Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
students, law where 3 have to apply?, call about, 3 means, are not…
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
that being said since there are thing that 3 people must due as a unit that live together that like what is listed to me makes them a functional family.
they are all responsible for garbage so they have to buy city bags and work together to take out the garbage.
-
whenever one person moves out everyone together has agreed that the apartment is to look as clean as it was when they moved in
so they are responsible to work together as a family unit to get it done they all agree to this before moving in
-
-
-
without being definitive of what is not reasonable it gives the board the power to discriminate on other attributes.as far as age personal life style or even race.
for personal reasons, tenants must now give the government personal information about their lifestyle.to live were they want
For example you asked me if the were boyfriend or girlfriend and shared the same room and that would be a justification
I could list a number of personal and even religious reasons that inflammation would need to be hidden from others.
this as a landlord would require me to ask personal information of others that is restricted by law as well.
simple fact is you have people who want to live with people they just met or never known who am i to stop that.
-
City discriminates against students because of parking this is not just a student problem.The city could make a law on number of cars allowed on the street or require street parking permits or put in meters this law cannot be discrimitor or abratary to the individuals that happen to be living in property.
Discrimination against students because of party houses. You can't discriminate on a person because of the crime or violation they may commit now I don't believe NY law would allow landlords to discriminate based on past violence or criminality.
-
-
-
-
-
elimination of a market artificially lowing rental prices creating loss revinue on landlord lowing profibillty for the entire market not just individuals that rent to students emenit domain without compisation
-
-
-
-
the law is prejudice to the individuals defined in subsection c and d and are in violation of due prosses laws and 4th amendment
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
the term Sufficient evidence In Subsection E is not quantitative and is ambiguous and as defined gives room for extreme prejudice by the zoning board
-
-
you have to provide something that can not be defined that you have not been proven by the city that you don't have in the first place.
-
-
With nothing more than the fact that the city may know that 4 or more students are living together this law gives the city the right to search for this lack of Sufficient evidence. by forcing someone to prove they have this Sufficient evidence
The bottom line is you can't be fined if it the city can't prove you are not in possession of Sufficient evidence and they cant get this evedents unless they violate your rights.
The city cant prove you don't have Sufficient evidence without first violating due possess and the 4th amendment
If the landlord refuses or tenants refuse to give sufficient evidence then who is in criminal or civil violation of the law?
the city is using coercion with civil or criminal penalty to force an individual to submit to this illegal search for Sufficient evidence by the city
because the city is in violation of these rights the city can be held liable for its action in violation of these rights and any damages done from the enforcement of this law to all parts negatively affected by it.
-
-
The city is accusing you of having a lack of sufficent evedince without having the proof you are not in possetion of it.
-
The city is fining you for not having sufficient evidence without having eve dice that you do not posses this sufficient evidence
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
having more than 4 students is not a violation of the law. not having Sufficient evidence with 4 or more students is.
Since having 4 or more students is not illegal unless there is a lack of sufficient evidence the city does not have probable cause to demand sufficient evidence. The sufficient evidence is protected by the 4th Amendment in this case being papers since they are requiring me to show them documentation with a threat of criminal action if I do not comply. Again they do not have probable cause to justify this demand.
To have probable cause the city would not only have to discover 4 or more students living on the property but would also be required to prove that you do not have sufficient evidence this can not be done without my compliance
This violates the 5th amendment none shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. I am the only one that can prove that i lack sufficient evidence.
In section B 8.Any other factor reasonably related to whether or not a group is a functional equivalent of a family
Now if i was to define sufficient evidence it would be just 1 section and it would be In section B 8."Any other factor reasonably related to whether or not a group is a functional equivalent of a family"
-
I define a group of individuals that hold hands while dancing around in circles singing nursery rhymes a functional family.
and just showing video documentation of this should be sufficient evidence that the individuals are a functional family