U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts > Boston
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-27-2017, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Chicago
6,005 posts, read 13,175,853 times
Reputation: 7956

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatsnext75 View Post
So we are terrible people for saying joe shmo landlord should just fork over 20k for someone they don't know with kids who wants to live there?
No, you're terrible for advocating that landlords break the law.

I'm really not understanding the disconnect here.

Look, when you're looking for investment property to become a landlord, budget an extra $20K for deleading to make sure your rental is not only safe and marketable to a wider group of renters, but also compliant to MA laws. Maybe you end up with a smaller property, or end up in a slightly less desirable location, or have to take a bit more time to build up your down payment to cover it, or put off a gut renovation if the property is otherwise completely livable. Those are just the things landlords need to consider when they take on the job. And yeah, landlording is a job and advocating that they should lie to dodge the lead law is no different than employers who find excuses to not hire minority, LBGTQ, and older candidates. Don't become a landlord if you don't like MA housing laws. Enough landlords accommodate families with children that no one in the Boston area are going to stop having kids. The OP found such a landlord eventually, as many families in Boston do. Landlords taking the foolish risk of openly breaking the law are the problem, not families with children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:03 AM
 
1,068 posts, read 431,083 times
Reputation: 1319
They aren't breaking the law if there is no children under 6 living there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:04 AM
 
2,769 posts, read 2,209,055 times
Reputation: 2174
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeePee View Post
They aren't breaking the law if there is no children under 6 living there.
Yes, but actively excluding tenants with children under 6 is breaking the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Chicago
6,005 posts, read 13,175,853 times
Reputation: 7956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatsnext75 View Post
People still want to help people but not if it's going to cost them 20k that they don't have.

I think you are all naive to think landlords should be helping people the way you think they should be. They are mainly in it for the money. And many DO pay the deleading fees. For the ones who don't I understand why. I'm not sure why you are all taking this so personally. Just find somewhere else to live that is already releaded. It's not as personal as you're making it out to be. Landlords and facilities who didn't get rid of all lead back in 1978. It's gotten worse now because everywhere the safe lead level numbers go down more and more and people freak out.
Because renting in cities like Boston is ridiculously hard and expensive and the search is time consuming because demand far exceeds supply so many people can't just "find somewhere else" to rent. Oh, and because NOBODY likes deadbeat, lying, greedy slumlords who are nakedly only about the money.

No one expects landlords to be nonprofit entities, but no one is crying rivers over a landlord unwilling to pay $20K to delead (but so many are willing to gut kitchens and put in granite and stainless steel knowing it will yield them a higher return) yet are so willing to break laws. If you're buying investment property in the Boston area these days, putting aside $20K for deleading is nothing compared to popping down half a million dollars or more to buy the property in the first place. Pick up a part time job as a barista at Starbucks or bagging groceries at Whole Foods for a year and there's the vat majority your deleading costs. And you'll never have to do it again, increase your rents and property values, and have a wider range of renters to choose from, including families who hate moving around yearly and are more likely to stick around long term and be amazing tenants. If a landlord can't see the cost/benefit of deleading, well...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:09 AM
 
3,268 posts, read 2,193,284 times
Reputation: 2682
I dont think someone who doesn't want to pay 20k to delead is a slum lord. Someone who doesn't fix lights, heat, water etc might be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:10 AM
 
1,068 posts, read 431,083 times
Reputation: 1319
Ding Ding.

(A) Pay $20k to obey a law.
(B) find someone else where this law would not apply.

Why does the state make it so easy to break the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:12 AM
 
32,716 posts, read 22,656,169 times
Reputation: 29772
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeePee View Post
Ding Ding.

(A) Pay $20k to obey a law.
(B) find someone else where this law would not apply.

Why does the state make it so easy to break the law.


Wow. Just. You double down with the wow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:13 AM
 
1,068 posts, read 431,083 times
Reputation: 1319
You like that?
I'm getting good hu?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:15 AM
 
1,068 posts, read 431,083 times
Reputation: 1319
I am not advocating what is the right or wrong move here by any means. I am just merely stating the facts as to why this is common. Jeez. Let me get back to drowning these babies now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Chicago
6,005 posts, read 13,175,853 times
Reputation: 7956
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeePee View Post
They aren't breaking the law if there is no children under 6 living there.
But it's breaking the law if a family with children under 6 try to rent your unit and you turn them away because they have children, as per the OP's post.

Look, honey, if you're the sort of landlord who wants and enjoys breaking the law, that's on you. I've been lucky that, in the time I rented in the Boston area, my landlords were all good people who did their jobs (my NYC and Chicago landlords have been overall much worse in comparison), so I'd like to believe that people like you are in the minority. Again, the OP found a place with a landlord willing to follow the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts > Boston
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top