Katie and Travis: Will It Last?

[rebeccawriter01]

On 2/18/2021 at 6:40 AM, DalmatianCat said:

Probably depends on the size. At Pensacola Christian College (one of the larger colleges that is still skirts only...I’m still surprised none of the Duggars or Bates have ended up there), most of the professors had at least a master’s degree from a secular university (a few had a Masters from a Christian college), and were working towards a doctorate as well. I’m guessing Bob Jones is probably the same. 

The accredited ones will have to have a portion of the faculty with terminal degrees. There is a ratio for it. However, it can vary by program. For example trade programs like welding, automotive, cosmetology, etc. don't really lend themselves to professors who do research and have terminal degrees. Others barely meet the requirement. For example, Liberty has a PhD in leadership. They receive that and have 18 hours of elementary education, they are suddenly teaching at Crown and it appears that Crown has Dr. _______ teaching future teachers. Never mind that he or she has never actually been in a K-12 classroom. Never mind that he or she is teaching a program that isn't accredited or where graduates are eligible to sit for the license exams.   

I've seen an upward tick in the number getting a PhD in religion or something similar from a place like Liberty and then getting 18 credit hours in the subject they want to teach from a secular university if they don't get their masters there. They get to use the doctor title but still meet the state and regional requirements for teaching at the college level. 

Honestly academia gets tougher and tougher as a career path. So many colleges and universities survive on adjuncts who don't have offices, benefits, or even enough pay to sustain them. They quit and are replaced by another adjunct. The department I earned my BS from in the early 2000s had 11 tenured faculty members. Now there are three left and 20ish adjuncts. In many cases some doctoral grads are taking jobs at Christian colleges simply because it is a full time job that is almost what they want to do. The hope being that they can get a job at a private or state school at a later time with some teaching experience behind them. 

[nolongerIFBx]

On 2/18/2021 at 5:40 AM, DalmatianCat said:

Probably depends on the size. At Pensacola Christian College (one of the larger colleges that is still skirts only...I’m still surprised none of the Duggars or Bates have ended up there), most of the professors had at least a master’s degree from a secular university (a few had a Masters from a Christian college), and were working towards a doctorate as well. I’m guessing Bob Jones is probably the same. 

PCC is not strictly skirts-only. Shorts are allowed for sports and other activities where it is deemed appropriate: https://www.facebook.com/PensacolaChristianCollege/photos/ms.c.eJxFj9mRxUAIAzPaGiEOkX9iW2Zs3m~_X1AiyFSrooMtLf2QrHRTDgo0LwMqDdtkZEKqwqbh~;gD4g7avoVnAWdCrhxa3wVhY4GDwl7dkzlX6lVtEMy6pvR94dsTsy55ewdWQyTPhdKaTSz~;vc44jnrGodVeNAL7hXbL~;NuzT1gTNA9oHsK~_VWDp~_ziJG2uXVktSJrAQ6IPvECQvQMAxZMQoqt8Do~_KXkmkbkAjwOtBZpELIBdqX~;Ae6TgBWVNeprxldbsMO2OMmkSjk2cAehN1E3YP0tOgI0~-.bps.a.3398586256864237/3398586520197544 .

Sorry, one of my niblings attends and it is a sore point with the more fundie persons in the family.

Edited February 22, 2021 by nolongerIFBx
context for why I know such a ridiculous fact

[GuineaPigCourtship]

I rented for years. I never expected to live for free and I never attempted to destroy a house because no one let me. The houses are small family homes from the 1920s, worth nothing except as small rental properties. Being a landlord is actually a valid source of income when you're providing regular maintenance and property upkeep, not sure why the fact that you're expecting to be paid for providing someone with a place to live makes a landlord the bad guy.

I don't care that you're mad. I'm mad that people tried to take advantage of my family.

Edited February 23, 2021 by GuineaPigCourtship
Angrier and ruder than I should be.

[DalmatianCat]

4 hours ago, nolongerIFBx said:

PCC is not strictly skirts-only. Shorts are allowed for sports and other activities where it is deemed appropriate: https://www.facebook.com/PensacolaChristianCollege/photos/ms.c.eJxFj9mRxUAIAzPaGiEOkX9iW2Zs3m~_X1AiyFSrooMtLf2QrHRTDgo0LwMqDdtkZEKqwqbh~;gD4g7avoVnAWdCrhxa3wVhY4GDwl7dkzlX6lVtEMy6pvR94dsTsy55ewdWQyTPhdKaTSz~;vc44jnrGodVeNAL7hXbL~;NuzT1gTNA9oHsK~_VWDp~_ziJG2uXVktSJrAQ6IPvECQvQMAxZMQoqt8Do~_KXkmkbkAjwOtBZpELIBdqX~;Ae6TgBWVNeprxldbsMO2OMmkSjk2cAehN1E3YP0tOgI0~-.bps.a.3398586256864237/3398586520197544 .

Sorry, one of my niblings attends and it is a sore point with the more fundie persons in the family.

Yes, there’s several in my family who attended as well, but I still classify it as skirts only since there are so many rules about where you can wear walking shorts (and can’t to classes or church). I personally think they’d like to move away from skirts entirely, but aren’t sure how. PCC is odd in a way that for some families discussed on this forum it’s shockingly liberal (girls can wear short to PE and certain activities, dating is encouraged, women working is encouraged, girls major in graphic design, commercial art, pre-law, pre-med, engineering, and not just elementary education, etc), but on the other...it’s still more conservative than Liberty, Regent University, etc.

[lumpentheologie]

7 hours ago, GuineaPigCourtship said:

Being a landlord is actually a valid source of income when you're providing regular maintenance and property upkeep, not sure why the fact that you're expecting to be paid for providing someone with a place to live makes a landlord the bad guy.

This is what landlords tell themselves so they can sleep at night, I guess. If your whole investment strategy is hoarding something that's necessary for life and there isn't enough of, taking as much money as possible from people who are worse off than you, and literally throwing them out into the cold when they can't pay anymore, it seems pretty clear why people might object to that. If you'd rather keep houses empty than let people live in them for free, when people are dying on the street, that's a pretty terrible moral position. 

The landlord class is currently the single biggest obstacle to Americans having a decent quality of life, imo. There's a reason progressive Democrats refuse campaign contributions from the real estate industry. In general I try to take a "don't hate the player, hate the game" approach, but listening to landlords demonize renters and try to claim there's suffering on both sides is too much.

So you had a few bad experiences, doing what is, at best, a necessary evil. Clearly your family had a very adversarial relationship with your renters. You're still comfortable, while god knows if they even have a roof over their heads. Rich people tears over this is ridiculous. 

As a historian it is clear to me that the commodification of property (treating housing primarily as an investment with monetary value, rather than as place to live) is one of the worst things to ever happen to humanity. It's brought about more suffering than the bubonic plague. It's also relatively recent in human history. If anyone's interested in learning more about this, I strongly recommend reading The Great Transformation, by Karl Polanyi, a classic text in this area. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by lumpentheologie

[mango_fandango]

Didn’t Bobby Smith get a degree from Pensacola Christian College? Or am I misremembering? 

[indianabones]

32 minutes ago, mango_fandango said:

Didn’t Bobby Smith get a degree from Pensacola Christian College? Or am I misremembering? 

He and Kelton both went there- they were roommates.

[marmalade]

21 hours ago, mango_fandango said:

Didn’t Bobby Smith get a degree from Pensacola Christian College? Or am I misremembering? 

Children's Ministry, or something similar, IIRC.

[rebeccawriter01]

10 hours ago, marmalade said:

Children's Ministry, or something similar, IIRC.

Yes, his was in youth ministry and Kelton studied business. 

[PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea]

On 2/23/2021 at 3:11 AM, lumpentheologie said:

This is what landlords tell themselves so they can sleep at night, I guess. If your whole investment strategy is hoarding something that's necessary for life and there isn't enough of, taking as much money as possible from people who are worse off than you, and literally throwing them out into the cold when they can't pay anymore, it seems pretty clear why people might object to that. If you'd rather keep houses empty than let people live in them for free, when people are dying on the street, that's a pretty terrible moral position. 

The landlord class is currently the single biggest obstacle to Americans having a decent quality of life, imo. There's a reason progressive Democrats refuse campaign contributions from the real estate industry. In general I try to take a "don't hate the player, hate the game" approach, but listening to landlords demonize renters and try to claim there's suffering on both sides is too much.

So you had a few bad experiences, doing what is, at best, a necessary evil. Clearly your family had a very adversarial relationship with your renters. You're still comfortable, while god knows if they even have a roof over their heads. Rich people tears over this is ridiculous. 

As a historian it is clear to me that the commodification of property (treating housing primarily as an investment with monetary value, rather than as place to live) is one of the worst things to ever happen to humanity. It's brought about more suffering than the bubonic plague. It's also relatively recent in human history. If anyone's interested in learning more about this, I strongly recommend reading The Great Transformation, by Karl Polanyi, a classic text in this area. 

I don't think it's fair to say all landlords are one class. There are middle class ppl renting out properties to make ends meet and very large companies that own thousands of properties. They're all making money in way that makes sense in our system. 

I'm a lefty mclefterton but I freely confess I can't really imagine how we could go back to having housing not be privately owned. I don't see any political will or much interest from the public to socialize the majority of homes.

That said, in Europe, there are higher land/housing costs (though here in southern Ontario it seems we are approaching those prices!!)  but they have a lot more subsidized housing. I think we need to move in that direction in North America.

[Jackie3]

On 2/23/2021 at 12:11 AM, lumpentheologie said:

This is what landlords tell themselves so they can sleep at night, I guess. If your whole investment strategy is hoarding something that's necessary for life and there isn't enough of, taking as much money as possible from people who are worse off than you, and literally throwing them out into the cold when they can't pay anymore, it seems pretty clear why people might object to that. If you'd rather keep houses empty than let people live in them for free, when people are dying on the street, that's a pretty terrible moral position. 

The landlord class is currently the single biggest obstacle to Americans having a decent quality of life, imo. There's a reason progressive Democrats refuse campaign contributions from the real estate industry. In general I try to take a "don't hate the player, hate the game" approach, but listening to landlords demonize renters and try to claim there's suffering on both sides is too much.

So you had a few bad experiences, doing what is, at best, a necessary evil. Clearly your family had a very adversarial relationship with your renters. You're still comfortable, while god knows if they even have a roof over their heads. Rich people tears over this is ridiculous. 

As a historian it is clear to me that the commodification of property (treating housing primarily as an investment with monetary value, rather than as place to live) is one of the worst things to ever happen to humanity. It's brought about more suffering than the bubonic plague. It's also relatively recent in human history. If anyone's interested in learning more about this, I strongly recommend reading The Great Transformation, by Karl Polanyi, a classic text in this area. 

This is why there are so few rental properties around. As a result of this scarcity, rents are higher.

You are discouraging people from renting out their property, which leads to more homelessness. Congrats.

In my city, no one wants to be a landlord. There are people sleeping on the sidewalks as a result. 

Just now, Jackie3 said:

This is why there are so few rental properties around. As a result of this scarcity, rents are higher.

You are discouraging people from renting out their property, which leads to more homelessness. Congrats.

In my city, no one wants to be a landlord. There are people sleeping on the sidewalks as a result. 

Perhaps you think people should save money, buy a home, and then let anyone who wants live there for free. I guess you are doing that?

 

 

On 2/23/2021 at 12:11 AM, lumpentheologie said:

This is what landlords tell themselves so they can sleep at night, I guess. If your whole investment strategy is hoarding something that's necessary for life and there isn't enough of, taking as much money as possible from people who are worse off than you, and literally throwing them out into the cold when they can't pay anymore, it seems pretty clear why people might object to that. If you'd rather keep houses empty than let people live in them for free, when people are dying on the street, that's a pretty terrible moral position. 

The landlord class is currently the single biggest obstacle to Americans having a decent quality of life, imo. There's a reason progressive Democrats refuse campaign contributions from the real estate industry. In general I try to take a "don't hate the player, hate the game" approach, but listening to landlords demonize renters and try to claim there's suffering on both sides is too much.

So you had a few bad experiences, doing what is, at best, a necessary evil. Clearly your family had a very adversarial relationship with your renters. You're still comfortable, while god knows if they even have a roof over their heads. Rich people tears over this is ridiculous. 

 

This is why there are so few rental properties around. As a result of this scarcity, rents are higher.

You are discouraging people from renting out their property, which leads to more homelessness. Congrats.

In my city, no one wants to be a landlord. There are people sleeping on the sidewalks as a result.

Perhaps you are waiting for people to save money, buy a home, and then let others live there for free. Are you doing that, yourself? 

[Jackie3]

On 2/21/2021 at 1:57 PM, lumpentheologie said:

It does depend on the state (and local government) but most places offer few protections for renters. In NYC it takes about a year to evict someone, thankfully. 

 

Yes, that's great! Then the landlord can pay all the bills himself, without any help from his tenants. Terrific!

Of course, this means he'll probably stop being a landlord mighty quick. People around him, seeing his financial losses, won't want to become landlords either. So the rental market shrinks even further.

Soon there'll be hardly any rentals. More homelessness. Yay! Sounds like that's what you're after.

You cannot force people to pay all the bills on a property while letting others live there for free. Most people don't want to do this, and they won't. End result: very little rental housing. 

That's happening in my city.  There are hardly any rental properties available as a result, and this drives the price up. I know families who live in their car as a result of the lack of housing.

I can tell by your kind heart, lumpen, that you are different. You let the poor live in your house, and YOU pay for the mortgage and utilities. I know you wouldn't ask landlords to do this unless yyou did it yourself. How many homeless families live with you? How much does it cost you to pay for their utilities?

Edited February 25, 2021 by Jackie3

[lumpentheologie]

18 hours ago, PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea said:

I don't think it's fair to say all landlords are one class. There are middle class ppl renting out properties to make ends meet and very large companies that own thousands of properties. They're all making money in way that makes sense in our system. 

I'm a lefty mclefterton but I freely confess I can't really imagine how we could go back to having housing not be privately owned. I don't see any political will or much interest from the public to socialize the majority of homes.

I think it's absolutely fair to call landlords one class. Owning your own home makes you middle class. Owning more than one makes you upper-middle or upper class. Seems pretty clear to me. 

I didn't say anything about being against private ownership. It's ownership geared toward investment that I'm against. I think discouraging that would lead to more affordable home ownership (since so much of the market wouldn't be trapped as rental housing) and not-for-profit social housing. The latter is much more common in Germany, where you have renter's associations that buy a number of apartment buildings and then rent them to their members essentially at cost. 

13 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

In my city, no one wants to be a landlord. There are people sleeping on the sidewalks as a result. 

This is some hilarious right wing bullshit. If you think the poor, oppressed landlords are the reason we have homelessness you're watching too much fox news to understand how causality works. Next you'll be saying we should liberate our bosses from paying taxes because they're "job creators," lol.  

5 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

I can tell by your kind heart, lumpen, that you are different. You let the poor live in your house, and YOU pay for the mortgage and utilities. I know you wouldn't ask landlords to do this unless yyou did it yourself. How many homeless families live with you? How much does it cost you to pay for their utilities?

I wasn't going to respond to this, because personal attacks are beyond the pale. But actually, yes, I have let homeless people live in my apartment rent-free. I've paid thousands of dollars in rent and utilities to cover this. I've done extensive volunteer work with unhoused people, and I've also been given a key to the city for building a library for homeless children. Don't talk shit about people you don't even know. 

I'm not even a Christian, but I find it galling how many supposed Christians spend their whole life ignoring the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says to do exactly this. 

[wendy-sparkles]

landlords absolutely act politically as a class. we have a 20 year property bubble in NZ fuelled by landlords and property speculation. it can be sufficiently profitable just to leave a property empty rather than bother to rent it out.  it is roughly as expensive to live in Auckland as it is to live in London, New York etc, except wages are much lower and cost of living is really high (food and consumer goods are comparatively very expensive in NZ). investment properties are so widespread amongst middle class baby boomers it prevents reform to fix our housing issues. our centre left (labour) government was all about reform when in opposition (it's widely accepted that we need some form of capital gains tax) until they realised they'll quickly be out of power if they do anything other than tinker round the edges. I say this as someone who unfortunately has multiple landlords in her family - my mum a nurse yet she has property she rents out. a bunch of my friends parents are also landlords  it's just so widespread. it will probably fuck our whole economy up considerably if the bubble ever pops, so I can't even wish for that is good conscience (I still do lol).

[nausicaa]

On 2/23/2021 at 3:11 AM, lumpentheologie said:

This is what landlords tell themselves so they can sleep at night, I guess. If your whole investment strategy is hoarding something that's necessary for life and there isn't enough of, taking as much money as possible from people who are worse off than you, and literally throwing them out into the cold ...

You're trafficking in a lot of generalizations here. Many landlords are not large-scale property owners. Many are middle class and rent out rooms/basements/inlaw suites. In more rural areas, many rent trailers or smaller houses they built on their property. Some charge low or reduced rent or work out understandings with tenants who lose their jobs. My landlord hasn't raised my rent in four years because I'm a good tenant. So no, not everyone is taking as much money as they can. 

My mother rents a basement apartment from an immigrant and they probably have a close to equal income. I assure you her single mom Guyanese landlady living in a two bedroom townhouse is not Ms. Moneybags. 

I'm not arguing that all landlords are wonderful and it seems you've had some bad experiences, but they offer a necessary service. Many people don't want to own for a variety of reasons and need to have rental properties available. What is the alternative? 

And by virtue of renting out the properties, they aren't hoarding anything, any more than a pay parking lot owner is hoarding the parking lot, a grocery store owner is hoarding their food, or a taxi driver is hoarding their car.  

I rent a small guest cottage that my landlord (a Muslim immigrant who grew up in poverty) built at his expense on his one acre of land. I genuinely don't understand what he hoarded? He invested the effort, time, and money, and now he gains my monthly rent from that initial investment.

I don't really see how this is different from how I put some money in the stock market after it crashed in 2008 by sacrificing pleasures and now reap the rewards of greatly increased stock values? 

 

Also, I wonder if the "landlords shouldn't be able to sleep at night" crowd understand that for devout Muslims, property ownership and management is one of the only ways they can invest their money as they get older due to Muslim prohibitions on usury? Just an additional element to all of this when I see overwhelmingly white leftists taking up the landlords are evil chant. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

15 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

You're trafficking in a lot of generalizations here. Many landlords are not large-scale property owners. Many are middle class and rent out rooms/basements/inlaw suites. In more rural areas, many rent trailers or smaller houses they built on their property. Some charge low or reduced rent or work out understandings with tenants who lose their jobs. My landlord hasn't raised my rent in four years because I'm a good tenant. So no, not everyone is taking as much money as they can. 

My mother rents a basement apartment from an immigrant and they probably have a close to equal income. I assure you her single mom Guyanese landlady living in a two bedroom townhouse is not Ms. Moneybags. 

I'm not arguing that all landlords are wonderful and it seems you've had some bad experiences, but they offer a necessary service. Many people don't want to own for a variety of reasons and need to have rental properties available. What is the alternative? 

And by virtue of renting out the properties, they aren't hoarding anything, any more than a pay parking lot owner is hoarding the parking lot, a grocery store owner is hoarding their food, or a taxi driver is hoarding their car.  

I rent a small guest cottage that my landlord (a Muslim immigrant who grew up in poverty) built at his expense on his one acre of land. I genuinely don't understand what he hoarded? He invested the effort, time, and money, and now he gains my monthly rent from that initial investment.

I don't really see how this is different from how I put some money in the stock market after it crashed in 2008 by sacrificing pleasures and now reap the rewards of greatly increased stock values? 

 

Also, I wonder if the "landlords shouldn't be able to sleep at night" crowd understand that for devout Muslims, property ownership and management is one of the only ways they can invest their money as they get older due to Muslim prohibitions on usury? Just an additional element to all of this when I see overwhelmingly white leftists taking up the landlords are evil chant. 

This is really, really well said.  

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by HerNameIsBuffy

[QuiverFullofBooks]

Excellent post, @nausicaa. I’d like to add that if individuals don’t own rental housing, corporations will (it certainly won’t be the government), and they will not be sympathetic landlords.

[lumpentheologie]

3 hours ago, nausicaa said:

You're trafficking in a lot of generalizations here. Many landlords are not large-scale property owners. Many are middle class and rent out rooms/basements/inlaw suites. In more rural areas, many rent trailers or smaller houses they built on their property. Some charge low or reduced rent or work out understandings with tenants who lose their jobs. My landlord hasn't raised my rent in four years because I'm a good tenant. So no, not everyone is taking as much money as they can. 

My mother rents a basement apartment from an immigrant and they probably have a close to equal income. I assure you her single mom Guyanese landlady living in a two bedroom townhouse is not Ms. Moneybags. 

I wouldn't consider people who rent out rooms or basement apartments or anything on the property they live on to be part of the landlord class.  That's a different thing--essentially taking in roommates (or what used to be called boarders) to help pay the bills. I agree that they're not hoarding housing.

That doesn't change the fact that a politically organized landlord class (made up of both individuals and corporations) does exist, and they absolutely do hoard housing and actively work against the interests of renters. I'm sure there are exceptions to people taking as much money as they can, but that is the exception, not the norm. 

3 hours ago, nausicaa said:

And by virtue of renting out the properties, they aren't hoarding anything, any more than a pay parking lot owner is hoarding the parking lot, a grocery store owner is hoarding their food, or a taxi driver is hoarding their car.  

These comparisons don't make a lot of sense. You buy food from a grocery store owner, you don't rent it. The number of taxis is minuscule compared to the number of privately owned cars, and there's neither a food shortage nor a car shortage. When half of the very limited housing stock in dense urban areas is owned by landlords, they are absolutely hoarding housing. They keep people from being able to buy properties, they consistently drive up rent prices, and renters have to put up with all kinds of abusive (and often illegal) behavior from landlords because there is no alternative.

3 hours ago, nausicaa said:

I'm not arguing that all landlords are wonderful and it seems you've had some bad experiences, but they offer a necessary service. Many people don't want to own for a variety of reasons and need to have rental properties available. What is the alternative? 

 

48 minutes ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

I’d like to add that if individuals don’t own rental housing, corporations will (it certainly won’t be the government), and they will not be sympathetic landlords.

I agree that renting is a needed service but there's no reason it should primarily be for profit. In my last post I wrote about not-for-profit rental options with the example of renter's associations owning buildings (something that actually exists at a fairly large scale here in Germany). Other kinds of non-profits could do the same thing. And I don't see why there shouldn't be some government-owned housing as well. Public housing works really well when it's properly funded, just like public schools do. And making it less profitable to be a for-profit landlord (for example by giving American renters the protections Europeans have) would open up a lot of rental properties to be owned by these kinds of organizations as for-profit landlords decide it's more worthwhile to invest elsewhere. This would also have the effect of lowering rent across the board. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

4 minutes ago, lumpentheologie said:

Other kinds of non-profits could do the same thing. And I don't see why there shouldn't be some government-owned housing as well. Public housing works really well when it's properly funded, just like public schools do.

As someone in the Chicago area I can absolutely say this is not the case here.  Public housing has a long and malicious history in the US, making the worst private landlords look like saints in comparison.  And public schools here depend on the property taxes of their district so the more public housing the less funding they get.  It's absolutely criminal and something that needs vast reform, but what you are talking about would make things in the US far worse for those with lower incomes than we have right now.

I agree it shouldn't be that way, but it absolutely is.

I'm currently renting due to a divorce.  I am glad to be able to rent a home as due to divorce issues I won't get into I can't buy any time soon.  You can have all the available housing for sale in the world and if people aren't in the position to buy they will be homeless without rentals.  

I think your heart is in the right place, but what you're proposing isn't workable in the US at this time and people need somewhere to live in the meanwhile.

[SeekingAdventure]

I wanna add my example here. My parents are what I'd call middle class. They own their house, and when my grandfather passed, my dad (one of five kids) inherited a third of his house. Due to my mothers inheritance, and the fact that out of the three people that inherited parts of the house, my parents were the only ones that have kids, my parents bought out his siblings.

So we had a house in a rural area, and another one in the neighbour area. There was still one renter (my grandfather was living in the first floor) that hadn't paid rent in years, and refused to, not because she couldn't afford it, but just because my grandfather, who was very sick with cancer, had other worries.

It took my parents several years to get her out of the house. And I say it again, she was not poor or anything, she just didn't want to pay. The renovated the first floor and we had an immigrant family living there for several years, they were fantastic renters, we loved having them there.

After they left, we were pretty unlucky with the next renters, people who didn't pay rent because their Internet did not work (Internet has never been part of the rental agreement), or who sublet the apartment on Air-B-n-B, which was forbidden in the contract. One guy had a dog, also not allowed, and the dog destroyed all the doors within a year and same guy also for some reason didn't care for bringing the waste away, and instead buried it in the yard.

My parents renovated the ground floor and also rented that out. When the last renters moved out (they divorced and she moved to another country with their kids, he followed), my parents decided to sell the house, since it was just not worth the hassle.

 

The main reason for them to keep the house was that my brother and I would each be able to inherit a house. Since my brother has now decided to start build a house with his girlfriend in her village (which also makes sense due to location and work), they do not need it anymore.

 

I would not say my parents kept the house to hoard money, and they gave way more chances to people than I would have. We had some terrible renters, just because they could get though with it, and I think it's not fair to combine all landlords into the same category.

 

So, while I agree that there are landlords out there that definitely suck (I had one of those too), I understand how many smaller landlords are too frustrated with past experiences to keep doing it.

[lumpentheologie]

9 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

As someone in the Chicago area I can absolutely say this is not the case here.  Public housing has a long and malicious history in the US, making the worst private landlords look like saints in comparison.  And public schools here depend on the property taxes of their district so the more public housing the less funding they get.  It's absolutely criminal and something that needs vast reform, but what you are talking about would make things in the US far worse for those with lower incomes than we have right now.

I said when it's properly funded. Public housing in the US has never been properly funded, primarily for racist reasons. It has worked in other countries though. Property taxes funding schools in the US is also a practice based in racism, and leads to horrible inequality and should be replaced with something better. I don't think it's an accident that majority-Black neighborhoods in Chicago have both unlivable public housing and hideously underfunded schools, but that's not something that should be laid at the feet of public housing in general. 

14 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I'm currently renting due to a divorce.  I am glad to be able to rent a home as due to divorce issues I won't get into I can't buy any time soon.  You can have all the available housing for sale in the world and if people aren't in the position to buy they will be homeless without rentals.  

I think your heart is in the right place, but what you're proposing isn't workable in the US at this time and people need somewhere to live in the meanwhile.

I've never said we should get rid of renting.  I've agreed several times that people need to be able to rent. 

I understand that what I'm proposing is a large change that would take some time to work towards but I don't see why that should keep us from working towards it. Other countries do it successfully. I'm not saying we should outlaw for-profit rentals, just that we should enhance renter protections and make it less profitable to be a landlord. Our current system is clearly not working, as we can see since there is a housing crisis, a huge population of homeless people, and many families spending half or more of their income on rent. And there is a growing renter's movement to see political change, especially in large cities. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 minute ago, lumpentheologie said:

I said when it's properly funded. Public housing in the US has never been properly funded, primarily for racist reasons.

There has been tremendous amounts of money put into public housing which has been wasted by graft, mismanagement, incompetence and other forms of fraud.  There can be more than enough money and it still doesn't matter if the people in charge of it mismanage it.  

Many, many exposes of people over the years on ghost payrolls pulling in 6 figure incomes working for the CHA who never worked their jobs because they were paper only.  In Chicago it is never a question of money but keeping the money where it's allegedly intended and out of the pockets of government thieves.  

I agree reform is needed, but IMO taking it out of the hands of private people and putting it into the government or non-profits isn't a viable solution at least any time in my lifetime or the foreseeable future.  If you take the profit out of being a landlord even fewer people will do it and it will exacerbate the housing crisis.  Yes, they turn a profit but they also need to have enough money on hand for major replacement/repair issues when they come up because there are protections for tenants about habitability.  

More renter protections I agree on, there should be protections on both sides and they are often lacking on the tenant side.  

I have had landlords who have been absolute nightmares and some who have been fine.  I'm currently renting at an exorbitant rate which will go up again in a few months; I am no stranger to price gouging so I'm no pro-landlord apologist.  I just think what you're focused on is an ideal we're so far from meeting that it may as well be a pipe dream and we'd be better off focused on incremental changes which are more realistic and can provide some relief in the meantime.

 

18 minutes ago, lumpentheologie said:

I don't think it's an accident that majority-Black neighborhoods in Chicago have both unlivable public housing and hideously underfunded schools, but that's not something that should be laid at the feet of public housing in general. 

Absolutely racism is built into the public housing crisis, not just in Chicago but across the US.  There was a great documentary about public housing in St. Louis in the 1960s which illustrated how sick it is.  Chicago itself is formed on racism - the Dan Ryan deliberately built to separate the public housing in Bronzeville from the white neighborhoods like Bridgeport.  As of a few years ago Chicago was still the most racially segregated cities in terms of neighborhoods in the country and that is no accident - then or now.  it's systemic racism from the top down which is why I would be opposed to even one more dollar supporting this system until it can be ethically managed.  

[lumpentheologie]

45 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I have had landlords who have been absolute nightmares and some who have been fine.  I'm currently renting at an exorbitant rate which will go up again in a few months; I am no stranger to price gouging so I'm no pro-landlord apologist.  I just think what you're focused on is an ideal we're so far from meeting that it may as well be a pipe dream and we'd be better off focused on incremental changes which are more realistic and can provide some relief in the meantime.

I guess this is the main source of disagreement. I don't think it's such a pipe dream. These changes can be made at the local and state level. It's absolutely possible that NYC could have European-style renter protections in 10-15 years, imo. There are several candidates running for city council right now on a pro-tenant platform and there will be even more in the next election in two years. The state government has an overwhelming Democratic majority and an increasing number of elected officials who support good-cause eviction. I think the Bay Area is in a similar, although somewhat delayed, situation. 

I mean, we'll see, it's certainly no guarantee, but it's worth fighting for. It's definitely in the interests of people who like the way things are to convince us that change is a pipe dream, though. I think a major lesson from the Trump era is that change is much more possible than many of us previously thought, in both positive and negative directions. 

Edited February 25, 2021 by lumpentheologie

[Tangy Bee]

Ok I don't have a life today. Been busting my brains trying to figure out why Northern fundies like the Clark's would practice no touching. I'm very certain it's the parents that probably challenged them to do that to prove the other person is actually in love with them and not after them for their "money". The Clark's appear to be very well off and affluent Christians in that area. Can't chance any scandals or broken hearts tarnishing the family name. They only have 3 kids. Kayla just got married. Two sons left who looked determined to not be caught in a picture showing any type of emotion. Just found out Mike Clark's girlfriend is biracial. Hugs all around for other friends except her boyfriend. Both couples are saying, "I love you". I guess that's a good thing, but I bet it's killing Katie to not at least hold his hand. Well, I guess it will be worth it.

[nolongerIFBx]

2 hours ago, Tangy Bee said:

Ok I don't have a life today. Been busting my brains trying to figure out why Northern fundies like the Clark's would practice no touching. I'm very certain it's the parents that probably challenged them to do that to prove the other person is actually in love with them and not after them for their "money". The Clark's appear to be very well off and affluent Christians in that area. Can't chance any scandals or broken hearts tarnishing the family name. They only have 3 kids. Kayla just got married. Two sons left who looked determined to not be caught in a picture showing any type of emotion. Just found out Mike Clark's girlfriend is biracial. Hugs all around for other friends except her boyfriend. Both couples are saying, "I love you". I guess that's a good thing, but I bet it's killing Katie to not at least hold his hand. Well, I guess it will be worth it.

They may be influenced by the Hyles branch of fundieism where you were not to get within 6 inches of the opposite sex unless you were married or related to them. This was based on 1 Corinthians 7:1 "It is good for a man not to touch a woman."