Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Homeless Dude)   Landlord raises rent 250% retroactive to the first of the month in the only state left operating at a surplus   (minotdailynews.com) divider line 176
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

23273 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Oct 2011 at 4:39 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



176 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-10-08 05:18:57 PM  

Weaver95: FEMA


Drink!
 
2011-10-08 05:22:56 PM  

Nuclear Monk: AbbeySomeone: 2 stories, 2 br and a basement for 485.00? I realize I'm accustomed to Seattle rents, but damn - that's under market.

Plus, it's Minot. North Dakota.


/THIS

There's nothing in Minot that calls for that much rent... i've been there and there's not much of anything up that way. That landlord needs to DIAF.
 
2011-10-08 05:23:26 PM  
How much is the rent? tuition? health care? baby formula? As much as the government will pay.
 
2011-10-08 05:23:35 PM  

AbbeySomeone: 2 stories, 2 br and a basement for 485.00? I realize I'm accustomed to Seattle rents, but damn - that's under market.


Depends on the market. There are still places in the US where you can buy a 3 bedroom home for $30k. Not great areas if you're trying to make a buck but good for retiring.
 
2011-10-08 05:25:09 PM  

RanDomino: diaphoresis
Ya.. suprisingly, it is not much harder than that. I noted your sarcasm, but I mock your ignorance for not knowing how to make the move intelligently.

duh, if you can't afford where you live now just move to somewhere cheap like Nigeria or the Yukon. Don't these people understand that they don't have any right to live anywhere half-way decent? If they didn't want to be treated like moldy dog turds they should just be rich.


Don't need to be rich, fool.
 
2011-10-08 05:29:31 PM  
Draw out the eviction process as long as possible before buying a mobile home in California.
 
2011-10-08 05:29:40 PM  

LacksSocialSkilzz: Chester J. Lampwick: "We've done everything right," Gessner said, noting that she and her fiancee completed their education and have jobs - she is a dental hygienist and also works at a nursing home, while Aamot is an electrician.

"We're common people," she said.

Gessner, for the majority of her life, has lived in The Manor. Her mother, Cheryl Gessner, a city employee, still lives there.

The increase sucks, for sure, but why would a couple with steady jobs want to live there even with the low rent? If she's lived there most of her life and it's a dump, I would think she would want to move out and move on.

Where to?

Oh, right. Bootstrapping by giving up their job to be able to move away, hoping that another job is available where housing is affordable...


See? That is doing it the STUPID way... find job first, THEN move...

/People make their own problems 90% of the time by being dumber than a 2x4
//Just look at the Wall Street protesters
///Only 1 person out of hundreds had a real brain
 
2011-10-08 05:31:12 PM  
TFA: The Magic City is not exactly chock full of apartment vacancies, and any vacancies available would most likely also come with a hefty price tag comparable with the increased rent at The Manor.

Does this mean they raised the rent to market value?
 
2011-10-08 05:34:06 PM  

furiousidiot: Draw out the eviction process as long as possible before buying a mobile home in California.


Yup. Contact the local housing authority and find out how. They should be able to offer valuable advice, such as the Sheriff's office is stretched too thin to provide the eviction service in a timely manner. The actual eviction may possibly take 6 months.
 
2011-10-08 05:36:19 PM  
When your town becomes a "boom town", it's time for you to change, too. The money in a boom town goes to people taking care of the newcomers. Quit your dental hygenist and nursing home jobs and find a service you can perform for the oil workers at inflated wages. (No this is not a sex worker joke).

While you're at it, if Minot still has a library, go check out a book on the California gold rush to look for ideas. Some people got rich providing laundry service to the gold miners...and the dirty laundry was shipped all the way to Hawaii to be cleaned, with a multi-month wait.

It's practically raining money in your town. Instead of being one of the people whining about how quickly things have changed, you want to be one of the people who grab a bucket and go get some!

P.S. If your husband is an electrician, why isn't he already getting rich off the oil workers? Don't all those old abandoned farmhouses I've been hearing about in this thread need electrical improvements?
 
2011-10-08 05:39:40 PM  

puffy999: To put this into perspective: one can routinely find houses in ND for under $25,000.


Perhaps, but I doubt these tenants can come up with 25k in a month. The cheapness of regional housing is really immaterial in regards to a sudden, unexpected rent increase to subsidized housing.
 
2011-10-08 05:42:27 PM  

Beowoolfie: When your town becomes a "boom town", it's time for you to change, too. The money in a boom town goes to people taking care of the newcomers. Quit your dental hygenist and nursing home jobs and find a service you can perform for the oil workers at inflated wages. (No this is not a sex worker joke).

While you're at it, if Minot still has a library, go check out a book on the California gold rush to look for ideas. Some people got rich providing laundry service to the gold miners...and the dirty laundry was shipped all the way to Hawaii to be cleaned, with a multi-month wait.

It's practically raining money in your town. Instead of being one of the people whining about how quickly things have changed, you want to be one of the people who grab a bucket and go get some!

P.S. If your husband is an electrician, why isn't he already getting rich off the oil workers? Don't all those old abandoned farmhouses I've been hearing about in this thread need electrical improvements?


If everybody quits their nursing home and waiter jobs, there won't be any waiters or CNAs. Do you really want grandma neglected because anyone who knew how or wanted to couldn't live on what it paid? Every able-bodied man with any technical skill went out to work on the rigs, so there's nobody to fix your car or even do something as simple as flipping a burger. Don't look down on the people who do the low paying jobs. We might find we don't like a world without hotel maids and busboys.
 
2011-10-08 05:42:56 PM  
Seems to me if they already cashed your rent check, they have accepted the implied contract so can't raise the rent retroactively. Any lawyers want to chime in?
 
2011-10-08 05:43:24 PM  

sheilanagig: moothemagiccow: What's up guy living in city people actually want to live in. These farkers live in North Dakota. That's right NORTH Dakota, the one without mount rushmore. Stop having such a nice place to live and you will stop paying such high rent.

Did you RTFA? Nice place to live? You must have grown up in some real dirt-floor hillbilly conditions if that sounds nice to you.


Did you read the post he was responding to? He was comparing Seattle to the area in TFA.
 
2011-10-08 05:43:26 PM  

diaphoresis: See? That is doing it the STUPID way... find job first, THEN move...


dl.dropbox.com

So someone finds themselves in a situation where their rent goes up at an insane rate - retroactively... they have a decent job which, ultimately, is not going to allow them to pay said increased rent... there is a known lack of affordable housing in the state, and most jobs are lower-paying jobs (except for roughneckers)... but sure, let's find a job first, most probably out of state, oh crap, can't afford to fly or drive over for an interview (and not every company uses Skype)...

... but let's say the job hunt is successful, eventually... racked up a couple more months rent, now to find a place to live elsewhere, and get stuff moved out of state. Cost of rental trucks, downpayment on new house...

Not to mention, leaving family behind, starting a new life, hoping the new job doesn't turn out to suck your life away, oh, hey, probation periods to deal with.

Yeah, everyone can afford to take risks like that, these days.
 
2011-10-08 05:43:48 PM  

diaphoresis: If you can't afford $1100 a month to live in a decent place, move to another city and/or state where you won't get screwed.

/This whole raising rent thing does sound like a subsidy scam tho.


They already live in North Dakota; there's a reason that rent is so low. Where would they move to? And besides, people who live in subsidized housing aren't exactly known for having the financial and employment security to just up and move somewhere else on a month's notice. Honestly, consider the context before you make posts like this; I doubt you meant to come off as a jerk, but saying that a bunch of working class HUD beneficiaries should just "...move to another city and/or state..." is pretty callous.
 
2011-10-08 05:47:32 PM  

dahmers love zombie: The retarded cousin of free market capitalism. Provide juuuuust enough state support that the capitalists can assrape the people even worse.


Subsidizing business' operating costs is the most inefficient way to do anything, whether it's student loans or food stamps or subsidized housing. "Public option" is far more efficient, but that makes too much sense to be implemented in a derpy country like America. It makes so much sense the arguments against it are hilarious. First, after crowing 24/7 that government shouldn't try because businesses are more efficient than governments, the businesses then turn around and whine that they can't compete with government. (One or the other, guys!) Eventually they just derp about socialism.

Fact is, the government is great at being a provider of the last resort, whether it's housing, food, health insurance or work. Because of pressure from taxpayers the government's offering will never be glamorous, but it's better than nothing. Most people will eventually want to move up, though, and there's plenty of opportunity for businesses to offer that upgrade. One of the best examples is education. Free K-12 public education for everyone; private education for those that want better and can afford it. So of course the solution is. . . to destroy public education to give everyone the "freedom" to go to private schools they can't afford without. . . subsidies!

Subsidize housing and of course they'll raise rents. You've increased the money flowing in but done jack shiat move the supply-and-demand equilibrium. Make the government a landlord of the last resort and that pushes the supply side. Prices may not go down, but you'll definitely get better value. Private landowners can't get too greedy or people will just go back to Uncle Sam's slums.
 
2011-10-08 05:48:07 PM  

Beowoolfie: It's practically raining money in your town. Instead of being one of the people with some actual morals, you want to be the (to-be) dead whore in the Cadillac.


FTFY.

You deserve to have regulations come down on you like a ton of bricks. One can still catch the money without being an asshat about it.
 
2011-10-08 05:48:48 PM  
I like how people think it's free to move, and that you don't have to rent a truck, pay at least 2 months rent, maybe find a new job, sacrifice time getting paid at said job to do the physical move, pay for the exit cleaning, pay the OLD rent until you are gone, and spend time and gas money looking for said new place. And it's so easy to save money when you make 12,000 a year like me. Get a new job? Now you have to sacrifice that overtime that made it all worthwhile to search for another job. And buy some presentable clothes while you're at it, you willfully poor slob.

(And all the while, while you save for all this, suddenly, you get a kidney-stone or need a root-canal, or your car takes a shiat, and you are set back again, often not to zero, but back into negative numbers...)
 
2011-10-08 05:49:09 PM  

Bunnyhat: trotsky: charliebear: Landlord can't raise the rent on you until the term is over. Are you a month to month tenant? Either you or landlord can terminate or modify the lease each month. Don't like it? Rent somewhere else, or buy a place.

These are always the best answers. Yes, despite that other Farkers have chimed in on the situation you still bring out the tired bullshiat of rent somewhere else or buy a place. Did you even read the article and thread?

I get that, but how can the owner come back and say we're raising your rent on the first of this month after the first has already passed.

I deal with month to month leases every day, I can change the terms but by law have to give a 10 day notice before the terms change. I can't send a letter out on the 5th and say that 5 days ago your rent went up.

That would be like paying $5 for totalfark on the 1st and Drew coming in on the 5th to say it now cost $15 a month and he'll go ahead and tack the rest on your card now.


I don't know the specifics of ND law, but I would guess that this might be your typical, out-of-state corp scare tactic to grab up a windfall, like when your cell or CC company sends you a bill one month with drastically higher charges, declares you didn't pay last month even though you did, and tries to stonewall you in customer service/frighten you through debt collectors into paying the unlawful fees. In a rather glaring loophole in US corporate governance law, while it may widely be illegal to abusively raise or add rates, there's nothing at all illegal about trying to scare or trick customers into paying you something they don't owe you.
 
2011-10-08 05:53:51 PM  

OgreMagi: Seems to me if they already cashed your rent check, they have accepted the implied contract so can't raise the rent retroactively. Any lawyers want to chime in?


It depends on the fine print of the lease agreement, if there was one.

/not a lawyer.
 
2011-10-08 05:56:17 PM  

sethstorm: Sounds like a good reason to have robust rental regulations. That is, ones that discourage landlords from acting like this, and financially encourage them to be reasonable.

If you have a captive audience like that, you have a responsibility to not do things like this and still make a profit. Otherwise, you deserve whatever peril that comes to you.


I agree with you, but notice that the "landlord" is a real estate corp operating out of San Francisco. They don't give a fig about the lives of people in ND, anymore than the landlord corps that run cheap student housing complexes in college towns care about the condition of their units.
 
2011-10-08 05:56:33 PM  

badhatharry: How much is the rent? tuition? health care? baby formula? As much as the government will pay.


Y'know, we're typically at odds in our positions, but you're spot-on here.

I'm sure our solutions, however, would still be night and day.
 
2011-10-08 05:57:03 PM  

Heron: They already live in North Dakota; there's a reason that rent is so low. Where would they move to? And besides, people who live in subsidized housing aren't exactly known for having the financial and employment security to just up and move somewhere else on a month's notice. Honestly, consider the context before you make posts like this; I doubt you meant to come off as a jerk, but saying that a bunch of working class HUD beneficiaries should just "...move to another city and/or state..." is pretty callous.


Ya.. I suppose it is. I completely empathize with their situation, but in the end they will either come up with the money, or find somewhere else they can afford. As far as the time involved to succeed in finding a new place of work or a new place to live, it will be harder to make the changes quickly, but ultimately they need to work towards that goal.

/Having a good plan is essential
//Working towards that plan from week-to-week (or month-to-month) is better than sitting around waiting for Hope and Change
 
2011-10-08 05:58:39 PM  

diaphoresis: Ya.. I suppose it is. I completely empathize with their situation, but in the end they will either come up with the money, or find somewhere else they can afford. As far as the time involved to succeed in finding a new place of work or a new place to live, it will be harder to make the changes quickly, but ultimately they need to work towards that goal.

/Having a good plan is essential
//Working towards that plan from week-to-week (or month-to-month) is better than sitting around waiting for Hope and Change


translation: "I sympathize, but I still think you're not trying hard enough and that's why you're poor."
 
2011-10-08 05:59:46 PM  

nealpolitan: This is due to the flood and the oil boom to the West of Minot. I grew up in New Town, which is at the heart of the oil boom. Farmhouses that had sat vacant for 25 years are now renting for $3000/month and up, depending on how many dudes they can shoehorn in there. There is a 500 unit apartment complex going up in a town that had a population of 1000 when I was in high school (in the 1980s)...

But it's all good if you happen to own some mineral rights. Then you're a millionaire. Otherwise, have fun paying $2000/month for a one bedroom apartment in Western North Dakota and trying to make a living at something other than roughnecking.


Jeez. When I was in Austin, I only paid 1200 a month (well, 600 but I had a roomie), and that was for two large bedrooms with full baths, a kitchen/dining room, and a decent sized living-room within walking distance of campus.
 
2011-10-08 06:00:37 PM  

sheilanagig: diaphoresis: Ya.. I suppose it is. I completely empathize with their situation, but in the end they will either come up with the money, or find somewhere else they can afford. As far as the time involved to succeed in finding a new place of work or a new place to live, it will be harder to make the changes quickly, but ultimately they need to work towards that goal.

/Having a good plan is essential
//Working towards that plan from week-to-week (or month-to-month) is better than sitting around waiting for Hope and Change

translation: "I sympathize, but I still think you're not trying hard enough and that's why you're poor."


Wrong... I'll bet your SAT score was 15. If you try to claim it is higher, you're lying.
 
2011-10-08 06:01:23 PM  

diaphoresis: Heron: They already live in North Dakota; there's a reason that rent is so low. Where would they move to? And besides, people who live in subsidized housing aren't exactly known for having the financial and employment security to just up and move somewhere else on a month's notice. Honestly, consider the context before you make posts like this; I doubt you meant to come off as a jerk, but saying that a bunch of working class HUD beneficiaries should just "...move to another city and/or state..." is pretty callous.

Ya.. I suppose it is. I completely empathize with their situation, but in the end they will either come up with the money, or find somewhere else they can afford. As far as the time involved to succeed in finding a new place of work or a new place to live, it will be harder to make the changes quickly, but ultimately they need to work towards that goal.

/Having a good plan is essential
//Working towards that plan from week-to-week (or month-to-month) is better than sitting around waiting for Hope and Change


this is true enough. I hope some of these folks were saving up for a raining day, but from my experience low-income types tend to live day-to-day.
 
2011-10-08 06:01:55 PM  
As a person who regulates Residential Rental Practices for the state I live in, I'm getting a kick out of these comments.

Most places allow the Landlord to raise the rent as much as they want as long as he gives appropriate notice (not retroactive), and the tenants are not on a lease. And in ND it appears that the LL needs to give 30 days notice to tenants to raise rents (Source (new window))

/glad I'm not in ND
 
2011-10-08 06:02:40 PM  

badhatharry: It depends on the fine print of the lease agreement, if there was one.


There are also state laws on what you can and can't put in a lease. No matter if they wrote it fifty times in blood, if it's against the law, the law supercedes the lease. It's strong enough that in some cases you can just sign the lease anyway and then promptly drag the landlord into court, which is why slumlords will do everything they can to make sure you don't know what they're doing.

I would be skeptical if ND had such consumer protection laws, as it's not used to being an economic hotspot and is supposedly "business friendly" (which is often code for businesses can get away with anything). It would take poring over their laws to find out, but I don't live in ND so I admit I'm guessing.
 
2011-10-08 06:02:59 PM  

Heron: this is true enough. I hope some of these folks were saving up for a raining day, but from my experience low-income types tend to live day-to-day.


Because it's always raining when you're in that income bracket.
 
2011-10-08 06:04:01 PM  

diaphoresis: As far as the time involved to succeed in finding a new place of work or a new place to live, it will be harder to make the changes quickly, but ultimately they need to work towards that goal.


I agree. They should immediately cease paying rent and draw out the eviction process until they've secured employment somewhere that isn't Minot.

sheilanagig: translation: "I sympathize, but I still think you're not trying hard enough and that's why you're poor."


I'd say it as, "Think laterally, and don't bank on someone else fixing things for you." Yes, it's awful. Yes, it's happening to the least able among us. Yes, if it isn't illegal it should be, and the management company should receive a complimentary lit rag stuffed into the neck of a bottle full of gasoline, right through one of their windows. But still, you don't react to hardship with paralysis, or it only gets worse.
 
2011-10-08 06:05:33 PM  

badhatharry: OgreMagi: Seems to me if they already cashed your rent check, they have accepted the implied contract so can't raise the rent retroactively. Any lawyers want to chime in?

It depends on the fine print of the lease agreement, if there was one.

/not a lawyer.


I haven't encountered any real estate corps trying to do it yet, (then again, as a Texan I live in a state with pretty strong homeowner/tenant protections) but I seem to recall Credit Card and cellphone companies have had rather significant success forcing unilateral contract changes on their customers. I'm no lawyer so maybe I'm worried for nothing, but it always seemed to me that this set a very dangerous precedent for other industries, particularly rental real estate.
 
2011-10-08 06:05:35 PM  

Lanctwa: And in ND it appears that the LL needs to give 30 days notice to tenants to raise rents (Source (new window))


In that case, I'd revise the above to "go find an ambulance chaser and sue them until their asses bleed, all the while living rent-free".
 
2011-10-08 06:06:10 PM  

Jeraldine Ratkin: I like how people think it's free to move, and that you don't have to rent a truck, pay at least 2 months rent, maybe find a new job, sacrifice time getting paid at said job to do the physical move, pay for the exit cleaning, pay the OLD rent until you are gone, and spend time and gas money looking for said new place. And it's so easy to save money when you make 12,000 a year like me. Get a new job? Now you have to sacrifice that overtime that made it all worthwhile to search for another job. And buy some presentable clothes while you're at it, you willfully poor slob.

(And all the while, while you save for all this, suddenly, you get a kidney-stone or need a root-canal, or your car takes a shiat, and you are set back again, often not to zero, but back into negative numbers...)


It's YOUR fault if you're not rich enough to pay your rent. You were obviously lazy and stupid, so you deserve to be out of work and homeless. If you were a better person, you'd have lots of money and not have to worry about rent.

(This is what Republicans actually believe!)
 
2011-10-08 06:07:51 PM  

sheilanagig: Heron: this is true enough. I hope some of these folks were saving up for a raining day, but from my experience low-income types tend to live day-to-day.

Because it's always raining when you're in that income bracket.


Also true. Just trying to keep my response civil because he returned my civility.
 
2011-10-08 06:09:40 PM  

Occam's Chainsaw: I'd say it as, "Think laterally, and don't bank on someone else fixing things for you." Yes, it's awful. Yes, it's happening to the least able among us. Yes, if it isn't illegal it should be, and the management company should receive a complimentary lit rag stuffed into the neck of a bottle full of gasoline, right through one of their windows. But still, you don't react to hardship with paralysis, or it only gets worse.


Right, but diaphoresis seems to be under the impression that it's just that quick and easy. These people are going to have less than a month to come up with more than twice the rent they'd budgeted for. The available housing is tight. There aren't even vacancies at the hotels. It's not that easy to get the money together to move in a short period of time, and it really would mean moving out of the state. Until yesterday, these people were living within their means.
 
2011-10-08 06:09:44 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: It's YOUR fault if you're not rich enough to pay your rent. You were obviously lazy and stupid, so you deserve to be out of work and homeless. If you were a better person, you'd have lots of money and not have to worry about rent.

(This is what Republicans actually believe!)


0/10
 
2011-10-08 06:13:21 PM  

Occam's Chainsaw: Lanctwa: And in ND it appears that the LL needs to give 30 days notice to tenants to raise rents (Source (new window))

In that case, I'd revise the above to "go find an ambulance chaser and sue them until their asses bleed, all the while living rent-free".


Yeah, I couldn't find that any department in ND actually enforces it, so it would all be private civil action. Maybe the AG's office might have some action to take, but the law doesn't state that it is a criminal or civil matter that the state can get involved in.

Trying to explain to people that the Government does not sue on behalf of you as an individual is a hard thing to do. The Government sues on behalf the the Government, and sometimes they request money for individuals who have been wronged.
 
2011-10-08 06:13:43 PM  

sheilanagig: Occam's Chainsaw: I'd say it as, "Think laterally, and don't bank on someone else fixing things for you." Yes, it's awful. Yes, it's happening to the least able among us. Yes, if it isn't illegal it should be, and the management company should receive a complimentary lit rag stuffed into the neck of a bottle full of gasoline, right through one of their windows. But still, you don't react to hardship with paralysis, or it only gets worse.

Right, but diaphoresis seems to be under the impression that it's just that quick and easy. These people are going to have less than a month to come up with more than twice the rent they'd budgeted for. The available housing is tight. There aren't even vacancies at the hotels. It's not that easy to get the money together to move in a short period of time, and it really would mean moving out of the state. Until yesterday, these people were living within their means.


I clarified my statement in response to Heron's post. Note the part about "...it will be harder to make the changes quickly..."
 
2011-10-08 06:14:05 PM  

dragonchild:
Subsidize housing and of course they'll raise rents. You've increased the money flowing in but done jack shiat move the supply-and-demand equilibrium. Make the government a landlord of the last resort and that pushes the supply side. Prices may not go down, but you'll definitely get better value. Private landowners can't get too greedy or people will just go back to Uncle Sam's slums.


Equally bad options. Subsidize housing, and you make it cheaper to provide housing. The new equilibrium price will be somewhere between the current price and (current price - subsidy) - halfway, if the slopes of the supply and demand curves are equal, but their slopes may well not be equal. There will be two inefficiencies: you will be transferring money from the taxpayers to the landlords and renters, and you will have an inefficiently-high housing supply.

Create government-supplied low-end housing, and you will have the government wasting money by creating new homes and then renting them at below cost (if it were at/above cost, then existing companies would already be serving that market). This lowers the price that low-rent housing can charge, causing the people currently serving low-income people to lose money (and in many cases, close down). The supply of non-government housing shrinks, and prices go down slightly because demand shrinks more than supply.
 
2011-10-08 06:14:44 PM  

diaphoresis: I clarified my statement in response to Heron's post. Note the part about "...it will be harder to make the changes quickly..."


Exactly how much time do you think they have to make all of these changes? Any handicaps to hinder them doing it as variables?
 
2011-10-08 06:16:08 PM  

sheilanagig: diaphoresis: I clarified my statement in response to Heron's post. Note the part about "...it will be harder to make the changes quickly..."

Exactly how much time do you think they have to make all of these changes? Any handicaps to hinder them doing it as variables?


Now you're just trolling..

-5/10
 
2011-10-08 06:16:39 PM  

dragonchild: dahmers love zombie: The retarded cousin of free market capitalism. Provide juuuuust enough state support that the capitalists can assrape the people even worse.

Subsidizing business' operating costs is the most inefficient way to do anything, whether it's student loans or food stamps or subsidized housing. "Public option" is far more efficient, but that makes too much sense to be implemented in a derpy country like America. It makes so much sense the arguments against it are hilarious. First, after crowing 24/7 that government shouldn't try because businesses are more efficient than governments, the businesses then turn around and whine that they can't compete with government. (One or the other, guys!) Eventually they just derp about socialism.

Fact is, the government is great at being a provider of the last resort, whether it's housing, food, health insurance or work. Because of pressure from taxpayers the government's offering will never be glamorous, but it's better than nothing. Most people will eventually want to move up, though, and there's plenty of opportunity for businesses to offer that upgrade. One of the best examples is education. Free K-12 public education for everyone; private education for those that want better and can afford it. So of course the solution is. . . to destroy public education to give everyone the "freedom" to go to private schools they can't afford without. . . subsidies!

Subsidize housing and of course they'll raise rents. You've increased the money flowing in but done jack shiat move the supply-and-demand equilibrium. Make the government a landlord of the last resort and that pushes the supply side. Prices may not go down, but you'll definitely get better value. Private landowners can't get too greedy or people will just go back to Uncle Sam's slums.


I generally agree, but Public Options can also turn out pretty badly in certain industries. For instance, full subsidized college eds for citizens in France have been pretty problematic for education and employment from what I've read on the subject(though that's mostly Economist articles, which should always be taken with a grain of salt on issues of privatization).

Having said that, those problems with PO Higher Ed might actually be problems with the entire educational system, or with the wider economy. For instance, if primary and secondary ed don't do an effective job of helping a student find and foster an interest, then they'll just float around in college. Regarding employment, if there are very few jobs waiting for them (as has been the case in France for ~30 years now), then they may see no reason to focus, get a good education quickly, and begin their career.
 
2011-10-08 06:17:12 PM  
I'm surprised that nobody pointed out subby's silly math error. The rent was raised 150%.

/You guys are slipping.
 
2011-10-08 06:23:54 PM  
I'm sure there will be some Farkers coming along shortly to defend these slumlords.
 
2011-10-08 06:24:51 PM  

sheilanagig: These people are going to have less than a month to come up with more than twice the rent they'd budgeted for.


sheilanagig: Exactly how much time do you think they have to make all of these changes?


Prior to me knowing the statute in ND, I would've said that they should use the eviction process to their benefit. Even if they stop paying today, eviction won't proceed until the end of the month at the earliest, and even no-contest eviction typically takes 30 days. If they contest it, I've seen it take upwards of six months to a year. Yes, it's going to screw up your financials something fierce. Yes, it's going to hang around your neck like an albatross for the better part of a decade. But that's time to stack paper, hunt, GTFO.

Now, thanks to Lanctwa, my answer would be to tell the management company to sit on their new terms and spin. Drag it into court and nail their balls to a post. If you really wanted to demonstrate good faith, keep paying at your prior rate. If your only interest is to buttf*ck them and hard, keep your money and keep it tied up until you're sick of living there.

The worst thing you can do is nothing. That gives them all the leverage in the world. And yes, your ass will be on the street in ~45-60 days, and you're utterly boned.

Lanctwa: Trying to explain to people that the Government does not sue on behalf of you as an individual is a hard thing to do. The Government sues on behalf the the Government, and sometimes they request money for individuals who have been wronged.


I agree. I'm in a unique position, because I know what my recourse is. Most working poor, something like this comes down on them and they're clueless as to how to proceed. This is the inherent unfairness in our system as implemented - the most vulnerable have the least protections, and the least means of ascertaining what few protections exist.
 
2011-10-08 06:26:36 PM  

diaphoresis: sheilanagig: diaphoresis: I clarified my statement in response to Heron's post. Note the part about "...it will be harder to make the changes quickly..."

Exactly how much time do you think they have to make all of these changes? Any handicaps to hinder them doing it as variables?

Now you're just trolling..

-5/10


At the danger of being accused of white-knighting... *sigh*

Why don't you just answer the question, huh?

Difficulty: median wage in Minot, ND: $1100/month. Utilities (excluding water) not included in a lot (if not most) of rental homes in this city. Groceries, gas for car to drive to work, car maintenance (required to deal with insanely harsh winters) not to be discarded as irrelevant.

Calling people a troll is easy. Answering a questions, is, like, hard, and stuff, but give a try, anyway.
 
2011-10-08 06:30:22 PM  

Occam's Chainsaw: I agree. I'm in a unique position, because I know what my recourse is. Most working poor, something like this comes down on them and they're clueless as to how to proceed. This is the inherent unfairness in our system as implemented - the most vulnerable have the least protections, and the least means of ascertaining what few protections exist.


I somewhat disagree. Renters should always investigate their rights. If they haven't investigated the landlord-tenant law, they should. I was one of the fortunate teens that was told about the law before I moved into my own place. The ignorance of most renters is lamentable and should be retified.
 
2011-10-08 06:33:01 PM  

LacksSocialSkilzz: diaphoresis: sheilanagig: diaphoresis: I clarified my statement in response to Heron's post. Note the part about "...it will be harder to make the changes quickly..."

Exactly how much time do you think they have to make all of these changes? Any handicaps to hinder them doing it as variables?

Now you're just trolling..

-5/10

At the danger of being accused of white-knighting... *sigh*

Why don't you just answer the question, huh?

Difficulty: median wage in Minot, ND: $1100/month. Utilities (excluding water) not included in a lot (if not most) of rental homes in this city. Groceries, gas for car to drive to work, car maintenance (required to deal with insanely harsh winters) not to be discarded as irrelevant.

Calling people a troll is easy. Answering a questions, is, like, hard, and stuff, but give a try, anyway.


Ok.. here's you answer: he wants a definite timeline... I am not a soothsayer, but apparently you want me to be.

/You're clueless
 
Displayed 50 of 176 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report