Stairmaster posted:

BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:

Raise it $100 and say the single digit increase is due to taxes and insurance increases, which pretty much always happen anyways

Jealous Cow posted:

I really see the error of my ways now. I’ll kick out my tenants as soon as possible and put the house up for sale. I’m sure someone who can afford to buy it deserves it more than someone who can only afford to rent it.

Thermopyle posted:

Maybe in some areas, but anyway that doesn't really have much to do with landlords.

baquerd posted:

It's certainly much better than letting homeless people into the houses to wreck the housing's value.

quote:

No one's saying slaveowners were better than that, just that slaveowners that didn't take care of their slaves got sub-par returns over the long run. If you look at the most successful slave-owners, you would expect to see a general pattern of excellent treatment of well-behaved slaves.

baquerd posted:

My argument is that putting some random homeless people in a free 3bed/2bath in a nice neighborhood is probably going to end with the home value turned to poo poo the same way giving some random free access to a supercar is probably going to end in an expensive repair bill. They don't have any experience dealing with the maintenance, care, and handling of the responsibility being given to them.

tagesschau posted:

Congratulations, you've stumbled upon an argument as worthless as "taxation is theft."

poopinmymouth posted:

I mean, I would because I think housing is a human right and as long as it was ubiquitous I'm game. But I realize the majority of landlords behave exactly like you say.

baquerd posted:

This is one of those cases where the free market just needs to be more free to make room for lower income housing.

Karl Barks posted:

this is like a fox business "we'll just grow ourselves out of the problem!" type argument

baquerd posted:

The homeless aren't typically the ones I'm trying to attract in this situation. A lot of places that could benefit the most from denser housing have tons of people commuting multiple hours because they've been priced out of the market in areas with shorter commutes. I bring these people back in by building denser housing, which is relatively cheaper for me to maintain and for them to rent. As a side effect, some people who might be near-homeless can now afford housing as a result of the overall increase in housing affordability.

baquerd posted:

It's been real educational seeing how policies of treating the homeless really well in SF and LA have worked out.

https://reason.com/reasontv/2019/02/05/stossel-bad-laws-cause-homeless-crisis

There's obviously a huge problem there, but I don't see how giving them housing is going to solve any of it. Giving them proper housing is like end game level poo poo compared to the hurdles they need to jump over to get integrated into society in general.

quote:

Laura Foote runs the non-profit "YIMBY Action," which stands for "yes in my backyard." The organization promotes policies that encourage more housing construction as a way to bring down prices.

Many San Francisco residents object to this mission.

"I would hate it," one woman told John Stossel.

"I think it'd be really congested," said another.

"Let me build," said developer John Dennis. He spent years trying to get permission to replace a graffiti-covered, long-defunct meat-packing plant with a 60-unit building. He eventually got permission—but it took 4 years.

Karl Barks posted:

I'm not a revolutionary, so I wouldn't know. My understanding is some countries were better than others.

Also, what if we had one big land lord which by virtue of it's size would bring the profit per unit to an absolute minimum and increase overall profit while providing a house for every person? is this a crazy idea?

HiHo ChiRho posted:

It's pretty funny that you're calling the forums cops to evict us from your landlord thread

BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:

No I just think joking about violence on the internet is a lot less funny than it was a couple weeks ago, even if it is against mean old landlords. I certainly welcome anybody who wants to have an actual reasonably topical discussion about problems that can be solved in real ways other than murder and violent appropriation of private property

Excalibur posted:

Hey guys, I’m in the process of buying a building subject to rent stabilization laws. I’d like to gently encourage my long-time working-class tenants to leave so that I can renovate and raise the rents (and ideally attract more gentrified tenants). I’d appreciate any suggestions from anyone who has successfully handled similar situations.

Droo posted:

Communists from DnD, who are apparently unaware that they too are allowed to buy property if they want to.

If you hate your landlord so much just buy a house. It's not like the entire concept of leasing a home is going to go away in your lifetimes.

Something Offal posted:

What happened to this thread? Who are all these people?

Pibur posted:

I have a good relationship with my landlord and would consider myself a model, low effort tenant. I'll even do repairs myself if I'm reimbursed for parts because it's just faster and I can do simple stuff myself. Doesn't change the fact that he's a leech on my life.

Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:

absolutely it's a conversation worth having, likewise defining the types of landlords and how they operate in different countries.

the same as rent increases always go: choices to the committee, and options put to a poll of the tenants for next financial year. generally in-line with inflation with an option to fund services for the vulnerable. regulators get very interested if you start fleecing tenants

My Rhythmic Crotch posted:

It is, and as far as I know, there is nothing stopping it from being passed at a local level in states where it doesn't exist. That's my point, these kinds of protections can be passed locally if they don't exist at the state level.