LogFAQs > #957530281

adjl posted...

Also, I have to laugh at "housing provider." Landlords are middlemen. They don't create or provide housing any more than a grocery store creates or provides vegetables. The service landlords provide is to take on the risks of property ownership so those without the capital to cover those risks can live somewhere (albeit at a premium that, in many cases, quickly totals more than that necessary capital would have been). That changes when you start dealing with larger developments, whose parent companies do create housing, but you're focusing on par-time landlords, so we'll stick to that (especially where the corporate landlords do tend to be the ones laughing on their yachts while they double people's rents for no reason). Trying to use euphemisms for "landlord" isn't fooling anyone.

Well turns out that does count for something then doesn't it? Are banks also middlemen because they're only taking on the risk of taking money from savings and lending them to borrowers? Guess we better get rid of fuckin banks, right?

Fortunately for you a lot of landowners have been selling their properties off because of this bullshit so congrats. I guess you get to be safe in knowing you can rent from Walmart Properties (TM) forever.

adjl posted...

As much as I hate to be callous about that, real estate is well-known to be a high risk investment. This has always been true, as much as large rental corporations have been pushing to erode tenant rights in an effort to reduce that risk. If somebody's making such a high risk investment without establishing a Plan B to cover their costs if it goes awry, that's just poor planning on their part, such that it's hard to sympathize with it. I'm all for improving the ability to evict and secure compensation from genuinely bad tenants, since there are as many horror stories out there of horrible tenants as there are of horrible landlords, but not at the expense of the countless good tenants that don't actively destroy the properties they rent.

Long term real estate is literally not a high risk investment. It's never been 'well-known to be a high risk investment'. It's only high risk if you operate on investment into things like short sales. Any risk in the investment is mitigated by due diligence and thorough research - which, as it turns out, goes out the window when the government decides to change the law arbitrarily and apparently illegally.

And no, you're not for improving the ability to protect the rights of landlords because you are right now actively defending the most egregious offense against their rights. You can't say you're for it and also be against it.

adjl posted...

Furthermore, there's a global pandemic afoot that has drastically affected most people's ability to make money. Why shouldn't landlords expect to similarly lose income? Conversely, landlords should also expect the same supports that are being offered to other people that are losing income, as appropriate (and the fact that they aren't being properly distributed is indeed a problem), but the notion that landlords losing money from the eviction moratorium is inherently so terrible that it would justify doing away with it is granting landlords a special status that no other businesses are seeing, and there's just no reason for that.

Because people as still taking their product without paying for it? During the pandemic was Walmart opening its doors and allowing people to take everything for free? Did Amazon take a hit when everyone got free goods delivered to them all the time? Or did that never happen because they were providing a product that people still were required to legally pay for?

The problem in your case is the mom and pop landlords aren't getting the support everyone else is getting and very often only seeing the negatives. Tenants got support directly. Commercial landlords got support directly. The middle did not - as usual and are now dealing with the squeeze that comes from both ends.

adjl posted...

And you know what? I appreciate that you've done that, and I'm sorry that you're being adversely affected by measures meant to protect tenants from less empathetic landlords. Much like good tenants often end up being hurt by measures meant to compensate for bad ones, good landlords often end up being hurt by measures meant to restrict bad ones. It's unfair all around, such that the whole system needs a lot of drastic changes. Unfortunately, the bad landlords tend to also make the most money (by virtue of cutting costs to improve their margins, which in turn allows them to purchase more properties), which gives them the lobbying power to keep screwing over tenants and good landlords alike, so who knows what it'll take to actually effect those changes.

So...I guess fuck the good landlords by not allowing them to have a legal recourse for resolving their issues which is how the system was built? Cool. Let's have more bad landlords and less good landlords.

---

I promise that if the game stinks I will make a topic about how I hate it and you can all laugh at me - Mead on Fallout 76