Kansas Crimson

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:38 am

japhy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:17 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 9:32 am my point was that the "head tenant" antics are a microcosm for what many landlords do to housing markets in the first place: they squeeze themselves between the housing supply and the housing demand, and manipulate the rates for their own unilateral benefit, without necessarily providing anything of additional market value in doing so.

They're also preventing folks who might be able to just afford as much on their own if there weren't such characters squeezing in between...wouldn't the other tenants prob be better off to just deal directly with the landlord, in this case?

to your point about "subleasers need never to see his contract with the owner so the knowledge of the total rent is unrelated," what if we could apply that principle to the landlord/tenant dynamic as well? What might such transparency do for markets? "well if your mortgage is only $1k a month, then why are you asking $2k in rent?"

but, like I said, I prob shouldn't even bother.

So if you had ever been a landlord you would know one thing. Of the applications I have seen, we have turned down over 50% because we do a credit check and know they are most likely going to not pay rent at some point and move out leaving the place in shambles. Their credit check says so. The person who is signing the lease and subleasing is responsible when his sublessee flakes out and walk on them. So in this instance, they provide a necessary service for the sublessee. They posted credit check bail for them.

With regards to making rent a function of mortgage.....how often do you correct for the balance? Annually, monthly? How do you even get that info and who verifies it? My banker knows me and sees all of my money. They give me a loan for 5% down so as to help me qualify for higher rent charges. A couple of years later I pay the loan off, but I have qualified for higher rent until someone checks again and updates the status.

"prob shouldn't even bother"? Dude, you should "bother" to think about the actual mechanisms/implications of what you propose before you bother to write the thought out.

OK well if being a landlord is soooo tough, then maybe you prob shouldn't even bother...just sell off your surplus real estate and let somebody else worry about it, then.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:39 pm i agree. every person should buy their own house.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:48 pm at the risk of agreeing with mich...yes?

In a big way, ain't that the Merican dream?

but there are an awful lot of obstacles in the way, aren't there?

bear in mind, it's not some luxury commodity we're taking about. It's basic shelter for survival.

And it's already difficult enough to come across with constructs like "credit checks" in the way and such. (for real, you ever stop and think about just how fucked up that is - we determine whether someone deserves shelter based on their economic viability...)

So maybe the LAST thing the housing market needs is more landlords trying to squeeze themselves in between the supply (available homes) and demand (folks just trying to not succumb to the elements), for no reason other than a landlord's own opportunity to profit.

but if we really wanna discuss this, let's offer one potential progressive solution:

vacancy tax.

What do we think?

there are some 16 million or so homes sitting vacant in the US, or about 1/10 of the total inventory. And there are, what, around half a million homeless Americans (that actually get counted?) Not to mention who knows how many renters struggling to stay afloat.

so could an effectively applied vacancy tax do something toward the end game of getting more Americans housed?

And what other effects might that have on the economy and communities as a whole - considering the other costs of spending on the homeless may often be less than the cost of housing the homeless in the first place?

or would we like to argue the bourgeois prerogative to hoard property is more important than the proletariat desire to not freeze to death?


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/real ... state.html

https://www.hud.gov/press/press_release ... _No_22_253

https://www.denverpost.com/2021/08/05/h ... o-housing/

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:00 pm
We don't determine whether someone "deserves shelter" based on their economic viability. That's ridiculous and you know it. We determine whether they are likely to be able to consistently pay for the specific type of shelter they are applying for based on their economic viability.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:48 pm at the risk of agreeing with mich...yes?

In a big way, ain't that the Merican dream?

What do we think?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:22 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:00 pm
We don't determine whether someone "deserves shelter" based on their economic viability. That's ridiculous and you know it. We determine whether they are likely to be able to consistently pay for the specific type of shelter they are applying for based on their economic viability.

...

japhy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:23 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 12:48 pm at the risk of agreeing with mich...yes?

In a big way, ain't that the Merican dream?

What do we think?

I think, you first.

I can only speak for myself, this seems noble and to be something you are really passionate about comrade.

But your use of the term "homeless" does not sound very "prole" to me.

You should buy a house and invite as many unhoused people as you can find out there in Grand County to live in your house for free so you can set an example for the rest of us to follow. It would really be cool if you deeded the house to "the people who need it" or something like that just to show us that you really intend to walk the walk in Jesus/Marx's sandals or something. And if the unhoused aren't in the same area code as you and your vacant houses, I assume you will be bussing them in.

One more quick question, do you get high before you start writing this stuff?

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:55 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:22 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:00 pm
We don't determine whether someone "deserves shelter" based on their economic viability. That's ridiculous and you know it. We determine whether they are likely to be able to consistently pay for the specific type of shelter they are applying for based on their economic viability.

...

Instead of just drawing points, can you make one?

I think you understand that just because the need for shelter is a fundamental survival need that you don't just get to live wherever you please.

TDub wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:06 pm YOU can only set an example at the individual level. YOU cannot change the rules of operation by yourself.

YOU would rather just talk and complain than attempt to do anything related to you curing the perceived ills of society.






IF, YOU did buy a big old house and allow the homeless to shelter there....YOU could say no pets....

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:10 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:55 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:22 pm

...

Instead of just drawing points, can you make one?

I think you understand that just because the need for shelter is a fundamental survival need that you don't just get to live wherever you please.

exactly!

you're making it sound like every working-class shelter-seeker everywhere is expecting to rent the Taj Mahal, when in reality, yea, you like most definitely DON'T "just get to live wherever you please."

As a whole, you gotta settle for what's available. you really think unhoused/housing insecure people are in a position to shop around? With limited inventories and application fees and security deposits and credit checks and all the other obstacles they face??

And if you're still deemed "not economically viable" for what's available, well...



(this is literally the housing policy under capitalism)






...for the record, I really was hoping we could just move along to the story about Cop City protestors being killed and charged with terrorism.