I think you missed my point completely. The risk to the landlord is not a good or bad thing, it is just a parameter in a business decision. I thought we were operating under the assumption that everything continues as it is except landlords can no longer evict. So they still own the properties but now they have this new risk. How do you think they will respond to that? Would they just continue renting to new tenants under the same terms as before? Of course not. For their existing tenants things are fine but once a person moves and enters a new contract everything will change.
My expectation is that they would demand some other form of insurance that the tenant will leave and those who cannot provide such assurance will not be able to rent from private landlords anymore. Thus such a policy of no eviction would create more homelessness rather than reducing it in the long term unless we are also confiscating real estate or forcing property owners into contracts against their will.
People who own their property would not be affected by this.
I feel Iām repeating myself, but Iām not mapping out any future imagined utopia here. Far from it.
I donāt want the the landlord class reign of terror to resume. I donāt want the gratuitous reductions of families to homelessness to resume. Full stop.
In the US, about half of the homeless are in families. About a third are children.
What Iām hearing is that we should all be hippy-happy for this ācollateral damageā, because otherwise Landlordism wonāt ācreateā urban planning, and oh no, the sky is falling.
Well, thatās a buncha crap. How about this: letās stop the violence. Letās stop all this needless homelessness. Right now in the US, we donāt have a housing shortage. I gotta figure we got at least 50 years before this mysterious lack of landlord ācreatedā āurban planningā causes itās imaginary doom-n-gloom.
How about we stop the violence first, then figure out the trivial details of our post-violent future second?
LOL no. People will squat.[quote=ābbb7979, post:577, topic:1424ā]
People who own their property would not be affected by this.
[/quote]
LOL no. Of course they will. Pre-pandemic, the sale price of a non-luxury house is generally determined itās ārent valueā, the ROI as a landlord, as opposed to itās āuse valueā, keeping the rain off of your head. With the violence stopped, the ārent valueā would decrease, and could tend to be generally determined by itās āuse valueā. Net result: buying a house would be much cheaper, and with rental folks could escape from the Rental System much easier.
If your position is nothing more than āwe should stop doing the thing I donāt like without any thoughts to the consequences or what should come afterā then I donāt see the point in further engagement. Yes, evictions are bad, but any conceivable alternative is likely worse for tenants and society, excluding the interests of landlords themselves. The idea of just permanently banning eviction with no alternative policy at all would have predictable consequences that are certainly worse than the status quo.
Weird how you went all quiet when it came up! Thatās what you normally do when you donāt have an answer, I suppose youāre just prolonging the suspense this time?
Crazy I canāt describe every single person on earths financial threshold in all conceivable scenarios. You really got me good there. Hazzah! Checkmate! What a rhetorical victory for you.
Sometimes the question is just too dumb to answer.
Buddy, buddy, weāre talking about a far broader conception of utility than strictly financial. You said (itās right up there) that nobody would have any incentive to maintain a property they were occupying; theyād just move. You were certain of it! You were on to a winner! That, apparently, made perfect sense to you until I said, Jeeze, isnāt calling a plumber more convenient than moving house even at the best of times? You retreated to the generalisation that āthere comes a pointā where it isnāt, andā¦ not only could you not define that point, you couldnāt specify how you came to conclude that that point is likely to become an issue.
And that would all be fine and normal stuff for message board discourse. The objectionable part is where you hang around in the thread accusing other people of not answering questions and of not having thought out their positions, all delivered in your best impersonation of the lofty condescension you wrongly imagine connotes intelligence.
Iām asking you to explain how you arrived at the conclusion that this tipping-point, at which a person would rather tool up and evict someone else than maintain their own residence, is within plausible reach for some significant number of people.
You appear to be unable to say. You donāt think thatās a problem?
Itās almost an hour of my life Iāll never get back. The anti landlord posting is so bad I find myself agreeing with inso, and you have no idea how much I resent that.
No I obviously donāt agree with him about section 8 tenantsā¦ But yeah heās more right itt than you guys.
This whole thread is basically a parody of leftists and somehow inso is dunking on people. This troubles me quite a bit.
