|
|
| Re: Laws Laws Laws (715291) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Laws Laws Laws |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 19:19:42 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 4 19:09:17 2011. Maintenance has always been the first cut in lean times. And that's all I'm saying. When the money comes rolling back in again finally, that needs to be the first place it goes. But that doesn't happen. I grew up in and remained in the Bronx for most of my life until I left the city. Even did "small landlord" on Webster when I lived over there. I know all about all the problems for landlords and rent control as it once existed. But I also know of the scams pulled by many financial interests in the 70's which were directly related to a lot of the destruction which followed. Pick up a building for a couple of dollars at a tax auction, put nothing into it, burn a few apartments to scare out the rent controlled and then collect without putting anything into it. There was plenty of that as well.But back to the original point - "owner occupied" buildings shouldn't be subjected to the stupid. If the pipes leak, landlord's going to get wet and has an inducement to fix them. As for tenants, nowadays there's plenty of useful tools for identifying WHO you want to rent to and who you do NOT. One thing that gives me a hardon politically is "unfunded mandates." If a locality wants to place an undue burden on a property owner who *IS* properly fulfilling their obligations, then that locality should make up the difference for any losses in CASH. A ruling such as that alone would solve the problem. And if the taxpayers are going to allow their electeds to pull this, then they should pay their taxes and enjoy their outcome. |
|
|
|