5 ms·

Not to comment on authority but from a pandemic perspective it’s probably better to keep low income people in their apartment than the alternative. They either

Not to comment on authority but from a pandemic perspective it’s probably better to keep low income people in their apartment than the alternative. They either end up having to move in with friends, start using shelters, or have to move to other places of the country. All those situation increase the spread of the virus a lot more than… staying in your own house. On top of society benefits, once someone becomes homeless, it’s a lot harder for them to get a job and re-integrate society / working world.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
I am fine with that as long as the government took over responsibility for paying the tenant’s rent. And not in a convoluted, bureaucratic mess kind of way. The payment needs to be on time and hassle free. I know hotel owners that have people staying in the rooms for free for over a year causing damage and they cannot get rid of them. Right now, what has happened is politicians found a way to dump the costs homeless/poor people onto select businesses/land owners rather than all taxpayers.
- vkou 5y ago
  > I am fine with that as long as the government took over responsibility for paying the tenant’s rent. I'm fine with landlords having zero risk to their business model, if the profits that they could collect were strictly limited by the government. Since it's not, tough luck. Sometimes, your business suffers because of no fault of your own. You're not entitled to guaranteed profits.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    It is ridiculous to compare the risk of the government commandeering your asset to risks such as natural disasters, pandemics, or even rioting.
  - RestlessMind 5y ago
    In usual cases, I agree that landlords have to bear the risk. In case of a pandemic where we need mass coordinated action, I prefer the Government to coordinate the response. There are certain situations where otherwise important aspects like "individual freedom" and "individual are not really useful. Pandemic is one of them. War is another.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

I am fine with that as long as the government took over responsibility for paying the tenant’s rent. And not in a convoluted, bureaucratic mess kind of way. The payment needs to be on time and hassle free. I know hotel owners that have people staying in the rooms for free for over a year causing damage and they cannot get rid of them. Right now, what has happened is politicians found a way to dump the costs homeless/poor people onto select businesses/land owners rather than all taxpayers.

vkou 5y ago
> I am fine with that as long as the government took over responsibility for paying the tenant’s rent. I'm fine with landlords having zero risk to their business model, if the profits that they could collect were strictly limited by the government. Since it's not, tough luck. Sometimes, your business suffers because of no fault of your own. You're not entitled to guaranteed profits.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  It is ridiculous to compare the risk of the government commandeering your asset to risks such as natural disasters, pandemics, or even rioting.
- RestlessMind 5y ago
  In usual cases, I agree that landlords have to bear the risk. In case of a pandemic where we need mass coordinated action, I prefer the Government to coordinate the response. There are certain situations where otherwise important aspects like "individual freedom" and "individual are not really useful. Pandemic is one of them. War is another.