Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
dadochipper wrote on Nov 12, 2009 7:35 PM:
Pure_brandi wrote on Nov 12, 2009 6:29 PM:
I know (unfortunately) far too many people over the years that reside in this county that had LITERALLY made a living on food stamps, cash benefits, disability and gov't housing and loved the life of laziness not being required to work anymore...wish I had that option...
amadeus wrote on Nov 12, 2009 11:21 AM:
dadochipper wrote on Nov 10, 2009 11:03 AM:
Since the OWNERS set the rules, they are the only ones who legally have to be "happy" about it. If you dont like the rules, move.
..and "frogs?" Really, I would have expected better from a blowhard such as yourself...I am disappointed Amadeus!
Local Lady wrote on Nov 10, 2009 10:52 AM:
winningistheonlyoption wrote on Nov 9, 2009 1:26 PM:
amadeus wrote on Nov 9, 2009 9:14 AM:
orecoast007 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 4:54 PM:
orecoast007 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 4:08 PM:
mhs alumni wrote on Nov 7, 2009 8:06 AM:
I'll gladly give up the taxes they pay on their cigarettes if they will give up their food stamps, free housing, cash assistance...etc. etc. etc.
And for the veterans who are living in this housing...thank you for your service to our country...thank you for letting me live in a free country
now maybe the government should treat our veterans right and not cause them to live in poverty
Kantor wrote on Nov 7, 2009 8:02 AM:
You said, "I certainly would never walk up to a hero veteran (and they ALL are as far as I am concerned) or any other citizen who had worked hard all their lives and ended up forgotten and poor, and tell them they could not smoke in their own homes."
Guess what? The apartments are NOT their own homes! They don't OWN them. They're somebody ELSE's. And they're getting to live in them for a cheap rate. It doesn't matter if the person is a veteran, disabled, retired, whatever. They have to abide by the rules of the entity that owns the building, period. Wouldn't you want to be able to make the rules if YOU owned the place?
dadochipper wrote on Nov 6, 2009 9:24 PM:
ocnlvr83 wrote on Nov 6, 2009 2:11 PM:
dan milburn wrote on Nov 6, 2009 11:38 AM:
Smoking inside the buildings ruins the paint, curtains etc. All Government Owned buildings are subject to NO SMOKING RULES. I never smoked inside Housing Authority buildings when I worked there. These units are very nice inside and the Housing Authority has a limited maintenance allowance and it shouldn't be wasted replacing CIGARETTE SMOKE DAMAGED paint, curtains etc. You should see the inside of the fan housings and duct work when the unit has been smoked in. This isn't permanent housing, its temporary in most cases and it is quite expensive to go in after smokers and redo everything before you can move the next family in.
My question is why is somebody there for 12-years. They need a section 8 and move on.
barack obama wrote on Nov 6, 2009 10:24 AM:
amadeus wrote on Nov 6, 2009 9:32 AM:
rcflyer wrote on Nov 5, 2009 4:05 PM:
dadochipper wrote on Nov 5, 2009 3:12 PM:
holly72 wrote on Nov 5, 2009 2:55 PM:
Thats right they should have to take a drug test and not tell them they need to take a drug test. Heck, more then half the people who live in coos county wouldnt have any state help! I really can't see although the state enforcing that when many of them are smoking pot for themselves or on other drugs. All you have to know is one state employee and man do they rag each other out..
clairecat wrote on Nov 5, 2009 1:11 PM:
amadeus wrote on Nov 5, 2009 10:19 AM:
(shudder) :p
amadeus wrote on Nov 5, 2009 10:15 AM:
The Brutal Truth wrote on Nov 5, 2009 10:11 AM:
Nice try with the "live free or die" drivel.
Do you not understand the point most here are making?
The people that rent those units are tennants, not owners. Therefore they are not free to do as they please while living there.
Its the same as how I'm not allowed to smoke or own a pet in the house I rent (which has a private owner). You don't hear me complaining, because its NOT MY HOUSE, and I am happy to abide by the owners rules.
If I wanted to do either of those things badly enough, I'm free (see that? I'm FREE) to move someplace where I can.
amadeus wrote on Nov 5, 2009 10:09 AM:
Just An Observer wrote on Nov 5, 2009 9:26 AM:
10 years ago a carton of smokes would have been around $15. Thanks to taxes that carton now costs over three times as much.
People should be grateful the smokers don't quit en masse and stick the rest of the non-smokers with an even higher tax burden!
Just An Observer wrote on Nov 5, 2009 9:21 AM:
Hitler had over 90% support. Talk about majorities! Hitler also was a non-smoker, a non-drinker, a vegetarian and he loved dogs. Had a pretty girlfriend too!
Today we call people like that "Californians"...LOL! Americans who smoked up a storm, drank like fishes, ate all the meat they could find and had ugly mamas, sisters, girlfriends and wives kicked Adolf's goosesteppers all the way back to the Elbe.
Looks like we need to do the same thing except head south to the Smith River and send the rest of the anti-smoking anti-freedom control-your-life crowd from the left back to LaLaLand, then do the same to the rightwingnuts as we push them back across the Snake River. As a native Oregonian I don't follow the herd or the politically correct sentiment of the day from either extreme.
Pure_brandi wrote on Nov 5, 2009 8:14 AM:
Hiram1999 wrote on Nov 5, 2009 7:58 AM:
mhs alumni wrote on Nov 5, 2009 7:58 AM:
Common Sense wrote on Nov 5, 2009 7:50 AM:
Bad enough these air polluters get to pollute GOOD clean air that other non smokers breathe...
club40 wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:48 PM:
m00npenny wrote on Nov 4, 2009 7:27 PM:
m00npenny wrote on Nov 4, 2009 7:26 PM:
clairecat wrote on Nov 4, 2009 5:12 PM:
Norse Girl wrote on Nov 4, 2009 3:17 PM:
Nancy wrote on Nov 4, 2009 2:51 PM:
holly72 wrote on Nov 4, 2009 2:47 PM:
marymoonbeam wrote on Nov 4, 2009 2:38 PM:
Stupid is as stupid does!
Eastsider wrote on Nov 4, 2009 2:22 PM:
The Brutal Truth wrote on Nov 4, 2009 2:08 PM:
This is awesome. I LOVE it!
Those people DO NOT have the right to do whatever they want in or on those properties, because they DON'T OWN THEM! They are tennants!
Mark Smith wrote on Nov 4, 2009 1:34 PM:
I make a decent salary but when I pay outrageous cost for insurance and rent, food and gas there isn't a lot left over that taxes don't take. You are basically costing me money that I cannot afford either.
You have all the rights in the world, but if you are on public assistant then you may need to adjust those accordingly.
You always have the option of working to better yourselves and get a better job to afford a place of your own that isn't on my tax dollars.
oliver woods wrote on Nov 4, 2009 1:20 PM:
I totally agree with you and will add that I don't care if my thoughts offend anyone.
Further, spending over $4 on a pack of smokes when it is not only a health maintenace risk, but also takes nourishing food of of one's table, rubs me very, very wrong, while further considering the taxes I pay contribute to the lifestyle.
Our state of existence is a cumulative product of past and current decisions made!
1313 wrote on Nov 4, 2009 1:14 PM:
And the mess in the apts. from smokers is bad and hard to get the smell out.
loventhecoast wrote on Nov 4, 2009 12:47 PM:
No disrespect meant by any of what i wrote, just how i feel.
Just An Observer wrote on Nov 4, 2009 11:35 AM:
Ned Beman is waaay off base on costs coming back to renters. HUD/Section 8 and Housing Authority rentals are based on a percentage of income, not whether someone smokes or has smoked before in an unit. Today we hear lots of whining about those "expenses" but I didn't see any landlords go broke over them in preceding years. PHANTOM CLAIM!
Addinmg further to the PHANTOM CLAIM is if these claims are true, why aren't these supposed savings reflected in the rent being paid where smoking is not allowed? Yeah, right!




The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.
Please follow these basic rules:
- No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
- No deliberately false information.
- No obscenity or racially offensive language.
- No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
- No information that invades another person's privacy.
- No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.
The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.
Close Guidelines