American Communism

General Real Estate Investing
41

Owners of federally subsidized properties i.e. Project based Section 8, 202, 236 and 221(d)3 have been required to perform annual unit inspection for decades and none of them have gone out of business because of it.

I’m getting really sick of this anti-government “communism/socialism” name calling when it cost business a few pennies. If you don’t think government is necessary try living some place where it doesn’t exist.

I guess you prefer mob rule!

Conversations like this lead me believe that America was not founded on “rugged individualism” but “rampant selflessness”. There is a cost to doing business.
If you can’t afford the cost maybe the business is not for you.

42

I think you’re missing the point. It’s not that anyone’s against govt. They’re against the govt. sticking their nose in an area where it has NO CLUE about the subject. The govt. tried to get into the housing business a while back… Go back and research their track record. They want to raise revenue to pay for their reckless spending! They don’t care about housing. If they did, they’d offer the inspections for FREE! I say let the spirit of competition/business run its course. Let the consumers(renters) choose. Even people on Section 8 have a choice of where they live ( as long as its approved by Section 8). One last thing. Take a look at NYC’s results when they started regulating the landlords. PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES MOVED OUT!!

43
Owners of federally subsidized properties i.e. Project based Section 8, 202, 236 and 221(d)3 have been required to perform annual unit inspection for decades and none of them have gone out of business because of it.

The landlord does not directly pay for the Section 8 inspection. Moreover, the landlord doesn’t have to participate in the the Section 8 program if he doesn’t want to. That’s HUGELY different than having the government mandate inspections for all landlords and then charge the landlord for it. I don’t need or want some socialist government dweeb butting into my business. It does NOT “take a village” to be a landlord (or run a business).

If you don't think government is necessary try living some place where it doesn’t exist.

Where would that be?

There is a cost to doing business.

There are plenty of costs to doing business. The last thing a business needs is more socialist government intervention! My only desire for the government is to GET THE HECK OUT OF MY WAY!

Mike

44

I won’t even get into a debate about the details of this, but it’s about as much of a conspiracy theory as the recent documentaries posted on the faulty financial systems of our country.

The same people who accept ridiculous explanations such as: the WTC building #7 just happened to be the first building recorded, in all of history, to collapse due to a fire(no structural damage)… these same people will dismiss any discussion of the economy being ‘manipulated’ by the feds/rothchilds/etc as a conspiracy theory.

That’s all folks… good day now!

45

So, just so I have this straight…. I shouldn’t call a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of capital or land in the community as a whole “Socialism” or “Communism.” That would be “name calling.” I think you protest too much…. like a faithless lover or an unscrupulous politician. It’s interesting that if you called me a “Capitalist” or a “Libertarian” even a “right winger” I wouldn’t take offense, nor would I accuse you of name calling.
I don’t have a problem with the government asking me to be a responsible landlord. If you would read the original post, you would know that a system already exists through the County of Sacramento, I already dig deep into my money bags and finance this system (although my tenants have never complained, so I am paying for the failures of other landlords). The County has a complaint driven system.
What perturbs me is that the City wants to add a redundant layer of bureaucracy, a system where inspections are mandatory.
Why would they want to do that to landlords who have never had a problem?
Because it makes the government money.
And why would they create an inherent conflict of interest (ergo if they find a code violation they get fees!)
Because it makes the government money.
I could go to any property you own and discover some nebulous code violation…paint peeling on the siding perhaps mold growing inside the shower door…wheee! I get fees!
It’s like the government writing itself a blank check…again.
Why is it so derogatory to call a rose a rose? Perhaps because left wing economic policies have failed so many times its ridiculous, but for some reason people cannot come to terms with the failure.

46

To put it in perspective…

All you have to do is look at the motivation… If the inspections proposed are not a “punitive” way to collect additional revenue, then the inspections would work both ways, for the renter and the landlord in the form of an equitable application of the inspections.

Inspections produce reports on condition of property
- If next annual inspection relates to an indentified landlord problem (i.e. - roof, heating, plumbing, electrical, etc.), then landlord pays (a rating system of A through D based on compliance would determine amount Section 8 would subsidize until problem rectified)

- If next annual inspection relates to an indentified renter problem (i.e. - interior damage, items beyond normal wear and tear, appliance damage, toys in the heaters, plumbing clogged with things that don’t flush, etc.), then renter pays (maybe even a rating system applied to renters based on inspections - A through D rating, so you know who you are renting to, and Section 8 would then have to pony up more dough for D rated renters they want to subsidize, keeping the renters and Section 8 accountable)

The problem is there will be no equitable application, and it would remain one-sided against the landlord, with the heavy-hand of the goverment to pull the money out of the landlord’s pocket for “perceived” violations. If it were able to be appealed, you have not only added another layer to the court system, increasing costs which have to be paid for, but the program itself would have to be funded, not only for the inspectors, but the administrators, lawyers, enforcement personnel, administration of fines, etc. ALL THAT HAVE TO BE PAID FOR (including annual salary, and expense increases, etc.). Therefore, by necessity, more fines or more ways to fine would have to be applied or taxes raised as the costs have to be covered from somewhere…

If a renter CHOOSES to remain in an unlivable situation, that is their CHOICE. Don’t tell me that they couldn’t move if they wanted to. If the place they were living were condemned because of one of these inspections, they would have to move.

I’m not saying that there is not a problem, nor am I saying there are not problem landlord’s, but this is NOT the solution. IMHO, with very few exceptions, ANYTIME the goverment gets involved in something like this, it becomes MORE of a problem…

…and people are foolish enough to think that Socializing Health Care will not only increase their taxes, but lead to MORE of the problems they seek to “cure” and worse care to boot… Then you will have no goverment to complain to as they will be the ones providing the product; a product that is now mandatory, with, you guess it, fines for non-compliance. Wait until they start those “inspections”…

“Those who would sacrifice Freedom for Security deserve neither”… Benjamin Franklin

When the peope figure out they can vote themselves money, it will herald the end of the Republic"…Benjamin Franklin

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-front for the urge to rule.”… H. L. Menken

47

If a consumer (or tenant) is not happy with the product (or place or dwelling) than get a different product (MOVE).

If Im not mistaken this is still America. You are free to move about the city, state, country at will.

As for the mandatory inspections, if the tenant has bad living conditions, that is an incentive for the occupants to move out. However the renters have renter’s rights in which they can withhold rent thus giving the owner to make the living conditions better.

I speak from the part of the renter; by the way, I have done both. Withhold rent and move out. 2 different situations.

Bottom line. The government should do 2 things, #1 provides a security for me and mine from domestic and foreign people, and #2 protect my money. As far as Im concerned what more do you need?

48

I’m a little late on the political discussion, but it’s apparent that this November, we have 2 choices: Socialism, or perpetual war.

The only alternative is to vote third party. My choice? Libertarian.