All Forum Posts by: Sam Cherry

The letter to send to Tenants needs to be revised to state that Lowes Home Improvement has just announced that they are paying $150 bonus to hire part-time employees.  However, of course if the pay for part-time work is less than unemployment don't expect many takers.  Tenants need to be informed about revenue generating opportunities and being reminded to cancel their cell phones, internet, sell their new car and buy something they can afford and that ramen noodles is the cheapest meal out there.  That is how I made it as a renter and it should be no problem for them to do the same.

The underlying problem is Government is telling renters that they don't have to abide by contracts or they have no responsibility to save.   This message is being telegraphed to the demographic that is most susceptible to communism/socialism.  

The landlord is being made out to be the "boogeyman" in this scenario.

Using the above logic, if they really cared about landlords then a portion of the Unemployment insurance each person receives would be automatically paid by the government to the landlord. But that isn't what is going on here is it?

Again the Government is coming after the "evil speculators"  but this time it is not the Oil Companies but Landlords.

Again this bill is ill advised at best. Notice how the individual landlord is being shafted but the banks are being protected.  How about a 6 month moratorium on foreclosures?  So you are going to deny the ability of the landlord to pay their mortgage but not the bank to foreclose on the property?  These tenant will never pay the back rent due.   

DO AWAY WITH RENT CONTROL AS WELL SO LANDLORDS CAN RAISE THEIR RENTS IN THE FUTURE TO MAKE UP FOR THIS GOVERNMENT IMPOSED RENT HOLIDAY WHEN THIS CRISIS IS OVER.

THAT IS THE ONLY FAIR THING TO DO.

To all the people who think that it is justifiable to allow government to trample your rights just because they have done it in the past, then I believe you need to re-think your logic.  Just because Government did it in the past doesn't mean it is allowable now.  Each time it is an egregious violation.  So let me address those who think we fought a civil war over "property".  We didn't.  Thomas Jefferson was very clear that all men were created equally.  However there was a difference of opinion regarding slavery based on economic realities of the each state and supported by their government.  So some states took an opinion based on economics (does that sound familiar based on your logic?) and some states viewed Slavery as immoral based on the tenants of the Declaration of Independence.  The founding Fathers were split but made a moral "compromise" based on economic reality.   Sounds like today, huh?  So that didn't work out so good.  So let me address once again the flawed "logic" of "they nationalized the railroads during WWI."   Well that didn't work out so good either.  Congress had to backtrack and change laws to make sure that the federal government couldn't seize "corporate" not INDIVIDUAL (BIG, BIG difference which I will address soon).  Today's modern railroad equivalent is the Airline industry (so I suggest you do a little research so you are familiar with how USDOT works and how it affect CORPORATE Airline property.)  The CRAF (Civilian Reserve Air Fleet) is a voluntary arrangement where the airlines agree in advance to allow a portion of their CORPORATE PROPERTY to be called upon in an National Emergency.  The guidelines are agreed to in advance so there is no need to "commandeer" because there is an emergency and the FED GOV needs it.  So now, lets address today's civics lesson about personal property.  There are 3 Sovereign entities in the US Constitution, however people are so ignorant today they don't understand.  Those three entities are The People, the Federal Government, and State/Local Government.  The founding fathers looked at these entities in this manner (imagine a pyramid with three points at its base) Those three points are State/Local/Federal government.  Now look at the point at the top (or apogee) that point is THE PEOPLE.  The people are a Sovereign in their own right (why do you think the Bill of Rights was written and enshrined as the first 10 amendments?)  Again the founding fathers intended the pyramid to work in this manner.  THE PEOPLE (As Sovereign Individuals) were to be supported by the base of the pyramid (state/local/federal) government.  We could exercise our rights freely without encumbrance of government.  However, this pyramid arrangement has been perverted over the past 240 years into another arrangement.  What do you get if you invert the pyramid?  You get a wedge.  Now Federal/State/Local government are on top and they are bearing down on us as individuals and are preventing us from enjoying our individual rights through oppressive taxation, over-bearing regulation, and unlimited power to persecute/prosecute through an unaccountable and compliant judicial branch.  (the judicial branch is all to glad to accommodate because their funding comes from the legislative branch)  Before you go off and think I am advocating anarchy I am not.  What is needed is for balance to be reaffirmed between the 3 Sovereign entities.  Federal/State/Local power needs to be re-balanced so it is in equity with THE PEOPLE.  Now how do we do that.  You need to research an Article V Constitutional Convention.  However, let me return to the issue at hand.  My personal property is protected by the Declaration of Independence and BOR.  It can not be taken from me without due process of law.   SO THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT.  STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN NEVER TAKE PROPERTY FROM INDIVIDUALS without recompense.  You see they are violating a private contract between two individuals freely entered into.  The government can't interject itself into this construct because they are violating not only the rights of the property owner but also the tenant (remember we as Landlord transferred our property rights to the tenant.  (Bet you didn't think of that when you were trying to justify your logic on "property" and railroads)  The "temporary emergency" never justifies the trampling of Constitutional rights,  PERIOD. 

Where are the NY bills stopping banks from repossessing cars and telling mobile phone and cable companies (monopoly) and utilities (public monopoly's) that they have to provide service for free?   Landlording is Mom & Pop industry and as such Landlords mean nothing to Politicians.  This kind of thinking is a cancer and this cancer has been growing for so long that it is to late to cut or burn it out.  This time it is going to kill the patient.

What Landlords should be asking for is this. Tenants should be allowed to cancel their lease without penalty if they claim they "can't pay rent". The landlord business is different then restaurants because we are signing over our property rights in the lease to someone else. So if the state wants to let these people cancel their lease without payment then these same people can now become wards of the state and move into FEMA camps or whatever it would be called up north. That way the property owner can look for another tenant and not be forced to take a loss and recover their property rights. Again this is unconstitutional. Housing is not a "right" in the constitution. At the same time landlords should ask for the elimination of rent control and let the free market work this out. What is getting ready to happen when this is over is it will result in more of a mass migration unfortunately with these people moving to the South where they will try to come with their ideas about rent control. I will be a beneficiary of this migration, but will suffer from these same individuals ignorance of how the US Constitution works.

No what should happen is unemployment offices should have to pay the landlord directly if the person receives unemployment.  See as a landlord you should have savings, however as a tenant you should have savings.  So the unemployed should be forced to give up their cell phones, cars, internet, and cable tv first if rent is waived. PERIOD.  This is the problem with a certain political party that runs the north and most states where this is being considered.  Savers are being punished and spenders rewarded.  This will result in bad consequences for all.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/17/200-years-of-us-in...

Learn from history so you aren't the one repeating it.