Not one of the good guys in Joplin, MO

I understand your sentiment Laura but there is no where to move to...literally. The city has stopped all new construction and rebuilding to allow for debris removal and there are thousands of displaced persons trying to find shelter. There are times to push property rights and political/philosophical points and then there are times to band together to help people in need. I live close to Joplin and have been there several times since the tornado and all I can say is that I am glad the vast majority of people around here are giving their time, money and support to that city and have put aside any partisanship. Itgs increasingly rare in today's society when that happens.

__________________
www.salmonslayer-simplelife.blogspot.com

You neatly sidestepped the point that your picking and choosing your property rights and used Jim Crow as your point. So you are saying you think its okay to refuse to rent to Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, etc. You cant have it both ways as you say...after all a property owner should be able to do what he wants correct?

__________________
www.salmonslayer-simplelife.blogspot.com

A property OWNER should have complete control of his property. But as laura points out. There are no property owners, in fact. The guvmint owns your property, you just pay for it. So he isn't an owner, he's a caretaker and he has to take care of it within the proscriptions of the law. Welcome to the real world.

Apparently there are two schools of thought here.

1) The Golden Rule
2) The Law of the Jungle

They are actually both related if you think about it.

Those that advocate for the jungle law should beware.
Be careful what you ask for - you just might get it.
I realize that they don't think that way, that it is to be one-sided.
After all, it's his property right? The gov't shouldn't protect the renters, just the landlord.
But isn't the rent money in the wallet of the renter? Is that not his property?
I know they won't understand this concept..........but see above warning.

The landlord seems to believe in kicking people when they are down. I understand it's easier. After all, you don't have to raise your leg so high to kick somebody when they are down.
I guess he doesn't think he will ever be down.

__________________
"I don't want everyone to like me; I should think less of myself if some people did."
— Henry James

You see its lies like this that ALLOW the twisted logic that penalises a man for asking more for his NOW very valuable property.
So IF I have the forsight to build a rugged building that WILL survive a disaster I shouldnt be able to recoup the extra costs incurred when I can?
There are LOTS of places to move too. How many would you like to buy or rent from me RIGHT THIS MINUTE?

Right. At this time we have to live with the society and government that we have in place and it just happened to work in the right people's favor this time.

In an IDEAL society, though, the citizens would have got together and beat the landlord to a pulp and the government never would have been involved.

__________________
"What if I fall?" "Oh, but my darling, what if you fly?"

Exactly.
And the people of Joplin would also have the right to charge this man $1 more a gallon for gas or $100 more dollars for his groceries or other goods at their stores, right?
Fair is fair in the jungle, is it not?


Be careful what you ask for..................

So if their job is in Joplin and you offer to rent to them in Illinois that helps them how?

Your just another liberal advocating for people who are trying to help themselves to go on the government dole and give up...no wonder Illinois is in such sad shape!!

__________________
www.salmonslayer-simplelife.blogspot.com

I suppose from the same general area of the law that says he cannot beat, rape, or kill folks who are late on their rent.

__________________
Flaming Xtian
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mahatma Gandhi


Libertarindependent

The real problem here is that this "landlord" violated a bunch of laws he should have known to be in the business he is in, which is renting apartments.

It really has nothing to do with how well they may have been built and everything to do with where the tornado touched down.

Finally he just pixxed people off with his me-first attitude when people were still digging out and nearly everyone else were out helping each other survive.

Don't you sign a contract when you rent a place? It will clearly state when and if there is a price increase? In Texas, it's only allowed AFTER your contract is up and you go into the office to get another contract signed.

__________________
Ted H

You may all go to Hell, and I will go to Texas.
-Davy Crockett

Some of the people that are lucky enough to get help from FEMA might get a larger amount for rent then what this guy was getting. Just saying maybe he thought he could get FEMA renters in there. At the least he wouldn't have to worry about getting his money. Maybe I'm giving him more credit for smarts than he has. Just my evil thought for the day. He's still a

I'm saying its fine for an individual to not rent his PRIVATE property to or to not sale PRIVATE property to, etc blacks, Hispanics, gays, etc. But its is not alright for the government to forbid them to use a PUBLIC water fountain, require them to ride in the back of a PUBLIC bus or use the back entrance to a PUBLIC building.

See there is a big difference between the public and private sector.

__________________
Remember, when seconds count. . .
the police are just MINUTES away!

Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. . .Davy Crockett

That is correct. AAMOF, this would probably be more effective in preventing situations like this than any law the government would pass.

__________________
Remember, when seconds count. . .
the police are just MINUTES away!

Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. . .Davy Crockett

Good try but wrong. You are trying to change from property law to personal injury law.

Edited to add (because I again posted when I was way too tired). Also at that point the government would be doing its job of protecting one individual from harm from another.

__________________
Remember, when seconds count. . .
the police are just MINUTES away!

Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. . .Davy Crockett

Pretty much nailed it JT. I think in general I agree with most folks who want the government out of their business and if this guy had decided to open up his home to rent to folks after the tornado then I have no problem with whatever he charges but he didnt, he was already in business and decided to profiteer on the backs of the tornado victims which is clearly against the law to too bad for him. Sadly, those laws were enacted due to the attitudes and actions of some who have lost their moral compass and only see a buck to be made rather than helping their fellow man in time of need. Some also fail to see the difference between your home and a business. If you decide to go into business then you lose some of those personal property rights to do what you want to..i.e., you cant gouge disaster victims, you cant discriminate against minorities, the handicapped etc. He made the choice when he opened his business and should have been aware of the law.

Now the whole debate over whether you actually own your property is another thing. Laura makes a good point but it only reinforces that this guy was in the wrong. If no one but the government owns property...then renters have rights as well as land owners (or renters from the government). I dont agree with that but that seems to be what she believes and I actually understand her argument.

Arguing that someone should be rewarded for building a stronger building that survived the storm might have made sense if the poster of that comment had actually read the article which clearly states the mans place was not hit by the tornado. Sadly nothing withstood this tornado's path.

__________________
www.salmonslayer-simplelife.blogspot.com

No, a property owner, or business owner should be able to rent or sell to whomever he wants. It's their property or product, and the government has no business meddling in private affairs or business matters. That includes protected classes as well.

This works both ways...if you don't like his business or rental practices, the choices are simple. Don't utilize them. Get together with like minded folks and start your own rental company or business, or do business elsewhere.
Many business and housing areas cater to protected classes, and I'm sure there is a market for more.

I was discriminated against in a rental, and had an easy lawsuit I could have won had I decided to pursue it, since he made it clear with witnesses. I chose not to sue because I believe it's his right to rent to who he wants, it's his property. I looked elsewhere and found a better deal, in a nicer location.

Now, in regards to the property owner in Missouri, to me it's clear. While price gouging in that situation is absolutely being a sorry excuse for a person, had it been vacant, I would have had no issue with him setting the price at whatever he wanted. Since the apartments were rented, giving the renters 3 days to cough up an increase or move out, so he could profit from the people who lost their homes, makes him a criminal in my book. 30 days, yes, 15 days with no rental contract, maybe, but 3 days?

watcher, contract law and tenant rights legislation. It may be his property and under his control but the fact that he rents it out to another party prohibits any property owner from doing whatever they want. The same laws require that renters be provided utility service and running water. Tenants have legal rights.

I'm simply advocating the government get OUT of whats not their business!
You have it EXACTLY wrong. Id like government to stay out of it.
What makes you think they HAVE jobs? Lots of retired people in the Joplin area taking up space. Id also Expect a lot of jobs disappeared when the buildings did.
So yes a lot of people in the Joplin area could take this opportunity to move to IL or AZ or bermuda.
Others still working there will simply move a bit farther away.
I just don't see a constitutional RIGHT to live in Joplin at someone else's expense.
It certainly would be why not? And that again would be one more thing to encourage people to move on down the road a bit.