4 ms·

No, no they shouldn't. We don't really want folks who lost their job last week to be out this week with all their possessions on the sidewalk. Everyone should h

No, no they shouldn't. We don't really want folks who lost their job last week to be out this week with all their possessions on the sidewalk. Everyone should have the option of a court date and some degree of legal help before ending up on the street in case they are getting cheated even if some people misused this. It is absolutely impossible to ensure good faith and lawful process by having the landlord make an unverifiable assertion followed by the cops kicking people out a week later. This isn't enough time to schedule a hearing let alone have the counter party getting representation. Furthermore factually society as a whole is better off as a whole if we have fewer people with crashed lives living like hobos on the sidewalk so its advantageous for such a process to be orderly and slow enough that people land somewhere other than flat on their back. People staying long term in hotels is an extreme edge case we shouldn't optimize the rest of the system for. What the law is telling you is that if you offer long term tenancy you are a landlord even if you call yourself a hotel. This and your decision not to get into the landlord business both seem to me perfectly acceptable. To quantify this let me ask you a question. How many of your folks staying over 30 days were planning on staying indefinitely? If the majority of the folks planning on staying 30 days were planning to leave in 90 perhaps the threshold should be increased to accommodate contractors and students who might need accommodations. If most of the folks over 30 days are lifers then maybe the threshold is already accurately set.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
> We don't really want folks who lost their job last week to be out this week with all their possessions on the sidewalk. Cool, then that “we” (government, voters, taxpayers), should pony up for all the time that a tenant ends up staying and not paying. Otherwise, what “we” want is for a certain subset of society to subsidize not having people out on the sidewalk, as opposed to having it come from government coffers where everyone’s taxes would pay. Another option is for the government to provide housing for people. >It is absolutely impossible to ensure good faith and lawful process by having the landlord make an unverifiable assertion followed by the cops kicking people out a week later. This isn't enough time to schedule a hearing let alone have the counter party getting representation. I disagree. We have computers, broadband, and electronic databases. It takes 2 minutes to prove if you did or did not pay someone. Hell, in my case, I have an email from the squatter explicitly stating they will no longer pay unless they get a reduced price AND that they have done this to other hotels in the past AND that they waited until the statutory time passed so they could take advantage of eviction wait times.
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  Most of the negative things that can happen to a business aren't covered by uncle sam. Broadband and computers make it easier to transmit an unverifiable assertion prepared wholly by one side. The way you verify this is you have a human being listen to both sides. Without this we wouldn't capture - failure to keep proper records - recording the payment in the wrong account - inappropriate or illegal charges - rent being legally withheld - lost or stolen money orders including stolen by employees of landlord - disputes over whom was supposed to get paid in situations where custody of property was disputed - malicious lies Again its pretty clear that your accommodations for the night and your home ought to be treated substantially differently. For 36% of American households their home is the linchpin of their life and livelihood. I don't think we ought to undermine a process essential to the lives of tens of millions of people to help out a couple of hundreds of low rent hoteliers deal with squatters. We already normally deal with hotel guests who won't leave substantially different then tenants in most states usually by establishing a threshold beyond which one goes from A -> B and a simple process by which one removes unwanted guests different from the process to remove tenants. I do have to wonder if complainants are dealing with situations arising effectively providing long term housing in fact if not in law eg slum level accommodations rented cheaply by the week or if the process of removing non-paying guests in hotels in your state is just well and truly broken and instead of fixing it you are suggesting breaking the process which tens of millions rely on instead for the benefit of mere dozens of hoteliers
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > Broadband and computers make it easier to transmit an unverifiable assertion prepared wholly by one side. The way you verify this is you have a human being listen to both sides. And this should not take months. Otherwise, all this technology society has developed is all for nought. You can literally take a laptop or phone into court and login to bank accounts to prove payment. If someone wants to bribe or hack into bank servers and commit fraud, then obviously we can get higher powers involved at that point. > I don't think we ought to undermine a process essential to the lives of tens of millions of people to help out a couple of hundreds of low rent hoteliers deal with squatters. I agree, and the government should pay for it, not “a couple of hundred low rent hoteliers” (not sure what purpose the denigrating adjective serves, as if a business providing lower priced services is somehow bad for society). > instead of fixing it you are suggesting breaking the process which tens of millions rely on instead for the benefit of mere dozens of hoteliers I never suggested “breaking” the process. I suggested fixing the legal system, which is clearly understaffed or overly bureaucratic. And it helps everyone, not just a “few dozen hoteliers”. What you (and current politicians) seem to want is a “few dozen hoteliers” to provide housing for free for the benefit of all taxpayers, allowing you to have lower taxes.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

> We don't really want folks who lost their job last week to be out this week with all their possessions on the sidewalk. Cool, then that “we” (government, voters, taxpayers), should pony up for all the time that a tenant ends up staying and not paying. Otherwise, what “we” want is for a certain subset of society to subsidize not having people out on the sidewalk, as opposed to having it come from government coffers where everyone’s taxes would pay. Another option is for the government to provide housing for people. >It is absolutely impossible to ensure good faith and lawful process by having the landlord make an unverifiable assertion followed by the cops kicking people out a week later. This isn't enough time to schedule a hearing let alone have the counter party getting representation. I disagree. We have computers, broadband, and electronic databases. It takes 2 minutes to prove if you did or did not pay someone. Hell, in my case, I have an email from the squatter explicitly stating they will no longer pay unless they get a reduced price AND that they have done this to other hotels in the past AND that they waited until the statutory time passed so they could take advantage of eviction wait times.

michaelmrose 3y ago
Most of the negative things that can happen to a business aren't covered by uncle sam. Broadband and computers make it easier to transmit an unverifiable assertion prepared wholly by one side. The way you verify this is you have a human being listen to both sides. Without this we wouldn't capture - failure to keep proper records - recording the payment in the wrong account - inappropriate or illegal charges - rent being legally withheld - lost or stolen money orders including stolen by employees of landlord - disputes over whom was supposed to get paid in situations where custody of property was disputed - malicious lies Again its pretty clear that your accommodations for the night and your home ought to be treated substantially differently. For 36% of American households their home is the linchpin of their life and livelihood. I don't think we ought to undermine a process essential to the lives of tens of millions of people to help out a couple of hundreds of low rent hoteliers deal with squatters. We already normally deal with hotel guests who won't leave substantially different then tenants in most states usually by establishing a threshold beyond which one goes from A -> B and a simple process by which one removes unwanted guests different from the process to remove tenants. I do have to wonder if complainants are dealing with situations arising effectively providing long term housing in fact if not in law eg slum level accommodations rented cheaply by the week or if the process of removing non-paying guests in hotels in your state is just well and truly broken and instead of fixing it you are suggesting breaking the process which tens of millions rely on instead for the benefit of mere dozens of hoteliers
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > Broadband and computers make it easier to transmit an unverifiable assertion prepared wholly by one side. The way you verify this is you have a human being listen to both sides. And this should not take months. Otherwise, all this technology society has developed is all for nought. You can literally take a laptop or phone into court and login to bank accounts to prove payment. If someone wants to bribe or hack into bank servers and commit fraud, then obviously we can get higher powers involved at that point. > I don't think we ought to undermine a process essential to the lives of tens of millions of people to help out a couple of hundreds of low rent hoteliers deal with squatters. I agree, and the government should pay for it, not “a couple of hundred low rent hoteliers” (not sure what purpose the denigrating adjective serves, as if a business providing lower priced services is somehow bad for society). > instead of fixing it you are suggesting breaking the process which tens of millions rely on instead for the benefit of mere dozens of hoteliers I never suggested “breaking” the process. I suggested fixing the legal system, which is clearly understaffed or overly bureaucratic. And it helps everyone, not just a “few dozen hoteliers”. What you (and current politicians) seem to want is a “few dozen hoteliers” to provide housing for free for the benefit of all taxpayers, allowing you to have lower taxes.