nothing suggests thats the case here.

don't hold your breath on the legislature making changes on this. there is no way someone in Austin can coordinate reviewing whether a property is a nuisance. does not logistically make any sense.

Yeah, I just dislike the idea that the city might use the good faith repeated reports of criminal or suspicious activity by a business owner against that business owner with the allegation they are purposefully accommodating that activity.

a city could do that for literally any law though. should austin review everything?

I don't know but I dislike abuse of authority and if it occurs frequently and there is a remedy, I'd think it should be evaluated.

Action was eventually taken against small town PD's extorting or taking cash from passers by over minor or even dubious traffic violations, for example.

Slicer97 said:

---

TexasAggiesWin said:

---

Are they encouraging the business owners to shoot first and ask questions later?

---

I have zero issues with this policy.

---

That's concerning.

BMX Bandit said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

The state can fix this as it is the state that determines the jurisdiction and powers of the city governments.

---

what is there to fix? the legislature has passed laws allowing cities, counties to sue when a property becomes a "common nuisance."

the city used to use this law frequently to shut down strip clubs.

---

To shut down strip clubs, or, like the fire dept, have frequent, thorough investigations?

The Government has everyone believing that problems can't be solved.
The Government loves problems... what is always the solution?
"Give us more money and we'll fix this crisis"

Why was Trump hated? He actually tried to fix things... and he did!

Malibu2 said:

---

Theres probably more to this story. Im not sure what local laws are in Houston but in LA the LAPD can put an injunction on stores or properties with significant and repeated criminal activity to install cameras and flood lights as a condition of continuing operations. I doubt its as simple as Houston wanting the store owner to make repeated citizens arrests.

---

The article says that he has installed bars on his windows, put up signs regarding loitering and has installed cameras as well. The article said he complained about calling the police because nothing would happen (or he claims is being used against him now).

So is he supposed to take the law into his own hands?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Don't know about this case in particular, nor does any poster, but there are many businesses in Houston and all cities that turn a blind eye to crime on their premises.

They should be held accountable

I know the lawyer in this case. Nice guy. Aggie. But wouid not say he takes the Aggie code of honor seriously if you know what I mean.

---

Turn a blind eye?

1. Business complains to cops, nothing happens
2. Business installs protective equipment, continues to complain to cops, nothing happens
3. Reason nothing happens is cops are not going to make arrests, because thugs will just be let out jail immediately. Not work risking their life over something that won't do any good. This is the GOAL of the libs controlling everything. Crime running rampant, businesses forced to submit to government. Maybe some city official asked for bribe money and business said no.
4. Business probably starts paying for "protection", as city ignores pleas for help. This could be the reason the city is going after this business. Either that, or maybe some woke BS.
5. City then sues business for not doing enough to stop crime.

For the city to take this action, they are targeting this particular business for some specific reason. With the leadership of the city, it's highly likely there is corruption going on. It's just too damn weird.

One of my company's offices is in Sharpstown. I am there most days. We may be seeing this reborn soon:


https://allthatsinteresting.com/roof-koreans

For the record, Houston s getting worse. I had to call the cops because there was a drunk hispanic in a convenience store threatening violence against the clerk because she wouldn't sell him beer.

He opened it in the store and threatened to kill everyone if they chased him out. So I stood in the store, with the clerk for about 1.5 hours waiting for the cops we called.

They simply didn't view our situation as a threat enough to respond. This was at 2pm on a Thursday afternoon.

Again, I do not know the specifics of this case. All we have is one side from a lawyer. The city will have to put on proof of the store essentially turning a blind eye to win this case. Don't you think the lawyer would have mentioned the failed bribe if that was what happened here? he may be right about the case being frivolous. would not be first over zealous government attorney.

Believe it or not, there are many people that do not care that crime takes place on their property. They do little, if anything, because they either profit from it or just don't want the police around. I can speak to one recent example I know of where apartment did little to stop parking lot drug deals, prostitution and car break-ins. Why? They had high occupancy from pimps renting many rooms at a higher rate than they could have otherwise
received.

Does not make sense to automatically conclude the city is targeting these people. its not weird at all that a city would do this, and is a tool Houston and other cities have used in the past. Frankly, it's a good tool for cities to have.

We all know Turner is corrupt, that's not really being debated.

Quote:

---

Does not make sense to automatically conclude the city is targeting these people. its not weird at all that a city would do this, and is a tool Houston and other cities have used in the past. Frankly, it's a good tool for cities to have.

---

1. It's a convenience store. It's in their best interest to let everyone come in and buy stuff. I'm sure they would rather not have drug deals.
2. Again, I highly suspect that this business is under the protection of criminals. It is a known fact that the city has implemented policies to allow crime to go unpunished. So, many of these business have to pay for protection because the city won't do it. You think a business is gonna rat out their protection, especially in this environment that the city has created?
3. The story is in the Chronical. And, it was reported by ABC news Ch 13. If the lawyer says they installed what they said they installed, then they will go verify. I would also think they did some follow up on how many calls the business has made to HPD.
4. Yea, it's one side of the story, but why is it one side? City had a chance to refute. They could say how many crimes go unreported. They could say what the business has not done. They could have shown Ch 13 why they are going after this particular business. But, what do they say?

Quote:

---

"We rely on information from HPD and we rely on the body of case law that looks at what level of instances, and whether the owners have done anything to remediate." Michael told Hatfield. "It's not an exact objective determination. There is a lot of subjectivity that goes into it."

---

You go ahead and give the 48 hour rule. See if the City comes out with a different story than what they told Ch 13. Stand by your blanket statement that these laws are common, and ignore the situation the city has created specifically in Houston.

I will say it's weird that a city that lets thugs loose on the street, a city that won't hold felons in jail and police won't arrest anyone that they would go after a business for doing more than those getting paid to do the job of fighting crime. I will assume corruption based on what I know to be true specifically here in Houston.

The drunk guy didn't pass out in all that time?

Impressive.

Houston is run by the largest collection of incompetents imaginable.

Anti-taxxer said:

---

The drunk guy didn't pass out in all that time?

Impressive.

Houston is run by the largest collection of incompetents imaginable.

---

He pretty much walked around knocking stuff off the shelves and helping himself to more Modelos till he finally saw the cops come. Then he went out and disappeared with the other day laborers hanging out in the parking lot.

titan said:

---

This is okay in a solidly blue state, but a disgrace to tolerated in Texas. Houstonian should gather in the old torches and rotten fruit manner and run their city hall out of town.

---

Can you imagine if Beto wins?

I don't think he will, but it just churns the stomach.

And liberals can't put 2 + 2 together.

Houston (where I grew up) is a **** hole now. Texas would head the way.

And they think things are fine.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

TexasAggiesWin said:

---

Are they encouraging the business owners to shoot first and ask questions later?

---

I have zero issues with this policy.

---

That's concerning.

---

Why?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Don't know about this case in particular, nor does any poster, but there are many businesses in Houston and all cities that turn a blind eye to crime on their premises.

They should be held accountable

I know the lawyer in this case. Nice guy. Aggie. But wouid not say he takes the Aggie code of honor seriously if you know what I mean.

---

The problem is our liberal city leaders don't believe in punishing or locking up criminals. They think that by using big brother surveillance and making businesses pay for the hardware they can make everyone act like good citizens and not break the law because they are being watched at all times.

A guy at my office is suing the gas station his dad was shot at. No idea how it's the business' fault. Keep in mind, this coworker constantly railed on about how much he hated his dad (absent father, crack addiction, etc…) but now that he's dead all he sees is dollar signs. The part about it that makes me sick is that my coworker was saying the gas station owner always treated his dad very well and always made sure his dad was taken care of. That's how you pay back that shop owner? It's just really gross to me. This situation is eerily similar to what the OP was.