Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 04-30-2018, 11:36 AM
 
3,105 posts, read 3,842,670 times
Reputation: 4066

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
or the landlord is allowed to make a profit, but the tenants aren't.

The person knew what they were getting into when they bought the units. Say there are 100 units, this is but one, who is not moving out. The rest will eventually make the $1500 or $1800 and the person investing knows this, they didn't get into it blind.

They can sell, if they are not happy with the profit margin.
How is the LL making any profit off this underhanded thief?

Investors are the ones who get to make profits by risking their assets. The tenants have no assets, they don't own anything! This thief is using the LL's assets (as if they belonged to her) to make a profit. She has no assets of her own to generate a profit, and as such deserves nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-30-2018, 11:41 AM
 
19,868 posts, read 12,155,604 times
Reputation: 17608
It’s interesting that she is reported to have set up a tea house and yoga center. She is using the property as a business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2018, 12:04 PM
 
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,618,251 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowne View Post
If you bothered to read the article you would know this is a 6 unit building. The elderly couple bought it in 1980
and expected once this old man who had lived there 85 years died they could raise the rent to market rate. And yes, due to this scheme by the con, the elderly immigrant couple are selling their property. The grifter is hoping for a big payout from whomever purchases the building.
When I said, 'say there are 100 units', I wasn't speaking of this situation in particular, but an over all, where as rent control buildings, there are more than this one. And I'm sure the investor of these 6 units was not expecting this; kind of like getting that unexpected bill in the mail. It did happen and now they have a choice in how to deal with the situation. Keep the units or sell the units.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowne View Post
What specifically have the elderly owners done?

It is quite telling of those who identify with this *********.
You're telling me ... The 'elderly owners' may be operating with their integrity in tack. However, the man living in the WH didn't. Because of his practices of harassment of his tenants in the 80s he was one of the most disliked people in the U.S. Today he's president. Times change and it is quite telling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado^ View Post
How is the LL making any profit off this underhanded thief?

Investors are the ones who get to make profits by risking their assets. The tenants have no assets, they don't own anything! This thief is using the LL's assets (as if they belonged to her) to make a profit. She has no assets of her own to generate a profit, and as such deserves nothing.
Yes, it is a risk. One in which the outcome is uncertain, that is why they call investing a risk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowne View Post
It’s interesting that she is reported to have set up a tea house and yoga center. She is using the property as a business.
And if the 'law' does not allow that, then she'll be dealt with accordingly.
PS: Laws are in the legal business, not the right and wrong business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2018, 12:12 PM
 
3,105 posts, read 3,842,670 times
Reputation: 4066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
Yes, it is a risk. One in which the outcome is uncertain, that is why they call investing a risk.
Risk... such as fire, flood, earth quake, property values declining etc. Not risk of a thieving witch gaming the system.

But I see you're all OK with that.

And don't tell me insurance covers natural disasters, they mostly do not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2018, 12:14 PM
 
7,519 posts, read 2,819,171 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
PS: Laws are in the legal business, not the right and wrong business.
The posters who are against what this woman did are against the "law" that allowed it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2018, 12:24 PM
 
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,618,251 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado^ View Post
Risk... such as fire, flood, earth quake, property values declining etc. Not risk of a thieving witch gaming the system.

But I see you're all OK with that.

And don't tell me insurance covers natural disasters, they mostly do not.
Now we are grasping at the understanding of what 'risk' is, in terms of 'all' the ways one can loose their assets.

Rent control, it is a fixed income; when people risk their assets and invest, they know this. They also know the unexpected things that can happen are not within their crystal ball of knowledge.

Its call a 'risk' for a reason. If there wasn't a 'risk' everyone would be doing it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2018, 12:33 PM
 
13,679 posts, read 20,816,033 times
Reputation: 7673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
All you have managed to do (other than the obvious which I must ignore) is give to me vocabulary and definitions.

Whether it is a rent control contract or a mortgage contract that locks in the rates, rates are locked. All parties involved are aware of the contract. The only way a rate can change is if the parties sign a new contract.

If the investor comes to realize he can not live and meet the responsibilities of his investment he should pull out and sell.

Well you need to learn some vocabulary and definitions. Witness your confusion between a rental lease and a mortgage.


And nobody, at least not me, said the landlord should toss her. The argument is against the law itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2018, 12:43 PM
 
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,618,251 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by redwood66 View Post
The posters who are against what this woman did are against the "law" that allowed it.
I understand that.

If the investors in rent control don't like the law, then they have the option of voting in the city council members who vote so that the law may be changed.

But also take into account 'all' the people that changing this law would effect in terms of their livelihood.

The poor man has a hard enough time getting a leg up in this world. The small business man, who finds more laws against his success than for it, understands that more than anyone. The rich are rigging the system, so as to weed out competitions.

It is tough to come by affordable housing on a person's part time wage. Many working part time as full time work is not readily available live on the streets, and sleep in their cars.

We keep talking about economics here. In the 80s my father was making $9.00 an hour, top wage in his field. Today many are making $9.00 an hour. Since then the cost of living has increased and just using the fuel prices as an example, we can gauge.

One locking in their mortgage rates for 30 years and rent control all help with the increase cost of living. And people are upset by that? By the rent control law? When will it stop? It won't. The hole we dig gets deeper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2018, 12:47 PM
 
15,357 posts, read 12,674,879 times
Reputation: 7571
damn, wish I would've lucked up on one of these rent control places.

The flip side is these folks were renting in the 70's when it was a a filthy dump.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2018, 12:48 PM
 
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,618,251 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
Well you need to learn some vocabulary and definitions. Witness your confusion between a rental lease and a mortgage.


And nobody, at least not me, said the landlord should toss her. The argument is against the law itself.
A rental lease and mortgage commonality is they lock in a set payment amount for x amount of time. It isn't confusing at all.

The argument is against the law itself?

That is why the little guy will never get a leg up in this world.
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:

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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top