All Forum Posts by: Account Closed

I've not used it personally but have heard nothing but good things about it myself.

I totally agree w/ @Dmitriy Fomichenko

Max out whatever the employer is willing to match because 50% return is higher than you will get anywhere, but don't put a cent more into it than that. Honestly if it where me, I'd just pay tax on my income upfront and then use the money I WOULD have spent in a 401k on buying property and getting tax advantages that route (plus investment property). Roth's aren't a bad option either. Just depend how long you are okay with having the money tied up and in what investment vehicles.

>@Jason Eyerly: I'd intentionally make your ice maker leak and flood if you told me what @Eric Liu suggested.

Wait, so if your landlord doesn't want to give you an icemaker than you would intentionally destroy the property?

@Duncan Taylor "Where did they live before they were leeching off the taxpayers?"

Well that's a long complicated answer which doesn't really matter at this point in the game. The point is that they have been allowed to get free taxpayer money for so long that they are now a part of the system that can't be undone quickly or easily.

Think about it like this, imagine your propertys are occupied by 40% Sect8 folks, and they all get kicked out at once one day, along with everyone else who can't afford a house. Imagine what that does for property values when suddenly all of the old tenants are homeless and hanging around your property.

I'll give you a more specific example of the danger. I know someone witha property in a part of SF that was a housing project area but they just tore down the projects to make way for nicer homes and they kicked everyone out. Guess what happened? That's right, they BURNED THE NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT TO THE GROUND.

I'm with you regarding the issue of how taxpayer moeny is spent, but OP asked what the impact of a decision like that would be, and I maintain that it would be DEVESTATING if ti actually happened all at once as suggested.

There will be damages, especially if you have carpet, charge enough to be able to replace that carpet if/when the pets ruin it. Birds and fish don't have the same footprint as cats and dogs obviously, and large dogs are really the worst offenders.

The question regarding the pet biting I am not sure of, but I doubt you could hold any liability in that. What I have seen work successfully in the past is to specify specific breeds which are NOT allowed, like Pitbulls, Rottweilers etc as they scare the other tenants and have an outrageously larger chance of biting or causing trouble. That is what I would do if I were in your situation, allow pets but be strict on exactly which kinds you will allow. Don't go by jsut weight, but also breed.

Tell them the icemaker is not included as part of the rental, only the fridge is, and that ice cube trays are the preferred method of making ice. Do not spend nearly $400 on fixing an icemaker. That is insane.

Don't need to waste money on running their scores, but make the parents co-sign and run theirs obviously. If they have past rental history that matters more than anything imo.

Also, look in their cars when they come to view the place, see how they take care of their property as that is a sign of how will they take care of yours, plug their names into google and see if their facebook shows them graffiti'ing walls or something etc. Just simple free things you can do to make a character judgement.

1. If the videos are unlisted, than only those witha direct link can view it,s o not a problem.
2. If the videos are public, I couldn't imagine anything to gain from posting the videos with the street address. Who would watch it, and why even take that risk.
3. If you had to post them publicly, do not include the address as that is just unecessary risk once again.

Well aside from the inevitable riots that would burn down most housing developments anyways if Section 8 where cut off, there is the issue of "Where do these people live now", which can't really be answered without another subsidy program to help them which would basically just become section 8 all over again.

A lot of inventory would hit the market quickly and it would be tough to fill, even though there are 2,654 new renters a day on average.

I think in the end the thing would be a disaster, because regardless of what people think about paying for people to have homes on the taxpayers dime the reality is that they make up a huge section of the market and they can't just magically go away or find another way to pay. I think it would be cataclysmic if this ever actually happened for any extended period.

1. State in writing you will gladly replace the fan and apologize for the inconvenience
2. Deny any other compensation, as if she took it to court she would have to prove damages, of which there were none. No free lunches.