Updated over 1 year ago on . Most recent reply
- Real Estate Consultant
- Summerlin, NV
- 65,160
- Votes |
- 44,110
- Posts
Look what Vegas is allowing to happen to deal with Squatters.
Vegas just moved way up the list for landlord friendly.. take that an no great weather issues and some of the absolute lowest prop tax's no income tax and now a company that can deal with squatters the way they should be dealt with..
- Jay Hinrichs
- Podcast Guest on Show #222
Most Popular Reply
- Rock Star Extraordinaire
- Northeast, TN
- 16,483
- Votes |
- 10,221
- Posts
The problem is that certain (usually) well-meaning individuals don't understand that policies like that end up promoting the very problems they're up against. For example, just using Seattle as an example - well, if you can't evict anyone until they've killed your cash flow and destroyed your property, then you will either end up with less rental properties overall as landlords sell, or higher rents overall to absorb the losses elsewhere. In either case, you're going to end up with a higher cost of housing relative to wages. You're going to end up with more people not being able to afford rents or becoming homeless, the very thing you claim you want to fight. The other problem is that there's a certain percentage of any population that cannot be helped, any way shape or form. You have to just give up on that section and focus on the 95-97% of the rest of society.
Just over Easter we had this very discussion at my house. Some friends of ours were over for Easter dinner, and they have a bunch of rentals as well. They are as conservative as they come, yet they won't raise the rent because they feel sorry for the people that are in the units, and one of them (the husband) is bitter now and wants to sell all the rentals because they aren't making any money and costs are getting prohibitive. How does that make any sense? If they sell, it will take more rentals off the market and make the market more competitive, raising the rents for everyone else - how is that going to help their current renters? I'm a pretty liberal guy but if I can't make money providing a good service, I'm out of here. I don't feel 5 cents of sorry for raising the rent - it's the cost of doing business. This isn't a charity.
The point is a single person can hold more than one idea. One can believe in a safety net and basic social equity and protections without rewarding bums and criminals. Take living conditions as an example. If a city wants to ensure landlords meet basic living conditions as a requirement for permitting that commerce, fine - but no tenant should *ever* be allowed to live somewhere without paying the rent. If that means the rent goes into an escrow account that's released to the landlord when S/he meets conditions, fine - or if it gets paid to the court as part of the LL's restitution for not maintaining conditions - whatever. The point is no one gets to live for free. If you let people live for free, then a certain contingent of bums and losers are going to do so, and you are going to make life infinitely harder for the other people who are on the edge but working as hard as they can to keep from falling off the precipice. Like I said, I'm pretty liberal but I'd burn my own house down before I'd let squatters stay there.
Everything in life doesn't have to be one way or the other. Most of life is differing shades of gray. Too far in any direction is a recipe for disaster.
- JD Martin
- Podcast Guest on Show #243



