So many people have this juvenile notion of what a landlord is, too. They seem to think the only type of landlord is a mega-tycoon that owns hundreds of properties. Don't get me wrong, I am against all forms of theft so it's still wrong to steal from them, but it makes it a lot more apparent how wrong it is when you're stealing from the old Grandma that has 1 or 2 extra properties that she rents out.
2) You call this notion of a landlord as a mega-tycoon juvenile but then present the equally juvenile (in my opinion) idea that land lords are just old Grandma with 1 or 2 extra properties she rents out.
1 or 2 extra properties? Wow, grandma. Must be nice.
And I think the data will show that the trend in landlords is in fact toward mega-tycoons. (Sort of like the trend in farming that used to be old Grandpa with 1 or 2 acres.)
The government doesn't owe you a particular market price, but when they interfere with your perfectly voluntary private business dealings (or just outright take your stuff for public use without just compensation, which is basically what happened here) that is a clear-cut example of theft.
That's not a service. The government requires you to do so by law, because they don't want landlords doing it themselves. They didn't take away some notary service you could get done by AAA -- they took away a fundamental means of doing business.
It's like claiming that the government took away a service (police) that you were expecting to have around. The police literally exist, and are required to be used, because they've already removed the option of self-policing.
Exactly. The issue is not merely that the government is no longer carrying out evictions for landlords. Leaving landlords to hire their own security teams and evict squatters at their own expense would be fine. What the government is doing, though, is employing force to actively prevent landlords from evicting squatters, which makes the government an accessory to the crime.
A renter and a landlord voluntary sign a contract. The renter says "I will give you $XXXX a month for 12 months", and the landlord says "I will provide a livable home for you for the period of 12 months." Both agree: voluntary business dealing.
Now the government comes in and says "Hey renter, you no longer have to fulfill your half of that agreement, but the landlord still does". The government has directly interfered with the voluntary business dealing between the renter and the landlord.
Consider the counterexample: the government comes in and says "Hey landlord, you no longer have to keep the home livable or do repairs, but the renter still needs to pay rent." This would be just as much an interference with voluntary business dealings as what really happened, and everyone seems to agree on this point.
Businesses refuse to invest in those countries, and they have poor economies that people try to escape from and move to the US.
There's a general exodus of landlords from Seattle going on due to a series of punitive laws passed against them by the Seattle City Council.
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/stop-new-ren...
What this means for renters is less places available for rent, at much higher prices.
You’re not proving housing, you’re preventing people from having housing unless they pay you. When housing wasn’t a speculative investment it was far cheaper and far fewer people were forced to rent to make someone else money for no labour.
Why should tenants pay for the greed of landlords? They get paid for doing nothing, the least they could do is bear their own risks.
Building social housing, removing incentives for buy-to-rent, taxing second homes and capping rents to a fraction of minimum wage are all measures that can be introduced gradually on the way to de-commodifying housing.
You just sit on your computer programming or whatever you do. That is just getting paid for typing which is not real work. Maybe you should stop being greedy and just type for free.
And don’t be disingenuous, I get paid for labour while landlords get paid for ownership.
The risk could not legally be mitigated. Otherwise, landlords would have evicted en masse everyone who couldn't pay after some period of time. I am friends with a few people who own houses. They were happy to help as long as their tenants could provide at least some payment. It's better in the long run to keep good tenants than to evict them even if it costs money in the short term. This isn't true in general however, and several places have toxic tenants who have refused to pay and are taking advantage of the moratorium.
This is the literal definition of theft by decree. Making landlords whole should be top priority if their intention is to save the housing market. Imagine if they didn't - what would happen? Landlords would require stellar credit, several months payment up front, and regular financial checks. This all assuming they just don't pack up and sell their property (which has gone up significantly in value) thereby reducing the available places to rent.
So the nightmare scenario here is more people own their homes?
I’m not sure I see why that’s bad, but it seems just as likely that they’re selling to other landlords more able to handle the vicissitudes of the market.
Imagine your neighbor sneezes. So the bank sends thugs to take steak your rent money. Then sending police to take your house for non payment.
All the while blaming you as the problem.
At some point the absurdity has to be dealt with.
Yes this argument is flawed. But so is the whole shutting down the economy thing.