Rahm Emanuel’s Illegal D.C. Basement Rental

[Templar]

Is there anyone in the new administration who's not "bending" the law?

Rahm Emanuel’s Illegal D.C. Basement Rental
February 4th, 2009
Link found @ Expose Obama

By Owen Thomas, Gawker

Another top Obama official ignores the rules

He’s the cheapskate of staff. Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama’s right-hand man, lives in a basement apartment on Capitol Hill rented to him by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. Just one problem: He’s not allowed to live there.

That’s what private investigator Joseph Culligan discovered after asking questions of D.C. officials. A zoning administrator responded to Culligan’s inquiry and told him that DeLauro’s house at 816 E. Capitol St. NE was listed as a single-family dwelling, and as such, could not be rented out.

Emanuel, who splits his time between Chicago and D.C., will not have this low-rent problem for very long. He's looking for a new home in Washington. Still, he should consider himself lucky if his firetrap of a residence is the worst dirt one can dig on him. Compared to Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle's unpaid tax bills, it's a lower-middle-class problem.

[toreskha]

I don't like Obama/Emmanuel's political views, but things like this are exceedingly minor issues and make us seem nit-picky when we bring them out as a major issue. Many renters or people with large families in one house are probably technically in violation of these laws and fortunately they're rarely enforced.

Now if he were paying for that apartment out of a slush fund, that would be some dirt.

[maybejim]

I don't like Obama/Emmanuel's political views, but things like this are exceedingly minor issues and make us seem nit-picky when we bring them out as a major issue. Many renters or people with large families in one house are probably technically in violation of these laws and fortunately they're rarely enforced.

Now if he were paying for that apartment out of a slush fund, that would be some dirt.

Fortunately? I guess you don't live in Kalifornia (or anywhere there are a lot of illegals). We have a fire every month or so because illegals have moved into houses overfilling it using areas not legal for habitation. Ever notice a house in the neighborhood that has 8 or 10 vehicles every night? Why would you not want habitation laws enforced?

[toreskha]

Fortunately? I guess you don't live in Kalifornia (or anywhere there are a lot of illegals). We have a fire every month or so because illegals have moved into houses overfilling it using areas not legal for habitation. Ever notice a house in the neighborhood that has 8 or 10 vehicles every night? Why would you not want habitation laws enforced?

First of all it's private property. What is it going to be like when the government starts telling people who they can have living in their house, so long as they're here legally? If someone wants to have 20 people living in the house and 10 cars in the yard, it's their house and yard. When the cars end up in someone else's yard or are obstructing traffic, then it's interfering with the liberty of others - but that would be the case even if only one person lived there.

Secondly, family takes a higher priority than aesthetics. Living with one's entire extended family is common among some people. We should be thankful for that kind of familial social cohesion in a time of astronomical divorce rates and unsupervised latchkey children running the streets. Many of our ancestors lived that way many years ago and it worked out great. I personally know a household with 10 people living together in a small house and 5 cars in the yard. If that type of family-centered living arrangement had remained the model for our society, we would be much better for it.

[maybejim]

First of all it's private property.

I respect private property rights up to the point that it endangers/impinges on the neighbors.

What is it going to be like when the government starts telling people who they can have living in their house, so long as they're here legally?

That is a key point in Kalifornia (and I understand around the country), "legally".

someone wants to have 20 people living in the house and 10 cars in the yard, it's their house and yard.

First of all since the houses are not set up for 20 people living in them, the arrangements made typically ignore building codes and are dangerous. Second, there are not 10 cars in the yard but scattered on the street. But you are right they do often park on the yard which reduces the value of the neighborhood.

Secondly, family takes a higher priority than aesthetics.

If you like living in a 3rd world country, I suppose you are correct. But we're not talking close "family". We're talking strangers and "extended" families, i.e. cousins, 2nd cousins, etc. etc.. In the subject that this thread is about, Rahm Emanuel is not family.

If that type of family-centered living arrangement had remained the model for our society, we would be much better for it.

I don't believe that for a second. But at least around here that type of situation is associated with illegals, crime and gangs.

[toreskha]

I respect private property rights up to the point that it endangers/impinges on the neighbors.

Me too - so as long as the extended family living arrangements we're talking about do not endanger or impinge on the neighbors, then everything is fine.

First of all since the houses are not set up for 20 people living in them, the arrangements made typically ignore building codes and are dangerous. Second, there are not 10 cars in the yard but scattered on the street. But you are right they do often park on the yard which reduces the value of the neighborhood.

Well, parking all down the street is going to be a problem for the neighborhood - no matter what the living arrangement is. If there's one guy living there and he parks his Madden Cruiser right in the middle of the cul-de-sac, it's going to make everyone mad.

If you like living in a 3rd world country, I suppose you are correct. But we're not talking close "family". We're talking strangers and "extended" families, i.e. cousins, 2nd cousins, etc. etc.. In the subject that this thread is about, Rahm Emanuel is not family.

Hopefully he isn't. Rahm is renting a basement apartment for himself. I've done a similar type of arrangement in an area where the codes didn't technically allow it. So, I guess I stand guilty of violating some law that allows the government to snoop on how many free adult citizens are living in a house with me. Papers, comrade!

There's an assumption that renters are negligent thugs who tend to destroy stuff - notwithstanding the fact that responsible homeowners were once renters themselves. I doubt Rahm, or most renters actually, are into the "wild party binge drinking" thing.

I don't believe that for a second. But at least around here that type of situation is associated with illegals, crime and gangs.

For people in the United States prior to the Civil War, living in a house with your parents, children, a set of grandparents and some cousins wasn't that unusual. Family was the center of their social worldview, and it made for a very healthy home life. The same is true of people in many foreign countries today. We lost that somewhere along the line, and things have been eroding every since.

It's true that gangs are a problem, and many gangs coalesce around ethnic lines, since they stick together. However, the rules with living space, as with gun ownership, need to be the same for everyone. It's not right to tell people who happen to live in small houses in low-income areas they can't live 10 to a house, while a dentist living with his family in a seaside villa can house his bedridden, ailing mother and rent out the guest house to his mentally slow brother.

[maybejim]

Rahm is renting a basement apartment for himself. I've done a similar type of arrangement in an area where the codes didn't technically allow it.

Well there you go, we'll put you down for being for ignoring inconvenient laws that are just for keeping quality of life up for a neighborhood.

There's an assumption that renters are negligent thugs who tend to destroy stuff

Actually there is some evidence of that. One of Sugarman's "studies" that he tried to promote as showing gun owners were more likely to commit murder actually had renting as the single thing that most correlated with murder.

I doubt Rahm, or most renters actually, are into the "wild party binge drinking" thing.

Yet renters are more likely to fail to care for the property they live in and lead towards the deterioration of neighborhoods.

For people in the United States prior to the Civil War, living in a house with your parents, children, a set of grandparents and some cousins wasn't that unusual.

And there were fewer homeowners and no welfare and times were considerably different. It really wasn't all that good a way to live, and you seem to want to return to it.

How is it all these big shot Dem's are into breaking one law or another? And why would you make excuses for them?

It's not right to tell people who happen to live in small houses in low-income areas they can't live 10 to a house,

Oh my! So you think 10 people in a 500 sq ft house is the same as 10 people in a 5000 sq ft house?

[toreskha]

Well there you go, we'll put you down for being for ignoring inconvenient laws that are just for keeping quality of life up for a neighborhood.

Actually there is some evidence of that. One of Sugarman's "studies" that he tried to promote as showing gun owners were more likely to commit murder actually had renting as the single thing that most correlated with murder.

Yet renters are more likely to fail to care for the property they live in and lead towards the deterioration of neighborhoods.

I'm a renter, and take better care of this house than the owner does. There will be no deterioration of the neighborhood if I have anything to do with it. All roommates I have ever had have been quiet and relatively neat. Renterphobia seems to be along the same lines of people illogically assuming that CWPs on college campuses will spell disaster.

And there were fewer homeowners and no welfare and times were considerably different. It really wasn't all that good a way to live, and you seem to want to return to it.

Time hasn't changed; people have. It wasn't so bad then, and there's nothing wrong with it now, for people who are comfortable living that way. People who are not used to living in large groups would find it uncomfortable and smothering. People who are used to it would find people living apart from their parents to be just as strange.

How is it all these big shot Dem's are into breaking one law or another? And why would you make excuses for them?

Will you make "excuses" when there's a law passed outlawing civilian ownership of firearms altogether? I expect many people here would break that law because it's based on unsound principles - if they didn't, that would be disappointing. Does that make us all criminals? No, the government is criminal in that case - it simply means that we're Americans upholding the Constitution.

I'm not going to condemn Rahm or anyone else violating "laws" that are invalid in the first place, and are also widely "violated" by most of the rest of us. I will condemn actual corruption, regardless of political affiliation or situation.