Why does the Coli hate landlord's so much?

[The Devil's Advocate]

Let me ask this:

For those of you who have a home or plan to buy one....


What’s the process? You have a house when you’re 65 and your parent die and leave you theirs.... Y’all selling it? For low profits? To not overprice?

When you die and you leave the house to your kids but they have a house... will you tell them to do the same. Minimize profits when you sell and only sell to those in need?


I’m serious. I’m with y’all on this path. I just can fathom how it works. There’s obviously more houses than people can afford. Someone owns those houses and paid into them. Who gets shorted to make this plan work? What do we do with empty houses? Who’s taking these financial loses?


Make it work. Only person I seen try was the guy who said tax anyone who has over one home. But if I figure some rent raising would go with that but it’s a good start

 

[Noriega]

My landlord is in upper management where I work so

might as well, call him daddy

 

[JLova]

That’s why I say slum lords vs landlords. I’ve been in apt that’s expensive as fukk that’s worth every penny. I’ve been in houses and said “damn! That’s all they charge for rent”. I’ve been in hoods and they paying more than me, and I’m in the burbs.

Nobody knows what this lady is charging. How much the profit is over the amount of repair she did. What her tenants think of her. How quick she takes care of problems or let’s them slide a month on rent...

I get what the OP was asking. He’s not asking why would you hate someone raping you for rent in a shytty apt. He asked why do you hate ALL landlords. Like soon as you hear they own rental property, it turns to hate and assumptions about what they do, what they make, and why.

How did we get THERE? And what would happen if she didn’t buy it? The city does? Have we seen public housing?

Exactly. Which is why I don't even bother arguing with them. There's a difference between a slumlord and a landlord. Also, there are different kinds of rentals. Luxury rentals for high networth individuals, rentals at mid level range and then low income rentals. But you have jackasses who think every rental should cost $500 a month. People like that are fukking retards.

And on top of that, there was a story up here with a guy who rented 12 houses and turned them into rooming houses. Landlords had no idea. Guy was making like 50K a month and was fined $30K.

So these people who come in here expect the landlord to just roll out the red carpet for no other reason than they can't afford to buy their own home can eat a dikk.

 

[JLova]

I hear you, and I’ve stayed in some really nice apartments where the landlord was very respectful and kept the building in top shape, and I would lease from him/ her again in a jiffy. It’s just a LOT of slumlords out there, which is why people have grown to resent landlords in general. No one wants a living situation that’s stressful; home is meant to be a place to relax, no one wants to deal with some passive aggressive shyt from their landlord or super

The slumlords get all the press. There are much more solid landlords than slumlords out there. People exagerate big time. Charging market rent doesn't make you a slumlord and I feel a lot fo people use slumlord and landlord interchangeably.

 

[Jahbarri]

I hear you, and I’ve stayed in some really nice apartments where the landlord was very respectful and kept the building in top shape, and I would lease from him/ her again in a jiffy. It’s just a LOT of slumlords out there, which is why people have grown to resent landlords in general. No one wants a living situation that’s stressful; home is meant to be a place to relax, no one wants to deal with some passive aggressive shyt from their landlord or super

Facts

 

[Dorian Breh]

Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia

@The Devil's Advocate read this, breh

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia

@The Devil's Advocate read this, breh

Reading this and applying it to the article, there's just got to be a middle ground.. But there's no middle ground. Which is why, most countries don't try and divy up the land like that. And when they do, it's mostly corrupt and failing and the poor are still fukked.

SOMEONE has to own the land. Either a person or a govt. Or you would have pandemonium as every tries to claim their own. Then it comes to what's a fair amount, per family number. A single man shouldn't get as much land as a family of 10 right? None of this effects money so the rich still have bread. They still will buy the prime spots. There still will be a market where that NY land is worth way more than that Idaho land. People will still combine familes and marry off quickly to combine land. When someone dies, there will be land that either gets sucked back to the govt. Even though it was your land and you farmed it and built a house and stayed there 60 years and had your kids there but fukk all that.....



What this really made me think about, was human history. There has always been land, before there was govt. And people did the same thing. Carved out their part, for their family/clan/tribe/civilization, whatever... And they'd fight for prime land. Link up to combine land. Sell land. Trade land. Offer food in exchange to live on land... All that. I don't think we can move beyond that system. No one system of govt should be in charge of land distribution.

I think the best way is what homie said. The more we all speak. The more that sounds so good. If you have more than one place. Or if you have a rental place, they rent should be controlled by the govt.. Now that I would agree. Now it's fukked up to put a market cap on the real estate business. That's still unAmerican as hell. But I think we should do it with health care too, and shelter is a basic necessity. You shouldn't be able to make 2000% percent on rent. It should be a cap on how much over the cost of living in that area, you can charge for rent. Again, you'd have to do a lot of numbers and formulas on sq ft, bed, what type of home, all that... But when it's figured out.. Maybe you can make 20% more... or 40% over what it's worth.. But no more of this 250%-500%-5000% over market value, basically price gouging.



But I cannot see a country (maybe y'all can point out ones that do) were there are no landlords or rental property owners. I can't wrap my brain around the process

 

[JLova]

Reading this and applying it to the article, there's just got to be a middle ground.. But there's no middle ground. Which is why, most countries don't try and divy up the land like that. And when they do, it's mostly corrupt and failing and the poor are still fukked.

SOMEONE has to own the land. Either a person or a govt. Or you would have pandemonium as every tries to claim their own. Then it comes to what's a fair amount, per family number. A single man shouldn't get as much land as a family of 10 right? None of this effects money so the rich still have bread. They still will buy the prime spots. There still will be a market where that NY land is worth way more than that Idaho land. People will still combine familes and marry off quickly to combine land. When someone dies, there will be land that either gets sucked back to the govt. Even though it was your land and you farmed it and built a house and stayed there 60 years and had your kids there but fukk all that.....



What this really made me think about, was human history. There has always been land, before there was govt. And people did the same thing. Carved out their part, for their family/clan/tribe/civilization, whatever... And they'd fight for prime land. Link up to combine land. Sell land. Trade land. Offer food in exchange to live on land... All that. I don't think we can move beyond that system. No one system of govt should be in charge of land distribution.

I think the best way is what homie said. The more we all speak. The more that sounds so good. If you have more than one place. Or if you have a rental place, they rent should be controlled by the govt.. Now that I would agree. Now it's fukked up to put a market cap on the real estate business. That's still unAmerican as hell. But I think we should do it with health care too, and shelter is a basic necessity. You shouldn't be able to make 2000% percent on rent. It should be a cap on how much over the cost of living in that area, you can charge for rent. Again, you'd have to do a lot of numbers and formulas on sq ft, bed, what type of home, all that... But when it's figured out.. Maybe you can make 20% more... or 40% over what it's worth.. But no more of this 250%-500%-5000% over market value, basically price gouging.



But I cannot see a country (maybe y'all can point out ones that do) were there are no landlords or rental property owners. I can't wrap my brain around the process

So then good luck housing your population. People will not invest in housing if there is a cap in rent. Land is not worth the same all across the board. Land in Atlanta isn’t the same value as land in NYC. So that all comes into play when determining rent. The rent charged takes everything into account and I’m a strong proponent in supply and demand. If your prices are too high the market will let you know by not paying.

Not all properties are equal and people need to stop treating it as such. There’s a reason why we have desirable areas, desirable countries. Simply can’t put a cap on prices. You can put a cap on increases I guess. But the things I’m hearing is crazy. If we are putting caps on home prices then why stop there?

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

So then good luck housing your population. People will not invest in housing if there is a cap in rent. Land is not worth the same all across the board. Land in Atlanta isn’t the same value as land in NYC. So that all comes into play when determining rent. The rent charged takes everything into account and I’m a strong proponent in supply and demand. If your prices are too high the market will let you know by not paying.

Not all properties are equal and people need to stop treating it as such. There’s a reason why we have desirable areas, desirable countries. Simply can’t put a cap on prices. You can put a cap on increases I guess. But the things I’m hearing is crazy. If we are putting caps on home prices then why stop there?

But I just made those same points. Even closing with saying how no country in the history of humans has been land controlled equally

BUT if we brainstorming shyt. A cap on overcharging, BY COST OF LIVING, would be the only way I could see it. Even then the formulas would have to be crazy

I said every word fam lol

 

[Dorian Breh]

Reading this and applying it to the article, there's just got to be a middle ground.. But there's no middle ground. Which is why, most countries don't try and divy up the land like that. And when they do, it's mostly corrupt and failing and the poor are still fukked.

SOMEONE has to own the land. Either a person or a govt. Or you would have pandemonium as every tries to claim their own. Then it comes to what's a fair amount, per family number. A single man shouldn't get as much land as a family of 10 right? None of this effects money so the rich still have bread. They still will buy the prime spots. There still will be a market where that NY land is worth way more than that Idaho land. People will still combine familes and marry off quickly to combine land. When someone dies, there will be land that either gets sucked back to the govt. Even though it was your land and you farmed it and built a house and stayed there 60 years and had your kids there but fukk all that.....



What this really made me think about, was human history. There has always been land, before there was govt. And people did the same thing. Carved out their part, for their family/clan/tribe/civilization, whatever... And they'd fight for prime land. Link up to combine land. Sell land. Trade land. Offer food in exchange to live on land... All that. I don't think we can move beyond that system. No one system of govt should be in charge of land distribution.

I think the best way is what homie said. The more we all speak. The more that sounds so good. If you have more than one place. Or if you have a rental place, they rent should be controlled by the govt.. Now that I would agree. Now it's fukked up to put a market cap on the real estate business. That's still unAmerican as hell. But I think we should do it with health care too, and shelter is a basic necessity. You shouldn't be able to make 2000% percent on rent. It should be a cap on how much over the cost of living in that area, you can charge for rent. Again, you'd have to do a lot of numbers and formulas on sq ft, bed, what type of home, all that... But when it's figured out.. Maybe you can make 20% more... or 40% over what it's worth.. But no more of this 250%-500%-5000% over market value, basically price gouging.



But I cannot see a country (maybe y'all can point out ones that do) were there are no landlords or rental property owners. I can't wrap my brain around the process

Yes, these problems can’t be solved at the individual level, these rules need to be enforced by the government taking into account the good of all citizens. That’s basically the entire reason for the existence of the government, to make these decisions on a broader scale than any one person’s limited view of things. If not, then there’s basically nothing stopping landlords from running wild on the renter class.

 

[Dorian Breh]

So then good luck housing your population. People will not invest in housing if there is a cap in rent. Land is not worth the same all across the board. Land in Atlanta isn’t the same value as land in NYC. So that all comes into play when determining rent. The rent charged takes everything into account and I’m a strong proponent in supply and demand. If your prices are too high the market will let you know by not paying.

Not all properties are equal and people need to stop treating it as such. There’s a reason why we have desirable areas, desirable countries. Simply can’t put a cap on prices. You can put a cap on increases I guess. But the things I’m hearing is crazy. If we are putting caps on home prices then why stop there?

Where is your rental property located? How many apartments?

 

[Still Benefited]

these nikkas really said "why do landlords think the government is gonna take away their property".

Because they live in a house and rent one nikka, it's a fair hustle and a great investment. And yall do know something like "the median net worth for a black family with a graduate degree is 70k"

Because networth takes into account debt.Net worth is not based on salary!

A 70k networth for a graduate degree is not bad. Just because you making 100k don't mean you gonna have a 100k net worth...

Thats not really living within your means if you require someone else to pay the rent on one of your homes. The landlords would be freeloaders as much as the renter if they can't pay the mortgage. Just like the landlord will have a debt to pay,the renter will have a debt to pay when it goes to a credit bureau. Both can free load the system and file bankruptcy if they choose. Freeloading and milking the system is also the American Way. But for some reason people just seem to hate when poor people decide to use their "fair hustle".

 

[EndDomination]

this board and society in general HATE rich people (not saying all landlords are rich....)

check any thread that gets made about some one with serious money like bezos....zuzkerberg....elon....hell even jay z or drake.....

nikkas come out of the woodwork to shyt on them or claim they're satanic or some shyt....

it never fails

lots of people hate successful people because they arent successful themselves....not understanding that very hate is keeping them where they are

fukk them nikkas too.

Is Elon Musk not the child of a white South African jewel mine owner? Is that not colonial theft in an obvious way? Is Jeff Bezos not exploiting his workers, destroying unions, and literally killing off thousands of businesses while creating a monopoly? The same for Zuckerberg?

A lot of Coli posters aren't braindead followers of wealthy people - they realize the fukked up conditions that created them and allow them to sustain

 

[Dorian Breh]

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

Reading this and applying it to the article, there's just got to be a middle ground.. But there's no middle ground. Which is why, most countries don't try and divy up the land like that. And when they do, it's mostly corrupt and failing and the poor are still fukked.

SOMEONE has to own the land. Either a person or a govt. Or you would have pandemonium as every tries to claim their own. Then it comes to what's a fair amount, per family number. A single man shouldn't get as much land as a family of 10 right? None of this effects money so the rich still have bread. They still will buy the prime spots. There still will be a market where that NY land is worth way more than that Idaho land. People will still combine familes and marry off quickly to combine land. When someone dies, there will be land that either gets sucked back to the govt. Even though it was your land and you farmed it and built a house and stayed there 60 years and had your kids there but fukk all that.....


What this really made me think about, was human history. There has always been land, before there was govt. And people did the same thing. Carved out their part, for their family/clan/tribe/civilization, whatever... And they'd fight for prime land. Link up to combine land. Sell land. Trade land. Offer food in exchange to live on land... All that. I don't think we can move beyond that system. No one system of govt should be in charge of land distribution.

I think the best way is what homie said. The more we all speak. The more that sounds so good. If you have more than one place. Or if you have a rental place, they rent should be controlled by the govt.. Now that I would agree. Now it's fukked up to put a market cap on the real estate business. That's still unAmerican as hell. But I think we should do it with health care too, and shelter is a basic necessity. You shouldn't be able to make 2000% percent on rent. It should be a cap on how much over the cost of living in that area, you can charge for rent. Again, you'd have to do a lot of numbers and formulas on sq ft, bed, what type of home, all that... But when it's figured out.. Maybe you can make 20% more... or 40% over what it's worth.. But no more of this 250%-500%-5000% over market value, basically price gouging.

But I cannot see a country (maybe y'all can point out ones that do) were there are no landlords or rental property owners. I can't wrap my brain around the process

Some good points. Could you explain the benefits for citizens in allowing some industries to be "unAmerican" and stopping others? OR did you mean, no industry should be allowed to be "unAmerican"?