4 ms·
> I never suggested “breaking” the process. I suggested fixing the legal system, which is clearly understaffed or overly bureaucratic. That bureaucracy is call
by michaelmrose 3y ago
> I never suggested “breaking” the process. I suggested fixing the legal system, which is clearly understaffed or overly bureaucratic.
That bureaucracy is called process and it exists for reasons that are out of scope of your deadbeats.
> I never suggested “breaking” the process. I suggested fixing the legal system, which is clearly understaffed or overly beauricrafic.
There is no way to fix the process that would allow you to remove a long term tenant in a week and there isn't a political will to sink millions to billions into staff to allow such matters to be handle them much more expeditiously. Society wouldn't experience a net gain and has finite resources.
> not sure what purpose the denigrating adjective serves
It serves to identify the nature of the problem. You have a problem in that you are offering long term tenancy to people who don't qualify for long term tenancy other places. You are trying to do that by pretending its short term tenancy and are frustrated that the rules of long term tenancy applies. Instead of calling the cops to roust a trespassing guest who didn't pay for this 3rd day you are having to evict folks who can't or wont pay after months or years.
You have deliberately adopted a known broken niche and in a way are providing a valuable service to society and are pissed that society neither wants to fix the niche nor acknowledge that value.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago> There is no way to fix the process that would allow you to remove a long term tenant in a week and there isn't a political will to sink millions to billions into staff to allow such matters to be handle them much more expeditiously. Society wouldn't experience a net gain and has finite resources. So then society can pay the rent if it is determined that the tenant is not paying. Problem fixed. The reason this does not happen is because society wants to get away with sticking certain subsets of the population with the cost who don’t have the political capital to fight it.
- michaelmrose 3y agoThis is untenable it would incentivize landlords in your position to carry nonpayers indefinitely at everyone's expense. All your problems aren't societies to fix.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoIt is if society is the one enforcing the requirement to keep someone on my property. Also, the simple solution is that the government pays the rent only for time after the business files an eviction claim with the court. After that, the ball is in the court’s court.
- michaelmrose 3y agoSociety doesn't pay folks to install fire doors or sprinklers even though it makes you have them. It doesn't pay for the requirements for a restaurateur to follow food safety guidelines.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoNot analogous to litigating theft.
- michaelmrose 3y agoThere is no analogous situation in law or American history in which private loss is put upon the public merely because the public made you go through proper procedures. The tenant caused your loss and you can't recover it from the people. Any such procedure would entirely break the model whereby landlords select tenants based on the expectations of remuneration. If the entire government could be made to bear the cost upon request of unpaid rent landlords would be substantially less apt to be careful in their selection.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago>If the entire government could be made to bear the cost upon request of unpaid rent landlords would be substantially less apt to be careful in their selection. This would be a good thing, usually people denounce it as “discrimination”. It’s why you “need” a credit card to stay at a decent hotel, it is a credit check by proxy because the hotel operator cannot count on the police to do their job and remove people. These types of government policies only end up hurting poorer people who have no credit.