My landlords had no problem with radios on the building. I've done it for neighbors, too.
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:26 PM, John Woodfield <[email protected]> wrote: > It seems that OTARD was intended more to deal with HOA BS than tenant > rights. Thankfully I have never had to deal with it. Thankfully I never > intend to become a rental tenant again. As far as the WISP is concerned, I > would think this would be a matter to turn over to whoever underwrites > their liability insurance and let them argue with the landlord about what > constitutes damage. > > > > > > John Woodfield, President > > Delmarva WiFi Inc. > > 410-870-WiFi > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Mathew Howard" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 2:16pm > To: "af" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna > > Don't get me wrong, if I was the landlord I certainly wouldn't consider > it a huge damage problem... I might even consider it an improvement, but > I'm not the landlord. > > In my opinion, it's the tenants responsibility anyway, since we're only > doing what they hired us to do... but it's still a fight I'd want to try to > avoid. > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Most owners of residential rental property worry more about the tenant >> using it as a meth lab or grow house or “party house”. >> >> You folks must live in a very upscale neighborhood if a J-pipe foot on >> the roof and a nicely caulked up 1/4 inch hole in the siding is a huge >> damage problem requiring that roofers and siding contractors be called to >> install all new stuff. >> >> Maybe this is why rental areas of Kansas City got passed over as Google >> Fiber fiberhoods. Ooooooh, we need to drill a hole in the wall. Oh, the >> humanity! >> >> >> *From:* Mathew Howard <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:55 PM >> *To:* af <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna >> >> I'm pretty any changes you make to someone else's property could be >> considered damage unless it's normal wear and tear. The fact is, it's going >> to cost the landlord money if he wants it put back to the original >> condition, it might not be reasonable in most people opinion to put it back >> to the original condition, but I see no reason he wouldn't have the right >> it... who is responsible is another matter, but I don't think you can >> really argue there was no damage. >> >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> As I said, I think we differ. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From: *"Travis Johnson" <[email protected]> >>> *To: *[email protected] >>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:37:38 PM >>> >>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna >>> >>> Installing a J-mount (drilling holes in a roof) and cable penetration >>> (drilling a hole in the side of the house) is DEFINITELY damage to the >>> property. Any warranty on the roof becomes null and void unless a certified >>> roofer does the work and certifies the install. Drilling a hole through the >>> siding and house is also damage. >>> >>> Travis >>> >>> >>> On 3/17/2015 11:28 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: >>> >>> I think we differ on what constitutes damage. >>> >>> Installing a J-mount and a cable penetration, no. >>> Not sealing the above properly and water or critters intrude upon the >>> structure, yes. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From: *"Travis Johnson" mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]> >>> >>> *To: *[email protected] >>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:26:21 PM >>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna >>> >>> Tenants do not have the right to damage my property, regardless of their >>> rights and due process. >>> >>> Travis >>> >>> On 3/17/2015 11:19 AM, John Woodfield wrote: >>> >>> Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is >>> such a thing as tenant rights and due process. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> It sounds right to me. He owns the land and property. Owner is king >>> of his castle. >>> >>> Josh Luthman >>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>> 1100 Wayne St >>> Suite 1337 >>> Troy, OH 45373 >>> On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm calling BS on this. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> > On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of >>>> what the tenant told you or even signed. >>>> > >>>> > Travis >>>> > >>>> >> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >>>> >>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote: >>>> >>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP >>>> is >>>> >>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes, >>>> they >>>> >>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from >>>> the >>>> >>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to >>>> cause >>>> >>> damage to the property. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner >>>> with authority? >>>> >> >>>> >> ~Seth >>>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
