Opinion Should It Be Illegal to Evict People

[panamaican]

But to be honest start messing with one bit and you see the whole situation is fucked..........so........

So...?

You mess with anything, other things are going to change. Regardless of what thing you mess with, so pick the one that best aligns with your goals and see what happens.

 

[panamaican]

I mean people who cant afford a down payment. That's a huge section of the population.

If you get rid of rental properties, lenders will relax their rules or sales agreements will take on a new form or prices will come down such that people could afford the down payment.

Housing, as a market, is horribly skewed in my opinion. We've incentivized a bunch of things that make for poor use of space and, frankly, a lot of waste. And most of that is tied into the idea that people should consider their primary residence an "investment". I disagree with that and if we removed that, you would see things like people buying smaller houses and banks discouraging massive debt for said "investment". All of this would put downward pressure on house prices and hopefully increase the builder's desire to build smaller more easily sold properties.

 

[WhiteMousse]

It needs to be easier to evict people.

But we also need to start building less expensive/quality housing so people can start living according to their means

 

[panamaican]

I can't imagine the catastrophe this would have on the quality of life of everyone and the ruination of the economy.

Imagine how many people work on contracts and rent short or mid-term to complete their work. Imagine just wanting to go to the beach for a week and renting a house for your holiday. Imagine any holiday anywhere? What happens if you can't afford the deposit for a home but you do have the cash flow for rent? Are you homeless now with this brain dead idea? What if you are a student and need to share accommodation with others to pay the rent? What is the economy going to look like when mobility utterly crashes and people cannot afford to buy near their work, their study, or their community in general?

It's utterly insane that this is being suggested. Sherdog is looking stupider by the moment.

I can imagine hotels which seem to serve the short term needs community just fine. I can also imagine corporate owned housing which wouldn't be rental property. I can also imagine people going to local colleges and universities instead of picking up debt to travel to some random state for the same degree they can get nearby. I think I have a better imagination than you.

But, since we're going to discuss "brain dead", are you one of those people who can't think through the wholesale changes that follow an initial change and believe that everything else would just stay the same while that one variable changes? Of course things will change. Certain ways of doing things would end and new models would have to come into existence. I thought that would be obvious.

 

[Broke Lester]

It needs to be easier to evict people.

But we also need to start building less expensive/quality housing so people can start living according to their means

That's not the builders fault, there are a lot of people who can afford it. Dumb people who want to live beyond their means is a different problem.

Agree on the evictions.

 

[spamking]

Lol at “let those people create towns on Public Lands or something.” Would watch

Wasn't there a show about that on Discovery or something? 100 days wild?

 

[spamking]

No. However, it should be illegal to own property for the sake of renting it out.

 

[spamking]

You arent getting an electrician to wire a house for 20k, let alone an actual house.

Ever heard of Tuff Sheds? I bet you could get a decent sized shed (or even 2 combined for a single residence) configured for electrical, plumbing, etc. for around $20k or less.

 

[White Whale]

No. However, it should be illegal to own property for the sake of renting it out.

People should not be allowed to rent out their homes in tourist areas to vacationers?

 

[oldshadow]

You can in fact build a house for 20 thousand or less in materials, in the US anyway. However you first have to have the skill and a place with codes you can work with. This is not going to be in the city or suburbs. This is going to be in the country with only county codes to deal with. There you can heat with wood and have very minimal electrical and plumbing. The problem is you have to include the land to build the house. This is assuming you can get a lot with access for a couple of grand and it pirks for a tank and field. It will be a three Or two room type.
I’ve seen it done and helped work on it . It is very basic with very few comforts.

 

[Don the grifter]

The cheapest used one on that website is 60k

Keep in mind, I started this off saying I'm not weighing in on the mythical 20k house in Canada. The guy I was responding to was just insisting something that was common in Western Canada was a rarity or impossible or something. To build a house for 20k in Canada, it would have to be a shanty. Frankly, not sure you could even do it with all of the tickets and regulations you'd run into. Maybe just the materials of certain types of houses would get into that range, if you did the labour yourself, but the regulations would kill the idea.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

This is a tough one. I'm on the left but I do worry about government overreach and owning too much. What a lot of people on the left don't talk about is if you socialize too much, the government owns everything and you are in the same position or worse where the corporations own everything. With corporations, you can refuse to buy their products or support their business. You still have choice. With government, you are fucked. It's very hard to vote people out or to change government.

I prefer to keep government in the realm of basic needs, health and safety. I don't want to get to a situation where we are like World War II Germany. You work at the government factory, eat at the government restaurant, buy the government car, go to the government store and spend your money on government products. There's no choice or variety. It's a dystopian nightmare.

I think ultimately, if you own property, you should be allowed to evict people but there should be a process in place for those people to have a place to go. If they will be homeless, that's when the government will step in and give them shelter at a homeless shelter and provide assistance in locating a job.

Where I think government can help is more temporary housing and starter jobs/civil servant positions to get your foot in the door.

 

[UFCUCF]

I have a few rental properties and have had zero problems with renters or evictions. I think where people are getting these horror stories are from slumlords that rent to voucher/section 8 recipients. Since the government is involved in paying the rent they are involved in the eviction. I've never rented to sec8 so I'm not sure how it works exactly.

I'd say you have been lucky--and I wish you continued success. My law practice includes residential eviction cases from time to time. I can tell you that we have done them on Section 8 and non section 8. Low end properties and properties being rented for upwards of $4,000 per month. In my non-scientific analysis I'd say Section 8 makes up a smaller percentage of evictions precisely because the Government picks up the check.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Instead of your "clever" and factitious comments, why don't you provide something of an actual argument?

My "argument" was pretty simple - If you choose to become a landlord you willingly take on the responsibility of having to jump through all legal hoops required to lawfully evict a tenant and you therefore don't get the privilege of being able to bitch about it.

What part of it were you unclear on?

 

[Rational Poster]

Well here in Canada, you can't build an off the grid dwelling. You have to be tied into the electric grid.

That's a regulation I'd get rid of for sure.

If it puts you out of work, all the better. You seem like a bit of a cunt tbh.

Yeah you're probably right. There are literally millions of people that want to live off the grid with no electricity, running water, or internet.

If not for those darn regulations it would be a reality!

 

[plataoplombo]

I see what you're saying. I'm not familiar with these at all. Crawl spaces for me have always been non-insulated, dirt floors and not all sealed in, like cinder block.

After looking this up, I've found things like this:

There's duct work and everything under there, of course pipes won't freeze.

Are these on concrete slabs typically?

Footers, at least in the US.

 

[bufetadanacara]

My "argument" was pretty simple - If you choose to become a landlord you willingly take on the responsibility of having to jump through all legal hoops required to lawfully evict a tenant and you therefore don't get the privilege of being able to bitch about it.

What part of it were you unclear on?

The part why anyone would see that as a positive thing. Do you agree that a renter should not get evicted once he stops paying the bills? That doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[AWilder]

I'd say you have been lucky--and I wish you continued success. My law practice includes residential eviction cases from time to time. I can tell you that we have done them on Section 8 and non section 8. Low end properties and properties being rented for upwards of $4,000 per month. In my non-scientific analysis I'd say Section 8 makes up a smaller percentage of evictions precisely because the Government picks up the check.

Right now we are renting a house to my wife's best friend. I am not thrilled about the arrangement and am hoping it doesn't bite us in the ass. it's been about a year and they have been fine, but it's not the rental situation i wanted when we decided to turn this particular house into a rental and move into another. Luckily they have been good renters but this will be the first and last time we rent to friends. We use property management services for our other units so we don't really have any interaction with the renters at all and they handle any evictions if necessary, have only had one renter come close to eviction in 15 years.

 

[ModernMatt]

There has to be some thing inbetween. I am currently facing an eviction notice right now, when i read the letter, i have no idea why i even got the letter. It says that weed and cigarettes smells coming out of my apt...i don't even smoke either of those! Kids running in the hallway, i don't even have kids! Saying that i let homeless/drunk people pass out in the main entrance, I think i'm the only one that kicks them out! My upstairs neigbours saying i bang the walls/ceiling, why the fook would i do that! thats the easiest way to get noise complaints! I've been living there for 12 years and never had issues until they moved upstairs.

So now fighting it, hired a lawyer, and in the meantime i complain about their cement feet and the dog they have...it's supposed to be a pet free building. I even made video proof of all these things whereas they're just blaming me with no proof. It's a couple that lives there and of course they're going to believe them over me...eventhough they have no proof. I smell the cigarettes and weed from my apt too, but i don't blindly accuse a random apt unless i have proof.

I hate dealing with idiots

Edit:
with all that being said...think there should still an eviction process

 

[mkess101]

If you get rid of rental properties, lenders will relax their rules or sales agreements will take on a new form or prices will come down such that people could afford the down payment.

Housing, as a market, is horribly skewed in my opinion. We've incentivized a bunch of things that make for poor use of space and, frankly, a lot of waste. And most of that is tied into the idea that people should consider their primary residence an "investment". I disagree with that and if we removed that, you would see things like people buying smaller houses and banks discouraging massive debt for said "investment". All of this would put downward pressure on house prices and hopefully increase the builder's desire to build smaller more easily sold properties.

What would the process look like to transition away from it? You have what, maybe 10 million people that would be categorized as "landlords" in this country. Maybe eliminate a few that just rent a room in their house or something, but you still have millions of people who have bought rental properties for the sole reason of renting them out. As an investment. Most are (by necessity) financing the purchase of the properties, not paying out of pocket. The demographic of landlords ranges widely obviously, from individuals to large corporations. I'm just wondering how you begin to unwind this. Some guy who bought a couple 4 unit apartment buildings as a random example. He did his research on the area, went to the bank with his business plan, got mortgages. You're now forcing him to what, sell them? To who? Corporations for corporate housing maybe, but that isn't viable in a lot of areas. And he would take a bath on the sale as the corp would have all the leverage due to the government dictating the sale. Sell each individual apartment to those who reside in them? Or to someone else who wants to? Possible, but what if they can't afford them (likely) and/or can't get approved for a loan to buy the unit.

I'm just wondering how you actually make this change without sending things into utter chaos. Or are we grandfathering in those who are currently landlords and simply saying no new purchasing of property for the purpose of renting it out. That would eliminate some, but FAR from all, of the problems you'd face.

It's an interesting concept but as with most things, the devil is in the details. And this seems like a monstrous undertaking (which might even be an understatement).