the
percentage by which landlords can raise rent
---
prices should be set at whatever the market will bear
to do otherwise would be insanity
related story:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110718/NEWS01/307180008/Franklin-sees-number-blacks-dwindle
On Jul 20, 2:24 pm, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: colon...@gmail.com
>
> In San Francisco there are thousands of rental units vacant, even though
> there are thousands of potential tenants who want to lease them. Why? The
> idiots in the local government passed rent control laws that limit the
> percentage by which landlords can raise rent. If you own an apartment
> building, why lease a unit to a person who will trash it, not pay enough in
> rent to cover expenses, and then fight eviction for years with taxpayer-paid
> city attorneys?
>
> New York City has had similar problems because of rent control. If an old
> lady has been in an apartment for decades, rent control laws prevent the
> landlord from raising her rent to market levels. The landlords compensate by
> jacking up the rent of units when they become vacant. You end up with
> someone paying $2,000 per month in rent living next door to an old lady
> paying $800 per month, rather than each paying $1,400. Neighbors end up
> hating neighbors.
>
> Meanwhile, there is an apartment shortage because no one is stupid enough to
> invest in new buildings. Landlords leave units vacant rather than face
> problems. It is virtually impossible to evict a tenant, even if he goes
> months without paying rent. landlords walk away from their buildings,
> letting them fall into disrepair.
>
> The leftist laws intended to "protect" the tenants from the "evil landlords"
> end up harming almost everyone in the long run. And you have people like
> Charlie Rangel keeping an apartment he no longer lives in vacant solely
> because it is rent controlled, so if he ever needs it he can move back in at
> a low monthly amount.
>
> My advice to landlords is to rent only to gays. After they move out it will
> be better decorated than when they moved in!
>
> BOB GREGORY <rhg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *Judy:
>
> That is an example of why I would not ever accept Section 8 tenants. I do
> realize that one could occasionally miss the opportunity to rent to a very
> good tenant and have regular "gummint" checks coming in, the the odds are
> against it. Even with good tenants, one has to contend with the Section 8
> inspectors who are often arrogant and authoritarian and always very, very
> picky. I once had an inspector fail the entire unit because there was not a
> clear glass cover over one of the outside lights by the front stoop.
> (Tenants take them off to change bulbs and then either break them or lose
> them.) I searched for a replacement, going to six different supply houses
> and big box stores with no success. I finally told the inspector I could
> not find the cover and the he would have to take it or leave it. He caved
> finally. These inspectors are like codes enforcement inspectors. They are
> determined to find something to put on a report in order to justify their
> existence. It is sometimes a good tactic to leave some glaring problem
> un-repaired until after the inspection so that they will note it. There are
> annual inspections, and a unit that passed with no discrepancies at all will
> usually have a long list of repairs at the first annual inspection. I told
> tenants that they had to pay for anything damaged that I had to repair since
> no one was there but them to do the damage. How many people do you know who
> break toilet seats? Have screens go missing from storm windows? Have the
> batteries disappear from smoke detectors?
>
> I once had an inspection at one of the units I managed. My maintenance man
> was there on his knees changing the front door lock (because the former
> tenant had failed to return all keys). The inspector walked through,
> scribbled on his clipboard and started to leave without a word. I asked
> what about any discrepancies and he said it was not ready for inspection
> because the front door lock was not installed.
>
> ==================================================================*
>
> <judyfuller...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> On another note with the Section 8 housing, my ex owns a 2 family section 8
> house and when they did an inspection, he was informed that the fan over the
> stove was missing. How could that happen? How could these buildings be
> in such terrible repair? Well I'll fill you in. It's the residents who do
> it. This house was fully carpeted when it was new 9 years ago. He gave
> them a vacuum cleaner because poor people don't usually have one. It was
> sold on the street. so the carpeting is long gone and he had to replace it
> with linoleum. Then one tenant heated up the oven, left the oven door
> open, put a can of roach spray on the hot oven door and blew out the front
> window. It's difficult to keep up with thse people. And when they move
> out, they take the pipes out of the wall.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment