We do have photos on the listing, but again, are YOU going to lease a unit you’ve never seen before and simply use some wide angle shots of each empty room that were taken X years ago as the only information to base your decision on? People invariably want to see these things in person.
$400 was his price, in case anyone was wondering how much he wanted for the video. That was verbal with the owner, so I don’t have a shot of that.
I laughed when this last message came. He had 30 minutes to think, “well fuck, that didn’t work” between his “okey dokey” and then reminding me that he still wanted us to find someone to start May 15th.
btw, I don’t actually believe that you’d tell your landlord to fuck off if in the middle of a national lockdown you were asked to take a 90 second cell phone tour of your unit so they could find someone to help you break your lease early.
Milwaukee isn’t really a destination city. I could certainly see that being true for a larger more competitive metropolis, though.
This particular unit is closer to downtown and not really one that college kids would rent, so it’s even less likely to attract out of towners.
From my experience, a very small handful of the people we rent to are coming from somewhere more than an hour away. And of those, we’re talking people from Green Bay or northern Illinois who want to go to MSOE, not someone from New York who really wants to relocate for that sweet employment opportunity in Milwaukee. So maybe you’re both correct from your perspective, and I’ll concede that. Definitely not how things are done in Milwaukee, though.
Unless the rooms have the ability to shape-shift, I’m trusting that any apartment being advertised with nice pictures is going to look like that before I take occupancy unless the management company tells me differently.
This thread is stupid. We shouldn’t abolish the idea of private property in the real estate market. All the ‘how would we raise the significant amount of capital required to do construction’ takes are unfortunately correct.
The problem isn’t that there are landlords it’s that our economy is designed to keep people stuck in a permanent state of scarcity. People who don’t have enough money to pay all their bills, eat, and save 15%+ of what they make have no leverage and get taken advantage of by basically everyone, not just their landlords.
I have a landlord with a property management company. They treat me quite nicely… because if they ever didn’t I would move out almost immediately and everything in the law would be stacked in my favor. I’d fuck them up without mercy. This is because I have resources to defend myself with. The lack of resources is the core problem, slum lords are a symptom of that problem.
They’re going to fiercely disagree with this statement, but won’t have any honest rebuttal for the fact that if the goal becomes lowering cost and public funds need to pay for all housing, it’ll only make sense to spend those public dollars on uniform tiny grey boxes to house people. Nobody needs more than X sq ft of living space, so anything bigger is just wasteful. X is a depressingly small number.
Meanwhile, who gets to live in the old buildings that don’t come with a side of depression? Do the public property managers start taking kickbacks to push certain applications through? Probably.
We shouldn’t abolish the idea of private property in the real estate market. All the ‘how would we raise the significant amount of capital required to do construction’ takes are unfortunately correct.
Yes we should eliminate Landlordism. And no, this crap about how we need violent evictions, and the institutional and structural reduction of families to homelessness, because otherwise we’d run out of housing and all become homeless… is just crap.
Landlordism doesn’t “create” urban planning any more than it “creates” housing, or home maintenance, or the legitimate side of property management, or anything else.
OK, I know folks like you like to imagine you are all about “reasoning”, but of course are not at all (obviously, because you believe absentee unearned profit extraction using institutional violence is a “good” thing), but sure, I’ll play Charlie Brown to your Lucy, and tee up the football for you.
How about freeholders? Folks who aren’t landlords or renters, but instead hold legal title of their homes, with or without a mortgage. In the US these families comprise about 50% of the housing stock.
Well, if we imagine that this obviously stupid “theory” than Landlordism “creates” urban planning is true, and postulate that 50% of the housing stock are freeholders, and as such are “sadly” devoid of the “benefits” of having the vampire like landlord’s violently extracting absentee unearned profits from them.
Wouldn’t we see this same alleged “problem” manifesting itself in the freeholder segments of our housing stock ???/?
I don’t expect a logical or coherent response from somebody like you, somebody that thinks violent profit extraction is a “good” thing… but I’d be happy to be pleasantly surprised!
I’d direct you toward existing purpose-built government housing or office spaces. You can even look at some of the public/private partnership spaces where some developer is mandated to tack on some affordable housing to their project to get it approved.
Or, just use your common sense. When it stops becoming about attracting residents and instead about building beds to sleep in, what changes are likely to be made?
Some people would suggest that the lack of resources (ownership or right to use land in particular) is because some people own a lot of it and other people own none.
They could look almost the same, but in this case you can see the racking below and even under them in one corner and you can see their shadow - ie they are raised off the roof - like solar panels. I think you can even see the wiring coming up.
Yeah, of course, it was just a derail/joke and the public housing may well have solar in the back.
Those are tiny tiny solar systems though and in a land that is not very sunny. Pretty much just a token system - maybe they are requiring solar on new construction, but not anything about system size.
“Even today, a large share of new homes are being built with solar PV as Irish building regulations now require a portion of a new home’s energy to be supplied by renewable sources – in many cases solar PV is the most cost-effective way to deliver this,” he says.
If anyone cares, these were (are, maybe?) unfinished empty houses left over from the housing boom more than a decade ago, not purpose-built public housing.
If the local housing authority owns them, it’s as a result of foreclosure, not a willingness to provide homeless Irish citizens with a nice little townhouse to live in.
