7 replies · 599 views
Has anyone seen this? Is this the poor being screwed over by greedy individuals? Or is it landowners fixing their property, don't have the money to do it, so are forced to raise rent? I know this article is a bit biased, but anyone have their thoughts on this?
JHC
Can't tell with that article-- not enough information. 
Could be greed, could be economics, could be some of both, but the article doesn't provide enough information.
Comrade Shampanyov, Last of the Red Hot Gentlemen wrote: Can't tell with that article-- not enough information.
Could be greed, could be economics, could be some of both, but the article doesn't provide enough information.
Yeah that was what I thought. Wasn't sure if someone had been following this closer and could offer a better picture.
JHC
On the face of it it sounds heartless and mercenary on the part of the property owners.
Does the US normally have stronger protections for tenants than the UK? Everywhere I've ever rented the situation has been the landlord can kick you out with one month's notice for no reason, hurricane or no hurricane. Usually it means the landlord wants to cash in his capital gains and sell with no sitting tenant.
I knew people who rented in Notting Hill, then after the movie came out and it became more fashionable for yuppies they were all evicted to make way for higher rent paying incomers. Interesting that Hugh Grant can have the same effect as a major disaster.
404 error wrote: On the face of it it sounds heartless and mercenary on the part of the property owners.
Does the US normally have stronger protections for tenants than the UK? Everywhere I've ever rented the situation has been the landlord can kick you out with one month's notice for no reason, hurricane or no hurricane. Usually it means the landlord wants to cash in his capital gains and sell with no sitting tenant.
I knew people who rented in Notting Hill, then after the movie came out and it became more fashionable for yuppies they were all evicted to make way for higher rent paying incomers. Interesting that Hugh Grant can have the same effect as a major disaster.
There is protection, but when they raise the rent and someone can't pay they can evict for not paying the rent. The question I guess I was elluding to with the article is who needs to be protected : the tenants who need a place to live -or- the landlords that need to fix the property and keep it to health and building codes?
JHC
(love the disaster quote)
I think that the landlords have the right to evict people if they can't pay, although I think in this kind of situation they should work with the tennants to find other housing. Because if its to do repairs its not the tennants fault, and therefore there having to make a sacrife. I know when I was still at art school we took in a few Kids from new orleans and gave them free tuition, so I think that the state should atleast do something for the tennants. I'm sure that any landlord has insurance and can afford to help out some tennants find other housing though.
Oh, and do you guys remember the problem they had evicting the people from the hotels? I feel this is a problem that the federal and state government should be overseeing.
