Germany in state of siege!!!

Nolo-Legal Encyclopedia wrote:It’s easy for a landlord to end a month-to-month tenancy. In most situations, she needn’t give a reason (though acting on discriminatory or retaliatory motives is illegal). Except in New Hampshire, New Jersey, and most rent-controlled cities, where a legally recognized reason (“just cause”) is required for terminations, landlords can give you the boot just because they feel like it.

Landlords must, however, give you fair warning. Thirty days is typical...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's ridiculous. So this woman has to move out so that a refugee or two don't have to sleep in a gym.

If she can find another flat, so can the people who are chucking her out - and then put the refugee or two in there. If she can't, well she'll just have to sleep in the gym I guess while someone else has her bed.

I think the gym metaphor was hyperbole.  I think that Mayor Schlafke is trying to say it was a more solid, lasting solution given the way things were.

Raggs, I get the feeling that your arguments are crocodile tears, and, that your extraordinary concern for her—which some would call socialism—is merely a convenience of argument.  Knowing you, I don’t think you would advance such care and concern for her was it not that she is a victim in a scenario involving a ‘superior’ villain.  That is, if she was just someone being evicted by some landlord, you would be right there defending the property rights of the property owner.  Your xenophobia for Muslims is greater than your feelings for the underdog.

Original Quill wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

The "gym full of beds" was hyperbole...a metaphor exaggerated to create an effect.  There is no gym and there are no beds.

The simple fact is that this whole argument is spin: some news media guy has found a single instance that has all of the drama of a victim, sitting on her suitcase, in tears, selling her victimness in order to vilify some other victims (the Syrians).  In the first place, you can't generalize from specifics.  And in the second place, I don't believe she is a victim, nor do I believe that you and Raggs believe she is a victim either.  As I said, she is a convenience of the argument.

You and Raggs follow the crocodile tears; I'm going to talk straight talk.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Still they invited them in ...

The treacherous politicians did that... not the people of the country.




And the EU facilitated the whole thing by the policy of removing national borders.


Madness!!!

eddie wrote:Did he it is not commonplace to be evicted from your flat just to make way for someone else, refugee or no refugee.

It would be different if she'd had a letter saying that she now didn't need two bedrooms so would be moved to a smaller property.

But that's not what happened.

Original Quill wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

moreover....the "who" is to a greater extent irrelevent....the PRINCIPLE however isnt....

it is simply ridiculous to make one person homeless in order to give a home to another...it neither solves the problem nor in the circumstances surroundig this issue does it ensure a welcome for the "interloper"

as I said to didge last night...how many "one offs" do you want...when is enough , enough....?

The gym is real?  Nah, I think you've read it wrong.  Lost in translation...you get the jist.  And that's giving you the benefit of doubt...neither you or the good mayor have shown us gyms full of beds.

On your other issue...the 'who' is the PRINCIPLE, had you paid attention.  The point is that the evicted nurse could as easily been the liberal's victim had the script been different.  I was merely saying that in Ragg's hierarchy of conservative values, xenophobia trumps economic hardship.

Cuchulain wrote:90 Square meters is big enough for a family.
Like i say, would any here have objected if this had been going to a single German mum with two children?
I very much doubt it which shows the reasons are anti refugee based.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The gym is real?  Nah, I think you've read it wrong.  Lost in translation...you get the jist.  And that's giving you the benefit of doubt...neither you or the good mayor have shown us gyms full of beds.

On your other issue...the 'who' is the PRINCIPLE, had you paid attention.  The point is that the evicted nurse could as easily been the liberal's victim had the script been different.  I was merely saying that in Ragg's hierarchy of conservative values, xenophobia trumps economic hardship.

if the nurse was black she would have been the liberals victim

Irn Bru wrote:I don’t suppose the Germans ever thought that so many other EU countries would be so mean and miserable that they wouldn’t take a bigger share of the number of people fleeing from the war and the madness that is happening in their country.

The situation hasn’t helped either with so many people jumping on the bandwagon from the Balkans who are not asylum seekers at all and are just choking up the system depriving the genuine asylum seekers from getting the shelter they need. It takes a lot of resources and a lot of time to put these people through the system and punt them back.

Having said that no-one should be forcibly evicted from their home to make way for anyone. That’s just wrong but some of the stuff that I have been reading about the draconian practices being employed by councils could be as much hyperbole as it is true and possibly out of context.  I’d like to see an assessment from an independent reputable source that verifies all this – not the sources I have seen so far. Does anyone have that?

Angela Merkel is as popular as ever in most of Germany – the exception being the old East German regions.

Merkel weighs fourth term as German chancellor

Angela Merkel said Sunday she has not ruled out running for a fourth term as German chancellor in 2017, as Europe's most powerful leader continues to enjoy high approval ratings after nearly 10 years in office.

http://en.europeonline-magazine.eu/merkel-wants-to-follow-kohl_407229.html

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you saying the refugees are "right wing"?

No, though some of their values certainly pair up well with the values of Western conservatives. But Western conservatives act like there's much less similarity than there really is.

When Nigel Farage engages in homophobia, the right defend him and condemn the "PC brigade." If he'd been a Muslim leader, they'd have condemned all Muslims as savages. They excuse and handwave away racism, sexism and homophobia in their own ranks while pretending that those traits in Islamic cultures make them deficient. It's breathtakingly hypocritical.

Raggamuffin wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

if the nurse was black she would have been the liberals victim

Quill would have had an entirely different viewpoint if she was black. He would have been saying that it was racial discrimination.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think the gym metaphor was hyperbole.  I think that Mayor Schlafke is trying to say it was a more solid, lasting solution given the way things were.

Raggs, I get the feeling that your arguments are crocodile tears, and, that your extraordinary concern for her—which some would call socialism—is merely a convenience of argument.  Knowing you, I don’t think you would advance such care and concern for her was it not that she is a victim in a scenario involving a ‘superior’ villain.  That is, if she was just someone being evicted by some landlord, you would be right there defending the property rights of the property owner.  Your xenophobia for Muslims is greater than your feelings for the underdog.

He's saying that the alternative to putting refugees in proper flats would be to put them in the gym. Well if there is a spare flat for her to move to, there is a spare flat for the refugee(s) to move to - the same flat she would have to move to. If there are no flats available, then she will have nowhere to move to either.

Raggamuffin wrote:Socialism? No - I've made it clear that the citizens of a country should come first, and I haven't even mentioned Muslims. I don't think that would be xenophobia by the way because Muslims aren't necessarily foreigners. In this scenario they are of course.

Raggamuffin wrote:It just shows how the Germans didn't think this through before they invited all those refugees in. If people start being evicted all over the place, they will rue the day ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:90 Square meters is big enough for a family.
Like i say, would any here have objected if this had been going to a single German mum with two children?
I very much doubt it which shows the reasons are anti refugee based.

Not necessarily anti-refugee, anti putting non-citizens above citizens. If it was subsidised social housing, and she had no need for so much space, that would be different.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He's saying that the alternative to putting refugees in proper flats would be to put them in the gym. Well if there is a spare flat for her to move to, there is a spare flat for the refugee(s) to move to - the same flat she would have to move to. If there are no flats available, then she will have nowhere to move to either.

No, actually he's saying that would be an absurd result.  He's saying that given the limited resources, this is the best way to maximize benefits.  The formula of utilitarianism was the most good for the most people (John Stuart Mill) and this is the best way to do that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, actually he's saying that would be an absurd result.  He's saying that given the limited resources, this is the best way to maximize benefits.  The formula of utilitarianism was the most good for the most people (John Stuart Mill) and this is the best way to do that.

I think you're making too much of the gym comment. He could have said that he'd have to put them in tents, or in a football stadium, or in church hall, or wherever.

The point is that he wants to boot one person out of their home so that another person can move in. That to me makes no sense because then the first person is homeless instead. If she can find another flat, then clearly there is another flat vacant, and he could move a refugee or few into that flat instead of kicking her out of her existing home. I don't get why you don't get that.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not necessarily anti-refugee, anti putting non-citizens above citizens. If it was subsidised social housing, and she had no need for so much space, that would be different.

There you go, that is anti-refugee.
So you would not have objected then if this was a German homeless single mother with two children.
The methodology of the view point then is to either agree the woman has no longer the requirement to use this very large flat. She once did have a need, for which these places are for those in need. She has raised her children. So if your view is to help those homeless then the reufgees are homeless.
She now has no need for such a place. She did when she was raising her children which is how she obtained the flat in the first place. She should now recognise that others are in need.
She is being utterly selfish when she herself once was in need, she now tries to deny this need to others who are in need.

Original Quill wrote:

So you've got a kind of xenophobic socialism.  You don't like outsiders, I get that; that's xenophobia.  But you are also adopting the care and well being of this nurse and her family; I am my sister's keeper, you must admit, is a common socialistic theme.  You are adopting the position of her advocate.

In another context, I would be totally with you.  But in this case you are using a socialistic sympathy to promote your xenophobic aims...as I said before, that's pitting one victim against another.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


There you go, that is anti-refugee.
So you would not have objected then if this was a German homeless single mother with two children.
The methodology of the view point then is to either agree the woman has no longer the requirement to use this very large flat. She once did have a need, for which these places are for those in need. She has raised her children. So if your view is to help those homeless then the reufgees are homeless.
She now has no need for such a place. She did when she was raising her children which is how she obtained the flat in the first place. She should now recognise that others are in need.
She is being utterly selfish when she herself once was in need, she now tries to deny this need to others who are in need.

Well no, because if he'd said she had to move so a migrant could move in, I'd say the same thing.
Which is anti-immigration and anti-refugee.
We are all humans, yet you constantly place a barrier to hinder helping human beings
That is utterly wrong

I'm not sure that we're talking about social housing here - the reports seem to imply that it's not social housing as such, and that she pays the market rate, so she's not being subsidised in any way - the first woman anyway. If it was a private landlord, would you also say that someone who pays the going rate for their flat was being selfish in wanting to stay in it?
Its owned by the council and it has been stated in many reports its a council property

If we were talking about council housing here in the UK, I have no objecting to single people having to move to a smaller place so that the council house is then free for a larger family. However, I think that should apply to citizens, and I don't think that people from other countries should have any kind of priority over citizens.

Cuchulain wrote:I just want to know why from anyone here, that they feel she is still entittled to this sociaal housing if her children have grown up and since moved out? This is for those in need, where now she does not have that need. So why should she retain such social housing which is meant for example single parent families? Is it fair or right that people stay on in a property they only obtained through difficultues of being a single mother rasing two children, which now they clearly no longer hav such a requirement for?

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well no, because if he'd said she had to move so a migrant could move in, I'd say the same thing.
Which is anti-immigration and anti-refugee.
We are all humans, yet you constantly place a barrier to hinder helping human beings
That is utterly wrong

I'm not sure that we're talking about social housing here - the reports seem to imply that it's not social housing as such, and that she pays the market rate, so she's not being subsidised in any way - the first woman anyway. If it was a private landlord, would you also say that someone who pays the going rate for their flat was being selfish in wanting to stay in it?
Its owned by the council and it has been stated in many reports its a council property

If we were talking about council housing here in the UK, I have no objecting to single people having to move to a smaller place so that the council house is then free for a larger family. However, I think that should apply to citizens, and I don't think that people from other countries should have any kind of priority over citizens.

Again you just said you have no problem to single parent families in this need and then want to hinder some because of their citizenship and not their actual dire need.
That is utterly wrong, as all should be helped

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:I just want to know why from anyone here, that they feel she is still entittled to this sociaal housing if her children have grown up and since moved out? This is for those in need, where now she does not have that need. So why should she retain such social housing which is meant for example single parent families? Is it fair or right that people stay on in a property they only obtained through difficultues of being a single mother rasing two children, which now they clearly no longer hav such a requirement for?

As I told you, it's apparently not social housing in the way we understand the term.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Again you just said you have no problem to single parent families in this need and then want to hinder some because of their citizenship and not their actual dire need.
That is utterly wrong, as all should be helped

Meh. You can say it's wrong all you like, but I just think that citizens of a country should take priority. I didn't have a problem with that myself in New Zealand when I was told that New Zealanders have priority when it comes to jobs, so it's not like I'm being a hypocrite or anything.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

As I told you, it's apparently not social housing in the way we understand the term.

Which you have failed to even show if and how different.
Again answer the questions I have raised based on if it is the case she obtained because she was a single mother with two children.

So again

I just want to know why from anyone here, that they feel she is still entittled to this sociaal housing if her children have grown up and since moved out? This is for those in need, where now she does not have that need. So why should she retain such social housing which is meant for example single parent families? Is it fair or right that people stay on in a property they only obtained through difficultues of being a single mother rasing two children, which now they clearly no longer hav such a requirement for?

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Meh. You can say it's wrong all you like, but I just think that citizens of a country should take priority. I didn't have a problem with that myself in New Zealand when I was told that New Zealanders have priority when it comes to jobs, so it's not like I'm being a hypocrite or anything.

Those in most dire need should take priority.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Those in most dire need should take priority.

So you think I should have got that job in New Zealand then?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Which you have failed to even show if and how different.
Again answer the questions I have raised based on if it is the case she obtained because she was a single mother with two children.

So again

I just want to know why from anyone here, that they feel she is still entittled to this sociaal housing if her children have grown up and since moved out? This is for those in need, where now she does not have that need. So why should she retain such social housing which is meant for example single parent families? Is it fair or right that people stay on in a property they only obtained through difficultues of being a single mother rasing two children, which now they clearly no longer hav such a requirement for?

I haven't failed to do anything. I told you - it's not subsidised housing, and she pays the market rate. Therefore, how does she benefit any more than if she lived in a flat with a different landlord? How do you know she obtained the flat because she was a single mother with two children?

Cuchulain wrote:


Here we go again, where you do everything to avoid saying either way.
Show me where she pays the market rate and whether that is social housing market rate?
Again you are just claiming things and not backing them up and I want reliable socurces please.

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

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Here we go again, where you do everything to avoid saying either way.
Show me where she pays the market rate and whether that is social housing market rate?
Again you are just claiming things and not backing them up and I want reliable socurces please.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11891631/German-woman-threatened-with-eviction-to-make-way-for-refugees.html

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

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11891631/German-woman-threatened-with-eviction-to-make-way-for-refugees.html

I said reliable socurces
Like for example actual German socurces like social housing and council properties in Germany.
I am sure you can use google translate.
So your claim is groundless.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


I said reliable socurces
Like for example actual German socurces like social housing and council properties in Germany.
I am sure you can use google translate.
So your claim is groundless.

You asked me to back up what I said, and I have. Moving the goal posts won't work.

Now the onus is on you to contradict the report.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You asked me to back up what I said, and I have. Moving the goal posts won't work.

Now the onus is on you to contradict the report.

Yes I said a reliable source.
This is a media report which is based on hearsay.
It goes off a third hand source, did you not know?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Yes I said a reliable source.
This is a media report which is based on hearsay.
It goes off a third hand source, did you not know?

So find a report where it says that it's social housing and that she pays less than the market rate.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So find a report where it says that it's social housing and that she pays less than the market rate.

Ah the penny drops.
This is why I said you need to research further such housing in Germany.
You never did, but I bet this is there to assit those in need.
So at least you now realise your source was just hearsay

Bravo

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, actually he's saying that would be an absurd result.  He's saying that given the limited resources, this is the best way to maximize benefits.  The formula of utilitarianism was the most good for the most people (John Stuart Mill) and this is the best way to do that.

I think you're making too much of the gym comment. He could have said that he'd have to put them in tents, or in a football stadium, or in church hall, or wherever.

The point is that he wants to boot one person out of their home so that another person can move in. That to me makes no sense because then the first person is homeless instead. If she can find another flat, then clearly there is another flat vacant, and he could move a refugee or few into that flat instead of kicking her out of her existing home. I don't get why you don't get that.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think you're making too much of the gym comment. He could have said that he'd have to put them in tents, or in a football stadium, or in church hall, or wherever.

The point is that he wants to boot one person out of their home so that another person can move in. That to me makes no sense because then the first person is homeless instead. If she can find another flat, then clearly there is another flat vacant, and he could move a refugee or few into that flat instead of kicking her out of her existing home. I don't get why you don't get that.

Well, regardless of who is at fault, I agree that too much is made of the gym comment.  It was just a figure of speech.

The real point is, the whole thing is none of yours or my business.  It's a dispute between a landlord and a tenant.  The landlord is within his rights, and a bunch of you feel sorry for the tenant.  But the truth is, it's not your concern.  How would you like a bunch of officious Englishmen sticking their nose into your business?  It's called privity of contract for a reason.  Next you'll be looking after whether she flushed, or if she lets dishes accumulate in the sink.

Now, I understand it's not that you care so much for her as you want to maximize the pain for a bunch of Muslims.  If you advocate for her, in her plight, you bring criticism down on the Syrians who are in a bad way themselves.  It's a form of adverse argument...pitting one victim against another.

But whenever I hear a form of adverse argument, I ask, why not take care of both?  All of your moral cluck-clucking should be focused on the German state not putting enough resources into the solution.  It's simple: provide enough housing for both the nurse and the Syrian refugees.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think you're making too much of the gym comment. He could have said that he'd have to put them in tents, or in a football stadium, or in church hall, or wherever.

The point is that he wants to boot one person out of their home so that another person can move in. That to me makes no sense because then the first person is homeless instead. If she can find another flat, then clearly there is another flat vacant, and he could move a refugee or few into that flat instead of kicking her out of her existing home. I don't get why you don't get that.

Well, regardless of who is at fault, I agree that too much is made of the gym comment.  It was just a figure of speech.

The real point is, the whole thing is none of yours or my business.  It's a dispute between a landlord and a tenant.  The landlord is within his rights, and a bunch of you feel sorry for the tenant.  But the truth is, it's not your concern.  How would you like a bunch of officious Englishmen sticking their nose into your business?  It's called privity of contract for a reason.  Next you'll be looking after whether she flushed, or if she lets dishes accumulate in the sink.

Now, I understand it's not that you care so much for her as you want to maximize the pain for a bunch of Muslims.  If you advocate for her, in her plight, you bring criticism down on the Syrians who are in a bad way themselves.  It's a form of adverse argument...pitting one victim against another.

But whenever I hear a form of adverse argument, I ask, why not take care of both?  All of your moral cluck-clucking should be focused on the German state not putting enough resources into the solution.  It's simple: provide enough housing for both the nurse and the Syrian refugees.

Raggamuffin wrote:Let's just say that more people are evicted so that housing can be used for refugees. Eventually, there will nowhere for those evicted tenants to move to, right? They won't be able to build enough new ones quickly enough.

Cuchulain wrote:How is social housing financed?
It is very difficult to give a comprehensive picture of the financial mechanisms for social housing provision because municipalities and provinces have a great deal of responsibility for housing policy and therefore there are no centralised records and because funding programmes have evolved over time. In general, public subsidies (grants or tax relief) cover the gap between the perceived rent and cost rent. Public subsidies decrease progressively and at the same time the rent increases. At the end of the amortization period (typically 20 to 40 years for dwellings newly built with public subsidies, and 12-20 years for renovated dwellings) the dwelling can be let or sold at market rates. In practice though, municipally owned companies often continue to operate the units as de facto social housing in terms of rents and access. Housing allowances are also available for people below certain income ceilings, notwithstanding whether they rent or own their house.

---

Who can access social housing?
The target groups are defined by the legislation as households who cannot secure themselves with an adequate accommodation and need support. The policy supports in particular low-income households as well as families and other households with children, single parents, pregnant women, elderly, homeless and other needy persons.


http://www.housingeurope.eu/resource-107/social-housing-in-europe

So she really is no longer ticking the boxes from the little knowledge we know to qualify now for such housing. As seen the rent generally stays also cheap. Which she argues she pays the market rate, which could again mean what is the rate for social housing. Not only that the Muncipality claim dispute what she has said. Anyhow this is a Muncipality property which is meant for the above criteria. Which to me she really no loner qualifies for.

German Nurse salaries:

http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Nurse-l-German,-VA.html

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


I said reliable socurces
Like for example actual German socurces like social housing and council properties in Germany.
I am sure you can use google translate.
So your claim is groundless.

You asked me to back up what I said, and I have. Moving the goal posts won't work.

Now the onus is on you to contradict the report.

Yes I said a reliable source.
This is a media report which is based on hearsay.
It goes off a third hand source, did you not know?

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'd just like to point out again that if any of the issues being discussed here were being done by Germans, the right wingers wouldn't even notice. The only reason this is somehow a "siege" in their view is because it involves Muslims.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'd just like to point out again that if any of the issues being discussed here were being done by Germans, the right wingers wouldn't even notice. The only reason this is somehow a "siege" in their view is because it involves Muslims.