JonLP24
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-09-08 12:49 AM
Original message |
|
That is one confusing as hell bill
|
tucsonlib
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-09-08 08:02 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I voted yesterday and left that one blank. On the one hand, it is opposed by the Arizona Homebuilders Assn. (IMHO a pretty good reason to support it right there). On the other hand, it's poorly written and, as you say, "confusing as hell". Thus, I chose to abstain.
|
Ptah
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-09-08 09:08 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Who writes this stuff? |
|
A "yes" vote would grant "prospective buyers" a right to sue over a dwelling action, permitting lawsuits despite alternative dispute resolution provisions in sales contracts, shortening buyer purchaser notice and seller response period before and after filing defects lawsuit, requiring seller to inspect dwelling after receiving notice, requiring any seller offer to include repair or replace option that must be performed by a licensed contractor, eliminating seller right to receive attorney fees and costs if the seller prevails, mandating seller to provide ten year warranty of materials and workmanship, requiring newly constructed dwelling contract to include disclosure of seller's financial relationship with a financial institution, disallowing seller from requiring a buyer deposit unless contract allows 100 day cancellation period, extending from eight to ten years the time to file suit against any person making improvements to real property, and expanding remedies available to an owner who is successful in a dwelling action against the seller.
|
mrreowwr_kittty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-13-08 04:48 PM
Response to Original message |
|
In the past decade there have been thousands of housing developments thrown up slapdash with numerous structural defects and poor workmanship. Current laws do not protect consumers enough and often force them into arbitration before mediators who are good buds with the home builders. The unions are supporting it and home builders are against it. That tells me everything I need to know.
|
JonLP24
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-14-08 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
I voted yes, but the commercials such as lawsuit abuse, you can file lawsuits even if you don't own the house threw me off. I took my time and I voted for it because the people we're for it and homeowners association were against it.
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-14-08 03:15 PM
Response to Original message |
5. No. It is written poorly. |
Desertrose
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-25-08 05:57 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Very confusing...but I voted yes. |
HCE SuiGeneris
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-27-08 07:16 PM
Response to Original message |
jillan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Nov-03-08 06:25 PM
Response to Original message |
8. NovaM is running commercials for it now - saying to vote yes. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 04:18 PM
Response to Original message |