Dallas Morning News Cull Story Reader Comments
Thursday, 11 February 2010
|Dallas Morning News
Slater: Mansfield couples fight with powerful homebuilder back in court
Reader comments continued Page 2:
Posted by nutcase
| 1 day ago
I hope on retrial that the only change is another zero added to the judgement - make it $8 mill. I am a conservative - heck I am even an Aggie like both the builder and the governor, but I hate the way Perry homes does business.
Posted by JimJ | 1 day ago
What is not stated here is the very real possibility that a judgment in court could be much higher than the $800,000 reached in arbitration. The real question is why Perry Homes would risk having their reputation drug through the mud over the construction of a single home. Looks like pride has been substituted for good business sense.
As to the TX supreme court - they're no more suspect than that clique of 5 super supremos who think it is just fine for corporations to directly donate to campaigns. The judiciary in this state and nation are becoming shameful.
The builder, Perry, singlehandedly blocked any HOA reform in the last legislative session, by buying 11 votes on the Texas Senate floor. Those eleven votes prevented the bill from being voted on by all members of the Senate. The House had already approved it. One of the Senator's who is owned by Bob Perry is from Rockwall. He led the charge to oppose it.
Bob Perry represents everything that is wrong with this country. Forget about party politics. Politicians are just shills for those who want to control you, me, and anyone else who stands in their way.
Of course, in Texas, we deserve what we get.
Posted by waf98
| 1 day ago
Yes, Juan, I read the story. Did you read my posting? The first question I had after reading it was, "Is an $800,000 award fair?" There is no way for me, the reader, to form an opinion because I need to know how much was paid for the house. For example, if they paid $100,000 for the house and got an $800,000 award, I'd say that's unfair to the builder. On the other hand, if they paid $1,000,000 for the house, then I'd be more inclined to say it's a fair award. Finally, if they paid $10,000,000 for the house and are afraid to have their grandchildren in it for fear it will collapse, I'd be inclined to say the award is unfair to the buyers. Get it? It would have taken only a single sentence to include this information. It all goes back to the journalist being able to address all questions raised in the minds of his or her audience. Poor writing. Poor editing.
By the way, my criticism of the story had nothing to do with the information about political contributions.
Home builders and the construction business in general is one of the most dishonest and unethical areas. For every honest and decent construction/building company there are 4 crooked ones. I'm a conservative, but this is why I will NOT vote for Rick Perry this year.
As a good an argument for restrictions of campaign contributions as can be found. The politicians and big business get their way while we the constituents are trampled.
We all reap what we sow. The Perry folks may triumph in this life, but if they have done wrong they will pay for their errors.
Yes, I see the typo in my posting.....
Did you read the stroy? Bob Perry refused to pay the $800,000 arbitration award. After years of appeals, a lower court upheld the arbitration but the Texas Supreme Court vacated the arbitration judgement and the Cull's are back in court seeking a remedy.
It's up to you to decide if Bob Perry's political contributions to the Tx Supreme Court had influence on their favorable ruling. I know my answer.
Posted by waf98
| 1 day ago
Typical DMN trash. Incomplete story, embedded opinions, marginal grammar. The story's author mentions that the Culls won an $800,000 arbitration award. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the reader cannot fathom whether or not that was reasonable unless they know what the Culls paid for the house. Duh! Oh, and at least a mention of the insurance option would have been nice, too.