Privacy issue for boxholders of private mail boxes - Posted by Brad Crouch

Real Estate Investing Real Estate Financing
21

Re: Privacy issue for boxholders of private mail boxes - Posted by Bill Gatten

Posted by Bill Gatten on April 30, 1999 at 12:53:40:

OK, Brad you’ve done it again. Stirred up stuff. And now I’m mad.

I’m sitting here reading your book (which is excellent and very well written by the way), and I’m thinkin’ maybe I’ll check in to CRE for a few minutes and see what’s going on. Then here’s this bombshell. Nobody ever told me about this! My God, it’ll costs us thousands and thousands of dollars to change our stationary, letterhead, advertsing materials, flyers, posters, training materials and books… all of which carry our POB Box number… not to mention the thousands upon thousands of dollars in lost revenue from prospects I may never have heard of before, who might want to buy something or use our services.

Brad, I am so completely sick of the the government, I can’t stand it! (I wish I could spell “arghh” in a way that could convey my true contempt). I love being an American; I love the eduction they provided me; and I take advantages of of many of the other services they provide; and I’ve carried arms for the defense of the country (never got shot at, but I could’a…'came real close that night in Yokosuka, when Myoko’s husband come home early)… and I’d do it again in a heartbeat. But DAD BLAST IT Brad!! The reason I gave up my 6,000 square foot office and 35 employees (80% of whom did absolutely nothing), and my $60,000 per-month payroll, my stress medication and faulty thermostat… was to “go home.”

Gail and I decided that we could live on less and do just fine without any more of the rat-race baloney, by just working at home, having an address that “looked like” a Post Office Box, and renting a tiny little part time meeting-room on Main Street.

I’m sick of the government shooting people because they won’t come outside and lie down. I’m tired of the government beating people up with sticks because they’re stupid. I’m tired of the government killing suspected drug dealers, then apologizing to the widow and kids the next day because the hit the wrong house (Marina Del Rey, CA. 1995). I do NOT want the government telling me that I have to announce to the world that my company is not a gigantic enterprise if I can provide the same or better service from my home office.

I have a friend who owns one of the largest alfalfa sprout farms in the world (Miracle-Coady Farms): he operated it out of his clothes closet in his house for the first year; out of his garage for the next two years; and now has a giant 50" X50" (or so) greenhouse in his back yard. He boats 100 acres of sprouts: no one needs to know that the acreage is a 40 foot high stack of hundreds of 50’ X 50’ trays. His product is fresh and his clients are happy… why should they have to know any different because the government says so?.

If the ACLU ever did anything good, Brad, this is one I’d vote for for having them handle. I used to dislike the ACLU too, until I finally realized why they do what they do ('sounds like I dislike a lot of folks; but that’s not so: now I only dislike Portugese one-legged balding midgets, and that’s only after having been bitten in the knee one too many times).

Good luck.

Bill

22

Re: A solution? - Posted by Bo (GA)

Posted by Bo (GA) on April 30, 1999 at 10:38:01:

This is what I just discussed with my local MBE:

I asked: what will happen to mail that arrives addressed to me or my corporation, but does not have my box number on it, but rather just the street address of my local MBE?

The answer was: We will figure out what box it goes to, based on the adressee’s name.

This leads me to believe that if you change your address at MBE to exclude the box number all together, the mailman will deliver to the street address of the MBE, rather than to the box at that street address (same place, of course). Which should be perfectly OK, right? Especially, since it happens all the time that I get my neighbor’s mail at my house, because the street number is wrong.

This will, of course, cause some extra work for MBE, but I think providing this extra level of service makes them a now even better alternative to USPS. And, btw, if MBE wants to charge me an extra $20 a year for this, I don’t have a problem with that.

Comments, anyone?

Bo (GA)

23

Effective date… 04-26-99 … (nt) - Posted by David S

Posted by David S on April 30, 1999 at 24:02:42:

.

24

Re: Privacy issue for boxholders of private mail boxes - Posted by BankRobber

Posted by BankRobber on April 29, 1999 at 22:13:59:

I am not concerned with my business image (obviously), but I do have a large problem with the law you describe.
re: PMB# designation. It would be extremely difficult for me to notify everyone that currently sends me mail on a regular basis to modify my address to comply with the law. But more importantly, it would be impossible for me to notify those attorneys/companies/people/government agencies that might need to contact me for important legal reasons and are using the mailing address (sans “PMB#”) found from public records. A retroactive implementation of such a law is irrational and unworkable.
I think it is odd that neither of my mail recieving places have alerted me to this pending law. When was it passed in the House and Senate?

25

Re: Privacy issue for boxholders of private mail boxes - Posted by Rob FL

Posted by Rob FL on April 29, 1999 at 21:43:35:

I heard something about this also.

What if your personal name isn’t the one on the mailbox? What if it is a corporation renting the mailbox? I hardly doubt they would want the home address of a corporate officer of Microsoft. And the corporation isn’t going to have a picture ID or a home utility bill. Would they want the info on the corporate officers? I couldn’t imagine Bill Gates giving his home address. What if you used the business’s street address? I have heard of people renting out a drawer of a file cabinet in a title company, so that they could legally say they have an office there.

Just some thoughts that crossed my mind. I am sure there is a creative way to beat the system.

26

Re: Privacy issue for boxholders of private mail boxes - Posted by David Alexander

Posted by David Alexander on April 29, 1999 at 21:11:45:

Bummer,

What agency would have a beef with people having a private mailbox, someone has got to be lining their pockets somewhere to put up a fight for this. Could it be the Postal service because this battles P.O. Boxes?

David Alexander

27

Re: Actual law found on internet - Posted by BankRobber

Posted by BankRobber on May 01, 1999 at 20:22:11:

thanks for repeating the web site location. It looks like a rule to me (as opposed to a law). I think it is amusing that the vast majority of the respondents oppossed the rule, yet the GPO adopted anyway. Reading the text I learned that apartment holders have long been required to use the prefix “APT” and office holders have long been required to use the prefix “STE”. Frequently I send mail to people in apartments and offices without using the proper designations and have never gotten any mailed returned for an incorrect address. Enforcement of this new rule, without enforcement of the current rules, would seem to be a discrimatory form of selective enforcement. Is this the argument you plan to bring to the ACLU?

28

Re: It isn’t a law, it’s a rule … - Posted by Brad Crouch

Posted by Brad Crouch on May 01, 1999 at 15:22:06:

Hank,

I’m not sure WHAT it is, but it is most definitly more than the press release.

Since this is a government agency (only 40% privatized), they seem to have the powers of a “regulatory government agency” . . . and are exercising their option of creating “regulations” in the name of the “greater good”.

We must have given them the power to do this, somewhere along the line. I notice they pretty much kept this “under wraps”, as I had no inkling this was in progress until they finally had to go public with it in order to impliment it.

See my post above about "Actual law . . . " for the web address where you can see what I mean.

Brad

29

Re: Another solution… - Posted by Brad Crouch

Posted by Brad Crouch on May 01, 1999 at 12:07:27:

Carol,

This sounds like the ideal solution. If you ever move your “office”, you at least will be able to fill out a “change of address” form and actually get your mail forwarded. Private mail box holders don’t have that option.

You’ve got it all handled! Good for you!

Brad

30

Re: To My Customers; A word about my New address - Posted by Charles (NM)

Posted by Charles (NM) on May 01, 1999 at 19:40:21:

Nationwide Real Estate won’t be effected because they have an actual physical address in Fort Meyers Florida.

I highly recommend them for partnering and training new real estate investors.

31

Re: If you can’t fix it, feature it … - Posted by Rob FL

Posted by Rob FL on May 01, 1999 at 20:30:20:

One problem however is that most creditors and many delivery services refuse to deal with a address that includes a PO box. Thus if they know you have a MBE account they might force you to use a true street address. Your privacy is eliminated.

32

Re: Consider this - Posted by Brad Crouch

Posted by Brad Crouch on April 30, 1999 at 20:21:16:

Not a bad idea. But it still doesn’t address the “privacy” issue. I don’t want my home address to be “listed” anywhere. And I don’t want it on my business documents.

I’m obviously willing to pay for this privacy, and what I’m about to get is NOT what I signed up for. I only have till June 25,1999 to get another “system” in place and spend whatever it takes to change all my business documents and contracts.

A lousy position to be in.

Brad

33

Re: Consider this - Posted by Brad Crouch

Posted by Brad Crouch on April 30, 1999 at 20:21:16:

Not a bad idea. But it still doesn’t address the “privacy” issue. I don’t want my home address to be “listed” anywhere. And I don’t want it on my business documents.

I’m obviously willing to pay for this privacy, and what I’m about to get is NOT what I signed up for. I only have till June 25,1999 to get another “system” in place and spend whatever it takes to change all my business documents and contracts.

A lousy position to be in.

Brad

34

Re: Maybe… - Posted by Brad Crouch

Posted by Brad Crouch on April 30, 1999 at 16:00:25:

David,

Yes, renting office space might be one solution . . . if it is available! My MBE has no such space available.

That’s why I’m investigating the “executive suites” possibilitries. They are more expensive but they offer more, too. For mail receiving, they are charging $40 per month (the cheapest one). More later.

If you’re thinking about buying one of these places or buying a franchise, I hope you won’t be running it yourself. It would be a shame to waste all that Real Estate knowledge by “sorting mail” and answering a telephone for other folks.

Brad

35

Re: Maybe… - Posted by Brad Crouch

Posted by Brad Crouch on April 30, 1999 at 16:00:25:

David,

Yes, renting office space might be one solution . . . if it is available! My MBE has no such space available.

That’s why I’m investigating the “executive suites” possibilitries. They are more expensive but they offer more, too. For mail receiving, they are charging $40 per month (the cheapest one). More later.

If you’re thinking about buying one of these places or buying a franchise, I hope you won’t be running it yourself. It would be a shame to waste all that Real Estate knowledge by “sorting mail” and answering a telephone for other folks.

Brad

36

Re: http://www.usps.gov/news/press/99/99021new.htm - Posted by Brad Crouch

Posted by Brad Crouch on April 30, 1999 at 15:18:44:

Mark,

They say that the only difference between a man and a boy is the price of his toys. I think there is a little bit of “child” in all of us. Thank God!

Thanks for posting the URL of the press release. Sure would like to have the actual “law” though. Have you seen it?

Brad

37

Re: http://www.usps.gov/news/press/99/99021new.htm - Posted by Brad Crouch

Posted by Brad Crouch on April 30, 1999 at 15:18:44:

Mark,

They say that the only difference between a man and a boy is the price of his toys. I think there is a little bit of “child” in all of us. Thank God!

Thanks for posting the URL of the press release. Sure would like to have the actual “law” though. Have you seen it?

Brad

38

Re: Its for real - Posted by Brad Crouch

Posted by Brad Crouch on April 30, 1999 at 15:13:03:

Sorry Bert, I couldn’t find it. But I did find the press release that Mark (KC) posted.

I would like to see more than a press release, though. I want to be able to give the ACLU an actual “law” they can verify.

Thanks,

Brad

39

Re: Its for real - Posted by Brad Crouch

Posted by Brad Crouch on April 30, 1999 at 15:13:03:

Sorry Bert, I couldn’t find it. But I did find the press release that Mark (KC) posted.

I would like to see more than a press release, though. I want to be able to give the ACLU an actual “law” they can verify.

Thanks,

Brad

40

Re: Privacy issue for boxholders of private mail boxes - Posted by Brad Crouch

Posted by Brad Crouch on April 30, 1999 at 15:42:52:

Hi Bill!

Glad you like the book. I share your pain! I’m investigating an “executive suite” kind of thing. There are some details on www.omnioffices.com. They charge $40 per month for mail services although they are NOT a “mail receiving service”. Probably why they don’t have to comply with this new Post Office regulation (if indeed they don’t ultimately have to, like they are now saying. But they may not have been notified yet).

There are other similar places that are waiting for a decision from their legal department before calling me back with a definitive answer. They cost slightly more than $40 per month (more like $50), but they also have offices and conference rooms that you can rent by the hour, to conduct any “formal” business. I’ll let you know what I find out.

But you might be better off sticking with the “meeting room” you have in Reseda, if they will also accept your mail on a permanent basis. Just change all your stationery and literature (as though that were a simple thing).

I think this “law” is worth looking at by the ACLU. They may decide not to take it on, but this is probably the best chance. There is the issue of course, about the swindling of the elderly and “scams” being conducted through the use of these anonymous private mail boxes, so now we get down to the “greater good” theory. That makes it a “debateable” issue, indeed.

Wouldn’t it be nice if all the “bad guys” were required to wear a symbol or tattoo on their forehead so that everybody could “know” they were dealing with a “crook”. That would mean the absence of such a marking would give everybody the confidence and “knowledge” that they were dealing with a “straight shooter”. Do you think that might work? And for how long? Long enough for us to get rich?

Brad