"Reasonable annual fees per unit would likely be spread out/passed on to tenants."

Interesting statement considering Candy is complaining about high priced rents, and we would be passing on more payments to the tenants.

. . . Their long term goal is to make the Oread a "family neighborhood"

Oh come on. It's a diverse neighborhood full of students and always will be. Nobody disputes that. Yes, there are very large structures in need of major renovations that aren't likely to be bought by a family—and they need to be handled differently than the bungalow next door.* That's the problem with the 3 or 4 persons rule, which makes very little sense in a neighborhood with very large houses, some divided and some not. The unrelated persons limit can't be applied fairly or with any common sense between any handful of houses on most blocks. And without inspection and enforcement it's all a huge gray area THAT'S NOT ADDRESSED YEAR AFTER YEAR, so some owners take good care of their properties and their tenants, but many others operate with blatant disregard of city codes and tenants, and neglect the structures and surroundings.

What Candy et. al, (and others of us who live here) want is for structures and yards of all shapes and sizes to be maintained and up to code so the Oread Neighborhood is a good and safe place to live. It would also be nice for some of the codes to be more realistic, and to be applied. This would benefit everyone who lives here.

*As for larger structures, codes must require adequate parking and accommodations for trash and anything else more tenants make more of, for the sake of the tenants and their neighbors.

*As for larger structures, codes must require adequate parking and accommodations for trash and anything else more tenants make more of, for the sake of the tenants and their neighbors.

The boarding house provision that you squawk the loudest about is the ONLY type of development required to have on site parking, enclosed trash containers, fire sprinkler systems, screening of utilities, etc. The ONE type of building that meets all the complaints you fling is the type of project you throw the biggest fit about. Wah, wah, wah, wah, wah.

So like I said, your actions are going to cause investors to buy blocks of blighted houses, tear them down, and build apartment complexes with underground parking. You cannot fix up a large blighted house and meet the current parking requirements without a variance (which "the angry at life womens league" always opposes).

"What Candy et. al, want is for structures and yards of all shapes and sizes to be maintained and up to code" is not what you want. Over 90% of the nice/fixed up houses that meet code in the Oread are boarding houses. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, but if you really cared about refurbishing old houses and not tearing them down due to blight, you would support more than 3 unrelated people living in houses.

"Their actions have made it cost prohibitive for anyone to renovate a house"

It may be cost prohibitive for some, but others maybe not. In fact it has happened, and I'd be amazed of all of those investors are losing money. If it's cost prohibitive for someone to renovate and bring a structure to current codes, then that particular person should invest elsewhere, where he/she can afford to, or don't invest in rental properties all together.

"My dad used to say it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Your dad didn't say that-c'mon, you read at all?

"you and your merry band of uninformed idiots still show up to protest"

What a lousy, stupid statement.

"Your open mouth is costing other people lots of money and one of these days, you are going to be legally liable for the loss of income others have incurred due to your actions."

How does a mouth cost money? You look like a clown the more you speak.

"can prove that these individuals are responsible."

Responsible for what? Arguing for enforcement of codes? Wanting a safe place to live? Hardly things that cause loss of money. She hasn't personally restricted anyone from investing in Oread, nor does she have the power to. So if it's anyone who's causing some poor investor to lose money, I'd blame the city.

"When you continually protest at public meeting, cause delays in project approvals,"

If the City has delayed a building permit based on protests from neighbors, it is THE CITY who caused the property to sit vacant, not some random homeowner. Do Wal-Mart hold the neighbors responsible for delaying its construction on W. 6th? Wal-Mart couldn't

"Yes, these individuals are personally responsible for their actions now and in the past"

Of course they're responsible for their actions, but their actions haven't prevented anyone from building in Oread. There are words, but no actions by a person to prevent any investor from investing.

"she and the three stooges made deals with the fritzels that the ONA would support the box of rocks on the hill if they would help them force through the overlay districts."

Let's say you're right that they got support from a developer to do this, who ultimately allowed the overlay districts? hmmm, critical thinking on this one.

"It's not about developers and investors, it's flat out about students. If you don't like students, move out of Oread."

No, it's about money, and what investors are willing to do to make money. If they're allowed free reign, they'll do whatever makes them money. You're not that stupid are you?

Wow. I never knew I had this power! I wonder who I've cost money so far. Anybody? Maybe I should make a list.

Funny thing is, those who took over the ONA board thought the ONA had some sort of sway with the city but the sad reality is that even people working for the city don't always have the power or support to do their own jobs effectively or make much needed change.

And this hostile ranting against the idea of adequate parking, clean neighborhoods, and what I was suggesting (scrapping the 3 or 4 persons limit for a more common sense fit per structure) I don't quite understand.

You should have listened to your dad. Your remarks make very little sense and /or are flat out wrong, don't apply to individuals you're addressing as a group, and are threatening. If you're trying to be part of the discussion, try productive some content. I'll just ask you about one:

" . . . even when an investor goes through the long and arduous process of developing a project that meets code, satisfies the concerns of the neighbors, and has approval of historic resources, you and your merry band of uninformed idiots still show up to protest."

What are you talking about? Up to code, okay with the neighbors and HRC folks and we would protest? I think we're asking for things to be up to code and okay with the neighbors and HRC. Do you have an example?

I have presented three proposals in the last two years that had the support and recommendation of the HRC, the ARC, and all had concessions made to ease neighbor concerns. These are new projects that exceed code requirements, go above and beyond to fit all necessary requests, but they are housing for students so complaint after complaint was raised by you and your ilk.

So, How exactly do you have approval to run an office (a commercial zoning) in a residential multi-family neighborhood. Was a permit pulled for the construction on the non-conforming structure? Who did you have to make a deal with to force it through, huh?

You're replying to me but your second paragraph doesn't apply to me at all so I don't know what you're talking about. As for your three proposals—I've not "protested at public meetings" and don't even know who you are. And are you saying something approved by the HRC was not approved for some other reason? Because of my ilk? Doubtful.

It took three years of meetings and going around and around with the city for me and my husband to be allowed to move a sidewalk and do some landscaping, so I feel your pain, but also believe you're placing blame for not being able to do your projects on people with no power to do so. Must be something else.