5 lies people tell themselves about remodeling projects

• 

  iStock/Terry J Alcorn, Inc.

Every summer, thousands of homeowners embark on sweaty, dusty, angst-filled journeys. No, I am not speaking about the annual journey to retrieve their children from college for summer break. I am speaking about remodeling projects.

Why are remodeling projects sources of misery and loathing? I don't mean to blame the victim, but sometimes remodeling projects suck the life out of people because...people lie to themselves. While yes, there are some crummy remodeling contractors out there, sometimes the homeowner tells himself lies that turn a remodeling project into a no good, very bad thing. Shall we expose these lies, so that you can have better luck with your next remodeling project?

Lie Number One: This will only take a few weeks. Do not, under any circumstances, plan an event to follow a remodel. This is asking for stress beyond measure. It is grievously ill-advised to begin a remodeling project and expect that it will be finished "just in time" for a wedding or some such event. Your remodeling contractor probably has good intentions. It's just that, things beyond anyone's control could go wrong. Say the tile factory is sold out of the tile you need to finish your kitchen, and they won't have it for another month? What if your contractor discovers some structural problem in your house while remodeling and has to do a lot more work than any of you expected? These things are par for the course, so expect the unexpected.

Lie Number Two: This contractor is my cousin's friend, so he must be good. Regardless of who recommends a contractor to you, you still need to check his references. Speak with not just recent clients of his, but clients from years past, to find out how durable his work is. If a contractor will only give you his friends or family members as references, run the other way. Some of the worst stories of contractor fraud I have heard of involved contractors who the homeowner peripherally knew, or even considered to be a friend. Find someone who isn't offering you a "deal", but who has proven to do good work in the past. This is especially true with hiring contractors to work on the systems in your house, like the electrical system, that you might not be too familiar with. An Atlanta electrician posted tips for finding a good electrician on Hometalk, and I recommend reading his tips.

Lie Number Three: I'll be able to use my house like normal during the remodel. Expect the worst, and you won't be disappointed. You will experience less anxiety if you plan carefully how you will go about your daily life without a bathroom, or without a kitchen.  Do you need to relocate your refrigerator and breakfast nook to the living room while your kitchen is being renovated? Do you need to set up a grill and a garden hose as a makeshift kitchen on your back porch? Do you need to make arrangements with a neighbor to use their bathroom while yours is out of service? Being honest with yourself about the kind of plans you'll need to have in place in order to function in your house during a remodel will make the process much easier.

Lie Number Four: This remodeling project will stay within budget. You need to view the quote that your contractor gives you as an estimate. While the project should not go radically over-budget, there are situations where it would be reasonable to pay more than you expected. For instance: As I mentioned above, your contractor finds a structural problem that he needs to fix in addition to the remodel.

Lie Number Five: I can totally do this myself. From pulling permits to dealing with demo and hauling, remodeling projects are so much more than their sanitized portrayal on HGTV would lead one to believe. Read 10 DIY Renovation Pitfalls to Avoid for a thorough discussion of this issue.

Chaya Kurtz writes for Networx.com.

Click to view original post.

View the original article here

Colorado considers gun ban for people suspected of being dangerous

Published April 04, 2013

Associated Press

DENVER –  Legislation that would block people who are suspected of being dangerous from possessing a firearm is expected to be introduced in Colorado, setting up the next fight over gun control laws.

The bill would allow psychologists, nurses, family therapists and counselors to ask that a person's name be entered into the national background check system, prohibiting possession of a firearm for a year.

A draft of Democratic Rep. Beth McCann's proposal says the gun ban would apply to people "who pose a threat of harm."

The NRA says it's "most unconstitutional" legislation of the session.

Limits on ammunition magazines and required background checks on all gun sales already have been signed into law this year in Colorado.

McCann says she's working on the bill and will file it soon.

View the original article here

Restaurant owner uses Twitter to out people who blew off reservations

Published March 26, 2013

FoxNews.com

• 

Want a little public humiliation with those summer rolls? 

Eater reports that the owner of a Los Angeles restaurant has been taking to the eatery's Twitter account to shame people who make reservations and don’t show up or call to cancel.

“All the nice guests who wonder why restaurants overbook and they sometimes have to wait for their res should thank people like those below,” wrote Noah Ellis, managing partner at the Vietnamese-fusion restaurant Red Medicine. 

He then listed them by name and time of their reservation this past Saturday.

Ellis says no-show customers ruin restaurants because “either restaurants are forced to overbook and make the guests (that actually showed up) wait, or they do what we do, turn away guests for some prime-time slots because they’re booked, and then have empty tables.”

Many popular restaurants no longer take reservations, but that policy is a double-edged sword.  Not taking reservations turns away customers who don't want to wait for a table. But holding tables runs the risk of no-show customers.

Ellis says he tried says he tried requiring a credit card but that didn't work.  He says he'll stick with reservations. 

“I think if [no reservations] works for them, it’s awesome,” he said. “As long as they’re consistently busy, or at least predictably busy, they can schedule and order accordingly, and if the guests are cool with it and willing to deal with it, all the better.”

But some say Ellis went too far be calling out the no-show?  A person named Justin N tweeted: “If more restaurants did this, people might be more respectful. It's like reverse Yelp.”

What do you think?

View the original article here

YouTube says 1 billion people visit per month

Published March 20, 2013

Associated Press

• 

  Feb. 14, 2013: Visitors stand in front of a logo of YouTube at the YouTube Space Tokyo, operated by Google, in Tokyo.REUTERS

SAN FRANCISCO –  YouTube says more than 1 billion people are now visiting its online video site each month to watch everything from clips of cute kittens to scenes of social unrest around the world.

The milestone announced Wednesday marks another step in YouTube's evolution from a quirky startup launched in 2005 to one of the most influential forces in today's media landscape.

YouTube crossed the 1 billion threshold five months after Facebook Inc. said its online social network had reached that figure.

The vast audience has given YouTube's owner, Google Inc., another lucrative channel for selling online ads beyond its dominant Internet search engine.

Google bought YouTube for $1.76 billion in 2006 when the video site had an estimated 50 million users worldwide.

View the original article here

Lawmaker looks to rein in program after free cell phones sent to dead people

WASHINGTON –  Dead people don’t need cell phones.

That’s the message Rep. Tim Griffin of Arkansas wants to send Congress, after he says a controversial government-backed program that helps provide phones to low-income Americans ended up sending mobiles to the dead relatives of his constituents. Griffin has introduced a bill that targets the phone hand-out program, which has ballooned into a fiscal headache for the government.

“This program demands reform,” Griffin told FoxNews.com on Monday. “There is a lot of waste in it and we need to be asking ourselves, ‘Where do we draw the line? Do we give everybody an iPad next? A computer? Is that the role the federal government should be playing?’”

Griffin said the story of dead relatives receiving cell phones was relayed to him by constituents. He added: “I’ve also gotten calls from people who say their employees were bragging about having 10 phones.”

The program in question provides limited phone service to people on government assistance. Ideally, Griffin says he would like to get rid of the program created in the mid-80s altogether, but he knows he lacks the support to kill it -- and instead is asking Congress to scale it back. Griffin’s plan would get rid of the cell phones and provide only landline service and phones. 

Started in 1985, the Lifeline program was created to make sure people with low income levels weren’t cut off from emergency services, job searches or communication with family members. The program is funded by charges that appear on the monthly bills of every wireless and landline phone customer in the country. The money goes into a Universal Service Fund that pulls its revenues from fees that show up on most telephone bills as the “federal universal service charge.” The fees range but can go up to $3.22 a month. 

The cost of the program has tripled to $2.2 billion in 2012 from $819 million in 2008. The risk of abuse has also risen.

“This program is completely ridiculous and it speaks to the point that we are careless with taxpayer dollars,” Griffin said. 

Though the program has spanned multiple administrations, some conservatives have recently nicknamed it the "Obamaphone" after a viral video in 2012 showed an Obama supporter touting the mobiles. 

Some, though, say it isn't feasible to limit the service. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 34 percent of American homes use only wireless telephones. The CDC also reports that nearly one of every six American homes received all or almost all of their calls on a wireless telephone despite also having a landline. 

Under the program, there have been reports of multiple phones going to one person, cell phones being sent to underage residents and perhaps most shocking – phones being sent to the deceased.

The free phone program is open to those who meet federal poverty guidelines, or are on food stamps, Medicaid or other federal assistance programs. Under the rules, only one Lifeline subscriber is allowed per household. However, a recent audit of the program by the Federal Communications Commission revealed that 41 percent of the nearly 6 million subscribers did not meet the requirements.

The FCC defended the program to FoxNews.com and says it has helped tens of millions of low-income Americans afford basic phone options. But even they admit the program has holes. Last year the agency tightened the rules for the program and required carriers to verify existing members were eligible. The agency estimated that 15 percent of its users would be weeded out under the new process. The FCC also said its new rules have eliminated more than 1.1 million duplicate subscriptions and saved $214 million in 2012.

On Feb. 13, the FCC Enforcement Bureau issued citations to 11 people with multiple Lifeline accounts. It was the first time the FCC has taken action against individual subscribers for violating the “one per household” rule.

And on Feb. 26, the commission announced that two wireless Lifeline providers agreed to payments totaling more than $1 million to end an investigation into whether the companies violated program rules in Oklahoma.

But for some like Griffin, it doesn’t matter. He sees the program as a handout and one that should not be footed by taxpayers.

“I understand the FCC is trying to rein the abuse and my first question is, ‘What took you so long?'" he said. “I hear people saying we need this and we need that as a society but is it really fair for the government – i.e. the taxpayers – to provide people with cell phones? I don’t think so.”

View the original article here