3 ms·
The reality is that none of us deserve anything. The so called social welfare is nothing but a government's excuse to reduce our liberties. If there is any rea
by tn13 13y ago
The reality is that none of us deserve anything. The so called social welfare is nothing but a government's excuse to reduce our liberties.
If there is any reason why poor can not afford housing in SF then it is not the fault of the landlord who is trying to make maximum money but the government regulations which prevent him from doing so. It is beyond me why In-Law unit is illegal in SF. The city is expensive, poor people are clearly willing to stay in these illegal units which is a better option than staying in a car. What exactly is government's problem ?
My making the in-law unit illegal government has actually deprived the poor people of any legitimate consumer rights they could have. Government has reduced competition between the in-law unit owners and as a result increased prices and left the poor people susceptible to all sort of oppression.
The problem with poor people is most often they are able to see the first order causes but not beyond that. Igne was not stupid to blame the Landlord for her situation, but she was merely ignorant of the fact that it is government that forced him to take such steps. Her sense of entitlement though it totally misplaced.
- twoodfin 13y agoThe city is expensive, poor people are clearly willing to stay in these illegal units which is a better option than staying in a car. What exactly is government's problem ? I am pretty anti-regulation as such things go, but one plausible reason: Such "close quarters" tenancy is bound in the aggregate of a big city to lead to a large number of he-said, she-said disputes of the sort that are nearly impossible for the city to resolve or regulate in a just way. I say you're using more than the agreed share of electricity, so I'm evicting you immediately. You say my car is blocking your access to the unit through the garage and want to sue me for breach of contract. Yes, the tenant and landlord could, in a regulation-free Utopia, negotiate a specific binding agreement that could cover all contingencies, but again, those will be very expensive and time consuming to litigate. The city agrees to enforce rental agreements that fall within certain parameters, and one way those parameters are set is by looking at what kinds of disputes they're likely to produce and which the city is actually capable of adjudicating.
- SilasX 13y agoWait, the possibility of hard-to-resolve domestic disputes justifies banning that arrangement? Why not go after, say, roommates? Or marriage!
- twoodfin 13y agoRoommates don't sign leases with each other, and marriage contracts are also highly regulated, e.g no-fault.
- tn13 13y agoI do not think government can take away citizen's liberties just because it wants to make government's life simple. This is even more applicable to the weaker sections of the society because they are far more vulnerable. I am sure government can be more creative to come up with better enforceable laws in these cases. It is not in the interest of both tenant and landlord to frequently find themselves visiting a court. They are likely to come up with their own settlement in most cases. Also there is an opportunity cost involved here. How much resources are spent directly or indirectly by both city administration and other citizens for homeless people and any problems they create ? How much potential revenue in taxes is City losing because such units are not legal ?