6 ms·

blacklist is bad yes I agree because it doesn't take situation in mind and current situation may not indicate anything about the renter in the future. Landlord

blacklist is bad yes I agree because it doesn't take situation in mind and current situation may not indicate anything about the renter in the future. Landlords are in a slightly different boat than say the restaurant down the street. The restaurant isn't forced to provide services to anyone if they aren't getting paid, most places right now have basically blocked evictions (which is a good thing) and forcing landlords to keep people in place regardless if they get paid or not. Many are turning this into a protest against rent and even if they have the means to pay are organizing rent strikes ... this is going to bite people in the butt this summer / fall when we are out of this mess. My not so informed opinion is that once states of emergency are lifted if you didn't pay your rent your landlord can take you to the arbitration board in your area ... if you can prove you were out of work then you get X months to pay back your back rent (where X maybe equals 2x the number of months you missed rent) and if you can't prove you were out of work you have 30 days to pay your back rent or your out.

qqssccfftt 6y ago
Maybe the landlords should get a job?
- monkeywork 6y ago
  most have jobs.. not sure what your comment is implying. Do you believe landlords should offer their property and services for free?
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    He is talking about the lemon problem. Landowners are as a rule completely worthless. A conscientious landowner (if such a thing existed) spends more on maintenance but cannot recover the outlays because most everyone else makes higher profits and drives him out of business. We need a revolution.
    - monkeywork 6y ago
      >Landowners are as a rule completely worthless That's funny seems to me that without them we would have a LOT of homeless people. They have an asset and allow others to use it for a fee.... banks do the same thing, they have liquid capital they offer to others for a fee... would you say that banks as a rule are completely worthless? If we are talking about a fantasy utopia where 250-300 families who don't know each other are all going to gather together and put funds together to build an apartment complex in a major city and run it like a co-op then continue to live in fantasy land because that rarely if ever is the case.
      - Loughla 6y ago
        >would you say that banks as a rule are completely worthless? OP didn't talk about banks, and I'm not sure the comparison is even valid. As for your second paragraph. This is a possibility. Why don't we do this? That seems like a good business opportunity. Someone to organize the coop, provide startup investment, and receive a fee for x# of years afterward. Like a mortgage, but for coops, requiring coop rules and regulations for everyone involved. That seems interesting.
        eppsilon 6y ago
        Sounds a lot like a condo?
        monkeywork 6y ago
        you mean like a condo that only exists because the contractor KNOWS it will sell all it's units, and the reason they know it is because rental companies buy in bulk.
        Loughla 6y ago
        Hmm. Yep. Exactly like a condo. For context - I live in rural America, and have virtually no concept of how condos run. After googling - Are they really collective? Like, everyone for the greater good collective, or everyone for that one pissed off old man who wants to run the HOA collective? And do you actually own the condo at the end, or is it just rent? I like when I am ignorant of something! Learning!!
  - 205guy 6y ago
    It's clear the GP meant not be landlords instead of offer property for free. Which got me thinking: what would society look like if there were laws that limited people to owning one single dwelling at a time? What edge cases would need to be covered (I can think of married couples and corporations--so it would need to be one dwelling per taxable entity)? How would you handle hotels, travel, nomadism, etc? Would it be stable and viable?
    - TechBro8615 6y ago
      What would happen to all the existing properties? Would the state take them over?
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      what about the "edge case" where people don't actually want to own the place where they live? it's hard to imagine how buying/selling a property every 2-ish years would be an improvement over paying a premium to rent.
    - 205guy 6y ago
      Thanks for playing along, these are some of the same issues I could think of. I'm thinking of still having private property, just one per person/family as a dwelling, instead of allowing property as investment. You can only own your dwelling: so you couldn't own a house and rent it out while traveling in an RV. But maybe in this new world, it just makes more sense for the government to own it all and lease it out like social housing. You would pay for a length of lease (1-year, 10 years, 30 years or more depending on how you value stability) and then pay the monthly rent. My original thought experiment was more steady state: imagine if society had developed along those lines, how would it looked different. Adopting it from our current situation would require a transition. You'd have x years to convert to the new system, and current landlords would need to sell their portfolio. The state might be the buyer of last resort, at a low price similar to a short sale. For people who are mobile, moving around every few months or years and renters in our current system, the idea of buying and selling property every time seems daunting, so the process would have to be much easier. I think prices would be cheaper due to increased supply, and maybe there ends up being a pool of easy-swappable properties, like rentals now (less fancy, less custom, sparsely furnished, etc.). You also have to cover the case of the move, where you essentially need both properties at the same time. It would also impact cohabitation and marriage customs, because 2 people could have 2 properties, but married couples only one. But the idea isn't that you could somehow still have a property to rent out, it's that owning and renting out a dwelling is forbidden. There is some process of declaring your dwelling (could be an RV for example), and not being able to own property that is someone else's dwelling (I suppose commercial real-estate is still fair game). Maybe speculation on empty land (dwellings-to-be) becomes rampant as the capital is re-allocated. In the end though, there's the problem of capital: even small apartments or homes cost more than people's annual income, so it either takes years to get your first dwelling, and where do you live in the meantime. It just seems the economy needs a way to pay for fractional dwelling use, so it's cheaper for those without capital (people who haven't accumulated it yet and people who "choose" not to accumulate). Still a fun what-if scenario, and I still wonder if there is a stable and viable solution.
- nabakin 6y ago
  It's not like owning land is free... There are mortages to pay, maintenance costs, costs to having an empty apartment sit there between renters, a cost to find renters, upgrade costs, furnishing costs if you do that, taxes, security, management, regulations, savings for a crisis (if you're a responsible landlord), etc etc. Sure landlords can make a lot of money but it's not like they're some fountain of money that won't go bust after months of no rent. Not to mention most landlords have a job anyway.
  - nlfwhulsdhouv 6y ago
    The capitalists' justification for collecting the surplus value from the renters is said to be the reward for risking their capital. If there is no risk, what purpose does the landlord serve? (beyond simple property management, which requires no ownership of capital)
    - monkeywork 6y ago
      does that hold true for car rentals as well?
cgriswald 6y ago
In my county, renters have to show hardship to skip their rent. Then they have 90 days to pay back any missed rent once the emergency has passed, which they can extend, 30 days at a time, up to 180 days total (including the first 90) if they can still show hardship. Additionally, you cannot be evicted for lack of payment during the emergency. After is less clear.
- monkeywork 6y ago
  That policy seems to align well with what my gut tells me was fair in my post.
- jlokier 6y ago
  In my country, the UK, it's not that good. Eviction proceedings require 3 months notice now. That's not as good as it sounds: It was already 2 months normally. Notice can still be given. If you miss rent on 1st April and then the grace period passes (which is not long), they can send you notice of eviction proceedings that will start in 3 months. So you can't be removed from your rented home for 3 months, but you can lose your right to continue renting there in 3 months, caused by events happening right now. I don't think they can evict due to lack of payment in the emergency. Which is just as well, because the notice period for non-payment eviction proceedings is quite short. However, landlords have the right to give no-reason eviction notices to most tenants anyway (I think it's mostly tenants who've been there for > 6 months). They don't need to give a reason, they just have to feel like it. The notice period for that is now 3 months instead of the former 2 months...
pasquinelli 6y ago
"Landlords are in a slightly different boat than say the restaurant down the street. The restaurant isn't forced to provide services to anyone if they aren't getting paid, most places right now have basically blocked evictions (which is a good thing) and forcing landlords to keep people in place regardless if they get paid or not." Restaurants make food, landlords don't do anything.
- xur17 6y ago
  > landlords don't do anything. They pay the mortgage on the property, arrange (or do themselves) upkeep on the property, collect money, etc. We can argue if that's really worth anything, but they don't do nothing.

qqssccfftt 6y ago

Maybe the landlords should get a job?

monkeywork 6y ago
most have jobs.. not sure what your comment is implying. Do you believe landlords should offer their property and services for free?
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  He is talking about the lemon problem. Landowners are as a rule completely worthless. A conscientious landowner (if such a thing existed) spends more on maintenance but cannot recover the outlays because most everyone else makes higher profits and drives him out of business. We need a revolution.
  - monkeywork 6y ago
    >Landowners are as a rule completely worthless That's funny seems to me that without them we would have a LOT of homeless people. They have an asset and allow others to use it for a fee.... banks do the same thing, they have liquid capital they offer to others for a fee... would you say that banks as a rule are completely worthless? If we are talking about a fantasy utopia where 250-300 families who don't know each other are all going to gather together and put funds together to build an apartment complex in a major city and run it like a co-op then continue to live in fantasy land because that rarely if ever is the case.
    - Loughla 6y ago
      >would you say that banks as a rule are completely worthless? OP didn't talk about banks, and I'm not sure the comparison is even valid. As for your second paragraph. This is a possibility. Why don't we do this? That seems like a good business opportunity. Someone to organize the coop, provide startup investment, and receive a fee for x# of years afterward. Like a mortgage, but for coops, requiring coop rules and regulations for everyone involved. That seems interesting.
      - eppsilon 6y ago
        Sounds a lot like a condo?
        monkeywork 6y ago
        you mean like a condo that only exists because the contractor KNOWS it will sell all it's units, and the reason they know it is because rental companies buy in bulk.
        Loughla 6y ago
        Hmm. Yep. Exactly like a condo. For context - I live in rural America, and have virtually no concept of how condos run. After googling - Are they really collective? Like, everyone for the greater good collective, or everyone for that one pissed off old man who wants to run the HOA collective? And do you actually own the condo at the end, or is it just rent? I like when I am ignorant of something! Learning!!
- 205guy 6y ago
  It's clear the GP meant not be landlords instead of offer property for free. Which got me thinking: what would society look like if there were laws that limited people to owning one single dwelling at a time? What edge cases would need to be covered (I can think of married couples and corporations--so it would need to be one dwelling per taxable entity)? How would you handle hotels, travel, nomadism, etc? Would it be stable and viable?
  - TechBro8615 6y ago
    What would happen to all the existing properties? Would the state take them over?
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    what about the "edge case" where people don't actually want to own the place where they live? it's hard to imagine how buying/selling a property every 2-ish years would be an improvement over paying a premium to rent.
  - 205guy 6y ago
    Thanks for playing along, these are some of the same issues I could think of. I'm thinking of still having private property, just one per person/family as a dwelling, instead of allowing property as investment. You can only own your dwelling: so you couldn't own a house and rent it out while traveling in an RV. But maybe in this new world, it just makes more sense for the government to own it all and lease it out like social housing. You would pay for a length of lease (1-year, 10 years, 30 years or more depending on how you value stability) and then pay the monthly rent. My original thought experiment was more steady state: imagine if society had developed along those lines, how would it looked different. Adopting it from our current situation would require a transition. You'd have x years to convert to the new system, and current landlords would need to sell their portfolio. The state might be the buyer of last resort, at a low price similar to a short sale. For people who are mobile, moving around every few months or years and renters in our current system, the idea of buying and selling property every time seems daunting, so the process would have to be much easier. I think prices would be cheaper due to increased supply, and maybe there ends up being a pool of easy-swappable properties, like rentals now (less fancy, less custom, sparsely furnished, etc.). You also have to cover the case of the move, where you essentially need both properties at the same time. It would also impact cohabitation and marriage customs, because 2 people could have 2 properties, but married couples only one. But the idea isn't that you could somehow still have a property to rent out, it's that owning and renting out a dwelling is forbidden. There is some process of declaring your dwelling (could be an RV for example), and not being able to own property that is someone else's dwelling (I suppose commercial real-estate is still fair game). Maybe speculation on empty land (dwellings-to-be) becomes rampant as the capital is re-allocated. In the end though, there's the problem of capital: even small apartments or homes cost more than people's annual income, so it either takes years to get your first dwelling, and where do you live in the meantime. It just seems the economy needs a way to pay for fractional dwelling use, so it's cheaper for those without capital (people who haven't accumulated it yet and people who "choose" not to accumulate). Still a fun what-if scenario, and I still wonder if there is a stable and viable solution.
nabakin 6y ago
It's not like owning land is free... There are mortages to pay, maintenance costs, costs to having an empty apartment sit there between renters, a cost to find renters, upgrade costs, furnishing costs if you do that, taxes, security, management, regulations, savings for a crisis (if you're a responsible landlord), etc etc. Sure landlords can make a lot of money but it's not like they're some fountain of money that won't go bust after months of no rent. Not to mention most landlords have a job anyway.
- nlfwhulsdhouv 6y ago
  The capitalists' justification for collecting the surplus value from the renters is said to be the reward for risking their capital. If there is no risk, what purpose does the landlord serve? (beyond simple property management, which requires no ownership of capital)
  - monkeywork 6y ago
    does that hold true for car rentals as well?

cgriswald 6y ago

In my county, renters have to show hardship to skip their rent. Then they have 90 days to pay back any missed rent once the emergency has passed, which they can extend, 30 days at a time, up to 180 days total (including the first 90) if they can still show hardship. Additionally, you cannot be evicted for lack of payment during the emergency. After is less clear.

monkeywork 6y ago
That policy seems to align well with what my gut tells me was fair in my post.
jlokier 6y ago
In my country, the UK, it's not that good. Eviction proceedings require 3 months notice now. That's not as good as it sounds: It was already 2 months normally. Notice can still be given. If you miss rent on 1st April and then the grace period passes (which is not long), they can send you notice of eviction proceedings that will start in 3 months. So you can't be removed from your rented home for 3 months, but you can lose your right to continue renting there in 3 months, caused by events happening right now. I don't think they can evict due to lack of payment in the emergency. Which is just as well, because the notice period for non-payment eviction proceedings is quite short. However, landlords have the right to give no-reason eviction notices to most tenants anyway (I think it's mostly tenants who've been there for > 6 months). They don't need to give a reason, they just have to feel like it. The notice period for that is now 3 months instead of the former 2 months...

pasquinelli 6y ago

"Landlords are in a slightly different boat than say the restaurant down the street. The restaurant isn't forced to provide services to anyone if they aren't getting paid, most places right now have basically blocked evictions (which is a good thing) and forcing landlords to keep people in place regardless if they get paid or not." Restaurants make food, landlords don't do anything.

xur17 6y ago
> landlords don't do anything. They pay the mortgage on the property, arrange (or do themselves) upkeep on the property, collect money, etc. We can argue if that's really worth anything, but they don't do nothing.