http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/chicago.evictions/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

On this board, linear thinking strikes again. It's amazing how some of you are incapable of any sort of empathy. It's a very complex situation and the sheriff makes a lot of sense when he says he's not going to evict anyone unless he has proof that they have been alerted of the impending foreclosure. Why should law-abiding people who follow the rules and who pay their rent come home to find all of their property on the street? That's not right and thankfully the sheriff has the maturity to recognize that.

shahen said:
On this board, linear thinking strikes again. It's amazing how some of you are incapable of any sort of empathy. .

By linear thinking do you mean logical thinking? Empathy has nothing to do with it. Before soemone can be evicted they must be notified several times that eviction is pending and it can not occur during below freezing days or if it snowing ect.

This is someone who has sworn to uphold the law taking the law into his own hands and creating chaos. That is worse and worse for society.

gatzdon said:squirrelproductions said:taxmantoo said:Xnarg said:
It's nearly impossible to get elected in Cook County without being corrupt. Some of the collar counties and suburbs are more reasonable.

But some day, maybe January 20, 2009, a Crook County corrupt politician may grow up to become president.We can all hope .. and vote!

.....and vote, and vote, and vote, etc.... (at least in cook county you can)

In Crook County we vote early and we vote often.

shahen said:http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/chicago.evictions/index.html#cnnSTCVideo


On this board, linear thinking strikes again. It's amazing how some of you are incapable of any sort of empathy. It's a very complex situation and the sheriff makes a lot of sense when he says he's not going to evict anyone unless he has proof that they have been alerted of the impending foreclosure. Why should law-abiding people who follow the rules and who pay their rent come home to find all of their property on the street? That's not right and thankfully the sheriff has the maturity to recognize that.

The sheriff should recognize that it's his job to ENFORCE the law, not make it. I do think there should be some protection for renters who rent from deadbeat landlords, however it's not appropriate for the sheriff to be dreaming up his own rules.

BTW, this is why I'm grateful that Maryland puts a summary of all of its court records online. My landlord seems like the (mostly) honest type, but once a month or so I like to run his name through the system just to make sure he's not having any foreclosure issues.

Clewer624 said:...In Crook County we vote early and we vote often.Four generations of family members owned a manufacturing business in Chicago.

Dealing with corruption was a fact of life they faced since they started the business in the late 1800s.

They refused to pay bribes to various city and county officials - and they suffered financially because of it, but at least they kept their dignity and integrity.

Xnarg said:lindylady said:...By linear thinking do you mean logical thinking? Empathy has nothing to do with it....

Non-linear thinking is what empathetic Congresspersons exhibited when they required financial institutions to make home loans to unqualified people. They (temporarily) achieved their "outside the box" goal of "social equalization" through increased home ownership among "disadvantaged" people, but sank the system in the process.

For some reason "non-linear thinking" made me think of the "aggressive accounting" we got from Enron.

lonestarguy said:Hopefully, banks will react either jack up interest rates in Chicago or stop issuing mortgages their altogether until this lazy sheriff gets the boot from voters.

More likely they'll just pay attention to the law and give the renters the notice they are required to.

Xnarg said:shahen said:http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/chicago.evictions/index.html#cnnSTCVideo


On this board, linear thinking strikes again. It's amazing how some of you are incapable of any sort of empathy. It's a very complex situation and the sheriff makes a lot of sense when he says he's not going to evict anyone unless he has proof that they have been alerted of the impending foreclosure. Why should law-abiding people who follow the rules and who pay their rent come home to find all of their property on the street? That's not right and thankfully the sheriff has the maturity to recognize that.So instead of working to fix the system (i.e., proper notification), the sheriff throws a monkey wrench into the entire process.

It's up to a sheriff to enforce laws, not make them or selectively enforce those with which he agrees.

He *IS* enforcing the laws!

He is simply requiring that they show that the law has been followed before carrying out the eviction. Obviously he doesn't trust the courts to do their job.

I agree that the legislature needs to be more specific in requiring that proof be given to renters of pending eviction, but I disagree that a sheriff refusing to do his job is the right way to go about it.
If the problem of renters not being notified is as rampant as he suggests, then it's a waste of his department's resources to keep sending out police to enforce evictions, when the mortgage holder hasn't properly notified those who will be evicted. Every politician loves to say how much they support the police, but he reality of the situation is that many counties and municipalities keep them funded 'just enough'. I'm also reasonably sure the Sheriff's budget was made prior to the spike in evictions. Having to go out to enforce evictions, only to find out that the person, or bank, at who's request I am performing the eviction, hasn't performed their legal obligations, would leave me pissed, too. It would also add a non-trivial strain to an already stretched budget.

That said, I'm surprised he didn't mention the percentage of evictions that his department was unable to perform due to mortgage holders dropping the ball. If it's a high enough number, it could go a long way toward justifying his actions.

"If it's ok for the sheriff to break laws with which he disagrees, then I should be able to do that too."
If this guy's argument is that he isn't enforcing evictions because they are wrong or evil, it would be a different situation. But he never said he disagrees with the law.

"I disagree with abortion, so we aren't going to investigate who murdered the Dr. performing abortions"

"I like hookers & blow, so I am not going to go after drug dealers & hookers"

His job is to enforce the law, not make the law.