All Forum Posts by: John Clark

Originally posted by @Account Closed:

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your viewpoints, as I feel not reopening the country soon will have FAR WORSE consequences than the impact this disease is having... but your math is off.

---------------------------------------------------

Actually the death rate for Covid-19 will go down sharply. The number of infections is severely under reported. That will change the denominator of the formula used.

That said, Covid-19 has a far higher death rate than seasonal flu. Covid-19, contrary to Trump, is NOT "the flu."

Originally posted by @Bryan Beal:

What Constitutional rights do you speak of here?  I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution about letting people die in the streets...  Maybe I missed that one?

-------------------------------------

The Constitution says nothing about health care, so the Constitution will let you die in the streets all you want. As for protests, protest away, but you are subject to state government laws regarding how you may protest. Particularly where health, safety, and welfare -- and the ability to patronize bars and restaurants has nothing to do with health, safety, or welfare -- is involved.

Just like states are within their rights to ban snake handling in churches, even though religious practice is protected by the First Amendment.

Finally, there is the fact that your legal analysis is flawed. The application of the Constitution to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment did not disparage state jurisdiction (general health, safety, and welfare) unless it conflicted with the federal right. No state has, or can, ban peaceful assembly for political purposes. Every state can, however, tell you that if you do assemble, it will be in a manner that protects health, safety, and welfare.

And the Constitution doesn't give a toss whether anyone dies in the streets -- that's an issue for the states and their general jurisdiction.

"To answer your question "Since when can a governing body tell us what we can and cannot lawfully do?"

March 4, 1789"
------------------------------------------------------
Actually Bill  F, quarantines for public health is a state power that existed long before the U.S. Constitution. The federal government is irrelevant to the matter, Trump's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. The feds have no say in the matter.

"Doesn’t the “common good” also let people live their lives and provide them rights to not worry about where their next meal should is coming because they can’t work and have lost their incomes? I’m all about having a discussion but this “common good” you speak of works both ways."

-----------------------------------------------

Of course it does, which is why the decision to lock down is a political decision informed and necessitated by science (health) considerations. You may not like the balance struck, but that does not mean that your rights were "violated."

"If I want to take the risk and go outside, go to work, go to a sporting event, go to a concert, go to a bar, go to a restaurant, go to my brother’s house(!), then that it MY right to do that. If someone else wants to quarantine, stay home, not go to work, or not do anything social, that is THEIR right to do exactly that. "

-----------------------------------------

I have not read this thread so I am sure lots of others have said what I am about to say: Your problem, in economic terms, is externalities. Your becoming a carrier of disease imposes a cost on me. It's not like I choose to not buy your product or rent from you. I can be walking down the street near you and you cough. OR maybe I am quarantining and you deliver my food and groceries. Guess what? Your bar hopping and congregating just infected me, and imposed costs on me.

That's why states (general jurisdiction) have the power to curb your "rights" when your "rights" pose a threat to public health.

"I don't believe I'll be able to add that bedroom space due to the fixed 30%(?) percentage of bedrooms to habitable space in the dwelling. "

-------------------------------------------

Wait a minute, the bedrooms cannot occupy more than 30 percent of the total living area square footage? That doesn't sound right.

In any event, what about applying for a variance? The ceiling is only a few inches below 7 feet. Maybe if you dormered one side of the room so that significantly more than 30 percent of the room was just a few inches under 7 feet, the town might cut you a huss?

"As I look in areas north of downtown . . . . Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we can change our approach to find a property . . . Am I missing something when analyzing these numbers?

-------------------------------

You're missing either the boat or the forest, depending on the metaphor you want to use. Transportation costs are the same thing as housing costs. So if you can find a place where transportation costs are the same, but housing costs are lower due to market inefficiencies (read prejudice), then you have an opportunity.

Your problem is simple: You are looking at places that are fully priced out, and those are on the North side. Therefore they might have appreciation, but they will not cash flow. What are you trying to do? Cash flow. Ain't gonna happen. That means you need to start looking for market inefficiencies (prejudice).

Look South side. Walking distance to Red line, Green line, or Orange line (that ol' debbil transportation costs). Find a nice lower-middle-class STABLE neighborhood and search for multi-family houses there. Bob's your uncle.

Depending on your relative income and net worth, you might even be on the incipient edge of gentrification.

"
The Cheesecake Factory has announced they will not make April's rent payments to its landlords. Not a good sign for both the restaurant sector, and for the commercial real estate sector."
-------------------------------
According to @Heather Frusco that makes Cheesecake Factory a thief (shoplifter to be precise).

So how did @Heather Frusco do with her rent collections for April?

"if you expect that your tenants continue to pay rent even while they are enduring a financial hardship that makes you a hypocrite if you then decide to not pay your mortgage just because banks are offering this to you right now (unless you are having financial hardships outside your investment properties such as job loss/hours cut back/reduced pay."

---------------------------------------------

I'm not sure that even "outside" financial hardship saves one from being a hypocrite. The whole concept of investment is balancing risk versus return. If one's ability to carry an investment depended on an "outside" job or other income to pay "other" bills, then that job or other income is not "outside" the investment. So those who try to justify sticking it to tenants while seeking forbearance themselves are hypocritical.