Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

devoish (98.78)

Renting Vs Buying,

Recs

12

August 14, 2011 – Comments (33)

In the wake of the recent housing crash a lot of arguments have been made that the federal gov't's policy of promoting home ownership through Fannie and Freddie was a mistake. 

Silver Oaks Place,  senior community.

Amenities

Silver Oaks Place provides a complete environment, from the warm, friendly social center to the outdoor swimming pool, library, hobby shop, exercise room, and recreation room.

No entrance fee. -- Flexibility of monthly rental.

1st and 2nd floor suites available.

Fully carpeted and air-conditioned apartments.

Basic kitchen appliances provided.

Controlled-access entry door and intercom system.

Laundry facility in each building.

Ground and building maintenance provided at no additional cost.

Emergency ground and building maintenance on call 24-hours a day.

13 acres of beautifully landscaped grounds. -- Pets allowed.

http://www.silveroaksplace.com/Amenities.html 

 

I don't get it Devo? It seems nice, what's the point?

 

KENT, Ohio—

84-year-old William Cowling loves Silver Oaks, the community he has called home for more than 13 years.

Recovering from a lengthy hospital stay, Cowling says he was stunned to get an eviction notice telling him and more than 200 of his neighbors that they have only two months to find a new place to live.

"There was rumor that someone was trying to buy [Silver Oaks], but we didn't think no more about it until we got this notice. It said we had to be out October 1st. We were all being evicted," said Cowling

Most of us here have lived and grown up in a period of expanded middle class wealth and property ownership partly because of the work of a fully Government run and managed Fannie and Freddie from 1930's until the late 1970's when they were given over to private ownership. Before 1930 people were faced with a different reality, as those who took employment lived predominantly at the whim of their landlords. I think those people chose a better path for themselves than the one we are on.

Best wishes,

Steven

 

33 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On August 14, 2011 at 1:02 PM, VExplorer (30.99) wrote:

So, what is a point? How easy to find another rent? In our area it is very easy. So, I'm ready to leave in two weeks. Rents are very good. I can afford to own house, but when I'm going to calculate costs I see no economical reason to buy one. Only thing I'm not satisfied with our appartments we cannot have a dog.

Report this comment
#2) On August 14, 2011 at 1:51 PM, HarryCarysGhost (99.78) wrote:

Stevo,

Oh yeah it is much better to take out a loan that you could afford at that time.

Have your property taxes jacked up.

 while the home loses it's valuation.

work less hours because of the ongoing recession.

try and refi so you can stay in said home.

only to have the banks and freddie/fannie slap you around six ways to Sunday and call you Shirley.

Or better yet why not buy a house at 3% down.

What could possibly go wrong. 

Report this comment
#3) On August 14, 2011 at 2:14 PM, mm5525 (< 20) wrote:

Nice, Steven... Insinuate the man should have a mortgage even if he can't even pay his rent, even though he can't handle higher property taxes, and would be a mere broken refrigerator away from foreclosure. What other words of wisdom do you have for us? What that article is not telling the audience, even though you go through great lengths to highlight/point out the lavish lifestyle of the community, his age, and that ever-so-important "hospital stay" for some extra drama, is the Left constantly brings up other factors rather than the simple fact that the man is not paying his rent, which hurts the people who actually own the property. Don't bring up the fact the man is not paying his rent!!! It's just not helpful to your argument. Just concentrate on what could have been, what ivory-tower "should be's" that are nothing but a pipe dream today... That's the ticket.  

People who pay their rent do not get evicted. Could they not get their leases renewed? Of course. People who own property have the right to do what they wish with the said property. It's called ownership. 

If you want to advocate people who can't even pay their rent, where obviously this man can't, otherwise he would not be evicted, how on earth can you advocate home ownership outright?

Once again, people who pay their rent, pay their mortgages, and own their homes outright, do not get evicted/foreclosed. Try mentioning this rather than nothing but the constant "poor-me" stuff. That stuff is getting so incredibly old.

 

Report this comment
#4) On August 14, 2011 at 4:34 PM, devoish (98.78) wrote:

Vexplorer,

The point is that renting has problems and costs too. Problems that are often glossed over by advocates of renting and not well understood by those who have not experienced the inconvenience of aging.

HarryCareysGhost,

I agree with your concerns. It is notable that all the issues you raised, except the taxes, were completey avoided through fifty years of Government run Fannie Mae lending, and completly brought on in less than ten years by privately run mortgage brokers.

mm5525,

It is clear that you misunderstood what was written. In the articles version of the events the 200 renters are current on their rents and are being evicted anyway. When they moved in they were sold an over fifty retirement community to retire in. Apparently they are not getting that and are being forced to move. However wrong or bad you may think that is was not the point I was trying to make. My point was that renting has problems that are glossedover by advocates of renting and not well understood by those who have not experienced the inconvenience of aging.

Thank you all for replying and for the recs.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#5) On August 14, 2011 at 8:33 PM, HarryCarysGhost (99.78) wrote:

Holy Cow,

Once again, I implore the Fool to add a sarcasm font!

Report this comment
#6) On August 14, 2011 at 8:43 PM, soycapital (< 20) wrote:

I'd rather have control over my own living quarters by purchasing a home of my own to do what I please. If I want to fly a flag or build a patio I can do so!

Report this comment
#7) On August 14, 2011 at 9:32 PM, mm5525 (< 20) wrote:

Correction, Steven. These tenants were not "sold an over fifty retirement community to retire in" if they are simply renting. The tenants did not buy anything, and they were not sold anything. When you rent, you can eventually be "forced" to move. A tenant should know before even moving the first piece of furniture into the rental that the landlord owns the property, and just like people sell their stocks for a variety of reasons, so do landlords with their properties. Could be divorce, liquidity raising, bankruptcy, a different purpose for the property, etc.  

I own rental properties, and now that the housing market has recovered substantially where I live I am considering selling a few of them. Inconveniencing a tenant is not my goal, but not really my concern as long as I operate within the Landlord Tenant Act and the agreed-upon lease. While I would do everything I can to give a tenant ample time and notice, it is still my property.

Report this comment
#8) On August 14, 2011 at 9:35 PM, wolfman225 (76.82) wrote:

@soycapital--

I'd rather have control over my own living quarters by purchasing a home of my own to do what I please. If I want to fly a flag or build a patio I can do so!

Maybe.  Your "right" to do so will be contingent on local zoning/permiting regulations, as well as your local HOA.  Don't forget, for any major additions or renovations you need to get permits; many communities allow for neighbors to submit comments and concerns during the permiting process, this could hold your desire to make improvements hostage to the good will of the others in your neighborhood.

I think that Steven was simply illustrating the point that whether you decide to own or rent, you need to perform your own DD every bit as much as you do when deciding whether to invest.

Report this comment
#9) On August 14, 2011 at 11:23 PM, JakilaTheHun (99.93) wrote:

As usual, a pointless blog that tries to set up an emotional argument, but that actually displays your own ignorance.

Yeah, people occasionally get evicted from rental units. It's better than buying a house, seeing the value plummet 40%,  then finding yourself underwater on the loan, and getting foreclosed upon by the bank.

I mean, really ... what the f$#% is your point here?  Do you even know your point?   The eviction notice has absolutely nothing to do with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.  If your point is that bad things can happen while renting --- well, duh.  Bad things can also happen while buying.  In fact, renting is the lower risk activity of the two. 

 

Devoish, why don't you write your Representation and lobby hard to pass a bill that prevents anything bad from ever happening to anyone.  That's basically the point of all your blogs --- that nothing bad should ever happen.  If only we passed a law that said nothing bad could happen, it would surely work just as anticipated. 

Report this comment
#10) On August 15, 2011 at 1:03 AM, HarryCarysGhost (99.78) wrote:

Fannie Mae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Report this comment
#11) On August 15, 2011 at 1:24 AM, devoish (98.78) wrote:

mm5525,

I am pretty sure this is a sales pitch for a retirement community. In fact, this is a pretty darn good sales pitch for a retirement community.

 If you’ve been looking for a Retirement Community in Kent Ohio we have the information to help you make the right choice. Silver Oaks Place is one of the leading Retirement Communities located in Kent Ohio and comes highly recommended by consumers nationwide. When looking for a Retirement Community, we think that you will find the beauty of Kent Ohio is rivaled only by the city's hospitable reputation, creating one of the country's most popular Retirement Community spots and places to live. Silver Oaks Place has consistently been rated one of the top Retirement Communities in Kent Ohio. The staff and personnel of Silver Oaks Place are professional and courteous and will be glad to help you when choosing the right Retirement Community for you or your family. Kent Ohio is the hub of activity for a region offering fresh, unspoiled, and genuine opportunities for those looking for a Retirement Community. Kent Ohio is a popular destination unparalleled in richness of history, heritage, arts and culture which many people find to be a perfect fit when searching for a Retirement Community they can call home. We believe you will find Silver Oaks Place to be such a place

JakilaTheHun,

If you do not find value in my posts, you are free not read and you are not obliged to respond. Regardless, I think it is ok that you are being reminded of the fifty years of success of Government managed lending agencys in making home ownership an American reality, and that private mortgage brokers crapped all over America in only five short years. Here's the thing with me Jakila. I have been a car mechanic for thirty years. I have to look at what is really happening and fix the problem. If your car ran fine on the original exhaust for fifity years, and I dropped in an aftermarket muffler and now it runs like crap, I can't pretend a fuel pump is going to fix that. You have to go back to what worked for fifty years. I could try to lie to you, and tell you a deregulated free market fuel pump will fix your car, but I know I have to put back the muffler that worked for fifity years, or the car won't run. So I have to at least see the obvious for myself.

But for the third time now, My point was that renting has problems that have been glossed over by advocates of renting and not well understood by those who have not experienced the inconvenience of aging. And that is an obvious truth.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#12) On August 15, 2011 at 2:03 AM, mm5525 (< 20) wrote:

No, Steven, it's a "pretty darn good" sales pitch to RENT in a retirement community and no different than any other sales pitch about renting anything else in life. Why you want to post over and over the amenities of this retirement community is totally irrelevant. 

Re-read your post in #4 where you say this: "When they moved in they were sold an over fifty retirement community to retire in. Apparently they are not getting that and are being forced to move."

They were sold on RENTING an over fifty retirement community to retire in provided the RENT agreement was renewed. Nothing more.  

You try to turn everything into a sob story like the other poster Jakila points out. If you want to point out renting has problems, I again agree with that poster --- Duh! When you rent you don't have any control of anything. People know that going in.

Report this comment
#13) On August 15, 2011 at 2:07 AM, awallejr (82.49) wrote:

If a person is being evicted it is either because they aren't paying their rent, which is not the case in this blog; or their lease is not being renewed, in which case that is the risk one always runs in renting non rent-stabilized apartments.

As for this comment: It's better than buying a house, seeing the value plummet 40%,  then (sic) finding yourself underwater on the loan, and getting foreclosed upon by the bank.

That is just an ignorant comment since one issue has nothing to do with the other.  While people might be "underwater" many still pay their mortgage because it is still affordable by them and it is their HOME.  I can't tell you how many times people refuse to walk away even if it might make sense from an economical point of view. And that is fine.  They aren't viewing a home purchase as an investment.  They are viewing it as a home.  And those renters being evicted shows the value of home ownership over renting.  As long as you can afford paying that mortgage no one is evicting you.

Report this comment
#14) On August 15, 2011 at 2:16 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.93) wrote:

If you do not find value in my posts, you are free not read and you are not obliged to respond.

Yes, that's a given.  I chose to respond.

Regardless, I think it is ok that you are being reminded of the fifty years of success of Government managed lending agencys in making home ownership an American reality ...

Yes, quite a success it has been.  Urban decay, suburban sprawl, energy wastage, oil dependency, and exboritant rental market prices in many major cities are all a legacy of the Federal, state,and local government attempts to manage the housing market. 

And even at that, your argument doesn't make much sense, because it's not 'private ownership' that caused the problem, but Federal government pressure to lend out to borrowers that might have had significant problems from a financial perspective.  The Clinton Administration pushed Fannie Mae into the subprime market.

You want to see how well a government managed lending system works, read Red Capitalism,which details China's disastrous banking system, that seems to be much closer to the system you desire. 

My point was that renting has problems that have been glossed over by advocates of renting and not well understood by those who have not experienced the inconvenience of aging.

What "advocates of renting"?  This seems like an imagined argument. 

Here's the thing --- arguing that the Federal government should favor home ownership versus rental is not equivalent to being a "rental advocate."  It's saying that the Federal government's preference may not be wiser than the preference of consumers, without Federal intervention. 

 

Steven, your overall message seems bizarre.  You don't view regulation as a necessary evil.  You don't see government programs as flawed, but perhaps warranted in certain particular situations.  Your arguments always seem to go to an extreme.

You seem to actually argue that government control of the economy is good in and of itself.   That's the only common theme to your posts.  Government = good.  Consumer preference = bad. Or in other words, people are bad at making their own decisions and government bureaucrats know what works best for the average person. 

 

Report this comment
#15) On August 15, 2011 at 2:25 AM, awallejr (82.49) wrote:

No Jakila you seem to argue that anything touched by the Government is wrong.  That is fine since you are a libertarian.  The irony of course is that a true libertarian society has never existed.  Nor will it ever.

Report this comment
#16) On August 15, 2011 at 2:38 AM, HarryCarysGhost (99.78) wrote:

Stevo&awall,

The lyrics to this song popped into my head while reading this-


Well I don’t know why I came here tonight.
I’ve got the feeling that something ain’t right.
I’m so scared in case I fall off my chair,
and I’m wondering how I’ll get down the stairs.

Clowns to the left of me!
Jokers to the right!
Here I am stuck in the middle with you.

Yes I’m stuck in the middle with you,
and I’m wondering what it is I should do.
It’s so hard to keep this smile from my face.
Losing control yeah I'm all over the place.

Clowns to the left of me!
Jokers to the right!
Here I am stuck in the middle with you.

Well you started off with nothing
and you’re proud that you're a self-made man
yeah
and your friends they all come crawling,
slap you on the back and say
Please . . .
Please . . .

Trying to make some sense of it all
but I can see that it makes no sense at all.
Is it cool to go to sleep on the floor?
I don’t think that I can take anymore.

Clowns to the left of me!
Jokers to the right!
Here I am stuck in the middle with you.

Stuck in the middle
Stuck in the middle

Clowns to the left of me!
Jokers to the right!
Clowns to the left of me!
Jokers to the right! (Stuck in the middle)
Clowns to the left of me!
Jokers to the right! (Stuck in the middle)
Clowns to the left of me!
Jokers to the right! (uh-uh)
Clowns to the left of me!
Jokers to the right!
Here I am stuck in the middle with you

Well you started off with nothing
and you’re proud that your a self-made man.
ah-ah yeah
Now your friends they all come crawling,
slap you on the back and say
Please . . .
Please . . .

Well I don’t know why I came here tonight.
I’ve got the feeling that something ain’t right.
I’m so scared in case I fall off my chair,
and I’m wondering how I’ll get down the stairs.

Clowns to the left of me!
Jokers to the right!
Here I am stuck in the middle with you.
Stuck in the middle with you (ah-yeah)
Stuck in the middle with you
Here I am!
Stuck in the middle with you
With you, with you, with you ....

Report this comment
#17) On August 15, 2011 at 9:02 AM, devoish (98.78) wrote:

Jakila, HCG, and mm5525,

mm5525,

It is nice that you have gotten past this knee jerk misunderstanding; If you want to advocate people who can't even pay their rent, where obviously this man can't, otherwise he would not be evicted, though it would be nicer to have heard that in your own font. I am not sure why you are angry at me for being in agreement with 'When you rent you don't have any control of anything. People know that going in'. As far as it being a sob story, if you refer to my OP I left out the emotional parts of the article, and you decided it was sad for yourself and then got angry at me. I will not apologise for pulling back the curtain. It was not very heavy to begin with. I will remind you that the realities of renting, led to the decision to create Fannie Mae.

HCG,

Great song, I think of it when I listen to Tea partiers and libertarians surrender our freedoms to capitalists.

Jakila,

Yours is a thoughtful reply. I will be back to point out where I think we are in agreement, and where we diverge.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#18) On August 15, 2011 at 11:16 AM, leohaas (93.98) wrote:

Wow. Why do these conversations get so controversial?

Some think that our housing problems are because of Government regulation, others that it is in spite of regulation, and yet others that it is due to lack of regulation. All are just opinions. Can we just agree to disagree?

Report this comment
#19) On August 15, 2011 at 11:29 AM, chk999 (99.98) wrote:

Believe it or not, I agree with you that owning a home is a very good thing. Having been a renter for years, it is much better not to be controlled by the whims of the owner.

But owning a home is a responsibility as well as a benefit. And part of the responsibility is to buy something you can actually afford. And it doesn't do anybody any favors for the government to encourage people to buy houses they can't afford.

The best policy is to require substantial down payments so that the buyer has some skin in the game and to require real credit check to figure out if they are credit worthy. 

Report this comment
#20) On August 15, 2011 at 3:36 PM, mm5525 (< 20) wrote:

What typical garbage from Devoish. The Landlord owns the property, and the Landlord has the right to do whatever he/she wishes with the said property within a reasonable amount of time as ascertained by the written agreement on file and the LTA within the state. The rest of this "poor-me" stuff from Devoish is just a smoke screen designed to steer you away from the truth. Especially the constant mentioning of the amenities of the retirement community people CHOOSE to RENT.  It makes absolutely no difference what the amenities are!!! None. Notice he does not want to mention this, and instead goes on the attack saying I'm somehow "angry" with him. I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed.

It is people like Devoish who make me very fearful of continuing to own rentals. This "poor-me" pro-tenant-versus-the-Landlord stuff is just nonstop with so many people. The tax write-offs are probably not worth it. Renting a property to someone like Deovish, despite doing camera walk thoughs of the property,  background checks, credit checks, employment checks, and all that.... I'm still likely to get sued due to no fault of my own other than renting to a constant complainer.

 

Report this comment
#21) On August 15, 2011 at 4:00 PM, devoish (98.78) wrote:

Regardless, I think it is ok that you are being reminded of the fifty years of success of Government managed lending agencys in making home ownership an American reality ...

Yes, quite a success it has been.  Urban decay, suburban sprawl, energy wastage, oil dependency, and exboritant rental market prices in many major cities are all a legacy of the Federal, state,and local government attempts to manage the housing market. 

US home ownership was 45% from 1900 until 1940. By 1960 it had reached 62% and 64% in 1990. That is a success from a program designed to promote home ownership. Urban decay exists where Fannie Mae does not. Abject poverty too. Those are worse problems than suburban sprawl that Fannie Mae was a big piece of solving.

And even at that, your argument doesn't make much sense, because it's not 'private ownership' that caused the problem, but Federal government pressure to lend out to borrowers that might have had significant problems from a financial perspective.  The Clinton Administration pushed Fannie Mae into the subprime market.

Have you met Tanta? She has passed away but you should still acquaint yourself. http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2008/07/krugman-on-gses.html 

You want to see how well a government managed lending system works, read Red Capitalism,which details China's disastrous banking system, that seems to be much closer to the system you desire. 

If you read the post I linked by Tanta, I will tell you that i agree with "Atrios" rather than lt you or anyone else put words in my mouth. The GSE's worked fone for fifty years when they were wholly Governent entitiys and the should have gone back to being just that.

My point was that renting has problems that have been glossed over by advocates of renting and not well understood by those who have not experienced the inconvenience of aging.

What "advocates of renting"?  This seems like an imagined argument. 

During the last twelve months there have been posts advocating/celebrating renting as preferable to home ownership. For these posts/replies to become more prolific now, as housing costs are falling and rents are rising and reducing the benefits of renting is almost comical timing. As opposed to TMFBents posts making the same arguments in 2006/7 before housing costs fell 35%.

Here's the thing --- arguing that the Federal government should favor home ownership versus rental is not equivalent to being a "rental advocate."  It's saying that the Federal government's preference may not be wiser than the preference of consumers, without Federal intervention. 

Here's the other thing. In 1930, until Fannie Mae, consumers did not have the opportunity to excersise their preferences and when they could they preferred to own.

Steven, your overall message seems bizarre.  You don't view regulation as a necessary evil.  You don't see government programs as flawed, but perhaps warranted in certain particular situations.  Your arguments always seem to go to an extreme.

Have you are or David or chris or mm5525 ever written a post accusing a private individual of stealing, or thievery? Or a corporation? Or of anything wrong? I stopped reading their mindless, extremist, one sided, unbalalnced messaging in favor of rational sanity. frankly those boys are off the chart wacko nut jobs.

You seem to actually argue that government control of the economy is good in and of itself.   That's the only common theme to your posts.  Government = good.  Consumer preference = bad. Or in other words, people are bad at making their own decisions and government bureaucrats know what works best for the average person.  

You are arguing that Fannie took choice away from people?  In this post you pointed out that when consumers excersised their preference to live in the suburbs it was a problem as though excersising that choice was a bad because Fannie made it happen. You blamed fannie and Government for enabling consumers to excersise their preferences. And now you are taking me to task for taking away choices as if that is a bad thing. That's a bizarre combination of arguments. That Fannie enabled people to make the choice of buying a home is good and something we can agree on and maybe we should all be happy about it. That people made the choice of living in the suburbs might have been a bad thing, and there were certainly advocates for taking that choice away, but freedom of choice won out.

Read Tanta.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#22) On August 15, 2011 at 4:12 PM, awallejr (82.49) wrote:

And part of the responsibility is to buy something you can actually afford. And it doesn't do anybody any favors for the government to encourage people to buy houses they can't afford.

The best policy is to require substantial down payments so that the buyer has some skin in the game and to require real credit check to figure out if they are credit worthy. 

Yes and no.  We actually had a healthy real estate market in the 90"s after the late 80's crash.  You didn't need to put a substantial sum down but you did have to take mortgage insurance.  There is no reason to keep people out of the market as long as they could afford the monthly payment.

The problem occurred when Glass-Steagall was changed in 1999 which then let Wall Street into the business.  And once you give Wall Street a new way to make money bad things can happen.

What then occurred was a nice little gimmick that eventually all the lenders including Fannie and Freddie permitted.  To get around having to pay mortgage insurance a person was given an 80% first mortgage and then given a 20% equity line with 6% credit to use towards closing costs.  Plus all you needed to give was stated income with no verification on basically a 106% loan.

Pretty much a good chunk of those equity lines are worthless now.

Things are back to pre-1999 with overkilll on banks being too conservative, hence leaving out a decent buyer market in the self-employed;  people who really can afford the payments but are unable to give the banks what they want, namely verifiable paychecks.

 

Report this comment
#23) On August 15, 2011 at 4:14 PM, awallejr (82.49) wrote:

It is people like Devoish who make me very fearful of continuing to own rentals.

Watch the movie "Pacific Heights."

Report this comment
#24) On August 15, 2011 at 4:18 PM, mm5525 (< 20) wrote:

Sure, buddy. Look at what you just wrote... on a Monday afternoon when you are supposedly a car mechanic. Apparently a car mechanic with a ton of time on his hands to write a novella mid afternoon.

 "Have you are or David or chris or mm5525 ever written a post accusing a private individual of stealing, or thievery? Or a corporation? Or of anything wrong? I stopped reading their mindless, extremist, one sided, unbalalnced messaging in favor of rational sanity. frankly those boys are off the chart wacko nut jobs."

More blame game. More denial, and more lack of desire to even take the argument head-on. Just stick your head in the sand and call everone who does not disagree with you "mindless, extremist, one sided, and unbalance." Oh, and wacko.

You people are losing. You know it. I guess that's why your hateful rhetoric is getting more intense.

Enjoy your leisurely afternoon "as a car mechanic" and I will enjoy mine as a self-employed person.

Keep calling us names. Please.

 

 

Report this comment
#25) On August 15, 2011 at 4:46 PM, mm5525 (< 20) wrote:

Yep, Pacific Heights signifies my fear of a Devoish renter perfectly!

Before Devoish wants to continue, yet again, to deflect from the main argument, I'll go ahead and correct my spelling errors in the last post to save him the satisfaction (and further dodging of the actual topic he chose to erect):

 *everyone, not everone

*who does (not does not) disagree with you"

I've never been mad at you, Devoish. Just disappointed. Stick the the facts rather than the plethora of hateful names.

 

Report this comment
#26) On August 15, 2011 at 4:48 PM, devoish (98.78) wrote:

mm5525,

I was just called one sided by Jakila, and you step in for defending myself? And you taking me to task for namecalling while calling me a liar at the same time? Why don;t you go demand balance from a libertarian someday. Do not think your lactating intolerance goes unoticed.

Seriously though? We are agreeing that renters run the risk of being evicted because the property owner chooses to use the property for something else. That is the truth I am trying to remind people of and yet you say that I am steering people away from it?

And yes, I am not Marissa Tomei, but I am a car mechanic since 1978, and I still fix cars, although mostly I am a farmer today. I harcvested this morning, in the drizzle but now its pouring outside, so I am in.

I responded to Jakila thoughts as best as I can, yours are a waste of time and effort.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#27) On August 15, 2011 at 4:59 PM, mm5525 (< 20) wrote:

I guess reading comprehension is not your strong suit, Devoish.

"Have you are or David or chris or mm5525 ever written a post accusing a private individual of stealing, or thievery? Or a corporation? Or of anything wrong? I stopped reading their mindless, extremist, one sided, unbalalnced messaging in favor of rational sanity. frankly those boys are off the chart wacko nut jobs."

It's okay. Squeezing rationality or veracity out of you is about the same as getting blood out of a turnip. Even from a few minutes ago, you're still in denial.  

Best wishes to you... and please, don't go anywhere near my rental properties. NO VACANCY.

 

 

Report this comment
#28) On August 15, 2011 at 5:01 PM, ChrisGraley (31.77) wrote:

"Have you are or David or chris or mm5525 ever written a post accusing a private individual of stealing, or thievery? Or a corporation? Or of anything wrong? I stopped reading their mindless, extremist, one sided, unbalalnced messaging in favor of rational sanity. frankly those boys are off the chart wacko nut jobs."

I must not have been speaking loudly enough. 

Report this comment
#29) On August 15, 2011 at 6:01 PM, devoish (98.78) wrote:

Sorry Chris,

That goes hand in hand with your accusations of Government corruption.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#30) On August 15, 2011 at 11:09 PM, ChrisGraley (31.77) wrote:

I figured that Al Gore was allowed to steal in your eyes Steven.

I also agreed with you about the banks stealing from us, but I have enough standards not to think that it's crucial to bail the crooks out anyway.

 

Report this comment
#31) On August 16, 2011 at 1:33 AM, awallejr (82.49) wrote:

frankly those boys are off the chart wacko nut jobs."

They are ;p

Report this comment
#32) On August 16, 2011 at 7:57 AM, devoish (98.78) wrote:

#30,

Al Gore is not the thief in your video. I did not support bailing out the banks.

Thank you for your accusations. Perhaps mm5525 will point out that calling Al Gore a thief is naughty naughty namecalling and demand you balance your accusations with arguments from the left. But I still think he has lactating intolerance. Personally, I don't want you to, unless you decide you should.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#33) On August 20, 2011 at 2:47 PM, dwot (99.58) wrote:

My in-laws are in their late 80s and early 90s now and very dependent on help.  They moved into their current condo about 12 years ago and they were both still very healthy and vital.  I remember Tom saying that many older folks figure they will down size later and they leave until they lack the capacity to do it themselves.  So they were thinking ahead and getting into a place they thought would serve them better in aging, and so it has. 

I am looking at the example above and just knowing that many seniors lack the capacity to do what they used to do, it is utterly disgusting to do this to people.

I rent a suite and I had what I'd call a tenant from hell, behind on rent, utilities, no damage deposit and a completely miserable person, and I had problems getting her out.  In her case, she brought eviction upon herself and into every life she touched she seemed to bring poison.

I think there has to be a balance between the two and this is a case of rental eviction that I think screams of increased regulation, and I suspect with an aging population this kind of thing will be regulated more.

I bought my home here because I was tired of getting an eviction every year because the landlord thought he had a buyer.  It was enormously stressful because this community is tight on housing, and I simply didn't find anything with the first eviction.  They ended up not selling, but thought they had a buyer again the next year.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement