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.
When I was looking to buy my house, my real estate agent was pushing two family homes hard. I told him not a chance. I'm not a charity case. Stories like this are sickening.
I'd have ended up in jail for murder had I become a LL. I refuse to accept leftist nonsense like this.
You clearly take the view that our money is the government’s/community’s first.
My money is mine. I’d take ALL of it back if I could. Because it’s mine. You and people like you should have zero say in what’s done with it.
Any deduction - the few that still remain - is simply a reduction in what I’m being forced to pay for the privilege of remaining out of jail under an unconstitutional government mandate. You bet I’ll take any deduction possible (and more). Less for losers like the two freeloaders this thread is about is ALWAYS a good thing.
But I bet you take that mortgage deduction. Government benefits!!! Subsidies!!!!! Stop mooching off hardworking folk.
How is he mooching off hard working people?
Being a LL isn't because you want to house the poor, being a LL is a business. Our LL feeds his family with this income, the same as my occupation feeds mine.
In our case, and whether it sounds cold or not, this apartment is clearley not thiers. Im thinking that when I used to visit my BFF in Chelsea, well, if I lived with him for a legnth of time, he did die, I have no right to continue residency there, i know that, he is dead, i have to go.
This is clearley my whole point here, they were visitors, the man died, they have to go.
its a cut and dry case.
Nightcrawler, did you not say that only ONE apartment was not sold? Let me look back.
I thought I read that right?
Your Post #15 says:
the apt is RS, but once the tenant of the RS vacates, it becomes the market rate because this building is co-op and therefore the RS ends. Out of 32 apartments, this now leaves one RS tenant.
How many formerly stabilized units were converted to market rate instead of being sold?
If your landlord took the building co-op with the sole intention of continuing RENTING at market rents instead of SELLING the co-operative apartments, he is a crook and deserves to be royally screwed on the first of every month. Perhaps the judge recognized this.
This probably explains why this bastard is afraid to pursue the matter. Another judge might very well return all the market rate rentals to their former rent stabilized rent on the basis that the co-op conversion was a sham.
Nightcrawler,
You are not affected by your former landlord, aka sponsor, collecting a small stabilized tenant's rent or new market rate rents. Sponsor owes the co-op his share of the maintenance, not a penny more nor less, no matter how much he collects. If he stops paying maintenance the co-op sues and evicts him just like any other shareholder.
Last edited by Kefir King; 04-01-2019 at 08:11 AM..
How can RS apartments even still exist in a place where there is such a competition for housing resources as in NYC? Where is fairness and legality in a "law" that allows a person A to pay a small fraction of the rent that person B has to pay for the exact same apartment in the same apartment building? Nobody should have a RS apartment, not just these two specimens of scum.
As a formerly poor person, I know very well that poverty is in fact a personal problem (resulting from the way a person interacts (or the way his/her parents interacted) with other people), not a "community" problem. The only solutions to poverty are related to personal initiative of each poor person - handouts from other people very rarely lead to anything other than continuation of poverty-handout-poverty-handout-poverty cycle forever.
"Fairness" might indicate that perhaps EVERYONE should have a rent stabilized apartment as was the intent of the original law.
"Fairness" can cut both ways.
handouts from other people very rarely lead to anything other than continuation of poverty-handout-poverty-handout-poverty cycle forever.
Is not an inheritance from J.P. Ghetty or Fred Trump as much of a "handout?"
"Fairness" might indicate that perhaps EVERYONE should have a rent stabilized apartment as was the intent of the original law.
"Fairness" can cut both ways.
handouts from other people very rarely lead to anything other than continuation of poverty-handout-poverty-handout-poverty cycle forever.
Is not an inheritance from J.P. Ghetty or Fred Trump as much of a "handout?"
1. If there weren't RS apartments, and even more detrimentally Section 8 vouchers, it would be easier for the housing market to find its natural demand/supply level, ie, the rent for EVERYONE would stabilize itself at the natural level determined by demand and supply. That level is always lower than what you get with rigging up a market, ie, if the vast majority of the consumers have only an X amount of money to pay for something, then the average price of this something is not going to be ten times X, as the market price of housing is right now in NYC.
If you just hand a place to live to a million people, for nothing or for very little (as to these two people from the OP's post), the suppliers of housing will naturally have to raise the rent for the paying renters, to compensate for the rent stabilized apartments on which they are paying massively more in maintenance costs and taxes than they are receiving back in RS rent.
2. No, inheritance is not a handout. Kids have a biologic connection with their parents, and giving to kids is the same as giving to self. Fairness refers to barter-based or money-based exchange of goods or services between people in community; it does not refer to biology. Correct, biology is not fair at all - it works according to the principle of the survival of the fittest. It is not possible to regulate biology with fairness, but fairness is the only principle for successful regulation of commerce between people in a society.
Inheritance is not a commerce, though. It is as biologic as parenthood.
No, inheritance is not a handout. Kids have a biologic connection with their parents, and giving to kids is the same as giving to self. Fairness refers to barter-based or money-based exchange of goods or services between people in community; it does not refer to biology.
Of course inheritance is a handout. The parents earned the money, not the child. Watch "Billy Madison" and tell me that Billy didn't live a hand out life because out what is father achieved.
You must smoke a lot of weed in Boston.
I fully intend to break every immoral law and take advantage of every "loophole" to ensure that every penny of whatever wealth I've amassed at the time of my death goes to my kids alone.
If leftists consider it a "handout" to help your own family instead of participating in the true "handout" system of spreading the wealth, that's their problem.
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.
