Stop! Or I'll say Stop again!

[Panacea]

This is the most incredibly stupid thing I've read in quite some time.

Seems a judge has issued a restraining order against the owners of a hotel that has been the scene of some pretty nasty crime, including some shootings.

The judge has ordered that no further criminal activity take place at the hotel. Basically, his restraining order reads, "Don't let any crimes be committed on your property."

Yeah. Like that's gonna help.

http://www.news-record.com/content/2...greensboro_inn

[HYHYBT]

Don't you just hate articles that end with "click to continue reading" when clicking just takes you to a section of blank page?

Unless the crimes are being committed by the owners, or with their permission, in the first place then yes, this is stupid.

[Andara Bledin]

More info at The Business Journal

Apparently, the restraining order is the first step in the process for civil nuisance abatement actions. Consider it the city slapping the hotel with a notice that they're opening up a case against them for being a problem.

Don't you just hate articles that end with "click to continue reading" when clicking just takes you to a section of blank page?

I've never actually clicked an "after the jump" link; it's just easier for me to scroll down, but I certainly understand your pique at the ad format implying there was more article.

^-.-^

[Panacea]

More info at The Business Journal

Apparently, the restraining order is the first step in the process for civil nuisance abatement actions. Consider it the city slapping the hotel with a notice that they're opening up a case against them for being a problem.

Hmph. Great reporting by my local newspaper. Not.

[Mytical]

Wait, does that mean that if some crazy person goes on a shooting spree in a city hall or something..that if they survive (or if they don't their relatives) can then sue the government for not preventing it? Because they would be responsible for the crime after all..

Some days I think the collective IQ of some of the lawmakers is in the negatives, and other days .. I know it is. Any law passed about this would set a dangerous precedent. It could get to the point where any crime, regardless of circumstances, the person who's property it happened on would be responsible. I won't even get into the ridiculous thing about if a criminal gets harmed on your property by you or in the act of a crime they can sue mind..that is another boneheaded thing for another thread.

Ever see "Cops" where a criminal running through a bunch of backyards to get away? Or driving? So if that criminal shoots or runs over somebody..the person who's property they are on suddenly becomes responsible? What???

[Panacea]

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

The Greensboro Inn (the hotel in the original article) has a long history of prostitution, drug arrests, and a few shooting. The police are tired of responding to calls there, basically.

I didn't see that the city was going for an abatement in the original article, and it is stupid to require a restraining order for the first step. While it certainly sounds like the owners may not be running the place very well, the location probably has a lot to do with the issue, too (it's not in a great part of town).

The process should just let you go to court and file the nuisance. Why add an extra and unnecessary legal step?

[Andara Bledin]

There's a Marriott literally on the next block and a Biltmore and a local bed and breakfast each half a mile away from the Greensboro Inn. If there really is that much trouble at the Inn, then it's likely as much due to how it's managed and run as the neighborhood.

Also, as I surmised in my last post, the restraining order is likely a shot across the bow - it's a notice given to the trouble person/entity that they plan to do something more substantial and gives them a chance to actually clean up their act before the abatement commences.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

I've never actually clicked an "after the jump" link; it's just easier for me to scroll down, but I certainly understand your pique at the ad format implying there was more article.

Well, yes, if there's more down there to see. But it didn't say "after the jump" or anything else indicating it would be on the same page. How, then, are you supposed to know it doesn't lead to a longer article on a separate page? Other than knowing that particular site just does it that way for no reason.

Also, as I surmised in my last post, the restraining order is likely a shot across the bow - it's a notice given to the trouble person/entity that they plan to do something more substantial and gives them a chance to actually clean up their act before the abatement commences.

It sounds more like "next time someone looks like they're going to do a crime on your property, don't call us or we'll blame you for it."

[Andara Bledin]

But it didn't say "after the jump" or anything else indicating it would be on the same page.

I'd say that the down arrow after the words "continue reading" is a good indication that clicking the link is going to take you further down the page.

^-.-^

[Panacea]

There's a Marriott literally on the next block and a Biltmore and a local bed and breakfast each half a mile away from the Greensboro Inn. If there really is that much trouble at the Inn, then it's likely as much due to how it's managed and run as the neighborhood.

Also, as I surmised in my last post, the restraining order is likely a shot across the bow - it's a notice given to the trouble person/entity that they plan to do something more substantial and gives them a chance to actually clean up their act before the abatement commences.

^-.-^

Well . . . I'm sure you're right. In spite of the other hotels there, that's still not a great part of town. In spite of the "revitalization" of downtown Greensboro, there are still a lot of unsavory elements there, and a really bad neighborhood is a hop, skip and a jump away (I know, I do a lot of hospice visits there ).

But I find it incredulous that someone would need a restraining order to get them to clean up their act. I wouldn't want the police on my doorstep every night responding to this call or that. If the management is really this bad, and it is, then my guess is the place will either close soon or get taken over by the city.

Well, yes, if there's more down there to see. But it didn't say "after the jump" or anything else indicating it would be on the same page. How, then, are you supposed to know it doesn't lead to a longer article on a separate page? Other than knowing that particular site just does it that way for no reason.

Sorry about that. I read the N&R every day, and just scroll down so it didn't even occur to me that folks would get nailed by that.

[HYHYBT]

Sorry to have complained; it's certainly not YOUR fault. (Well, unless you're their webmaster or something.) It just seems like awful site design, as there is zero reason to have that *as a link* even when there is more article further down the same page.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

But there is a long standing tradition of taking what something means and what it actually says and using whichever one is most advantageous to you to your benefit.

So if someone were to just randomly decide to steal a car that the owner is emptying to get ready for a night's rest...the owner of the car can sue the pants off of the hotel using that as the legal precedence. After all, there is a restraining order violation. A crime was allowed to be committed on the property in direct violation of the wording (if not the intent) of the order.

Hotel is [smurfed]...big time. Even if they did clean up their act and do away with the prostitution and the drug use/sales. They could spend the money and fix the place up to being a decent and clean place to rest on a budget and one call to the inn by the police and it's all over but the crying.

[Panacea]

Hotel is [smurfed]...big time. Even if they did clean up their act and do away with the prostitution and the drug use/sales. They could spend the money and fix the place up to being a decent and clean place to rest on a budget and one call to the inn by the police and it's all over but the crying.

Well, in abatement cases, I guess that's kinda the point. But I think the city will have to show more than one crime at the hotel for the restraining order to mean squat.

Especially in a state with a strong history of support for property rights.

I could see this tactic working on an abandoned property. Greensboro has, IIRC, used abatement to grab a couple of problem properties this year that way (or maybe it was High Point, not sure).

But a working hotel? I suspect it's going to be blowin' in the wind.

Guess we'll find out soon enough

[Tanasi]

The city/county LEOs and the DA in conjuction with city/county codes enforcement are doing a similar thing. Basically they put such business under a microscope and let them know clean up or we're going to close you down. So far all warned have been closed as the owners/mgmt keep with business as normal. Not only are they allowing crime to occur on their site but they're also committing crimes.
Those that be show up at a prescribed time the LEOs arrest everyone they have warrents for, run off the rest, DA serves a cease and disist, codes red tags the place, public works boards up the place (all doors and all windows.) The also block all entrances and exits to parking. Should the LEOs catch anyone on said property their arrested for trespassing. So far crime in that area dramatically drops. As far as I know all business except for one have remained closed. The one that re-opened did so with new management. The LEOs are keeping a very close eye on them.