> Broadband and computers make it easier to transmit an unverifiable assertion prepared wholly by one side. The way you verify this is you have a human being listen to both sides.

And this should not take months. Otherwise, all this technology society has developed is all for nought. You can literally take a laptop or phone into court and login to bank accounts to prove payment. If someone wants to bribe or hack into bank servers and commit fraud, then obviously we can get higher powers involved at that point.

> I don't think we ought to undermine a process essential to the lives of tens of millions of people to help out a couple of hundreds of low rent hoteliers deal with squatters.

I agree, and the government should pay for it, not “a couple of hundred low rent hoteliers” (not sure what purpose the denigrating adjective serves, as if a business providing lower priced services is somehow bad for society).

> instead of fixing it you are suggesting breaking the process which tens of millions rely on instead for the benefit of mere dozens of hoteliers

I never suggested “breaking” the process. I suggested fixing the legal system, which is clearly understaffed or overly bureaucratic. And it helps everyone, not just a “few dozen hoteliers”.

What you (and current politicians) seem to want is a “few dozen hoteliers” to provide housing for free for the benefit of all taxpayers, allowing you to have lower taxes.

> I never suggested “breaking” the process. I suggested fixing the legal system, which is clearly understaffed or overly bureaucratic.

That bureaucracy is called process and it exists for reasons that are out of scope of your deadbeats.

> I never suggested “breaking” the process. I suggested fixing the legal system, which is clearly understaffed or overly beauricrafic.

There is no way to fix the process that would allow you to remove a long term tenant in a week and there isn't a political will to sink millions to billions into staff to allow such matters to be handle them much more expeditiously. Society wouldn't experience a net gain and has finite resources.

> not sure what purpose the denigrating adjective serves

It serves to identify the nature of the problem. You have a problem in that you are offering long term tenancy to people who don't qualify for long term tenancy other places. You are trying to do that by pretending its short term tenancy and are frustrated that the rules of long term tenancy applies. Instead of calling the cops to roust a trespassing guest who didn't pay for this 3rd day you are having to evict folks who can't or wont pay after months or years.

You have deliberately adopted a known broken niche and in a way are providing a valuable service to society and are pissed that society neither wants to fix the niche nor acknowledge that value.

> There is no way to fix the process that would allow you to remove a long term tenant in a week and there isn't a political will to sink millions to billions into staff to allow such matters to be handle them much more expeditiously. Society wouldn't experience a net gain and has finite resources.

So then society can pay the rent if it is determined that the tenant is not paying. Problem fixed.

The reason this does not happen is because society wants to get away with sticking certain subsets of the population with the cost who don’t have the political capital to fight it.

This is untenable it would incentivize landlords in your position to carry nonpayers indefinitely at everyone's expense. All your problems aren't societies to fix.

It is if society is the one enforcing the requirement to keep someone on my property.

Also, the simple solution is that the government pays the rent only for time after the business files an eviction claim with the court. After that, the ball is in the court’s court.

Society doesn't pay folks to install fire doors or sprinklers even though it makes you have them. It doesn't pay for the requirements for a restaurateur to follow food safety guidelines.

Not analogous to litigating theft.

There is no analogous situation in law or American history in which private loss is put upon the public merely because the public made you go through proper procedures.

The tenant caused your loss and you can't recover it from the people. Any such procedure would entirely break the model whereby landlords select tenants based on the expectations of remuneration. If the entire government could be made to bear the cost upon request of unpaid rent landlords would be substantially less apt to be careful in their selection.

>If the entire government could be made to bear the cost upon request of unpaid rent landlords would be substantially less apt to be careful in their selection.

This would be a good thing, usually people denounce it as “discrimination”. It’s why you “need” a credit card to stay at a decent hotel, it is a credit check by proxy because the hotel operator cannot count on the police to do their job and remove people.

These types of government policies only end up hurting poorer people who have no credit.

If we are going to go out of pocket 10s of billions of dollars per year I'd rather it be in help to keep people in their homes rather than largess paid out to a class of people that by and large are already in the top 10%.