Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EasternMotors t1_jd3pb7j wrote

Reply to comment by SuspiciouslySuspect2 in Kansas City prevented hundreds of evictions by providing attorneys. Now the program is growing by cragar79

Except that's how mortgages were before 2008. Look into it. Did not turn out well. Google "liar's loans".

I like how you skipped the first two items. The bottom line is that renter protections are good for good renters. Landlords do not take chances when they think they will not be able to collect/evict. Try renting in NYC or California.

0

SuspiciouslySuspect2 t1_jd3r01m wrote

The mortgage crisis of 2008 was caused by a bunch of idiots trading mortgages blindly, and lenders not scrutinizing if the applicants could afford the monthly payments (or actively giving loans they knew were unaffordable, because in the short term they could be traded publically for a quick buck).

Then when a few mortgage holders defaulted, it became a made scramble of those same investors to prevent losses as a result of their stupid lending practices, resulting in a flurry of foreclosures and general bullshit that devastated the economy.

It had VERY little to do with allowing people favorable buying terms, and everything to do with intentionally setting up people to fail for a quick buck.

Your first two items lead directly to your third. Landlords who are that picky are going to find no tenants. And will be forced to sell. Not sure what your point is?

2

EasternMotors t1_jd3ug45 wrote

"lenders not scrutinizing if the applicants could afford the monthly payments" - that's exactly what you are advocating.

Picky landlords will not have a problem. There is a huge undersupply of housing in populated areas. I'm sure you bitch about that too but don't understand the economics.

0

SuspiciouslySuspect2 t1_jd3wdmv wrote

>"lenders not scrutinizing if the applicants could afford the monthly payments" - that's exactly what you are advocating.

In fact no, that is not what I said. If you re-read my comments you will see I advocate for reducing the barrier to entry by reducing the required principle to enter.

In simple terms, reducing or eliminating the huge down-payment currently required to buy property. Reduce the cash up front to buy from the current ludicrous 20% to something more manageable, like 1% the value of the property. NOT misrepresentation of income. I deliberately state as such. I do not know how to make that clearer to you. > >Picky landlords will not have a problem. There is a huge undersupply of housing in populated areas. I'm sure you bitch about that too but don't understand the economics.

You're making bold assumptions on comprehension after the mistake you JUST made. And the undersupply is driven by the same landlords buying and hoarding property. Vacancy taxes can help address this issue, and force out the non-productive drag on real estate that is the typical mom n pop landlord.

1

EasternMotors t1_jd4djs8 wrote

The government provides federally backed loans with 3.5% down. Thanks for confirming your real estate knowledge base.

−1

SuspiciouslySuspect2 t1_jd4eukb wrote

... With a markup of insurance on the purchase price, more expensive interest rates, and strict restraint based on credit score that can be made inaccessible to the average consumer for a multitude of reasons beyond their control. All this to say, a high barrier to entry.

...Man, you're REALLY struggling with the concept huh?

This must be frustrating, you keep trying to land zingers, only to have the rug pulled out from under your argument, repeatedly.

1

lil_hyphy t1_jd6pepo wrote

I’ve read all your comments, I’m in love with you.

2