|
|
| Re: Laws Laws Laws (715282) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 19:09:17 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 18:56:05 2011. Budget cuts over many many years are responsible for the lack of maintenance in public areas of those buildings. Those warehouses for the poor were a bad idea from the get-go.The NYCHA also owns many of the small "6 family houses" in Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx too. It's not just "the projects". Do you really believe they maintain them better than "the projects"? Just what the city needs....more buildings it can't manage properly. We saw what happened in the 70's when landlords just walked away from their property and the city took hold of them. Look at some photos of the Bronx, Bushwick, and so forth from the 1980's to see the result of that. I can see blaming the tenants for the condition of individual apartments outside of the building infrastructure itself. Yes, in MANY cases that is the case, and they tie landlord's hands behind their backs when they are stuck with garbage tenants like that. Take a trip up to the South Bronx where government built NEW housing and you'll see that your ditty isn't at all accurate. I don't need to, I know very well what is happening, I know Bushwick, which is similar to South Bronx in what happened to it, and what it returned to....and there are STILL plenty of NYCHA buildings in disrepair still owned by the city. Yes, there are refurbished ones too. I am aware of that. But alongside them is also maintained buildings by private owners. And of course, I was clear in stating there were slumlords too. But that's beside the point. There are some mighty awful landlords in the city, I paid my rent on time and it was substantial when I lived there. My building looked no better than a project after years of LLC's and neglect. And that ceiling in your photo looks a HELL of a lot better than the bathroom ceiling in my apartment when I moved out of the city. Yes, I am aware of the cycle from the 70's and 80's. Years of low rent control had done it's toll and no investment in the housing stock. I am quite aware of what many areas of the city looked like in that era. I am quite familiar that landlords that couldn't even cover costs found it easier just to walk away. And for my final comment, back to where I started, you can't be terribly sane in the first place if you want to endure all that shit in the first place for so little return on your investment. And again, that's the whole point of the outrage at some stupid regulation like this burdening private landlords further. When the government makes it harder and harder for private individuals to own property, then let's look to the 70's and 80's condition of the housing stock to see what that causes when landlords throw up their hands and feel they are better off walking away, burning it down, and having the city take over the buildings. Yes, that went well. Like I said, the small landlords who rent out their building deserve a much fairer system than there is. As for the absentee landlords, they should be swinging from a lamp post. That all said, I agree that the standards in most major cities are extremely unfair to the GOOD landlords .. We agree to that point, but must point out that not all "absentee landords" are slumlords, or large landlords. A "small" landlord can own his little piece of America in a 4 or 6 family house that he worked hard for, just as a slumlord can. |
|
|
|