be a start in attempting to garner more tax paid protection from the city.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by Violater1

 

So what's the outrage?
The building owners are giving their tenets a heads up that the expected massive protest may trap them in their building.
Seems like they have their residents interests in mind.

Perhaps not outrageous to you, but this is how some of the tenants feel. Please read the links.
From (again) www.myfoxchicago.com... 120420
"I can't just leave my garage whenever I want. They'll be holding us hostage in here," said resident Sebrina Krielinger.
"It's just pretty shocking to see and hear things are going to be scary in your own home," said resident Jeff Lunz

reply to post by Violater1


Well..................

Maybe if Illinois gun laws,weren't so draconian,you wouldn't have this Problem.

Originally posted by Violater1


Perhaps not outrageous to you, but this is how some of the tenants feel. Please read the links.
From (again) www.myfoxchicago.com... 120420
"I can't just leave my garage whenever I want. They'll be holding us hostage in here," said resident Sebrina Krielinger.
"It's just pretty shocking to see and hear things are going to be scary in your own home," said resident Jeff Lunz

So the tenets you quote are hysterical idiots. Big deal.

The building owners are not 'trapping them in their homes. They are allowed to leave. The building will be locked to keep outsiders and protesters out, not keep residents in.

It is nothing more than a courteous heads of to tenets that the area may be inundated with cops, feds and protesters, since its pretty much ground zero.

They are free to come and go. They are being advised to leave, for their own convenience, but are free to stay.

Outrage over nothing.

After seeing what happened at the G20 summit in Toronto a couple of years ago, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near any of these summits/meetings. I'd leave even if they didn't suggest it.

en.wikipedia.org...

More than 20,000 police, military, and security personnel were involved in policing the protests and guarding the summit. While there were no deaths and only three reported injuries, at least 40 shops were vandalised, constituting at least C$750,000 worth of damage. Over 1000 arrests were made, making it the largest number of mass arrest in Canadian history.

Some of the people arrested were aged as low as 16 year old, kids just trying to get home, and got caught in the riots. Disabled people were also arrested, not for doing anything wrong, other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In the aftermath of the protests, the Toronto Police Service and the Integrated Security Unit (ISU) of the G-20 Toronto summit were heavily criticized for brutality during the arrests and eventually went under public scrutiny by media and human rights activists.

Why would anyone want to be anywhere near something like that? It could be possible that the same type of stuff could happen at the NATO summit too........

An account of the arrests, definitely police brutality.....
londonfuse.ca...

Every time there is of these summits there is problems like this. I have an answer to the problem and in the end it would be cheaper, safer and easier to control. Hold the summit on a cruise ship. You have a floating town that you can control everything. It is the only way I see that they can have these summits without riots and such.

I'd be selling anti-summit/protest gear off my balcony. lol

capitalize!!!

For real though, it's gonna be a heavy situation.. Why Chicago? Why not Aspen?
Worst organizers ever I tell ya. Anything to practice urban war tactics I guess..

ETA: NATO should pay for their damn accommodations for the weekend. They're the ones bringing the madness through the neighborhood..

No one would win a “constructive eviction” suit over this because its not the building owners fault that they may have to deal with a riot. That is considered to be beyond their control, and riots are legally considered an “act of god” just like a plague quarantine.

They also have every right to protect their building, and owe their tenets a “duty of care” in protecting their assets. No one is being held “hostage” in any way, you are exaggerating the situation. They will be allowed access, but that access will be limited entry to those who are officially “tenets of record” through one “flow controlled” door. They will have to show their ID simply to prove their residency. There is nothing illegal about this at all.

Originally posted by defcon5
No one would win a “constructive eviction” suit over this because its not the building owners fault that they may have to deal with a riot. That is considered to be beyond their control, and riots are legally considered an “act of god” just like a plague quarantine.

They also have every right to protect their building, and owe their tenets a “duty of care” in protecting their assets. No one is being held “hostage” in any way, you are exaggerating the situation. They will be allowed access, but that access will be limited entry to those who are officially “tenets of record” through one “flow controlled” door. They will have to show their ID simply to prove their residency. There is nothing illegal about this at all.

And what School of Law did you graduate from? Do you have a specific Tort Case as an example?
Thank you for your response.

reply to post by Violater1
Apparently a better one then you did:

Constructive Eviction
Constructive eviction is a term used in the law of real property to describe a circumstance in which a landlord either does something or fails to do something that he has a legal duty to provide (e.g. the landlord refuses to provide heat or water to the apartment), rendering the property uninhabitable.

In this instance the landlord has done nothing nor failed to do anything that interferes with the habitability of individual condos/apartments. The protest is something that is beyond the landlords ability to control, meaning there is no negligence on his part.

Force Majeure
Force majeure (French, pronounced: [fɔʁs maʒœʁ][1]) or vis major (Latin) "superior force", also known as cas fortuit (French) or casus fortuitus (Latin) "chance occurrence, unavoidable accident",[2] is a common clause in contracts that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, or an event described by the legal term act of God (such as hurricane, flooding, earthquake, volcanic eruption, etc.), prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract.

The landlord has full legal authority to restrict access to his property and demand proof of residency, this is no different then living in a gated community. Limiting public access, and the number of entry areas, is not going to be considered an “Unreasonable” restriction on the habitability of your residence during an emergency. I guarantee you that they have their bases covered in the rental contract as to their ability to restrict access into common areas in the case of such an event.

As a matter of fact, if the landlord didn't enact security during such an event, then he is being legally negligent of his duty of “due care”:

Landlord Liabilites
The traditional rule of landlord liability is that a landlord will be held liable for any activity on his property if the lessor at the time of the lease consented to such activity or knew that it would be carried on, and the lessor knew or had reason to know that it would unavoidably involve such an unreasonable risk, or that special precautions necessary to safety would not be taken.

I'm not going to argue your irrelevant definitions, but I will state that the example that you supplied proves me correct (landlord either does something or fails to do something that he has a legal duty to provide ). The lessor is failing to provide the tenants, egress and ingress. Again, please provide a Tort Case.
Respectfully, I did not attend any school of Law, and by your sarcastic remark, and reasoning, neither did you.