Recent comments in /f/Maine

Guygan t1_jdww3c7 wrote

Reply to comment by Lfcfan2187 in Land covenants by Lfcfan2187

Your best "wedge" to crack this situation is to research the traditional meaning of "livestock" under Maine and US common law, and see if it includes chickens.

8

MathematicianGlum880 t1_jdww0t1 wrote

I don’t understand how, you bought land from someone, so it’s no longer their land. It has restrictions on the deed, because the prior land owner put them there, but he no longer owns the land. One would think that you could have the restrictions removed considering he’s no longer involved. Seems a bit on side of being crazy.

−2

PGids t1_jdwu8u8 wrote

I stand corrected; that happened about a month ago. Figured that would have made the news/social media rounds like the story of them loosing them did

They quite literally left off the CBA as a paid benefit though. There is no labor law stating any that has to be paid by a private employer; only time off given without penalty. I’m not saying it wasnt a real dick move to take those benefits, just to be clear.

This article states it was straight up forgotten. Every other article makes statements of negotiation which means a memorandum of agreement was drafted and signed which means it wasn’t on the original contract because someone fucked up

I sit in on similar meets a few times a month as a union employee, for what it’s worth.

0

kaozennrk t1_jdws5lh wrote

We need employee customer partnership unions. Somebody tell me if this concept already exists. Each employee or union organizes a pledge of sympathetic customers in the local area that agree to boycott a brand or location as a silent strike. When the union or employee organization votes for a customer strike then the group of pledged customers will not shop, buy or engage with service from the company the employees work for. Because most customers are workers too and the company strategy is a divide and conquer for profit deal. I remember Market Basket had a strike and the sympathetic customer boycotted the stores and it really worked.

2

w1nn1ng1 t1_jdwrzg1 wrote

We just built a house 2 years ago. Originally, we were looking at private lots on private roads with HOAs. Our real estate agent said, if at all possible, to avoid property with covenants attached to a deeded property. Reason being: its damn near impossible to get them removed unless the original conveyors agreed to have them removed and then the deed needs to be re-written.

4

Lfcfan2187 OP t1_jdwo2g3 wrote

Reply to comment by hike_me in Land covenants by Lfcfan2187

That's great that you have the option. I think it has become a standard addition for any subdivision. He definitely knows the covenants but not sure how much he will push the enforcement of it

1

King_O_Walpole t1_jdwm5xv wrote

Reply to comment by siebzy in Land covenants by Lfcfan2187

The whole ADU is a cluster pie for sure!!

I’m on my local planning board re-writing some ordinances to comply with state law.

Interesting enough it’s not as bad as it looks at first, it’s mostly dealing with housing density.

Hopefully they pass an amendment that LD2003 will only impact towns with less than 10,000 population

4

siebzy t1_jdwkwmr wrote

Reply to comment by Lfcfan2187 in Land covenants by Lfcfan2187

Interested in what shakes out here, as my family also has a property with a deed restriction that my father believes will prevent us from building an ADU despite the recent state law overriding the existing municipal code restrictions.

3