Comments by "Ficus-lovin\x27 Capybara N\x27 pals • 🌟 • 25 yrs ago" (@YourCapybaraAmigo_17yrsago) on "San Francisco Tenants Take On City's Largest Landlord" video.

  1. Big landlords should simply not exist. There should be hard limits on the numbers of rental units anyone person or private company can hold, and I would set it at 5 for an individual and 10 to 15 for a company, or one full size apartment complex. It should be illegal to own an excess of these. Rental amounts should also be strictly controlled to be no more than 20% of each household's take home pay. In the case that there is an active mortgage on that unit, rent shall be no more than 15% in excess of that mortgage. The end, no negotiations, no exceptions, no compromises. Landlording is a mostly bad practice that we should strive to limit as much as possible. Ethical and moral rent control as stated here would prevent all of this and should have been instituted a hundred years ago. But since we don't have any ethical people in office who know the difference between right and wrong and give a shit about people's welfare and well-being, this will just continue until they are replaced by better people. Anyone who defends landlording as a practice or these egregious abuses as described in this video is my enemy on this issue and I have nothing more to say to you other than you WILL be defeated. You may get favorable treatment from the corrupt governments we are stuck with currently, but everything is subject to change and that is one practice that will be. It's not sustainable the way it's going now. It's gross the unfair to those who have no choice but to rent for the time being and for the immediate or foreseeable future. We can do better.
    8
  2.  @smokingfast  lol "handouts". That word again. Yes, for those who need them, aka public housing, I most certainly agree with "handouts" as you feel necessitated to call them. The only reason public housing has failed in this country because it was deliberately CAUSED to fail by corrupt local city leaders or state officials. If you don't water a plant will die. If you constantly starve a housing complex of the basic minimum needed money for it to survive, and neglect its residents of course over time the place will deteriorate. At any time local officials could have decided to manage it like any other property. They deliberately let it fail, they deliberately CAUSED it to fail. if you don't know this, you're not very bright. For a perfect visual explanation of this watch The Pruitt-Igoe Myth. Social housing can work just as well as anything else if it's managed properly AKA not deliberately and maliciously neglected. Everywhere else in the world where social housing is provided by an ethical government it works wonderfully. Maybe you honestly don't know but stop trying to gaslight me and spread misinformation in order to justify the fundamentally exploitative nature of landlording, where LLs can charge excessive if not outrageous amounts of rent off the backs of the working and lower middle class, literally stealing the wealth that they could have to stored up for their future. LLs buy off government officials at all levels to make it legal to do what they do, then they charge the maximum they can get away with thereby literally /stealing/ the future savings and potential of each tenant. That's not right. In a private housing market, the only fair and ethical way to assign rent is by income limit- no more than 20% of a tenant's income in absence of mortgage, OR, a reasonable amount over the amount of the mortgage - I prefer 15% of the monthly amount - when a mortgage is present. Your point of view is ignorant and very typical of a right-wing person who allows themselves to watch Fox News and lacks awareness. How is one able to save for a house on a low or average income if the rent I'm obligated to spend is up to 60% of what I make? That's unacceptable and unethical. I don't deserve to be rapidly impoverished just to make some lazy piece of shit rich on MY hard work. That makes me an indentured servant and him a parasite. Now it's true I'm living in a property he owns, but he is morally obligated not to demand excessive rent. If the laws were moral and not completely tilted in favor of the 1%, this would already be in place and be considered the normal way of doing business. I actually will be moving out of the current complex I'm living in but I have to stay in my area for several reasons, not the least which is my job. Unless I take on a roommate or two, and we may (I have a partner), my rent will not go down very much regardless of where I go right now within my local area. The best I could find at that bogus immoral SCAM con-artist off-the-street"market" rate is $1800 for a standard 2-bdrm. "Market rate" is a criminal con term and is nothing but an excuse to price-gouge. Imagine letting property owners demand their own rent and disqualified anybody who can't afford to pay whatever hefty amount they choose. so what are poor people supposed to do? I mean people who are very low income? There are some limited resources for the low income but not nearly enough. Market rate leaves out and overcharges at least half of all renters out there. It just should be illegal. it's wrong it's a ripoff it's a gouge it's immoral. Period. Because most landlords are extremely greedy and want to get rich fast they gouge rent as much as they can, leaving poor and lower income people high and dry. This is what happens when private GREED gets to set the agenda. It's WRONG. I don't usually mind independent landlords IF they don't charge too much for rent and they don't slumlord. Unless you are unethical, you're not the main problem. I'm usually not opposed to single households renting out an extra property to bring themselves a little extra income. Those types aren't the problem- usually. It's the large corporate holders that I have the problem with. For them, this setup gets them phenomenally rich while we stay increasingly rent-burdened, increasingly impoverished to pay for their lavish and indulgent lifestyles. It's wrong and if you agree with it you're wrong. I'm not a dumb person, I have a decent amount of skills and education, and I consider myself reasonably intelligent, but not all of us can make 90K+. Rent should be fair and reasonable and sent low enough on a sliding scale so that all can afford it. Housing is a human RIGHT and it should NOT be turned over to be turned into a form of debt-slavery to serve the depredations of those who are ruled by their greed. You should think about this for a while.
    5
  3.  @haseleyes1  no problem. I'm prepared to fight all y'all.
    3
  4.  @smokingfast  same old same old bogus tired arguments that aren't true and I don't have time to debunk them all right now.
    3
  5.  @smokingfast    Housing is absolutely a RIGHT and you're out of your mind if you deny that. But I'll be back. I'm not against the private market entirely, but it needs to be made to obey a lot more rules than it's doing right now. High regulation and hard and fast rent control should be considered non-negotiable and if I ever have any direct say in the matter they will be. No longer should bogus wealthy developers be allowed to basically commandeer local area and do what they will. And you're wrong about government housing and "not-rich" tenants and plenty else. Like I said, I'm happy to speak exhaustively about this, I do it all the time. So I'll be back to do so. So go ahead and buy off the politicians in either worthless party like you types always do and I know that's worked well for you guys so far. But it's not going to work forever. Leftists will be coming into office and even if it takes us another 50 years we're GOING to fix this problem. It could be fixed today if the right people would do the right things. But if they won't then we'll have to do it, and we WILL. Once people like us get elected this nonsense WILL end. Current politicians have absolutely no ethics as usual, and sell themselves at every level to the highest bidder in this third-rate banana republic that is the US, so that makes getting the right things done virtually impossible, but that doesn't mean we're giving up. If we have to take those jobs ourselves then that's what we'll do. See you out there. 😙
    3
  6.  @smokingfast  lol. Nonsense. I have work to get to but as always there's plenty to say and I'll be back to say it.
    3
  7.  @smokingfast  I don't believe so Richard. We could have fair regulations that make it work for everyone. Not with lobbyists for the big corporations of buying off every politician that ever lived though.
    2
  8.  @haseleyes1  Tenants rarely are destructive and that is just an excuse owners use to charge exorbitant fees just to live there. Besides that's what security deposits exist for. Lobbyists for your kind have bought off the politicians decade after decade so enjoy it while you can. When Leftists take over some of those seats and shockingly can't be bought which is an unknown amongst public officeholders, things are going to change fast and don't you dare come crying to me when they do because you people have gotten everything you wanted out of this unequal exploitative relationship as far back as I can see. It is going to change bigly, maybe not tomorrow but sooner or later we'll make sure of it. Fair rents, hard rent control, proper zoning, housing as a right, tenants deserve just as much if not more protection than landlords, etc.
    2
  9. Yes that's what's terrible about our system. These fines for these corps are a slap on the wrist meanwhile poor people get outrageous thefts of their life and liberty over the most minor offenses like drug selling among consenting adults or drug use which shouldn't be criminalized at all because what I do with MY body as long as I'm not using it to hurt anyone is NO business of the STATE! My body is NOT public property! Although the GQP now says it is (GOP). They sure love those fetal glops a lot more than actually born children and living adults.
    1
  10.  @haseleyes1  those are extreme circumstances and I imagine it was likely they were victims of an unjust eviction. I'm not just going to accept that they did it randomly for no reason. That almost never happens cuz most people are stable and sane and usually something happens to inspire them to want to strike back in such a manner. If I was the victim of an unjust eviction I would feel pretty motivated to do some shit as well. Not saying I would necessarily do it but it would certainly cross my mind. I would need to know a lot more about those situations before I simply made the simple conclusion that "gee! renters are crazy" and they're just out there tearing down shit just for fun. I mean I'm a renter right now I've never done anything like that. Because I'm normal and it wouldn't occur to me unless there was some kind of extreme situation. Also have you ever considered the fact that some people are not blessed with perfect mental health? Nobody asks to have mental illness but it happens. And then unfortunately in a few limited situations negative behavior happens which affects the property that they live in. This is very likely could have been a case in these stories that you say you could tell me about. So again if the government was doing is a job as it's supposed to and serving the needs of the people, in whatever way they may be, then people wouldn't fall through the cracks and have to turn to other means just to survive. I can't say for certain if these tenants you reference had any kind of mental disability or mental illness, but it could certainly be likely. After all, normal people don't do those things usually. Again for whatever reason they happened, those are extreme examples and those are very rare. Besides isn't that what security deposits are supposed to hedge against? If your friends are that unhappy being landlords guess what? They don't have to be landlords! Again if people who had special needs were provided for by the government via public resources they wouldn't have to turn to their private market where they're not understood or respected. I've worked with, in a lay capacity, and helped several people who have severe mental illness before and it's not anything they choose. It's a lifelong issue and challenge and they do the best they can. These people should not suffer for something that had absolutely no control over. Everyone deserve shelter. Everyone is a human being. Everyone deserves to get their basic needs met in a sufficient manner. We can do this through a combination of public and private resources, but it's not being done properly right now and that's not right.
    1
  11.  @haseleyes1  well you call stealing, I call it taking the tenants needs into account. I don't know the details in these situations. it's easy for you to claim that the tenants were totally in the wrong but I can't hear it from them right now can I? Im only hearing one side. was this during the pandemic? Did they lose their job and their sole source of income due to no fault on their own? And were they then threatened with eviction for something they had no control over? Which is immoral? So you see it's easy to judge when you don't have all the pertinent facts on an issue. Again I don't know the answers to those questions and I'm going to hold out judgement it until I do. I'm not against landlording per se IF it's properly regulated. We can have a fair private market that most people can access without having to bankrupt their future. But that's not what we have right now. You should stop being so entitled. Why do you feel you're entitled to the lion's share of my paycheck? Or half? I'm not saying rental units on a private market must be free, but you're right- they should cost a lot a lot less than they do right now and if I ever have a direct say in it either by a ballot measure or by holding office I will. Most of us who rent are trying to say for the chance to put down on the house, but we can't do that if we're paying out the grossly excessive amounts of rent. I'm sorry I'm not a genius and I can't be a crack heart surgeon but some of us work for average money or less than average. Even some professional and paraprofessional jobs don't pay all that well, it really depends what one's field is. Either way, rent should be a fair limit for everyone. I say nor more 20% of one's net take-home income. That way it's a sliding scale and it affects everyone equally. If that's not enough then I apply my 15% above mortgage rule. I think that's very fair.
    1
  12.  @haseleyes1  I never said bankrupt, now you're putting words in my mouth. I tend to defend small landlords as long as they're charging fairly. The big business side is the one I have the problem with. If you are small independent landlord I don't have too much of problem with you unless you are slumlord and unless you are gouging rent. Also unless you evict unjustly. I imagine my standard of what I consider unjust grounds for eviction would differ from yours. Maybe you didn't see some of my other specifics, but I believe that in cases of an active mortgage, that amount plus 15% on top of that gives a landlord as efficient margin to make an acceptable amount of profit without gouging the tenant. I support a system which works equally well for everyone. I do not consider the system we have right now acceptable or fair for many or most tenants, chiefly due to the skyrocketing cost of rent in most zip codes and weak to no eviction protections.
    1
  13.  @smokingfast  right. Yep well spotted. You said it my guy. Turn it rite over. Right away no waiting. No sooner gotten then it's gone. Wild system huh?
    1