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.
Again, I didn't say that. The issue here is the government wanting to "do something", but using landlords' backs to do it instead of finding the financial resources to do it properly.
If government wants to help variously affected parties, find the money and then face the voters come election time to find out if the right choice was made. As for shifting the burden directly onto a different party? That should be illegal.
It's always either or. A lot of the connections you try to make are insulting simplifications. People here can think.
Find the money? Expand on that.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
The government doesn't want to find the money to support these people, so instead they're forcing the landlords to do it. They've basically "taken" private property via the threat of government force. Word games will call it otherwise, but that is what this is.
Let me ask you: What happens if a landlord says "screw it" and physically removes a deadbeat from THEIR property?
The government doesn't want to find the money to support these people, so instead they're forcing the landlords to do it. They've basically "taken" private property via the threat of government force. Word games will call it otherwise, but that is what this is.
Let me ask you: What happens if a landlord says "screw it" and physically removes a deadbeat from THEIR property?
Yeah but I thought the problem was people already had the money, but they're just not choosing to pay their rent because they're unemployed. At least on C-D that's what I see the consensus is.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Yeah but I thought the problem was people already had the money, but they're just not choosing to pay their rent because they're unemployed. At least on C-D that's what I see the consensus is.
No, that's something you keep saying to redirect the conversation off of plot lines we can actually follow.
Stick to mine for a moment:
Why is the government shifting the burden onto landlords instead of finding the money to house people they believe have been unfairly put in the position of not being able to afford the rent they agree to pay?
This is pure elimination of middle class. Land lords have to pay mortgage too I don’t understand why do they have to get shafted just because someone refuses to pay. How is it even their problem.
No, that's something you keep saying to redirect the conversation off of plot lines we can actually follow.
Stick to mine for a moment:
Why is the government shifting the burden onto landlords instead of finding the money to house people they believe have been unfairly put in the position of not being able to afford the rent they agree to pay?
Come on now. You're smarter than that. It is much easier to have people stay where they are than put them through the shelter system and/or relocate them to other housing.
We have over 60,000 homeless people in this City. De Blasio said thousands of new units would be built to house New Yorkers. He has been in office almost eight years, and the homeless problem has only grown, so that shows how difficult it is, and that's with the City allocation more and more money in a feeble attempt to address the problem. No one wants low income housing in their neighborhood for fear that it will decrease property values. They don't want it anywhere on Staten Island, even on the North Shore and that holds true regardless of how conservative or progressive the area is.
No, that's something you keep saying to redirect the conversation off of plot lines we can actually follow.
Stick to mine for a moment:
Why is the government shifting the burden onto landlords instead of finding the money to house people they believe have been unfairly put in the position of not being able to afford the rent they agree to pay?
You keep saying find the money to house people. What does that mean exactly? Giving the tenants a check? Putting the tenants in a shelter? Saying "finding money" is vague. The reason why the government is putting the burden on LLs because its either that or witness homelessness in the street the likes of which you've never seen.
"The state’s rollout of the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, which originated from a federal COVID-19 relief package earlier this year, has been criticized by tenants and lawmakers for being sluggish and logjammed with 160,000 applications six weeks after the launch of the online application portal in June.
“I am not all satisfied with the pace that this COVID relief is getting out the door,” said Hochul Tuesday in a 12-minute address broadcast on her website.
The program would provide up to a year of back-rent payments and up to three months of future rent payments to eligible New Yorkers, as well as up to a year of utility payments.
If a tenant is eligible, they would be protected from eviction for up to one year, Hochul said."
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
This is pure elimination of middle class. Land lords have to pay mortgage too I don’t understand why do they have to get shafted just because someone refuses to pay. How is it even their problem.
There is no such thing as middle class, another construct to keep people working and docile
Like if I make $5 less I'm not middle class anymore....lol
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Come on now. You're smarter than that. It is much easier to have people stay where they are than put them through the shelter system and/or relocate them to other housing.
We have over 60,000 homeless people in this City. De Blasio said thousands of new units would be built to house New Yorkers. He has been in office almost eight years, and the homeless problem has only grown, so that shows how difficult it is, and that's with the City allocation more and more money in a feeble attempt to address the problem. No one wants low income housing in their neighborhood for fear that it will decrease property values. They don't want it anywhere on Staten Island, even on the North Shore and that holds true regardless of how conservative or progressive the area is.
You're smart enough to understand that my question wasn't implying these people should me MOVED.
If the government wants them to stay where they are, why isn't the government PAYING FOR IT?
Staten Island has absolutely nothing to do with this line of discussion. Shelters don't either.
Where in our legal system does the government have the authority to take - by agency decree no less, ie, not legislative action - one person's property to give it to another?
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.
