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.
There's a reason why grass lawns exist on private property: they are for private usage. In other words, it's none of anybody else's concern what homeowners have for landscaping, or what they do with it. The exception would be if the "landscaping" is dry and unkempt to the point where it's a fire hazard, and a danger to other people in nearby homes. If you want to target anybody, go after those slobs.
What makes you believe that grass yards are unnecessary, and nobody depends on them? Millions of homeowners have dogs who need grass to do their duty, and for exercise. Rock landscape, concrete, and asphalt are murder on dogs' paws, especially when it's hot. My yard is beautiful & green all year, and it does no harm to anybody. You should be appreciative of greenery in a desert climate: it adds shade, comfort, and even helps some with cooling the temperature. Brown yards with crushed rock help worsen the heat island effect. Heat is something that Phoenix certainly doesn't need more of!
I'm not attacking farming, but I'm being realistic. Agriculture consumes a monstrous amount of water, and the experts are fully aware of this. With the ongoing drought and the shortages in the CAP system, the wise thing to do is reduce the supply to the greatest water consumers (as well as those who contribute very little to the local economy), which is the remaining agriculture in Maricopa & Pinal Counties. I agree that Phoenix will likely face ongoing water problems, especially if we continue with the growth patterns, and that's why we should all be prepared for water rate increases. Since my share of the usage includes my aesthetically pleasing lawn & trees, I will pay the price for what I use. Water has been too cheap for too long here.
When what you do affects my ability to live my life in OUR shared city then yes it does matter to me. You can attempt to run a nuclear plant at your house and claim it's your private property so you should be able to run a nuclear plant but what you are doing is at a great risk to the health of people around you. As a result you will pay that consequence, even when you own the land your house is on. There's no such thing as a private property where you can do what you please without ever potentially facing consequences for what goes on on it. I will repeat myself, no one lives in a bubble. All actions have direct and indirect results, some of them consequences and some of them benefits. Nothing is truly yours without some risk of retribution, that's one of the many parts of living in a society, since all societies are collective.
In a water crisis watering a private lawn is a matter of selfishness and privilege, when people cannot get enough water to cook their food, do their laundry or take showers. You are therefore affecting the health of people around you. And you best believe in a water crisis the government will enact strict water use regulations, and that would include you treating your lawn.
Millions of people own pets in NYC and don't have yards. They walk them on the sidewalks, to public parks, when dogs do their business, the owner or walker picks up after them. If you're a pet owner in AZ who walks their pet outside and doesn't own booties of some kind for them you shouldn't own a pet to begin with as that's extremely harmful, and booties are very cheap to buy especially for cats and dogs. And if you love your dog you are walking them. I'm not appreciative of lush green private lawns, they only remind me of people who cannot appreciate what we have to offer. The desert is beautiful and it's a shame people cannot appreciate that.
Our temperatures would be fine if people stopped tearing down the wild desert for housing instead of focusing on infill and higher density homes. The more street and highway infrastructure we have, and the bigger Phoenix sprawls, the worse the heat will be. No amount of private lawns will cover up the heat that our streets and wide interstates and freeways and cars are causing. Raising water rates is not enough, killing farming is not enough, until everyone accepts that we live in a desert and what that means we will never get any real substantial and long-term change.
And since we are referencing the CAP, then that also means other cities. People in Los Angeles need to accept they are in a transitional area, Vegas a desert, SLC a cold desert, etc. and when people stop trying to engage in selfishness past the will of science, nature, and maybe religious figure(s) for those who are religious, we will never see real change. Humans have survived in deserts for hundreds of thousands of years, and until people tried to change these areas into something they are not (within the past couple hundred years or so), we never had problems. We need people to go back to that line of thinking, and accept our limitations.
Except those "plushest grass lawns with beautiful shade trees" provide little usage because they are on private no trespassing property. I'd have no problem with it if it's a public park or in places like medians and curbside to mitigate the sun hitting dark black asphalt which is where cooling measures are most needed. However people seem to think that for the average American household (3 or so) that they deserve a private pool and often two (front and back) grassyards in a desert. It's wasteful and unnecessary.
When dealing with scarcity efficiency is key. Private property lawns are not efficient and they never will be. Just like the plurality of golf courses (some can remain of course but I think there's way too many) because they will only get used by a very select and small number of the population in contrast to their water demand. Industry and farms however get used by hundreds of thousands or even millions of people depending on what it is. Millions of people depend on these products. No one depends on a private lawn except whoever lives with you assuming you don't live alone. If it's to the wants of a few to the needs of the many, it's the needs of the many every time.
You seem to assume that attacking farming is enough to permanently take care of this issue. It's not. Even with substantial economic loss of jobs and population from losing most agriculture and industry like Intel and TSMC (who would be targeted by the policies you want to see over also focusing on domestic use during this time), Phoenix will still eventually run into a problem of exceeding it's carrying capacity. And this will always be the case until people begin to accept the climate in which we live. And that includes you Valley Native as well as myself. Carrying capacity can be improved with technology and accepting what our limitations truly are.
We need a multi-pronged approach to this. We can't let our economy take the entire downfall for something that we as individuals also participate in. Again support your neighbors and support yourself. Communities are upheld when everyone participates and does their fair share. When people go down on their luck, we help them up again (social welfare programs), when we experience flooding people volunteer to help clean up or donate, when we go through a pandemic people work to stay safe to prevent the spread of infection. And when we go through a water crisis, people will make sacrifices for the greater good of the community. And I will hope that you Valley Native and people who think like you will actually buck up and do what needs to be done to support OUR shared home, or they permanently vacate the affected area.
I bought a home with a pool because I thought it would be nice to have. And I like the lush green grass in my backyard and the new bushes I planted in front this summer. As far communities looking out for each other I'm old enough to remember when that was common. Today it's gone in many parts of the country and won't be returning anytime soon. I've also spent decades abroad (Japan) where saying please, thank you, excuse me, holding a door open or giving up your seat to the elderly is second nature. Sad to say that's dying in many areas of our country as well. But then the U.S. is on a downhill side and has been for years.
The good news for you is I've no doubt you'll end up getting your way with regards pools, lawns and other eco concerns. Just like I've no doubt at some point I will be penalized for owning rental property.
In the meantime though I'm going to continue to enjoy my pool, green grass and colorful bushes. And I'm still calling the shots regarding my rental properties so that's all good.
I'm American and prefer living in the US to anywhere in the world. But....if life ever starts getting too weird in the States I can always cash out and go back to Japan where I hold a permanent residence visa.
When what you do affects my ability to live my life in OUR shared city then yes it does matter to me. You can attempt to run a nuclear plant at your house and claim it's your private property so you should be able to run a nuclear plant but what you are doing is at a great risk to the health of people around you. As a result you will pay that consequence, even when you own the land your house is on. There's no such thing as a private property where you can do what you please without ever potentially facing consequences for what goes on on it. I will repeat myself, no one lives in a bubble. All actions have direct and indirect results, some of them consequences and some of them benefits. Nothing is truly yours without some risk of retribution, that's one of the many parts of living in a society, since all societies are collective.
In a water crisis watering a private lawn is a matter of selfishness and privilege, when people cannot get enough water to cook their food, do their laundry or take showers. You are therefore affecting the health of people around you. And you best believe in a water crisis the government will enact strict water use regulations, and that would include you treating your lawn.
Millions of people own pets in NYC and don't have yards. They walk them on the sidewalks, to public parks, when dogs do their business, the owner or walker picks up after them. If you're a pet owner in AZ who walks their pet outside and doesn't own booties of some kind for them you shouldn't own a pet to begin with as that's extremely harmful, and booties are very cheap to buy especially for cats and dogs. And if you love your dog you are walking them. I'm not appreciative of lush green private lawns, they only remind me of people who cannot appreciate what we have to offer. The desert is beautiful and it's a shame people cannot appreciate that.
Our temperatures would be fine if people stopped tearing down the wild desert for housing instead of focusing on infill and higher density homes. The more street and highway infrastructure we have, and the bigger Phoenix sprawls, the worse the heat will be. No amount of private lawns will cover up the heat that our streets and wide interstates and freeways and cars are causing. Raising water rates is not enough, killing farming is not enough, until everyone accepts that we live in a desert and what that means we will never get any real substantial and long-term change.
And since we are referencing the CAP, then that also means other cities. People in Los Angeles need to accept they are in a transitional area, Vegas a desert, SLC a cold desert, etc. and when people stop trying to engage in selfishness past the will of science, nature, and maybe religious figure(s) for those who are religious, we will never see real change. Humans have survived in deserts for hundreds of thousands of years, and until people tried to change these areas into something they are not (within the past couple hundred years or so), we never had problems. We need people to go back to that line of thinking, and accept our limitations.
First of all, you're really stretching it with the nuclear plant example. All I'm doing is keeping a manicured lawn, which is the norm in my neighborhood. No harm done to anybody. Thankfully, I live in an area where most everybody has established greenery. Brown desert landscape sucks, but that's strictly my opinion. Since we still live in a country where there's freedom of choice, if I want to make my property look like a tropical rain forest, I will do so. If you're not appreciative of greenery, and think the desert is so beautiful, then I'd suggest buying a piece of property out in the middle of the desert (far away from Phoenix).
I'm all for higher density and infill, but I'm also a free market capitalist. As much as I'd like to have less sprawl and more upward development (which is happening more & more lately), we have to be realistic that if there's a demand for certain types of housing, that's what people are going to choose, regardless if it's in the heart of Phoenix or out in Maricopa. Also, every metro area in the U.S. has sprawl. Even the high density NYC region has plenty of lower density suburban development extending into Long Island, and parts of NJ & CT. This is to be expected in & around any big city. Phoenix's outward sprawl isn't as bad as places like L.A., Bay Area, and certain eastern metros.
So regarding agriculture: if we can get rid of the remaining cotton fields & replace them with modern development (which is more energy efficient & less water wasting), that would be a great start. I hate to keep bringing up farming, but it's an enormous strain on the water supplies in a dry climate like this. It's also very antiquated compared to what could easily replace it. Meanwhile, I'll keep my green lawn regardless of what you or the other meddlers think. At least be appreciative that I'm not sucking billions of federal tax dollars like the cotton farmers are.
You are reaching (but unfortunately not grasping). You are in fact spot on that you are supporting Flagstaff schools when you rent there. And you pay for German roads and welfare programs when you buy a BMW. States and countries export their tax burden when they sell overseas. Look at Texas. They have low taxes because YOU and I pay a share of the costs every time we fill up. Germany shifts a huge amount of its social program costs to people who buy made in Germany goods. And don't get me started on China. They are taking over the world with money paid by Americans for the goods they export. In your example Flagstaff courts tourists precisely because the taxes on them pay for things Flagstaff wants and dollar for dollar relieves Flagstaff taxpayers of that expense. Firebird does indeed pay for the cost of schooling Arizona children in the monthly rent.
.
I was strategic in my example and I realized what I typed (I led the witness). lol While funds getting indirectly paid are categorically different than paying them directly, it still adds to the bottomline. It's just not the same thing.
re: rent. Some questions:
1. Who pays for the property taxes when a couple of dozen apartments sit empty? Answer: the same person who owns the building. Again, you can try passing those idle costs along. But often, the owner eats it. It's how businesses lose money or work for free (which happens all the time).
2. Next question: If the owner of the apartment has her annual property taxes go from $100,000 on a 100 unit building ($1000 per unit/yr) to $25,000 or $250 per unit per year, does that mean the rent drops by $750 a year? Answer: Nope! It may influence the long-term rent, but the rent charged depend on substitutes and what the market will bear. Or to use an example, when USA brands went to China to build their widgets and their costs plummeted, did they drop their prices or did they report record profits?
3. Furthermore, if the property taxes rise by 200%, can the owner of the complex raise the rent by that same amount? Answer: Nope! Again, the owner may have to eat the price hike. Just like what happens with other goods and services. In our industry, prices have raised by about 10% but the vendor's costs have gone up by 30%. Often, businesses have to eat a major percentage of price hikes. in another example, let's pay everyone in fast food $30 an hour. Let's see what happens. I mean, they just pass it on. Right?
Hence, renters indirectly help pay for the property taxes. But it is categorically different; they do not pay property tax because their landlord does! If V-N has his property tax double or cuts in half, he sure in the Hell willcare! You see what I am getting at. We have a poster critiquing another person who is directly paying for property taxes. I've taken V-N to task about property taxes several times before. But it's not like he doesn't have some legitimate points. i.e. it isn't cut and dry for his situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
I do agree with you on the larger issue. Personally I do not see a moral inconsistency in moaning about property taxes while watering the lawn.
Thanks for being rational. If my landlord is paying property taxes and I'm conversing in a water consumption thread, you don't get to moan about property taxes and tie it into watering the lawn. I mean, you need to actually know what you pay before you can claim to be part of the contributing team.
Oh.. I think Bernie Sanders should start a rally to drop corporate taxes to zero! Because we all know, "business just pass it on to the consumer"! Right? lol Of course not! Hence, FBC doesn't pay property taxes. His Landlord (the real taxpayer) wants her property taxes to drop!
Last edited by MN-Born-n-Raised; 08-23-2021 at 04:30 AM..
I was strategic in my example and I realized what I typed (I led the witness). lol While funds getting indirectly paid are categorically different than paying them directly, it still adds to the bottomline. It's just not the same thing.
re: rent. Some questions:
1. Who pays for the property taxes when a couple of dozen apartments sit empty? Answer: the same person who owns the building. Again, you can try passing those idle costs along. But often, the owner eats it. It's how businesses lose money or work for free (which happens all the time).
2. Next question: If the owner of the apartment has her annual property taxes go from $100,000 on a 100 unit building ($1000 per unit/yr) to $25,000 or $250 per unit per year, does that mean the rent drops by $750 a year? Answer: Nope! It may influence the long-term rent, but the rent charged depend on substitutes and what the market will bear. Or to use an example, when USA brands went to China to build their widgets and their costs plummeted, did they drop their prices or did they report record profits?
3. Furthermore, if the property taxes rise by 200%, can the owner of the complex raise the rent by that same amount? Answer: Nope! Again, the owner may have to eat the price hike. Just like what happens with other goods and services. In our industry, prices have raised by about 10% but the vendor's costs have gone up by 30%. Often, businesses have to eat a major percentage of price hikes. in another example, let's pay everyone in fast food $30 an hour. Let's see what happens. I mean, they just pass it on. Right?
Hence, renters indirectly help pay for the property taxes. But it is categorically different; they do not pay property tax because their landlord does! If V-N has his property tax double or cuts in half, he sure in the Hell willcare! You see what I am getting at. We have a poster critiquing another person who is directly paying for property taxes. I've taken V-N to task about property taxes several times before. But it's not like he doesn't have some legitimate points. i.e. it isn't cut and dry for his situation.
Thanks for being rational. If my landlord is paying property taxes and I'm conversing in a water consumption thread, you don't get to moan about property taxes and tie it into watering the lawn. I mean, you need to actually know what you pay before you can claim to be part of the contributing team.
Oh.. I think Bernie Sanders should start a rally to drop corporate taxes to zero! Because we all know, "business just pass it on to the consumer"! Right? lol Of course not! Hence, FBC doesn't pay property taxes. His Landlord (the real taxpayer) wants her property taxes to drop!
Just because it is difficult to assess the share of rent that is taxes paid does not mean they are not paid.
Let's add a new wrinkle though. Landlords get all kinds of tax breaks. They are allowed to deduct every nickel they spend on properties and avoid taxes. They deduct interest charged on any loans on the property and all of the property tax that their renters actually pay. They can depreciate those properties even in a market like this one often eliminating their tax burden altogether. They pay capital gains taxes on sale that are but a fraction of the marginal rates on earned income. This is one of the main reasons they hold property for rental - to avoid taxes. Real estate investment is a tax scheme. The name of the game is to stuff your pockets with money while showing a paper loss on the property come tax time.
And while we are on the subject, homeowners are able to deduct not only their property taxes but the entirety of their mortgage interest while renters can deduct nothing.
I am not about to do the number crunching or research but my hunch is that renters actually pay a disproportionate share of taxes over homeowners and certainly over the landlords.
I do not think that grousing about taxes for education and the price of water should be conflated somehow. But I think VN is wrong about taxation for education. Prickly Pear gave some excellent arguments above explaining how all of society - a nation - benefits from education of children not just the kids and their parents. In fact, modern society or even human survival would not be possible without the advantages of an educated populace.
There is also a more selfish interest to be considered. Home values. Readers of this forum appreciate that the two biggest concerns of prospective residents are safety and PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Good public schools increase property values, bad ones bring them down. It is our own self-interest to make our schools are good as they can be. We see the frequent observation that Phoenix continues to fail at attracting much more than data centers and warehouses and one of the main reasons for this is the perception that we have among the worst schools in the country. We have work to do.
Last edited by Ponderosa; 08-23-2021 at 05:47 AM..
Just because it is difficult to assess the share of rent that is taxes paid does not mean they are not paid.
I understood this point the very moment I posted. But you understand why the landlord is the one who is most motivated to pay the least amount of property taxes. Two people don't get to claim they pay the exact same property taxes. Just as I don't get to claim I pay property taxes for buying a ___________ widget. And isn't "all passed on". Property tax is just another expense like any other to the apartment owner. Furthermore, the value of the building (and taxes) have everything to do with how much rent they can extract. It's nothing like a SFH. Now if a renter was in a SFH, they are a lot closer to actually "paying property taxes". Apartments are different animals. But again, re-read my 1st sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
Let's add a new wrinkle though. Landlords get all kinds of tax breaks. They are allowed to deduct every nickel they spend on properties and avoid taxes. They deduct interest charged on any loans on the property and all of the property tax that their renters actually pay. They can depreciate those properties even in a market like this one often eliminating their tax burden altogether. They pay capital gains taxes on sale that are but a fraction of the marginal rates on earned income. This is one of the main reasons they hold property for rental - to avoid taxes. Real estate investment is a tax scheme. The name of the game is to stuff your pockets with money while showing a paper loss on the property come tax time.
.
Yep. I played that game and I was pretty good at it. I could teach a course on the topic. Personally, I went after the weekly rental market as it made a lot more sense to me. With AirBnB and VRBO and in 2021, you are not allowing me to sort who I rent to. So I stopped doing it. I'm not going to hand over a >$1M property to just anyone. :hand: It's why I made several hundred thousand in rent and about $500 in damage. I sorted. I digress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
And while we are on the subject, homeowners are able to deduct not only their property taxes but the entirety of their mortgage interest while renters can deduct nothing.
Correction. Trump changed the law. Homeowners cannot deduct their property taxes any longer on their federal taxes.
Also, depending on the state, there is "Renter’s Property Tax Refund" (MN does this). But, according to your assessment that costs like property taxes are passed on (therefore the renter pays for the property tax), then, the landlord must pass on the savings. So by having lower costs (write-offs), the apartment dweller must benefit from all of these write-offs. Right? I mean, you cannot have it both ways. And since neither one of us can write off property taxes and the apartment owner can, by definition, her out-of-pocket property tax expense will be lower. And therefore, the rent is at least partially reduced because the total property tax is actually lower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
I am not about to do the number crunching or research but my hunch is that renters actually pay a disproportionate share of taxes over homeowners and certainly over the landlords.
It depends on how you want to spin it. If an apartment costs $6.2M with 133 units see https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/3400...x-AZ/21592760/ , that's $47K per unit. Show me a $47k home in PHX. If the rate (percentage) is higher, they still are not paying squat (or their fair share). So yea, cities charge a higher percentages. Also, you and I cannot write off property taxes now and the apartment owner can. So their out-of-pocket (real-life) property tax percentage isn't as high as it shows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
I do not think that grousing about taxes for education and the price of water should be conflated somehow. But I think VN is wrong about taxation for education. Prickly Pear gave some excellent arguments above explaining how all of society - a nation - benefits from education of children not just the kids and their parents. In fact, modern society or even human survival would not be possible without the advantages of an educated populace.
I have the same POV. And I'm also in the camp that you cannot look at statistics to "prove" that spending more gets you less. In every single GD example, spending more on average gets you a better product. And with schools, it costs more to babysit (police, counselors, psychologists etc). So crappy schools spend the most and "prove" spending more does not matter.
V-N point has more to do with an open spigot. He (like me) is upset that there is a ton of waste.... Because of lousy parenting.
Water rights and consumption will consume life and politics here. You already see it with worldwide coverage of Lake Mead. The urban vs rural divided will get worse. IMO, once your average Arizona citizen learns 74% of the water supply is used for farming then you’ll see a backlash on farmers. Most couldn’t name a crop we produce. Unlike California where most ppl know.
Now that farmers will have real restrictions it will force change. I think I read they only contribute 1% to our economy. We can’t let them tank a state where we’ve had so much growth. The water issue is why I think we’ve been held back along with other smaller factors. Companies are going to pause on moving here or growing if this issue isn’t addressed.
Kind of funny how the MSM puts all this emphasis talking about the Colorado River system and completely ignores any of the other systems that are in place in AZ. Yes, CAP does deliver water to farms, some of Phoenix, Tucson and some tribal lands. Yes, the lakes and the river at at critical levels and we have been pulling out more than we should have the past couple of decades. Yes, the Colorado River system is going to affect Las Vegas and AZ users.
Meanwhile, those farmers are drilling wells to offset the loss. AZ is one of the largest Dairy producers in the region and a lot of those crops go to feeding the thousands of cows producing the milk. Your winter vegetables that you buy in the Grocery store mostly come from Yuma and the farming corridor along I-8. AZ and Mexico are exploring joint desalination project(s) on the Sea of Cortez (Gulf of California).
Will the loss of Colorado River water hurt? Yes. Is it going to affect most Arizonans? A little. If Lake Havasu dries up that whole town dies. If Mead and Powell can't produce hydroelectric power...that hurts the power grid. For folks living in Metro Phoenix though? Probably a medium to low impact event. SRPs reservoirs are mostly at 70%+ capacity.
Is the sky falling? Not yet and we have had an almost record rainfall monsoon this year to assist with groundwater and runoff into the Salt and Gila rivers.
The Colorado River is something to keep an eye on but the way the MSM is spinning it, Vegas, Phoenix and LA are all going to die soon. Not going to happen.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,649,465 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeL78
Water rights and consumption will consume life and politics here. You already see it with worldwide coverage of Lake Mead. The urban vs rural divided will get worse. IMO, once your average Arizona citizen learns 74% of the water supply is used for farming then you’ll see a backlash on farmers. Most couldn’t name a crop we produce. Unlike California where most ppl know.
Now that farmers will have real restrictions it will force change. I think I read they only contribute 1% to our economy. We can’t let them tank a state where we’ve had so much growth. The water issue is why I think we’ve been held back along with other smaller factors. Companies are going to pause on moving here or growing if this issue isn’t addressed.
I know a couple, oranges, lemons, grapefruit, lettuce and alfalfa. There are others I'm sure
Just because it is difficult to assess the share of rent that is taxes paid does not mean they are not paid.
Let's add a new wrinkle though. Landlords get all kinds of tax breaks. They are allowed to deduct every nickel they spend on properties and avoid taxes. They deduct interest charged on any loans on the property and all of the property tax that their renters actually pay. They can depreciate those properties even in a market like this one often eliminating their tax burden altogether. They pay capital gains taxes on sale that are but a fraction of the marginal rates on earned income. This is one of the main reasons they hold property for rental - to avoid taxes. Real estate investment is a tax scheme. The name of the game is to stuff your pockets with money while showing a paper loss on the property come tax time.
And while we are on the subject, homeowners are able to deduct not only their property taxes but the entirety of their mortgage interest while renters can deduct nothing.
I am not about to do the number crunching or research but my hunch is that renters actually pay a disproportionate share of taxes over homeowners and certainly over the landlords.
I do not think that grousing about taxes for education and the price of water should be conflated somehow. But I think VN is wrong about taxation for education. Prickly Pear gave some excellent arguments above explaining how all of society - a nation - benefits from education of children not just the kids and their parents. In fact, modern society or even human survival would not be possible without the advantages of an educated populace.
There is also a more selfish interest to be considered. Home values. Readers of this forum appreciate that the two biggest concerns of prospective residents are safety and PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Good public schools increase property values, bad ones bring them down. It is our own self-interest to make our schools are good as they can be. We see the frequent observation that Phoenix continues to fail at attracting much more than data centers and warehouses and one of the main reasons for this is the perception that we have among the worst schools in the country. We have work to do.
While what you say is true it is also true operating costs can cut deep into a landlords profit. One of the biggest mistakes I made when buying rental property was underestimating such expenses. As a rule of thumb I set aside 50% of rental income to cover operating costs. Today I'm doing fine and rents have never been stronger. However, at present I'm in the red for 2021 becuase I've spent a good 30 grand renovating four properties and there has been the loss in rental income as well since the homes need to sit vacant until work is complete
Now, I may not send much money to AZ or the Feds come tax time. However, I do write a lot of checks to local vendors.
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.
Again, you can try passing those idle costs along. But often, the owner eats it. It's how businesses lose money or work for free (which happens all the time). 
If my landlord is paying property taxes and I'm conversing in a water consumption thread, you don't get to moan about property taxes and tie it into watering the lawn. I mean, you need to actually know what you pay before you can claim to be part of the contributing team. 
