Allen53 wrote:
It’s only 3 weeks
It’s only 3 months
It’s only a mask
It’s only a test
It’s only a 2 week circuit-breaker
It’s only a four-week lockdown. It’s only a tier system.
It’s only a pub.
It’s only a vaccine.
It’s only a ‘Health Pass’.
It’s only life as we knew it completely destroyed.
QFE
Racket wrote:
frustrated property owner wrote:
Landlords had to buy the property like anyone else, they weren’t handed them by a silver platter of feudalism. I own a couple rental properties that I acquired through savings at my normal job, and I have to pay the taxes, maintenance fees, insurance (most have mortgage payments as well). Many landlords are just normal people scraping by like anyone else these days (or depending on their properties for retirement income), and the federal and local governments’ intrusion by putting a moratorium on private remedies at law is both inequitable and completely antithetical to contract theory and supposed public policy goals.
If you're hurting from the pandemic then you should have put everything in an LLC and applied for a PPP loan/grant.
Landlords have been singing the blues for months as if they're supposed to be immune from everything. You wanna be a small business owner? Then sack up and do your due diligence like everyone else or gtfo because as several posters have pointed out, landlords these days are at the bottom of the rung for receiving public sympathy.
My tenants have never missed a payment, my frustration is with the interference of the government into legal remedies and the pervasive mindset that you and many others hold that it’s okay to welch on your contractual obligations when it feels convenient. Putting assets into an LLC does nothing to protect property owners in this situation, that’s for protection against liability, the corporate structure doesn’t determine eligibility for assistance.
For many of us, property investment is just a method of preparing for retirement and the impact to many landlords is nothing less than a 401k being slowly bled with limited recourse. I’m not going to apologize for having taken on six figures of student loan debt that enabled me to have a demanding job that provided me with the means to purchase a few properties, and it’s inappropriate that the government favors one party by essentially issuing an executive order to override centuries of contract doctrine.
In what world is paying exorbitant economic rent 'better off'? Not sure you understand economics too well, chief.
Championship Gap wrote:
In what world is paying exorbitant economic rent 'better off'? Not sure you understand economics too well, chief.
Well then the tenants shouldn't have paid it then if there were better choices. The lease agreement is a mutually consensual agreement, you don't get to complain about it after the fact. You act like this landlord was enslaving these people and forcing them to live on his property.
L L wrote:
Boppity Boopy wrote:
when Trump did what everyone wanted, which was close down travel between the US and China, he was called a racist xenophobe.
No
When he repeatedly referred to Covid 19 as the China virus for months on end, he was called a racist xenophobe.
Biden released this tweet the day after Trump's Chinese travel ban you brainwashed zombie.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1223727977361338370People can complain about whatever they want to after the fact. Especially, of course, as the structure of experience between a 60-year-old slum lord and a 20-year-old college student is heavily weighted one way. I don't hate the player; I hate the game.
"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them; and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion, constitutes the rent of land…." (A. Smith, noted communist)
Championship Gap wrote:
In what world is paying exorbitant economic rent 'better off'? Not sure you understand economics too well, chief.
He probably thinks because the choice is that or living in the woods that makes it a fair transaction.
Like when the mob ask for protection money, most people perceive the alternative as a threat.
Tatar wrote:
Bullet_Proof wrote:
You have been disqualified from the application process. You will not be allowed to rent the premises. Reason: insufficient income
What use are thousands of evicted tenants? They're usually young adults and their income is reliant on doing work.
Landlords don't work and their income is reliant on finding people with income - as you've pointed out.
Now, who's likely going to sort out the economic mess we're in? Tenants or landlords? Why do you want to make as many productive people homeless?
People pay for what is valuable.
They pay for solutions to problems they have.
Most of the country, especially in the north east region, gets cold in the winter. Having to sleep outside with no hot water and with the wind howling is a problem. If you could pay a reasonable amount to have reliable shelter, then that is a good deal.
Its also nice to have your own space where you can relax, enjoy leisure time, and feel independent. How much are you willing to pay for those things? What about the proximity to cultural magnets, like parks, museums, restaurants? Isnt that worth paying for?
You did not make the shelter with your own hands. Your own sweat. Your own skill. In fact, you could not do it, even if you wanted to. Therefore you have to pay someone else for it.
Seems like a fair deal. Otherwise, you are welcome to go live in the forest.
Or you can build a place yourself and get the required compliance permits from the local governments which will cost you thousands of dollars, and spend money every single year on property taxes, and utilities. Maybe then youd realize that real estate is not simply about rent seeking but rather a business similar to any other business with costs.
By the way, your last question is a red herring. If people are productive, they can pay the rent. They would not be homeless.
Are you suggesting that left would have criticized Trump no matter what he did for political gain? If Trump had issued a South Korea style lockdown and mask mandate that he would have been criticized for violating out personal liberties, hurting the economy, and not following the science that the disease was only dangerous to the very elderly & weakest amongst us? Surely if he had gone the exact path the Liberal governors have gone we would have heard nothing but glowing support!!!!!!
Runner10287 wrote:
Allen53 wrote:
It’s only 3 weeks
It’s only 3 months
It’s only a mask
It’s only a test
It’s only a 2 week circuit-breaker
It’s only a four-week lockdown. It’s only a tier system.
It’s only a pub.
It’s only a vaccine.
It’s only a ‘Health Pass’.
It’s only life as we knew it completely destroyed.
Only a sucker would have believed any of that crap. I knew starting March 8th 2020 that this would last until the end of 2021 and I positioned myself accordingly. Governments lie. Big surprise there. Wait until you see what's in store for us next year, in terms of the housing market, stock market, the economy, etc. (Spoiler alert: asset bubbles don't go up forever). Good luck.
QFE
Runner10287 wrote:
Allen53 wrote:
It’s only 3 weeks
It’s only 3 months
It’s only a mask
It’s only a test
It’s only a 2 week circuit-breaker
It’s only a four-week lockdown. It’s only a tier system.
It’s only a pub.
It’s only a vaccine.
It’s only a ‘Health Pass’.
It’s only life as we knew it completely destroyed.
QFE
Sorry I'm drinking wine so my HTML skills are lacking. This was supposed to be a REPLY.
Only a sucker would have believed any of that crap. I knew starting March 8th 2020 that this would last until the end of 2021 and I positioned myself accordingly. Governments lie. Big surprise there. Wait until you see what's in store for us next year, in terms of the housing market, stock market, the economy, etc. (Spoiler alert: asset bubbles don't go up forever). Good luck.
You won't get an answer wrote:
chewonthis wrote:
I'm not a Trump fan and did not vote for him either. However, I am always embarrassed for those that someone else much less someone like Biden would have stopped the virus.
Also, we are not the only country taking it on the nose from the virus right now, but I suppose a better U.S. president could have controlled the spread in Europe also.
It's incredible how gullible seemingly intelligent people can really be.
It's amazing that people are still parroting this 'if we had a better leader, we'd be past this!!' nonsense. A quick scan of your national news feed will show you real quick that many many countries that locked down hard are now being hit even harder than the US.
Gavin Newsome would have fixed it.
frustrated property owner wrote:
Racket wrote:
If you're hurting from the pandemic then you should have put everything in an LLC and applied for a PPP loan/grant.
Landlords have been singing the blues for months as if they're supposed to be immune from everything. You wanna be a small business owner? Then sack up and do your due diligence like everyone else or gtfo because as several posters have pointed out, landlords these days are at the bottom of the rung for receiving public sympathy.
My tenants have never missed a payment, my frustration is with the interference of the government into legal remedies and the pervasive mindset that you and many others hold that it’s okay to welch on your contractual obligations when it feels convenient. Putting assets into an LLC does nothing to protect property owners in this situation, that’s for protection against liability, the corporate structure doesn’t determine eligibility for assistance.
For many of us, property investment is just a method of preparing for retirement and the impact to many landlords is nothing less than a 401k being slowly bled with limited recourse. I’m not going to apologize for having taken on six figures of student loan debt that enabled me to have a demanding job that provided me with the means to purchase a few properties, and it’s inappropriate that the government favors one party by essentially issuing an executive order to override centuries of contract doctrine.
I do understand your issues but the entire economics of rental investment relies on capitalizing on a scarce resource and extracting rents that are barely linked to the property owners investment.
Most of the anger at landlords comes from large cities where rental markets have exploded in the last decade ++. A landlord is not responsible for the fact that their crappy 4-plex is now renting for $1500 a unit due to the value of the land under it exploding in value.
There are risks to buying rental properties: 1) that your tenant might not pay and 2) that people generally don't sympathize with landlords for good economic reasons and this affects policy
Generally this seems like a fair trade off in the long run.
Harambe wrote:
frustrated property owner wrote:
My tenants have never missed a payment, my frustration is with the interference of the government into legal remedies and the pervasive mindset that you and many others hold that it’s okay to welch on your contractual obligations when it feels convenient. Putting assets into an LLC does nothing to protect property owners in this situation, that’s for protection against liability, the corporate structure doesn’t determine eligibility for assistance.
For many of us, property investment is just a method of preparing for retirement and the impact to many landlords is nothing less than a 401k being slowly bled with limited recourse. I’m not going to apologize for having taken on six figures of student loan debt that enabled me to have a demanding job that provided me with the means to purchase a few properties, and it’s inappropriate that the government favors one party by essentially issuing an executive order to override centuries of contract doctrine.
I do understand your issues but the entire economics of rental investment relies on capitalizing on a scarce resource and extracting rents that are barely linked to the property owners investment.
Most of the anger at landlords comes from large cities where rental markets have exploded in the last decade ++. A landlord is not responsible for the fact that their crappy 4-plex is now renting for $1500 a unit due to the value of the land under it exploding in value.
There are risks to buying rental properties: 1) that your tenant might not pay and 2) that people generally don't sympathize with landlords for good economic reasons and this affects policy
Generally this seems like a fair trade off in the long run.
Fair enough, but I like so many others don’t fall into the category of people who have been blessed with massive appreciation or rising rents since acquiring property. A lot of us bought at similar values to what it’s worth today, and particularly in VHCOL cities (my rentals are in medium cost areas) it’s generally a pretty bad deal to be a landlord given the cap rate (rent to purchase ratio, plus super high taxes and maintenance fees, which don’t magically disappear if your tenants stop paying). Again my personal situation has not been impacted (and despite the way I’m coming off now I am probably the most agreeable landlord you could find - never once raised the rent on my longest tenants of three years, wrote them a glowing reference letter) but I’m just trying to voice some sympathy for others who are economically dependent on rental income, whether retired or just working people who are now stuck with mortgages and other recurring expenses on their investment properties and no income due to these moratoria. I just don’t agree with the seemingly inherent presumption that one party is necessarily able to better shoulder the burden so let’s dump it on them.
And I certainly understand that risk of default is a consideration anyone should take into account when extending credit or entering a rental agreement - the presumption has always been that there are remedies at law to protect those entering contracts, and one of the major remedies protecting landlords has been tabled by (constitutionally questionable) administrative fiat. Could you imagine if the property for some reason became uninhabitable but the courts wouldn’t allow the tenant’s remedy of ceasing rental payments? I’m sure most of us would find that unconscionable, so I just find it hypocritical to allow the reverse to happen.
frustrated property owner wrote:
And I certainly understand that risk of default is a consideration anyone should take into account when extending credit or entering a rental agreement - the presumption has always been that there are remedies at law to protect those entering contracts, and one of the major remedies protecting landlords has been tabled by (constitutionally questionable) administrative fiat. Could you imagine if the property for some reason became uninhabitable but the courts wouldn’t allow the tenant’s remedy of ceasing rental payments? I’m sure most of us would find that unconscionable, so I just find it hypocritical to allow the reverse to happen.
Also fair -- the correct solution is expanding aid so people who are laid off don't have to worry about missing rent OR more widespread mortgage abatement in tandem with eviction moratoriums (surely the big banks can pick up the slack for once?).
Forcing landlords (particularly in medium-low cost areas who likely aren't making out like the bandits ones in big cities are (or we tenants assume they are)) to shoulder the burden for several months is just politically more expedient than mass evictions I'd guess.
No easy solution and I'm glad you're personally doing OK.