this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
142 points (94.9% liked)

Chicago

1039 readers
10 users here now

Welcome to [email protected]

where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about Chicago.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Fediverse Love

Lemmy Communities
Mastodon Servers

banner credit: tim gouw

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
142
Logan Square landlord evicts tenant for flying Palestine flag (chicagoreader.com)
submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The scumbag also owns the Logan Theater.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 58 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

Fishman sent her maintenance man to deliver a ten-day eviction notice to her door.

Yeah, that's not legal. Hope the tenant finds a good lawyer.

Mun. Code Ch. 5-12-170: Under the 2020 revisions of the RLTO (“Fair Notice Ordinance”), Landlords must provide a tenant that is not in the eviction process: • 30 days of notice to terminate a month-to-month tenancy, decline to renew your lease or raise your rent if you have lived in your apartment for less than six months. • 60 days of notice for the same if you have lived in your apartment for more than six months but less than three years.

One of the high-points in my life was having a landlord show up with the local sheriffs to try and force an eviction that up until this point had only been verbal. I happily showed them the state's tenant laws that said "30 days after written notice is provided" and had a lawyer friend on speed dial if they had any questions. Landlord got so belligerent that the sheriffs escorted them off instead.

Also a PSA: If you rent, know your rights.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Ten day notice may be given under certain conditions including breach of contract, see ILCS 5-9/210 and Chicago municipal code 5-12-130. And in this case, the landlord claims displaying a flag is a breach of contract.

(Note that the notice means that the lease will end in ten days, which is when eviction proceedings may start. It will take considerably longer for the courts to send a sheriff out to enforce it).

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Landlords can’t legally remove someone from a unit until they’ve filed in court and a judge orders the Cook County Sheriff’s Office to enforce the eviction.

Sounds like he'd have to go through a judge first too.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

True, at the end of a ten day (or 30 day) notice, the landlord can go to court to force the tenant out. This process will take a while, but it will immediately blacklist the tenant and make it much harder for them to find a new rental.

So in practice, it's often better to leave before the landlord goes to court.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I've got some rentals. What is this blacklist you are talking about?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Just a figure of speech. But getting an eviction proceeding in your rental history report is like getting a bankruptcy in your credit history report.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The list is the municipal public record system and you enter it by setting foot in housing court. A lot of background checks will include that anywhere it is legal to do so.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So what happens when you are blacklisted? You become homeless? Aren't there anti-discrimination housing laws?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't think you become homeless but the options certainly decrease by a lot and the quality won't be as good. Anti-discrimination laws are on the basis of, e.g., race, disability, or family status. Unless there are state laws against checking previous court cases, I don't think there's anything stopping that as a basis for refusing to lease a place.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Damn that's brutal. Do they treat landlords the same way? If you get caught stealing security deposits, you weren't allowed to rent to people anymore? I guess I wouldn't mind if it went both ways...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's probably not an eviction notice, but a "comply or vacate" notice. Journalists often confuse "eviction notice", which is a court order, with the sort of formal written demand notices that tenants are entitled to receive.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't know how many times you need to see people abuse their power before you stop giving parasites the benefit of the doubt.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I'm a professional in the industry.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ah, a group of which is known as an infection.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Landlords?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And their overseers

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Banned him. No admitted landlords on this instance

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

❤️

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But it's the tankies that are authoritarian...

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If you think authoritarianism exists on a single side of the political spectrum, you're likely brainwashed.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Is killing Nazis authoritarian? If so is every "authoritarian" measure equal?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

A government ordering the killing of any group (political, ethnic, etc) abandoning due process for the individuals is authoritarian.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

That doesn't answer the question though. If a government ordered the killing of Nazis that would be very different than a government enforcing the eviction of someone displaying a flag in solidarity with people being genocided by Nazis.

You do realize how those two things are different right?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That doesn't answer the question though.

Yes it absolutely does. Your question was "Is killing Nazis authoritarian?"

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

Okay so is it?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Those aren't mutually exclusive to define authoritarianism. I wouldn't expect someone from hexbear to come with a good faith debate though.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Okay lets back this up a step, I made a comment pointing out the authoritarian nature of capitalism which allows the shit like what happened in the OP.

You come in trying to both sides this shit.

So are you defending landlords? Because this is obviously fucked up and the landlord in question (and all other landlords imo) should be dispossessed of their property which would be an "authoritarian" measure.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

authoritarian nature of capitalism

Plenty of instances of communists doing the same shit. Please refer to my original post.

Authoritarianism is not tied to political ideology. Authoritarianism takes advantage of whatever the political environment is. To think one environment doesn't allow for authoritarianism while the other does is extremely naive. This isn't a "both sides" argument, this is an argument that you incorrectly associate authoritarianism with only capitalism.

I don't know how else I can explain this to you, so this will be my last response.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Please spare me this nonsense go read a book.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Yo know even the BBC journalists that were there said there was no massacre right?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

lol, is this the comment that made some midwest.social mod go buck wild banning you from every comm they could? This is where you (checks modlog notes) were "denying a massacre"? Mod who did that: please make sure to ban not only other users who mention what the BBC says, but also that you remove any posts that link CBS News and the New York Times for their tankie propaganda massacre-denialism!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/there-was-no-tiananmen-square-massacre/

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/13/world/turmoil-china-tiananmen-crackdown-student-s-account-questioned-major-points.html

There it is, @ringwraithfish^ !

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But there's no question many people were killed by the army that night around Tiananmen Square, and on the way to it.

Come on.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And there were many soldiers who were also killed as well, the first of which were not even armed but were lynched. There was absolutely fighting in the streets in the surrounding area, and no one denies that people did die. But it was a mutually armed struggle, not a massacre. Calling it a massacre distorts the reality and paints a distorted picture that is beneficial to the west and especially the current anti-China narrative.

The fighting I mentioned above was also heavily instigated and pushed to happen by westerners with a vested interest in harming China who were there to rile up protesters and encourage them to do violence, but then left in helicopters when fighting did start. Some of these instigators have openly admitted this and now live happily in the US. It was not a "massacre."

Come on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Then post articles that say that and not articles that refute your own point. Otherwise you're just being pedantic that no one was killed within the square itself.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

It was not a "massacre."

Then post articles that say that and not articles that refute your own point.

picard Even the title of the first article I posted is "There Was No 'Tiananmen Square Massacre'" It's in the url for chrissakes. This is beyond a failure of reading comprehension, it's a failure to even look at words.

It was not. a. massacre. It is not at all pedantic to point this fact out. Especially when people, following a blatantly propagandist narrative line, incorrectly call it that.

My choosing those two sources specifically among the thousands of others that was to point out how ridiculous it is to ban someone for "denying a massacre" when even mainstream western news sources (in addition to the BBC as was mentioned in the comment that caught that user the ban lol), including one of the most famous mouthpieces for the U.S. government's foreign policy, likewise "deny" that it was a massacre and likewise would have been banned according to the silly mod's standards. Those articles did not at all refute my point, they clearly made it, as should be obvious to anyone able to follow this thread.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There it is!

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

There wat is?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (3 children)

This is liberalism at its purest: absolutely no ideology or investigation, just a smug one liner and an unchecked source. You haven't read this book at all, otherwise you wouldn't be surprised by him saying there was no massacre in tiananmen square - Vijay states the same in the book, and speculates the army didn't fire a single shot to retake it from protestors.

You are an absolutely fucking useless being who radiates pure ignorance.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is a really weird interpretation of authoritarianism.... authoritarian regimes often enforce their authority through 'due' process.

I think the point op is making is that liberal democracies defer authority to capital and enforces it on their behalf. There's a temptation to consider liberalism to be less authoritarian because of this deferral but it's mostly just a slight-of-hand

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well said.

Another very illustrative example of this kind of deferral and obfuscation played by liberal democracies with their use of authoritarianism is the continued use of literal slave labor specifically in the US, which is even enshrined in the constitution. The sleight-of-hand (sleight-of-tongue?) comes from shifting the term slavery into euphemisms for prison labor. A slave population of "prisoners," the vast majority of whom are People of Color, mostly black people, as is the slavery tradition, who are actually pipelined from their schools to prison, and criminalized for engaging in the only means they have of economic independence. The authoritarian slave drivers will tell the general populace they are "bad people, felons" and deserve to be sequestered away from society to live solitary lives doing hard labor for no pay (2 cents an hour doesn't count as pay.)

There is nothing more "authoritarian" than having actual slaves, which is the major reason the prison-industrial complex exists in the US and has more prisoners (read: slaves) than any other country in the world both in absolute numbers and per capita by a ridiculously large margin. That is capitalist-style authoritarianism.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Right on.

I think lemmy is filled with a lot of people who (maybe) understand this in fewer words. Case-in-point: there are plenty here who are acknowledging this dynamic played out through landlords and ownership of private property.

Making the leap from understanding that type of authority to the authority utilized by AES countries takes some time for some. Similar in the way reactionaries interpret Foucault's description of institutionalized power as inherently negative, power exercised by the state isn't inherently bad, either, especially when the alternative is allowing capitalists to claim it for themselves.

Pointing out that suppressive authority exists even in the liberal democracies that nominally espouse 'freedom' is a good first step but far from the last. The Tienanmen square thing is.... well it definitely gets in the way of that conversation. It's a bit of a socialist's Godwin's Law.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Soviets killed Nazis. They were simultaneously one of the most brutal regimes in history, especially under the leader (Stalin) that had the Nazis killed

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

Calling the Soviets, the people who liberated the concentration camps and lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty one of the "most brutal regimes in history" is literally Nazi propaganda. Stop repeating Nazi propaganda.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Liberals love free speech until you bring up their settler projects

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Liberals are right-wingers.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago

And will have you evicted for protesting genocide.

load more comments
view more: next ›