|
|
| Re: Laws Laws Laws (715334) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 20:06:11 2011, in response to Re: Laws Laws Laws, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jan 4 19:19:42 2011. 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.Yes, and that was caused by government meddling and involvement in the rentals. Rent control is government control. And yes, landlords walked away, the houses got put up at tax auction, and there you have it. 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. And someone that wants to protect his investment, and avoid further damage will also repair that. Do you think most landlords would rather have to redo the ceilings and walls all the way to the first floor because a leak on the top floor was let unfixed? Again, it has nothing to do with "owner occupied or non owner occupied", there are good and bad landlords, just like there are good and bad tenants. As for tenants, nowadays there's plenty of useful tools for identifying WHO you want to rent to and who you do NOT. And if you ever did do rentals you also know that you can still check things out, and you STILL have to throw in a little bit of luck there too. 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. I can agree with that, but Rent control and Stabilization is just that too....private landlords subsidizing tenants. There is no reason the city should make an apartment only be allowed to get "$900" when the market rent is $1400. If the city is requiring that subsidy, the landlord shouldn't have to be out $500 a month because the city placed that subsidy on the landlord's tenant. |
|
|
|