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.


EasternMotors t1_jd3pb7j wrote

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.


EasternMotors t1_jd3mur1 wrote

You know they won't. Why even post that?

If you want to shit on landlords, you have to acknowledge that they are going to respond in a way that makes them money. So they will never rent a decent property to anyone with any chance of eviction, will require ridiculous terms, and will sell properties in this jurisdiction to invest their money some else.


EasternMotors t1_j9vsu8u wrote

Investigators said the mining equipment was in use from April 28 to Dec. 14, 2021 and cost $17,492.57 in electricity, according to a police report.



EasternMotors t1_j9u4v83 wrote

They are subsidized. The difference between market rate and the rate paid is the subsidy. It doesn't matter that the government agreed to forgo some benefit ($$) instead of spending money to directly subsidize.

Fantastic if you are one of the upper middle class people getting the housing subsidy. If you aren't one of those people, you paid for the subsidy.


EasternMotors t1_j9toz64 wrote

Government (people) could require monetary payments to benefit all instead of subsidized housing for households in the 70th+ income percentile. But all those middle class people who can't afford a house think they have a chance at winning this lottery.