PDA

View Full Version : Hypothetical Poll: What if you are given a house to live in free for 4 years?




TheNcredibleEgg
04-11-2012, 12:17 PM
Ok, here is the hypothetical. You are given a house for 4 years with a possible option for another 4 years. No rent due, but the terms of the lease are that you are responsible for all repairs and upkeep on the house while you live there. Oh, and you also are task with taking care a bunch of children that will always live there. And it's those kids will decide if you get the second four year option.

You agree fully to the terms.

Now, upon moving in, you find the house in a state of total disrepair. The foundation is crumbling. Holes in the walls. Paint peeling. Leaky roof. Needs all new plumbing and electrical. The yard is a mess. Weeds growing waist high. Dust and dirt everywhere. Termites, bedbugs, cockroaches, mice - all matter of pestilence seem to be around.

So you call several contractors and get some opinions. They tell you the house basically needs a total structural fix from the ground up or else it will eventually collapse and be unlivable. You have the skills and knowhow to do the work yourself (though you will need your children to help) but it's going to be a major hardship on you and them. It's basically going to take the whole four years to finish the job. You will have time for absolutely nothing else. It sucks, but those are the realities.

You ask if there are any other options.

Well, some of your friends suggest that maybe, just maybe, since you are only going to be there the four years (eight max) that the collapse might not happen that soon. And you might be able to kick the figurative can for your stay. You still would have to do a little to spruce things up. Perhaps put a fresh coat of paint on the walls. Cover the holes with some pictures. Put down some throw rugs over all the dirt. Sweep everything else under the beds. Put out some bug traps. You know, put some lipstick on the pig. Make the house just livable enough so the kids won't get suspicious about the real underlying mess, tricking them into believing the house is in decent shape, but leave all the real work for the next tenant. This won't take up much of your time and you will be free to do other things.

That thought kinda appeals to you. Afterall, you didn't make the mess. Why should you have do the clean-up? Especially since the kids are going to hate you for making them suffer through all the work. Plus all the money spent for the fix means money that they cannot spend on other goodies. Like the last tenant let them do. The one that made most of the mess. Not to mention - the kids are the ones who hold the option on the second 4 year - so they might kick you out if you make them clean-up.

So, now, what do you decide?

Choice A : The backbreaking and time-consuming structural but permanent fix.

Choice B: The easy, superficial albeit temporary fix.

TheTexan
04-11-2012, 12:33 PM
Id rather die than live in a house full of someone else's kids, ill pay for my own place tyvm

dannno
04-11-2012, 01:13 PM
I would rent it out to somebody else.

fisharmor
04-11-2012, 01:35 PM
The third option: demolition.
I make these decisions all the time with computer programs.
I don't care how entrenched the existing program is. If it's going to be cheaper to smash it with a hammer, hand out tubes of Vagisil to the users and tell them to quit whining, and start from the ground up, then that's what's happening.

Of course it's a bad analogy: it breaks down because you and the kids don't need a house at all, for anything.

bunklocoempire
04-11-2012, 01:44 PM
What would you choose?

NOBP.;):)

Lishy
04-11-2012, 01:47 PM
It depends if it's Ron Paul's kids or not, ha ha!

bolil
04-11-2012, 01:48 PM
Id sell the kids, burn the house, and smoke the profit.

Sam I am
04-11-2012, 02:15 PM
This is a bad hypothetical for multiple reasons, but one of them is that the hypothetical isn't very clear


I'm going to assume that

1. after 8 years you absolutely cannot use that house no matter what.
2. You MUST live in the house, and sleep INSIDE the house for the first 4 years.
3. You are as legally required to take care of the kids as their parents would be.
3.2. Nothing in the law is preventing you from making the kids work on the house.
4. You can't renege on the contract, of sue or do anything else to weasel your way out of actually answering the hypothetical question.


Given those assumptions, I really don't want to live in the house for the first 4 years let alone the second 4 years, but I have to live in the place for those 4 years, so I sure as hell am not going to let the place collapse.

I would do as temporary of a fix as I can, while still guaranteeing my own personal safety and the personal safety of the kids. which probably means fixing the leak in the roof, reinforcing the foundation, and hiring an exterminator.

Or I would go with Fisharmor's solution and demolish the house, buy a tent, and camp on the property for 4 years.

UtahApocalypse
04-11-2012, 02:19 PM
I see what you did there.....

Ender
04-11-2012, 02:25 PM
NOBP.;):)

AGREED!

WarNoMore
04-11-2012, 02:31 PM
Inform the kids of the situation, and let them decide what direction to take. Don't bullshit them, don't tell them you're doing fine when you're not. Don't make promises you know you can't keep. Let them know the upside and downside of both options. The burden is going to be greatest on your kids. The fact that you are even considering this shows how desperate you are, and how you've failed to provide them with a better alternative. they've suffered because of your decisions, you should apologize for your shortcomings and let them decide how to fix this mess.

If they choose to take the easy fix, they'll share culpability if the house collapses or degenerates further to a point where that additional 4 years aren't even an option for them. If they choose the hard fix, even if they resent you and kick you out after the first 4 years, you owe it to them to provide to them the best possible future and will just have to suffer whatever consequences that are due.

The property owner should also be reprimanded for allowing the house to get into such poor shape and dumping the responsibility on you to fix it. the burden is too great to bear, honest people wouldn't want to take on that type of responsibility for the sake of others, only freeloaders and lowlifes would want to move into a house like that. No matter what change they promise, you can rest assured they have no intentions of delivering it. empty words only said to earn those first 4 years of free housing. They can expect excuses, minimal work, and more empty promises used to try and earn another 4 years.