• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

One Year Rent Deferment

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
OILFIELDTRASH said:
So why doesn't California or the city of Santa Monica just foot the bill? These landlords aren't going to see a dime of the deferment. You cannot decide how you are going to donate somebody else's money. Would you be okay with the city of Santa Monica deciding you were well off so you're going to pay for someone's expenses for the next year?
Click to expand...

Been covered, landlords are businesses and businesses carry risk.
 
fskimospy said:
No, making it a local issue is what got us into this mess. History has shown that incumbent landowners will block the building of new houses so that the value of their homes will go up, which has caused a housing crisis.

The state needs to take zoning out of the hands of localities and do it themselves. Basically in my opinion they should ban all zoning ordinances.
Click to expand...

So one sized State ruling fixes it?
 
Fanatical Meat said:
So one sized State ruling fixes it?
Click to expand...

No one thing fixes it but it's probably the single biggest thing we could do and the good news is that it's zero cost! (it's actually a net tax benefit)

The new residents will bring in lots of additional tax money and then the government can use that money to construct affordable housing for people who still can't afford it. Basically everyone wins except for the people who no longer get to see their homes triple in value in like 15 years or whatever.
 
fskimospy said:
No, making it a local issue is what got us into this mess. History has shown that incumbent landowners will block the building of new houses so that the value of their homes will go up, which has caused a housing crisis.

The state needs to take zoning out of the hands of localities and do it themselves. Basically in my opinion they should ban all zoning ordinances.
Click to expand...
Living the good life in the suburbs on an island that gets its water from ground water.

Consider me your nemesis
 
pauldun170 said:
Living the good life in the suburbs on an island that gets its water from ground water.

Consider me your nemesis
Click to expand...
You aren't my nemesis, different people like to live in different places! I'm not saying everyone should live in a big city, I'm just saying people shouldn't create a housing crisis that's destroying lives and driving mass homelessness by banning certain types of construction.
 
fskimospy said:
No one thing fixes it but it's probably the single biggest thing we could do and the good news is that it's zero cost! (it's actually a net tax benefit)

The new residents will bring in lots of additional tax money and then the government can use that money to construct affordable housing for people who still can't afford it. Basically everyone wins except for the people who no longer get to see their homes triple in value in like 15 years or whatever.
Click to expand...

So multiple State wife rulings fix it?
 
Brainonska511 said:
Parking is a red herring. We should be looking to undo the damage that single family zoning has unleashed on our communities. Build cities at human scales with appropriate mass transit (buses can be great with bus lanes) and you'll alleviate some of that parking "need" as families will be able to get by with fewer or no cars.
Click to expand...
I thought we had noticed a recent issue with high density living?
 
Greenman said:
I thought we had noticed a recent issue with high density living?
Click to expand...
If you're referring to coronavirus, that's not spreading primarily because of 'high density living'. Plenty of other densely populated cities which have had coronavirus cases have not had the same issues as NYC.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Been covered, landlords are businesses and businesses carry risk.
Click to expand...
The landlords aren't going to be in trouble over market factors, but by direct government intervention. I don't know about you, but I'd have a pretty serious problem with being told I had to give away my services for a year.
 
Brainonska511 said:
If you're referring to coronavirus, that's not spreading primarily because of 'high density living'. Plenty of other densely populated cities which have had coronavirus cases have not had the same issues as NYC.
Click to expand...

Hong Kong is one of the densest cities on earth and they haven’t had a new case in weeks. Not one.
 
Greenman said:
The landlords aren't going to be in trouble over market factors, but by direct government intervention. I don't know about you, but I'd have a pretty serious problem with being told I had to give away my services for a year.
Click to expand...
To me this is the bigger problem. Landlords have mortgages to pay so if you make it so they can’t collect rent then they default. So you put a moratorium on mortgage defaults, but then the holders of those mortgages default, and so on.

Way better to just give people money and let the system run as normal.
 
Greenman said:
The landlords aren't going to be in trouble over market factors, but by direct government intervention. I don't know about you, but I'd have a pretty serious problem with being told I had to give away my services for a year.
Click to expand...

I know & I agree just as of now the alternative is worse
Similar to how the President order meat processing plants open. Yeah it sucks to work there but we cannot hav food riots
 
fskimospy said:
To me this is the bigger problem. Landlords have mortgages to pay so if you make it so they can’t collect rent then they default. So you put a moratorium on mortgage defaults, but then the holders of those mortgages default, and so on.

Way better to just give people money and let the system run as normal.
Click to expand...
I see the logic, I'm just not convinced of the result. Short term it's almost necessity, long term it discourages participation.
 
Greenman said:
I see the logic, I'm just not convinced of the result. Short term it's almost necessity, long term it discourages participation.
Click to expand...

Yeah as I’ve been going over, housing markets depend on so many things it is really hard to predict what any change will do short & long term.
 
Greenman said:
I see the logic, I'm just not convinced of the result. Short term it's almost necessity, long term it discourages participation.
Click to expand...
'Discourage participation' is a lot better than 'half the population is homeless and half the homes are owned by banks because the loans defaulted'.
 
Wow, deferred evictions. Someone who can't pay this months rent, sure the hell isn't going to be able to come up with the lump sum of 6-12 months rent. The landlords have to also understand this, that they are gonna take it in the ass, as well as some risking losing their apartment complexes, due to mortgage default. Of course many of those will get a forbearance on their mortgages.
 
compuwiz1 said:
Wow, deferred evictions. Someone who can't pay this months rent, sure the hell isn't going to be able to come up with the lump sum of 6-12 months rent. The landlords have to also understand this, that they are gonna take it in the ass, as well as some risking losing their apartment complexes, due to mortgage default. Of course many of those will get a forbearance on their mortgages.
Click to expand...
It's going to be a clusterfuck. I still think it's going to court as local government is forcing a business to extend credit to people that don't have the means to pay. If I owned rentals in that market and was facing bankruptcy because of an order that may not be legal, you can bet your ass I'd be in court.
 
Greenman said:
It's going to be a clusterfuck. I still think it's going to court as local government is forcing a business to extend credit to people that don't have the means to pay. If I owned rentals in that market and was facing bankruptcy because of an order that may not be legal, you can bet your ass I'd be in court.
Click to expand...

In the meanwhile, the backlog of evictions means that action will deferred months into the future. Tenants will just hold out until they get thrown out.
 
Jhhnn said:
In the meanwhile, the backlog of evictions means that action will deferred months into the future. Tenants will just hold out until they get thrown out.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I guess in that case the tenants win?
What a clusterfuck. The winner is who survives. Not who's right or wrong, who is doing the right thing, who is the better person, it's just whoever gets the breaks. The difference between being fat and happy or destitute depends on which way the wind blows.
 
Greenman said:
Indeed. I guess in that case the tenants win?
What a clusterfuck. The winner is who survives. Not who's right or wrong, who is doing the right thing, who is the better person, it's just whoever gets the breaks. The difference between being fat and happy or destitute depends on which way the wind blows.
Click to expand...
Capitalism is amazing, isn't it?

US State Religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top