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.
I can't help but remember the court case with the little kid and Testor paints. Remember the little bottle of Testor paint you bought as a kid to paint your models with? Some little kid filed suit and won. There was an executive order to raise prices due to fairness and the limit was something like 10% a year. Testers raised their prices from 17 cents a bottle to 25 cents a bottle. Yes, I was around and I remember the raise. This little kid filed suit that Testors raised prices above and beyond. He won hundreds of thousands.
I also firmly believe that I can put down a price on my holdings and sell it at what I want. But there is also a fairness in me that says "Reasonable."
So if my landlord raised prices at a reasonable rate and made improvements to meet that rate, I would have no problem with it. Say he raised rent from $600 a month to $625 a month, that's fine. Of if he raised rent from $600 a month, but put in a new driveway or fenced, or put in new windows, or something and then raised it to $650 a month, I would understand.
But in some cases, rent has went from $600 a month, to $1000 on the 1st of October and agains to $1500 on the first of January with a letter to say $2000 on the 1st of April. Excuse me, that is not reasonable rent increase. Fair market value? Not hardly. Chuck the word "fair".
As to old folks moving, they should have planned, relatives should have helped, they should have worked harder to get a better retirement. BULL CRAP.
You can't plan on that kind of increase. There is nothing in this world you can do. Let's say the first increase hit. You can start planning and you can start packing and there is no way your fixed income is going to help you out on this one. So your relatives have to kick in. Excuse me? Why? Your income is your income, they should not be a factor. Your rent increased, theirs didn't. At the age of senior, you should be self sufficient and if you are not, there's a problem with our gov.
Then the second increase hits and you still haven't found a new place to live, away from your kids, away from your friends, a new territory that as a senior citizen absolutely scares the hell out of you. You have used up all your savings and you haven't even gotten a travel van to move with, nor anybody to move the stuff, because at 80 years of age, the couch is a little tough to pick up.
Yes. You have been victimized. Fair market value? That is absolutely wrong. People today look at what the market will bare. They don't look at fair market value. Fair market value is the increase in price due to price fluxuations based on price of marketable material. If I was building couches, it's the price that material "might" cost me in a fair amount of time. Not quadruple amount for my domain. People ARE getting victimized. Plain and simple.
So some people can call it victimized and some can say market value. But there is a big difference and I think, in my opinion, these old folks are getting screwed.
I can't help but remember the court case with the little kid and Testor paints. Remember the little bottle of Testor paint you bought as a kid to paint your models with? Some little kid filed suit and won. There was an executive order to raise prices due to fairness and the limit was something like 10% a year. Testers raised their prices from 17 cents a bottle to 25 cents a bottle. Yes, I was around and I remember the raise. This little kid filed suit that Testors raised prices above and beyond. He won hundreds of thousands.
I also firmly believe that I can put down a price on my holdings and sell it at what I want. But there is also a fairness in me that says "Reasonable."
So if my landlord raised prices at a reasonable rate and made improvements to meet that rate, I would have no problem with it. Say he raised rent from $600 a month to $625 a month, that's fine. Of if he raised rent from $600 a month, but put in a new driveway or fenced, or put in new windows, or something and then raised it to $650 a month, I would understand.
But in some cases, rent has went from $600 a month, to $1000 on the 1st of October and agains to $1500 on the first of January with a letter to say $2000 on the 1st of April. Excuse me, that is not reasonable rent increase. Fair market value? Not hardly. Chuck the word "fair".
As to old folks moving, they should have planned, relatives should have helped, they should have worked harder to get a better retirement. BULL CRAP.
You can't plan on that kind of increase. There is nothing in this world you can do. Let's say the first increase hit. You can start planning and you can start packing and there is no way your fixed income is going to help you out on this one. So your relatives have to kick in. Excuse me? Why? Your income is your income, they should not be a factor. Your rent increased, theirs didn't. At the age of senior, you should be self sufficient and if you are not, there's a problem with our gov.
Then the second increase hits and you still haven't found a new place to live, away from your kids, away from your friends, a new territory that as a senior citizen absolutely scares the hell out of you. You have used up all your savings and you haven't even gotten a travel van to move with, nor anybody to move the stuff, because at 80 years of age, the couch is a little tough to pick up.
Yes. You have been victimized. Fair market value? That is absolutely wrong. People today look at what the market will bare. They don't look at fair market value. Fair market value is the increase in price due to price fluxuations based on price of marketable material. If I was building couches, it's the price that material "might" cost me in a fair amount of time. Not quadruple amount for my domain. People ARE getting victimized. Plain and simple.
So some people can call it victimized and some can say market value. But there is a big difference and I think, in my opinion, these old folks are getting screwed.
I can't help but remember the court case with the little kid and Testor paints. Remember the little bottle of Testor paint you bought as a kid to paint your models with? Some little kid filed suit and won. There was an executive order to raise prices due to fairness and the limit was something like 10% a year. Testers raised their prices from 17 cents a bottle to 25 cents a bottle. Yes, I was around and I remember the raise. This little kid filed suit that Testors raised prices above and beyond. He won hundreds of thousands.
I also firmly believe that I can put down a price on my holdings and sell it at what I want. But there is also a fairness in me that says "Reasonable."
So if my landlord raised prices at a reasonable rate and made improvements to meet that rate, I would have no problem with it. Say he raised rent from $600 a month to $625 a month, that's fine. Of if he raised rent from $600 a month, but put in a new driveway or fenced, or put in new windows, or something and then raised it to $650 a month, I would understand.
But in some cases, rent has went from $600 a month, to $1000 on the 1st of October and agains to $1500 on the first of January with a letter to say $2000 on the 1st of April. Excuse me, that is not reasonable rent increase. Fair market value? Not hardly. Chuck the word "fair".
As to old folks moving, they should have planned, relatives should have helped, they should have worked harder to get a better retirement. BULL CRAP.
You can't plan on that kind of increase. There is nothing in this world you can do. Let's say the first increase hit. You can start planning and you can start packing and there is no way your fixed income is going to help you out on this one. So your relatives have to kick in. Excuse me? Why? Your income is your income, they should not be a factor. Your rent increased, theirs didn't. At the age of senior, you should be self sufficient and if you are not, there's a problem with our gov.
Then the second increase hits and you still haven't found a new place to live, away from your kids, away from your friends, a new territory that as a senior citizen absolutely scares the hell out of you. You have used up all your savings and you haven't even gotten a travel van to move with, nor anybody to move the stuff, because at 80 years of age, the couch is a little tough to pick up.
Yes. You have been victimized. Fair market value? That is absolutely wrong. People today look at what the market will bare. They don't look at fair market value. Fair market value is the increase in price due to price fluctuation based on price of marketable material. If I was building couches, it's the price that material "might" cost me in a fair amount of time. Not quadruple amount for my domain. People ARE getting victimized. Plain and simple.
So some people can call it victimized and some can say market value. But there is a big difference and I think, in my opinion, these old folks are getting screwed.
Sorry, but I disagree. Landlords are entitled to charge what they want for their property. If they charge too much, people wither won't rent from them or the people will push the local governments to allow affordable housing to be constructed. That's how market forces work.
Again, renting a property is a business transaction. If you have reached the end of your lease and the landlord decides to increase the rent, then you haven't been "screwed" or treated unfairly. You don't own the apartment and you have no claim upon it.
Without forcing the local governments to either allow additional housing (temporary or permanent) to built in and around the oil patch or setting a ceiling on "fair rents"(perhaps $1000-1500 per month) then these type of situation while occur and continue to occur.
The seniors in question are/were voters. They should have used the power of their ballots to elect officials to rectify this situation when this started four years ago. They "wished for the best" and the best didn't occur (it rarely does.)
Sorry, but I disagree. Landlords are entitled to charge what they want for their property. If they charge too much, people wither won't rent from them or the people will push the local governments to allow affordable housing to be constructed. That's how market forces work.
Again, renting a property is a business transaction. If you have reached the end of your lease and the landlord decides to increase the rent, then you haven't been "screwed" or treated unfairly. You don't own the apartment and you have no claim upon it.
Without forcing the local governments to either allow additional housing (temporary or permanent) to built in and around the oil patch or setting a ceiling on "fair rents"(perhaps $1000-1500 per month) then these type of situation while occur and continue to occur.
The seniors in question are/were voters. They should have used the power of their ballots to elect officials to rectify this situation when this started four years ago. They "wished for the best" and the best didn't occur (it rarely does.)
I somewhat agree with some of the things you are saying. You are correct in that a landlord can charge what he wants. But to take rent from $600 a month to over $2000 a month, is not reasonable and I firmly believe, people are getting screwed.
From the time the rent started going up until the seniors were pushed out, how many elections happened? Rent didn't go up 4 years ago, the possibility of an oil boom happened 4 years ago, but rent went up astronomically in just 6 months. Kind of hard for officials to campain and the seniors to vote on things. There were no elections, no voting and it makes me wonder, how many people could really see what this was going to do? Be realistic, I'd bet very few people, that could make a difference, knew anything about how "much" it was going to impact everything.
Now, if there is true justice, as soon as the boom busts, not one of those houses or apartments should be rented. Let them go broke with empty buildings. Give them a liability that they can't get rid of, nor maintain. Let them take down the buildings and then let the land stand empty. Possibly put a sign on the corner that says, "This used to be a good place to live until the owner screwed the public." hahaa
I see what you are saying and if the rent would have raised at a reasonable amount, people could have planned, made adjustments, etc. But nobody can add a $2000 increase per month and expect to adjust.
I somewhat agree with some of the things you are saying. You are correct in that a landlord can charge what he wants. But to take rent from $600 a month to over $2000 a month, is not reasonable and I firmly believe, people are getting screwed.
From the time the rent started going up until the seniors were pushed out, how many elections happened? Rent didn't go up 4 years ago, the possibility of an oil boom happened 4 years ago, but rent went up astronomically in just 6 months. Kind of hard for officials to campain and the seniors to vote on things. There were no elections, no voting and it makes me wonder, how many people could really see what this was going to do? Be realistic, I'd bet very few people, that could make a difference, knew anything about how "much" it was going to impact everything.
Now, if there is true justice, as soon as the boom busts, not one of those houses or apartments should be rented. Let them go broke with empty buildings. Give them a liability that they can't get rid of, nor maintain. Let them take down the buildings and then let the land stand empty. Possibly put a sign on the corner that says, "This used to be a good place to live until the owner screwed the public." hahaa
I see what you are saying and if the rent would have raised at a reasonable amount, people could have planned, made adjustments, etc. But nobody can add a $2000 increase per month and expect to adjust.
Are the rents being raised DURING the period when the property is being leased? If so, then yes, this may be unfair. If the seniors are reaching the end of their leases, then they aren't being "screwed" anymore than anyone else. I would have to imagine that Section 8 residents and the under-employed are also feeling the pinch.
It's doubtful that anybody will go broke in a situation like this unless they overextend themselves and attempt to "corner" the real estate market in the area. Failing a new energy source being discovered or a improvement in the American economy (neither of which seems to be on the horizon), the boom will be going for many years to come. The landlords will simply do exceptionally well for a significant period and will be able to live well after the bust comes.
A letter writing campaign, and attending the town meetings to corner public officials about this situation might have done wonders. Involving support groups such AARP might also helped , as they would gotten the word out and put pressure on the local pols to take more aggressive action concerning the housing situation.
Unfortunately, I have found in the Midwest that many people often mistake their right to protest their government for complaining and asking for help as "begging." This causes them to waste time stewing until the moments have passed to take preventative or corrective measures that could assist them and they suffer as a result.
Again, not trying to sound heartless. But renters are entering business agreements. Unfair business agreements are the standard and not the norm. Failure to remember that will always cost people money.
Are the rents being raised DURING the period when the property is being leased? If so, then yes, this may be unfair. If the seniors are reaching the end of their leases, then they aren't being "screwed" anymore than anyone else. I would have to imagine that Section 8 residents and the under-employed are also feeling the pinch.
It's doubtful that anybody will go broke in a situation like this unless they overextend themselves and attempt to "corner" the real estate market in the area. Failing a new energy source being discovered or a improvement in the American economy (neither of which seems to be on the horizon), the boom will be going for many years to come. The landlords will simply do exceptionally well for a significant period and will be able to live well after the bust comes.
A letter writing campaign, and attending the town meetings to corner public officials about this situation might have done wonders. Involving support groups such AARP might also helped , as they would gotten the word out and put pressure on the local pols to take more aggressive action concerning the housing situation.
Unfortunately, I have found in the Midwest that many people often mistake their right to protest their government for complaining and asking for help as "begging." This causes them to waste time stewing until the moments have passed to take preventative or corrective measures that could assist them and they suffer as a result.
Again, not trying to sound heartless. But renters are entering business agreements. Unfair business agreements are the standard and not the norm. Failure to remember that will always cost people money.
You bring up a good point. Business agreement. The one thing I haven't heard is if a "Lease" is envolved or are these folks simply month to month? Both articles I read didn't mention anything about a lease, just that renters were told it's going from 600 to 1000 on such and such date, and then 1000 to 2000 on another date. I would think that if there were leases being in place that they couldn't do it until the end of the lease. But it's starting to sound more like it's month to month.
The other thing is I wonder if these places catered to seniors through advertising or in some other way.
You can't raise rents during a lease, unless both parties agree.
When the lease expires in North Dakota it automatically goes to a month to month lease. Either party can give 30 day notice to cancel or ask for a change in terms.
The only "easy" solution is for the local housing authority to build affordable housing. Or subsidize the building and then setting long term agreements for low income rentals. There are plenty of those types of programs. The USDA for instance has several programs aimed at low income loans / programs to help developers build long term low income housing.
No matter how much you want to complain, the landlords are not going to keep rents low. Get used to it. Move onto to figuring out a solution.
Doesn't the USDA still offer rural development loans that can finance someone to build a house or purchase a mobile home and property? I heard something about this a couple of years ago.
All the mobil home parks are already over filled and last I heard, there was up to a year waiting list to get a house built....if you have a lot & utilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPlainsDrifter73
Doesn't the USDA still offer rural development loans that can finance someone to build a house or purchase a mobile home and property? I heard something about this a couple of years ago.
All the mobil home parks are already over filled and last I heard, there was up to a year waiting list to get a house built....if you have a lot & utilities.
You can buy a lot and have a modular on it in less than 6 months. Stick built is going to take longer since the developers have sucked up all the contracting crews.
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.
