7 ms·

Landlords are businessmen, I got paid to leave once as tenant. We all won.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
presumably you had some legal basis and weren't simply breaking contract and civil law. I think what works people up is when people do one of these things.
- Hock88sdx 2y ago
  [dead]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rufus_foreman 2y ago
  I had no contract that said I could live there. Somebody had a rental agreement at some point I guess. Nothing was in my name. Legal basis? That costs a lot of money to determine sometimes. Let's just settle up and move on with our lives. $1,000 cash and you never ever have to deal with me again.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    >Legal basis? That costs a lot of money to determine sometimes. Let's just settle up and move on with our lives. $1,000 cash and you never ever have to deal with me again. You seem nice, so I am happy to assume good intentions on your part. Do you understand how people could have difficulty finding the operational difference between your situation and a squatter that broke in?
    - rufus_foreman 2y ago
      >> You seem nice, so I am happy to assume good intentions on your part I was not a nice person at this point, and my intentions were to have somewhere to sleep out of the rain. I did at one point live in actual squat where people had broken in, the breaking in part happened before I got there, but I lived there for I guess what was the greatest summer ever. That was in a different city. I got out before the eviction happened, but what happened was that the landlord eventually figured out there were 7 hardcore kids squatting in this basement apartment and he came over and told them they had 24 hours to get out before he called the cops. In that location, the cops would have come, and the cops would have kicked the kids out that day, like literally kicked them out. Kicked their asses. In the other situation I describe, it was in a different city. Crime central. The cops weren't coming. Not to kick me out of a squat, not to kick me out of an apartment that somebody maybe had rented way back when. Not for anything. I could have set up a meth lab. Cops weren't coming. My meaning is, if you're a landlord, you're signing up to deal with this shit, know what you're getting in to. In some places you just call the cops. In some places, $1,000 to get rid of a non-tenant like squatter me would be getting off super cheap. It would be a business decision.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I agree with everything you are said. I think where people in this thread get talking past eachother about practical decisions versus ethical and just behavior. This was introduced with the comparison to extortion. I dont think knowing the risks of extortion, makes the extortion just or moral. In the context of general usage, calling something a "business decision" is an intentional severing of choice from questions of right, wrong, justice, and emotion. At the end of the day, I guess I'm just objecting to the idea that the landlord won because the squatting only cost them $1000. I did some petty B&E vandalism when I was young and dumb, and wouldn't consider it a win-win for owners when we didn't destroy move property. Im assume you'd agree it isnt a win for the landlord if the counter-factual was no squatter, so I dont really have much to debate. At any rate, thanks for sharing your personal stories.
        bombcar 2y ago
        There's won (outright) and "won (given the situation)" - nobody would say that being hit by a car is "winning" but someone who was hit by a car, and survived when expected not to; they probably count the survival as winning. No landlord wants to pay a tenant or squatter or whatnot to leave, but often it's the quickest and cheapest way to the goal; though if it becomes too common it ends up as a downside overall. Some quite old (think 80-90s) landlording books I've read even talk about hiring a moving crew and a truck, finding a new apartment and paying the first and last month's rent for the tenant to get them out. Not out of goodness of their heart (though it may have seemed like that) but because those costs were less than lost revenue + cost of eviction + (potential) loss of a sale.
smsm42 2y ago
Somebody who paid $1000 for having their propery back certainly didn't win. They avoided bigger loss but that's not winning.
- krainboltgreene 2y ago
  This is why I laugh when people say Landlords are just business people. No, they're people who own more private property than they need so they can make money off doing nothing from someone else's need for shelter. They're willing to fight for the law to make shelter situations worse or nonexistence so they can charge more money. If everyone had a home, there wouldn't be a housing market, so naturally anyone involved in that ecosystem prefers there to be a shortage. They're the only market actor that expects no loses and fights for zero risk. That's not business, that's authoritarianism.
  - smsm42 2y ago
    > so they can make money off doing nothing from someone else's need for shelter. They already did something - they put up their money to buy this property. Now, if you want to use it for shelter, you need to give them something in return. > They're willing to fight for the law to make shelter situations worse or nonexistence so they can charge more money. In fact, it's just the opposite - by investing their money (which they could put into stock market, or spent on champagne, caviar and sexually attractive persons of their preferred gender) into the shelter market and then putting that property out to be rented, they are improving the shelter situation. If they didn't exist, then the shelter would not have been built, or you had to buy it outright to use it. Since many people can not afford to do that, and - for example, for young person just starting their careers - it makes no sense for them to do it, the existence of rental properties improves the situation on the market. > If everyone had a home, there wouldn't be a housing market, Where those homes would come from? Who would pay the costs for them being built? That's like saying "if everyone would be a bllionaire there would be no need to work for money" - but actually, if that were the case, we'd find ourselves in economic collapse, ask Zimbabwe, they had a lot of billionaires. Homes are a scarce resource that needs to be built using other scarce resources, so the situation you describe is not possible. > naturally anyone involved in that ecosystem prefers there to be a shortage A shortage is certainly preferable to any realistic scenarios where there's suddenly an abundance of homes for everybody (e.g. 90% of earth population dying out, or the civilization degrading so much that any random cave or hole in the ground is an adequate home now). > They're the only market actor that expects no loses and fights for zero risk. How it's zero risk? You put up an immense sum of money (frequently, that persons whole life savings) for a prospect of uncertain returns in the future (and certain expenses in form of taxes and maintenance). That's the very definition of risky investment. > That's not business, that's authoritarianism. I don't think you understand what "authoritarianism" means. Buying or creating a resource with the prospect of later giving other people temporary access to that resource when they need it, in exchange for compensation, is one of the most common business models in existence, you take advantage of it probably a dozen times a day, unless you live in extremely rural and isolated area - even then, how do you access the internet for example? Probably paying for access to somebody who invested in building the infrastructure for you doing so. This is literally one of the most commonest businesses ever.

presumably you had some legal basis and weren't simply breaking contract and civil law. I think what works people up is when people do one of these things.

Hock88sdx 2y ago
[dead]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rufus_foreman 2y ago
I had no contract that said I could live there. Somebody had a rental agreement at some point I guess. Nothing was in my name. Legal basis? That costs a lot of money to determine sometimes. Let's just settle up and move on with our lives. $1,000 cash and you never ever have to deal with me again.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  >Legal basis? That costs a lot of money to determine sometimes. Let's just settle up and move on with our lives. $1,000 cash and you never ever have to deal with me again. You seem nice, so I am happy to assume good intentions on your part. Do you understand how people could have difficulty finding the operational difference between your situation and a squatter that broke in?
  - rufus_foreman 2y ago
    >> You seem nice, so I am happy to assume good intentions on your part I was not a nice person at this point, and my intentions were to have somewhere to sleep out of the rain. I did at one point live in actual squat where people had broken in, the breaking in part happened before I got there, but I lived there for I guess what was the greatest summer ever. That was in a different city. I got out before the eviction happened, but what happened was that the landlord eventually figured out there were 7 hardcore kids squatting in this basement apartment and he came over and told them they had 24 hours to get out before he called the cops. In that location, the cops would have come, and the cops would have kicked the kids out that day, like literally kicked them out. Kicked their asses. In the other situation I describe, it was in a different city. Crime central. The cops weren't coming. Not to kick me out of a squat, not to kick me out of an apartment that somebody maybe had rented way back when. Not for anything. I could have set up a meth lab. Cops weren't coming. My meaning is, if you're a landlord, you're signing up to deal with this shit, know what you're getting in to. In some places you just call the cops. In some places, $1,000 to get rid of a non-tenant like squatter me would be getting off super cheap. It would be a business decision.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I agree with everything you are said. I think where people in this thread get talking past eachother about practical decisions versus ethical and just behavior. This was introduced with the comparison to extortion. I dont think knowing the risks of extortion, makes the extortion just or moral. In the context of general usage, calling something a "business decision" is an intentional severing of choice from questions of right, wrong, justice, and emotion. At the end of the day, I guess I'm just objecting to the idea that the landlord won because the squatting only cost them $1000. I did some petty B&E vandalism when I was young and dumb, and wouldn't consider it a win-win for owners when we didn't destroy move property. Im assume you'd agree it isnt a win for the landlord if the counter-factual was no squatter, so I dont really have much to debate. At any rate, thanks for sharing your personal stories.
      - bombcar 2y ago
        There's won (outright) and "won (given the situation)" - nobody would say that being hit by a car is "winning" but someone who was hit by a car, and survived when expected not to; they probably count the survival as winning. No landlord wants to pay a tenant or squatter or whatnot to leave, but often it's the quickest and cheapest way to the goal; though if it becomes too common it ends up as a downside overall. Some quite old (think 80-90s) landlording books I've read even talk about hiring a moving crew and a truck, finding a new apartment and paying the first and last month's rent for the tenant to get them out. Not out of goodness of their heart (though it may have seemed like that) but because those costs were less than lost revenue + cost of eviction + (potential) loss of a sale.

smsm42 2y ago

Somebody who paid $1000 for having their propery back certainly didn't win. They avoided bigger loss but that's not winning.

krainboltgreene 2y ago
This is why I laugh when people say Landlords are just business people. No, they're people who own more private property than they need so they can make money off doing nothing from someone else's need for shelter. They're willing to fight for the law to make shelter situations worse or nonexistence so they can charge more money. If everyone had a home, there wouldn't be a housing market, so naturally anyone involved in that ecosystem prefers there to be a shortage. They're the only market actor that expects no loses and fights for zero risk. That's not business, that's authoritarianism.
- smsm42 2y ago
  > so they can make money off doing nothing from someone else's need for shelter. They already did something - they put up their money to buy this property. Now, if you want to use it for shelter, you need to give them something in return. > They're willing to fight for the law to make shelter situations worse or nonexistence so they can charge more money. In fact, it's just the opposite - by investing their money (which they could put into stock market, or spent on champagne, caviar and sexually attractive persons of their preferred gender) into the shelter market and then putting that property out to be rented, they are improving the shelter situation. If they didn't exist, then the shelter would not have been built, or you had to buy it outright to use it. Since many people can not afford to do that, and - for example, for young person just starting their careers - it makes no sense for them to do it, the existence of rental properties improves the situation on the market. > If everyone had a home, there wouldn't be a housing market, Where those homes would come from? Who would pay the costs for them being built? That's like saying "if everyone would be a bllionaire there would be no need to work for money" - but actually, if that were the case, we'd find ourselves in economic collapse, ask Zimbabwe, they had a lot of billionaires. Homes are a scarce resource that needs to be built using other scarce resources, so the situation you describe is not possible. > naturally anyone involved in that ecosystem prefers there to be a shortage A shortage is certainly preferable to any realistic scenarios where there's suddenly an abundance of homes for everybody (e.g. 90% of earth population dying out, or the civilization degrading so much that any random cave or hole in the ground is an adequate home now). > They're the only market actor that expects no loses and fights for zero risk. How it's zero risk? You put up an immense sum of money (frequently, that persons whole life savings) for a prospect of uncertain returns in the future (and certain expenses in form of taxes and maintenance). That's the very definition of risky investment. > That's not business, that's authoritarianism. I don't think you understand what "authoritarianism" means. Buying or creating a resource with the prospect of later giving other people temporary access to that resource when they need it, in exchange for compensation, is one of the most common business models in existence, you take advantage of it probably a dozen times a day, unless you live in extremely rural and isolated area - even then, how do you access the internet for example? Probably paying for access to somebody who invested in building the infrastructure for you doing so. This is literally one of the most commonest businesses ever.