 |
| Stephen and Virginia Pearcy |
Many of you who disagree with Stephen and Virginia Pearcy's display of a soldier hanging in effigy and their political views would ask me why I would give them a voice here on Diggers Realm. Well, I don't agree with their display or views either and think there should be some sort of limitation on over the top displays such as theirs in a neighborhood, since it affects other homeowners enjoyment of their own property. I also think that their display was disrespectful to our soldiers. Those are my views. The great thing about this country though is that others are allowed to have their own views, even though you may disagree with them.
 |
| Former Tenant of the Pearcy's |
However, I also realize that the only side of the story that has been relayed to me is from those attacking the Pearcy's. Not only on their display, but by their
neighbors letter and
former tenants. I have noted on several occasions that I wished the Pearcy's would eventually respond and tell their side of the story regarding the tenant's letter that was sent to me. I realize as a homeowner that both landlords and tenants can be at fault and try to spin things to make it look like they were totally innocent while portraying the other as the most horrible example of a landlord or tenant on Earth.
Stephen Pearcy has posted a comment in my last entry where he presents a portion of their side of the situation with the tenants and that the tenants weren't the angels they claim to be. In the interest of fairness I have devoted a whole entry to their claims as I did for the tenants back in March.
From Stephen Pearcy:
Technically, we only had one tenant; she's the brunette in the picture. The other two were subtenants of our tenant (with our permission). For simplicity, however, I'll go ahead and call them "tenants."
We did exclude our studio in the back yard from the lease, and we reserved the right to occupy it. Therefore, the outside areas were "common areas" to which we all had a right of access.
When they lived there, there was only three-hour period of only one day that I had a sign and flag outside. Of course, I had the right to display such things in the common areas for the entire term of the lease. But I didn't, except on one visit, and, again, only for three hours.
For any landlord concerned about property damage and risks thereof, they were about the worst tenants anyone can imagine.
On one visit (announced in advance), I arrived and found nobody there; but there was a candle burning on a nightstand, burnt almost all the way down to the wood stand upon which it sat.
On another visit, I found several flammable items leaning against the pilot light portion of a water heater.
There was a clause in the agreement prohibiting the removal of fixtures without the express consent of the landlord. Nonetheless, on one visit, I found our large crystal chandelier lying on the floor of our studio. It was replaced with a cheap, plastic Home Depot ceiling light.
The lease was a no-pets lease. Nonetheless, neighbors told me that the tenants frequently had a large dog in the house.
I also got calls from neighbors who said that the tenants had loud parties and that the partygoers left beer bottles all over the street in the neighborhood.
We spoke to the tenants about many of these things, and many others, including significant destruction to our hardwood floors. We all agreed to amend the lease so that it would expire at an earlier date.
We never kicked our tenants out, but we probably should have.
There's much more, but for purposes of clarification, this should suffice for now.
This paints a totally different view of the situation. For those of us who questioned that the Pearcy's may have violated the lease, or the tenants "quiet enjoyment" rights under law, we would have our answer here. If the display was on a portion of the home, "the studio", that was excluded from the lease then any speculation that they may have infringed on their tenants lease would be incorrect.
I have no reasons to doubt what Stephen says above. It all sounds plausible that they wanted use of the studio for when they're in Sacramento.
Beyond the tenants issue though I still don't agree with the Pearcy's, but that's a totally different debate.
Be sure to check out the Diggers Realm Stephen And Virginia Pearcy Archive for all of the coverage on these issues.
"Also Steve never addresses the claim that he forbid his tenant from having a Bush/Cheney sign."
This is the first I've ever heard of this claim. As a matter of fact, I've only heard to the contrary--that is, that Stephen never questioned his tenant's right to display a Bush/Cheney sign but when he proposed to display a Kerry sign, his tenant threw a tantrum. Where do you get your defamatory statements, Darleen?
"Nice to see him reply now, but it certainly doesn't really answer any questions for me; especially, IIRC, if his tenants were not at home, he doesn't have a right to enter it."
Can you not read, Darleen? Stephen said that he announced his visit in advance. Do you know for a fact that Stephen's lease with the tenants did not allow him to enter the premises for inspection after announcing in advance? Or do you simply desire to make further defamatory statements implying that Stephen violated legal rights of his tenants?
"Funny him [alledgedly] finding a candle in a bedroom. What was he doing in their bedroom? Alone??"
How do you know that the purpose of his visit was not to fix something in the bedroom? Again, Darleen, you should be careful about making statements where you don't even know the facts. All you seem to do is try to disparage Stephen's reputation based on facts that you pull out of thin air. I suggest you consult with an attorney to get an understanding on the rules of law that are society expects our citizens to live by.
Posted by: Irene on July 5, 2005 01:36 PM
