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.
They are making a CHOICE to purchase those buildings correct? No one is holding a gun to their heads.
Hoping to keep existing tenants are RISKS that are assumed with purchasing an "asset" , (and that HOPE is not guaranteed) after the CHOICE is made to purchase.
So if rents are so high, you have the CHOICE to move to another part of town that isn't as expensive. Why do you if entitled to live in Manhattan? Come to the Bronx, cheaper rent and bigger apartments. Make that CHOICE and stop complaining.
So if rents are so high, you have the CHOICE to move to another part of town that isn't as expensive. Why do you if entitled to live in Manhattan? Come to the Bronx, cheaper rent and bigger apartments. Make that CHOICE and stop complaining.
I already live in the Bronx, and purchased here a few years ago. A SINGLE property with NO tenants. Quite happy with it, thank you.
New York City's Rent Guidelines Board has voted to raise rent on nearly a million regulated apartments, bypassing the mayor's push for a one-year rent freeze.
In a 5-4 vote, the board voted to raise rent by 1 percent the first year, then 2.75 percent the second year.
As usual and one suspected the RGB made a Solomon's choice and split the baby in half so to speak.
One percent isn't exactly a freeze but only just. Nearly three percent on a two year lease isn't again a freeze but best that could be had under these economic conditions.
Now the interesting fun begins as the dust settles.
What does that have to do with this argument at all??
Because your dumb a$$ argument against RS landlords is... why did landlords purchase a building that has RS tenants knowing rents are capped and then complain after the fact.
So my response to you is...why do people CHOOSE to work for Walmart or McDonalds knowing it pays minimum wage and then after the fact complain they want a "living wage"?
I know your liberal a$$ wants Walmart and McDonalds to raise their pay yet for RS landlords which is the same exact situation just different recipients you contradict yourself and are against it. Same difference.
Because your dumb a$$ argument against RS landlords is... why did landlords purchase a building that has RS tenants knowing rents are capped and then complain after the fact.
So my response to you is...why do people CHOOSE to work for Walmart or McDonalds knowing it pays minimum wage and then after the fact complain they want a "living wage"?
I know your liberal a$$ wants Walmart and McDonalds to raise their pay yet for RS landlords which is the same exact situation just different recipients you contradict yourself and are against it. Same difference.
Your assumptions are crazy, and you apparently don't know what a logical fallacy is (everything your weak argument is about) but you seem to know what my political affiliations are. Interesting. Where did I say I was for/against RS/RC? Where did I say I want Walmart or McDonalds to raise pay. You can't even formulate a response, so you're resulting to name calling? Hilarious.
So, let me get this straight.... you are equating your non-logical thought process/decision to purchase RS property (a large asset, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars) with those who choose low wage jobs, who are often uneducated, renters, possibly down on their luck, or can't find any other work?
And you're also saying that if they can take low wage jobs, and then complain about the wage, it's the same thing as you making a bad, uneducated decision to purchase RS property and complain about the system that regulates said industry?
Sounds like you're the one with the dumb a$$ argument.
Your assumptions are crazy, and you apparently don't know what a logical fallacy is (everything your weak argument is about) but you seem to know what my political affiliations are. Interesting. Where did I say I was for/against RS/RC? Where did I say I want Walmart or McDonalds to raise pay. You can't even formulate a response, so you're resulting to name calling? Hilarious.
So, let me get this straight.... you are equating your non-logical thought process/decision to purchase RS property (a large asset, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars) with those who choose low wage jobs, who are often uneducated, renters, possibly down on their luck, or can't find any other work?
And you're also saying that if they can take low wage jobs, and then complain about the wage, it's the same thing as you making a bad, uneducated decision to purchase RS property and complain about the system that regulates said purpose?
Sounds like you're the dumb a$$.
I'm absolutely equating both. Why not? It's the same difference. You want LLs to suck it up if rent increases aren't high enough, forcing them to operate on very thin margins, yet you don't want workers at Walmart or McDonalds to suck up being paid a minimum wage. You want workers to stand up, be proud and demand a LIVING WAGE. Am I right? Of coarse I am. Each represent's the person's livelihood. Sounds like a double standard to me.
I don't need to know you to know that you swing to the left. It's clear as day.
I'm absolutely equating both. Why not? It's the same difference. You want LLs to suck it up if rent increases aren't high enough, forcing them to operate on very thin margins, yet you don't want workers at Walmart or McDonalds to suck up being paid a minimum wage. You want workers to stand up, be proud and demand a LIVING WAGE. Am I right? Of coarse I am. Each represent's the person's livelihood. Sounds like a double standard to me.
I don't need to know you to know that you swing to the left. It's clear as day.
I'm trying to explain to you that equating both is a logical fallacy, and is a Strawman Argument. You haven't gotten that yet, i see.
Example:
Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:
A: We should relax the laws on beer.
B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants". It is a logical fallacy because Person A never made that claim.
A: Sunny days are good.
B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death.
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.
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.
