All Forum Posts by: Stephen S.

Thanks for responding. It seemed like a possibly-advantagous idea but I often 'live in a bubble' so to speak and so wanted to run the idea though some other minds.

I have another question but I guess 'another thread' is the better protocol?

My question is based on:

A lower rent is an appealing feature to most tenants.

So if the advertised rent is lower-than-market I would expect the pool of potential tenants to be larger.

A larger pool of prospectives wold be likelier to contain a superior tenant: clean, neat, lives within all the rules/terms of lease, likes renting rather than 'stepping-stoning', etc.

Would you be willing to take less rent in order to have and retain such a tenant?

Or would your idea be that it is always better to get the highest possible rent and perhaps have to deal with 'forcing' the complacence issues - so to speak. <g>

Don't get me wrong here - I am just making comments - I have no idea how to best resolve the issues involved. I can see both sides of it. We as a society cannot refused to help those in genuine need - not to do so impoverishes us all. But I can definitively say that I will sell every property and put the money back into the stock market before I would ever accept another Section 8 tenant. And also; maybe I was the fault in my failed experiments with Section 8 - but even if the core issue is that I'm just 'not the man for the job' - the net effect on me is the same. It was bad. <g>

Agreed - but we have to drawn the line somewhere. <g> I chose to draw it After government paychecks. <g> And it's all just a joke anyway as the US skies are not nearly big enough to contain all the smoke from the riots which would result from the end of the welfare state we have created.

I actually object to 'welfare' from both sides - it is both too much And too little. <g> In the 1790's the French peasant class (essentially) went to the Bastille and cut off the heads of the aristocracy. They were motivated by the kind of desperation which results from watching your children starving. The US also has aristocracy and they paid attention. And so now, when that same thing happens in the US; every month when the angry peasants get to 'the US bastille', the gates crack open a little and a check appears. It is a bribe. This money does not make the peasant's life nice - but it does adequately soothe away the kind of desperation required to storm the Gates. <g>

To at least somewhat segue back to Section 8 - my past experiences with renting to Section 8 tenants was so unpleasant that I will never do it again. I technically own a property right now that I just walked away from because of the Section 8 hassles. In fact; I will freely give it to anyone who wants it. Although now there are water, sewer, and taxes long overdue on it. I've adopted the JDL's motto: Never Again! <g>

In the US we have a long established and routinely applied legal concept which is: "conflict of interest" - it is against the law. So anyone who takes money from the government in any form other than a paycheck should not be able to vote. But since every vote in the US is bought and paid for - no politician is likely to ever endorse the policy. <g>

Unless they take the vote away from section 8 recipients I think you can rest assured that the program, or another one just like it, will be in place.

PHM
--------