Indeed. I guess in that case the tenants win?
What a clusterfuck. The winner is who survives. Not who's right or wrong, who is doing the right thing, who is the better person, it's just whoever gets the breaks. The difference between being fat and happy or destitute depends on which way the wind blows.
And it's a pretty good one.Capitalism is amazing, isn't it?
US State Religion.
And it's a pretty good one.
That's a bummer. I live in the US and income isn't capped here.A good fairy tale, it has tricked many people into thinking they cannot do better. Even as our middle class evaporates and trickle down starves us.
Indeed. I guess in that case the tenants win?
What a clusterfuck. The winner is who survives. Not who's right or wrong, who is doing the right thing, who is the better person, it's just whoever gets the breaks. The difference between being fat and happy or destitute depends on which way the wind blows.
That's a bummer. I live in the US and income isn't capped here.
That's a bummer. I live in the US and income isn't capped here.
I do find it interesting that you’re vigorously arguing for capitalism here yet in your chosen profession you’re totally fine with the government banning wide swaths of potential buildings and economic activity.And it's a pretty good one.
And exactly how do you "sell the damn property" just now? There are no buyers.Two things that have been covered.
1st Forbearance is not debt forgiveness it is basically allowing a late payment
2nd No business is guaranteed to succeed. Many people for whatever reasons don’t look at someone renting something as a business.
Finally I do agree it will be hard for landlords because even if they get forbearance on their Mortgage which I am going to guess will be difficult on an income property, they still have expenses and repairs and basic maintenance that MUST be performed.
Again sucks for the landlord however overall they have a fairly easy path, just sell the damn property.
And exactly how do you "sell the damn property" just now? There are no buyers.
Unregulated capitalism is anarchy. Unregulated construction is the same thing. Why even pretend that I'd want either?I do find it interesting that you’re vigorously arguing for capitalism here yet in your chosen profession you’re totally fine with the government banning wide swaths of potential buildings and economic activity.
Unregulated capitalism is anarchy. Unregulated construction is the same thing. Why even pretend that I'd want either?
Planing and zoning, the two things that make communities livable.
This has nothing to do with business risk. This is the city ordering businesses to extend very large amounts of unsecured credit for an extended period at zero interest to unemployed customers. The very idea that this is a "business risk" is absurd.Been covered, landlords are businesses and businesses carry risk.
You might be fine living in a tenement right across the street from a sewage treatment plant, no one else is.Zoning has only existed for about 100 years, and it’s basically always been used to enrich incumbent property owners and/or keep out poor people and racial minorities. In all fairness to your point though keeping out poor people and minorities is how a lot of people define if a place is livable, so there’s that.
This has nothing to do with business risk. This is the city ordering businesses to extend very large amounts of unsecured credit for an extended period at zero interest to unemployed customers. The very idea that this is a "business risk" is absurd.
People naturally build places they want to live in, you don’t need the government mandating what ‘nice to live in’ is. What’s funny is you think that if left to their own devices people can’t be trusted to build nice places. Let the market decide, if a place is unpleasant then people won’t live there, problem solved.You might be fine living in a tenement right across the street from a sewage treatment plant, no one else is.
I don't want my neighbor raising cattle in his back yard, I don't want him running a junk yard out of it either. I don't want a gun dealer or an abortion clinic across the street. So I live where these things aren't allowed. My neighbors and I enjoy living in a nice neighborhood and we all work at keeping it that way.
Around here we call this "common sense", and it's used to build areas where people want to live, where they want to invest in business, and where they want to spend their money. We even do crazy stuff like build parks and playgrounds for kids, and have open spaces that we find relaxing and pleasant.
I won't begrudge your wanting to live in a concrete jungle, I just don't understand it. Though my hunch is that concrete jungle is for other people while you reside in a "nice" place.
People naturally build places they want to live in, you don’t need the government mandating what ‘nice to live in’ is. What’s funny is you think that if left to their own devices people can’t be trusted to build nice places. Let the market decide, if a place is unpleasant then people won’t live there, problem solved.
Instead though, you want to saddle millions of people with unaffordable housing and mass homelessness because you think the government should mandate that people can’t live in houses more than a couple stories tall. It does show the hollowness of small government conservatism though. You guys are fine with crushing government mandates, you just want them in your favor.
Not that I agree entirely with Greenman, but your absolutism doesn't make sense, either. If I bought a house & the lot next door gets turned into a strip club 6 months later, I'm instantly upside down on the value & stuck with it.
Who pays for maintenance, garbage collection, emergency repairs? If the landlord has no income, how can he be expected to maintain the property?Heh. At 20% unemployment, a lot of landlords won't be collecting rent whether the properties are occupied or not. But we can't let anybody have something for nothing, unless they inherited it, so Hoovervilles it is, huh?
Who pays for maintenance, garbage collection, emergency repairs? If the landlord has no income, how can he be expected to maintain the property?
I understand the issue, but the solution isn't complete. The landlord is entitled to have his hard costs covered every month, the city should be paying that directly.
That's not a solution, it's a clusterfuck. Where is the motivation to invest in your community when that investment can be rendered worthless overnight? Why would I invest in my home if the guy across the street can build a high rise and make my home worthless?People naturally build places they want to live in, you don’t need the government mandating what ‘nice to live in’ is. What’s funny is you think that if left to their own devices people can’t be trusted to build nice places. Let the market decide, if a place is unpleasant then people won’t live there, problem solved.
Why would a high rise make your home worthless? That’s absolute nonsense. The possibility of such a thing happening may make the house worth less but that’s just because an investor has to price in actual risk as opposed to relying on the government to eliminate it in his favor.That's not a solution, it's a clusterfuck. Where is the motivation to invest in your community when that investment can be rendered worthless overnight? Why would I invest in my home if the guy across the street can build a high rise and make my home worthless?
Thank God we have proper regulation to protect us from the foolish.
You presuppose that the landlord has no other source of income, no reserves & no source of credit. Doesn't sound like any landlord I ever heard of.