Not one of the good guys in Joplin, MO

watcher · #41 07/18/11, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danaus29

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.

Contract law I agree with. If I contract with you to provide an apartment for 12 months at X dollars a month with no rent increases in that time frame allowed w/o agreement of both parties and you try to hike the rent unilaterally THEN the government should be involved. If I contract with you for you to provide me an apartment with no utility service and no running water the government should have no power to step in and tell you nor me such a contract is illegal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danaus29

Tenants have legal rights.

Nothing someone must provide for or to you is a right. That's because for you to have it it must be first be taken from someone else.

Danaus29 · #42 07/18/11, 03:45 PM

When a tenant is paying for an apartment they do have the right to get what they pay for. I'm not going to debate that part with you. The legalities of tenant rights has already been debated and set in stone. Tenants are not taking a roof from over someone else's head, nor are they taking utility access from someone else. They pay for those services and they have a right to them just as they have a right to have a written contract legally honored.

Beowulf · #43 07/18/11, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watcher

...
Nothing someone must provide for or to you is a right. That's because for you to have it it must be first be taken from someone else.

I think that most folks who get into the business of leasing property are well aware that they will have to give up some of their property rights. That is essentially what they are in the business of doing - they are transferring some of their rights to their property in consideration of the rent they receive from their tenants.

If they are in the business of leasing their property rights, they should be aware that, in absence of a written contract (a lease) most states have basic laws that must be observed by both parties regarding changes in the status quo, and that, generally speaking, these laws amount to a 30 day notice for any changes by either party.

So please get off of your high horse about property owners' rights. Just as no one forces anyone to rent from a land lord, no one forced the land lord into the business of selling their property rights, but if they are in that business, then yes, they too have to play by the rules.

FourDeuce · #44 07/18/11, 05:26 PM

So I guess everybody who's taking a stand for a property owner's rights would also defend the right of somebody refusing to give THEIR water to a person dying of thirst?

watcher · #45 07/19/11, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danaus29

When a tenant is paying for an apartment they do have the right to get what they pay for. I'm not going to debate that part with you. The legalities of tenant rights has already been debated and set in stone. Tenants are not taking a roof from over someone else's head, nor are they taking utility access from someone else. They pay for those services and they have a right to them just as they have a right to have a written contract legally honored.

You are wrong when the government steps in and tells the tenant AND the landlord what must be in their contract. I agree that a landlord is oblagated to provide what the tenant is paying for and in return the tenant is oblagated to pay for the what he recieves. But with the caveat of the contract must be ONLY between the tenant w/o any government interference.

The right the tenet and the landlord has is for the government to prevent either party involved in the contract from not following through with their contractual obligations. Which is protecting the individual from being harmed by another, i.e. the government's proper job.

You talk about tenant rights but any of these "rights" can only come from taking something from the landlord. For example, the "right" of the tenant not to have their rent raised even if there is nothing in the rental contact about it. For the tenant to have that "right" you must first remove the "right" of the owner of the private property (the building) to control the property and charge what he wishes. So you have not effectively removed a right from one individual to give a "right" to another.

Do you understand it now?

I state again anything which must first be taken from one before it can be given to another is NOT A RIGHT!

Beowulf · #46 07/19/11, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watcher

You are wrong when the government steps in and tells the tenant AND the landlord what must be in their contract. I agree that a landlord is oblagated to provide what the tenant is paying for and in return the tenant is oblagated to pay for the what he recieves. But with the caveat of the contract must be ONLY between the tenant w/o any government interference.

The right the tenet and the landlord has is for the government to prevent either party involved in the contract from not following through with their contractual obligations. Which is protecting the individual from being harmed by another, i.e. the government's proper job.

You talk about tenant rights but any of these "rights" can only come from taking something from the landlord. For example, the "right" of the tenant not to have their rent raised even if there is nothing in the rental contact about it. For the tenant to have that "right" you must first remove the "right" of the owner of the private property (the building) to control the property and charge what he wishes. So you have not effectively removed a right from one individual to give a "right" to another.

Do you understand it now?

I state again anything which must first be taken from one before it can be given to another is NOT A RIGHT!

But whether you want to call them rights or not, they are not being taken. They are being sold. I re-iterate my stance that no one has been forced into the business of letting their property to rent.

watcher · #47 07/19/11, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

I think that most folks who get into the business of leasing property are well aware that they will have to give up some of their property rights. That is essentially what they are in the business of doing - they are transferring some of their rights to their property in consideration of the rent they receive from their tenants.

I disargee with how you stated that. You are not 'giving up' your rights, you are trading them for something you value more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

If they are in the business of leasing their property rights, they should be aware that, in absence of a written contract (a lease) most states have basic laws that must be observed by both parties regarding changes in the status quo, and that, generally speaking, these laws amount to a 30 day notice for any changes by either party.

This is where the problem comes in. Where does the government get the power to force someone into a contract? Which is what they are doing. If the renter wants to make sure you have 30 days warning before rent is changed then he should put that in the contract. If landlord wants to have the ability to change the rent with 30 minutes notice he should be able to put that in the contract. If there is no contract then the landlord has the right to change the rent whenever and how ever his wishes because its HIS PROPERTY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

So please get off of your high horse about property owners' rights. Just as no one forces anyone to rent from a land lord, no one forced the land lord into the business of selling their property rights, but if they are in that business, then yes, they too have to play by the rules.

So if the government sets the rules saying that a farmer can't sell raw milk then you have no problem with it then. After all no one is forcing the farmer to farm so he has to play by the rules.

I think I now understand your thinking: we, as individuals, are too stupid to know what is best for us therefore we must allow the government, which clearly knows what best for all us dumb people, to set rules and laws for us to blindly follow. Sounds really stupid when you follow your logic all the way out, doesn't it?

Danaus29 · #48 07/19/11, 02:00 PM

The govt set up tenant rights contracts because of slumlords that wouldn't fix leaking water pipes or provide electric hook-ups. The govt had to step in because some people decided they could take advantage of other people and make a lot of money doing it. The govt decided that tenants had a right to running water and parking spaces and fixed pricing. If you want to argue that tenants don't have any rights then you need to take that up with the Supreme Court because they are the ones that decided tenants have rights. Landlords have rights too. This guy does have the right to raise the rent to whatever the market will bear, as long as it is done legally.

I cannot believe you threw the raw milk argument in to this. Raw milk is a product, housing is not. Apples and oranges. If the farmer was renting his farmland or dairy barn then it would be on the same level. And yes, there are rental agreement laws for farmland. So let's say it this way, you have rented 100 acres from Beowulf at $20 an acre (cheap cheap cheap, I want in on this deal!) and you use this acreage to grow corn. Let's say this plot of land is the only cornfield in the whole tri-state area to be productive and extremely productive. Beowulf sees that and decides to raise your rent to $100 an acre, due in 3 days.

salmonslayer · #49 07/19/11, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watcher

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.

Okay at least your honest about it. I absolutely disagree with you and find your attitude to be exactly what has caused the government to get involved in all of this in the first place. I contend that once you put something up for rent or sale you enter a domain where the government gets involved...you may not like it but its the way it is. I was kind of hoping society had moved past that kind of sentiment...but apparently its alive and well.

Quote:

fantasymaker I'm simply advocating the government get OUT of whats not their business!
Quote:
Originally Posted by salmonslayer View Post
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!!
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.

I am so ashamed I didnt see the wisdom of your post in the first place. This thread was about people who are living in an apartment in Joplin and already paying rent but how the landlord tried to illegally profiteer. Your suggestion that they move to Bermuda since they are all probably a bunch of retirees just taking up space is so much better thought out! How could I have been so blind...

Beowulf · #50 07/19/11, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watcher

I disargee with how you stated that. You are not 'giving up' your rights, you are trading them for something you value more.

This is semantics, and I have read enough of your posts to think you know this. The fact of the matter is, a property owner does "give up" some of their rights in exchange for rent money. If you were to enter a home that you own, but had leased to a tenant at 2 am without proper notice, for instance, you would very likely be prosecuted (and convicted) of trespassing at least, and possible breaking and entering, depending on the local laws. You have in essence sold your right to access the property at your whim for the duration of the rental agreement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by watcher

This is where the problem comes in. Where does the government get the power to force someone into a contract? Which is what they are doing. If the renter wants to make sure you have 30 days warning before rent is changed then he should put that in the contract. If landlord wants to have the ability to change the rent with 30 minutes notice he should be able to put that in the contract. If there is no contract then the landlord has the right to change the rent whenever and how ever his wishes because its HIS PROPERTY.

Again, the government isn't forcing anyone into any contracts, however when you engage in business, you will perforce become subject to the laws and regulations pertaining to that business. This is true if you are mowing lawns, selling widgets, or renting residential property.

Quote:

Originally Posted by watcher

So if the government sets the rules saying that a farmer can't sell raw milk then you have no problem with it then. After all no one is forcing the farmer to farm so he has to play by the rules.

This is called a straw man. Hello, straw man, nice to meet you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by watcher

I think I now understand your thinking: we, as individuals, are too stupid to know what is best for us therefore we must allow the government, which clearly knows what best for all us dumb people, to set rules and laws for us to blindly follow. Sounds really stupid when you follow your logic all the way out, doesn't it?

No, you do not understand my thinking, but let me clarify it for you: We live in a nation of laws. The laws may be changed, but until they are, they must be followed. If you don't like it, become a force for change, but I doubt you will be able to get your "no rights for renters who are too stupid to stipulate them in the rental agreement" campaign passed into law unless you put a lot of lipstick on that pig.

watcher · #51 07/21/11, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danaus29

The govt set up tenant rights contracts because of slumlords that wouldn't fix leaking water pipes or provide electric hook-ups. The govt had to step in because some people decided they could take advantage of other people and make a lot of money doing it. The govt decided that tenants had a right to running water and parking spaces and fixed pricing. If you want to argue that tenants don't have any rights then you need to take that up with the Supreme Court because they are the ones that decided tenants have rights. Landlords have rights too. This guy does have the right to raise the rent to whatever the market will bear, as long as it is done legally.

As I said you can't take something from someone and give it to someone and call it a right. If the you/the government can do that why not have the government pass laws saying housing a right and force the landlord to provide the apartment for free?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danaus29

I cannot believe you threw the raw milk argument in to this. Raw milk is a product, housing is not. Apples and oranges.

Nope. An apartment is a product just like milk. The only difference is milk is a consumable produce where an apartment is a durable one. In each case the government is telling the owner of that product what they may do with their product. I can't understand why you would not be happy that the government is preventing all of those people who are so stupid to realize just how dangerous raw milk is from buying it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danaus29

If the farmer was renting his farmland or dairy barn then it would be on the same level. And yes, there are rental agreement laws for farmland. So let's say it this way, you have rented 100 acres from Beowulf at $20 an acre (cheap cheap cheap, I want in on this deal!) and you use this acreage to grow corn. Let's say this plot of land is the only cornfield in the whole tri-state area to be productive and extremely productive. Beowulf sees that and decides to raise your rent to $100 an acre, due in 3 days.

If I had failed to stipulate the rent and the mechanism to increase the rent in the contract then Beowulf should have that right. It is NOT the government's job to protect me from my own stupidity. Again if you think other wise then you should have no problem with it protecting me from buying something which COULD be dangerous to my health, e.g. raw milk.

watcher · #52 07/21/11, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

Okay at least your honest about it. I absolutely disagree with you and find your attitude to be exactly what has caused the government to get involved in all of this in the first place. I contend that once you put something up for rent or sale you enter a domain where the government gets involved...you may not like it but its the way it is. I was kind of hoping society had moved past that kind of sentiment...but apparently its alive and well.

Ok so when a farmer puts milk up for sale then the government has the right to tell him what he can sell and to who?

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

I am so ashamed I didnt see the wisdom of your post in the first place. This thread was about people who are living in an apartment in Joplin and already paying rent but how the landlord tried to illegally profiteer. Your suggestion that they move to Bermuda since they are all probably a bunch of retirees just taking up space is so much better thought out! How could I have been so blind...

The point is you either believe people have private property rights or they don't. If the government has the power to tell someone who they must rent or sell to why does it not have the power to tell the seller how much they may charge? Say you decided to sell your house and you thought it was worth $200K but when you went to advertise it or list it with a real estate agent you were told the government has set the price at $100K. After all housing could be called a right and more people can afford to pay $100K than $200K therefore by forcing you to sell it for less the government is allowing more people to have house. Sound fair to you?

watcher · #53 07/21/11, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

This is semantics, and I have read enough of your posts to think you know this. The fact of the matter is, a property owner does "give up" some of their rights in exchange for rent money. If you were to enter a home that you own, but had leased to a tenant at 2 am without proper notice, for instance, you would very likely be prosecuted (and convicted) of trespassing at least, and possible breaking and entering, depending on the local laws. You have in essence sold your right to access the property at your whim for the duration of the rental agreement.

Major emphasis on the last part of your last sentence: "the duration of the rental agreement."

This is my point. Its your property and you should have the right to sell or trade it in any way you and the other person agree. The government should not be in the mix until and unless one side doesn't follow that agreement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

Again, the government isn't forcing anyone into any contracts, however when you engage in business, you will perforce become subject to the laws and regulations pertaining to that business. This is true if you are mowing lawns, selling widgets, or renting residential property.

The way I understand it, it forces you to include things in the contract you may not wish to. It forces you to set your rental increase time table to what they think is proper.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

This is called a straw man. Hello, straw man, nice to meet you.

No its called an example of government control of a product. Tell me what's the difference, other then the fact you consume milk, in the property rights of milk and a home/apartment? Either you have the right to sell property as you wish to someone/anyone who agrees to buy to buy it that way or the government controls it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

No, you do not understand my thinking, but let me clarify it for you: We

Why not. You, and the majority of people, seem to agree with that line of thought. Examples abound. . . You are too stupid to know a seatbelt can save your life therefore you must be forced to wear one. You are too stupid to know how bad incandescent light bulbs are for the environment therefore they must be banned. You are too stupid to realize how dangerous raw milk is therefore you must prevented from buying it. You are too stupid to know how sodas are killing your kid therefore you must be forbidden from sending one in the lunch you send to school.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

live in a nation of laws. The laws may be changed, but until they are, they must be followed.

Hum. . .I seem to remember a few people who didn't believe this and they managed to start something which changed the nation. IIRC, there were lots of people who decided even though we are a nation of laws they would not follow the race laws. Unfortunately I don't see there are enough people today who feel personal freedom is worth the effort. After all if you have personal freedom you also have personal responsibility. And who wants to deal with that? Let the government take care of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

If you don't like it, become a force for change, but I doubt you will be able to get your "no rights for renters who are too stupid to stipulate them in the rental agreement" campaign passed into law unless you put a lot of lipstick on that pig.

Seeing as how people are perfectly willing to give up their rights you are probably correct. Makes me sad to see our once great nation of independent thinking people sliding down the garbage chute to being government controlled zombies.

salmonslayer · #54 07/21/11, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watcher

Ok so when a farmer puts milk up for sale then the government has the right to tell him what he can sell and to who?

The point is you either believe people have private property rights or they don't. If the government has the power to tell someone who they must rent or sell to why does it not have the power to tell the seller how much they may charge? Say you decided to sell your house and you thought it was worth $200K but when you went to advertise it or list it with a real estate agent you were told the government has set the price at $100K. After all housing could be called a right and more people can afford to pay $100K than $200K therefore by forcing you to sell it for less the government is allowing more people to have house. Sound fair to you?

Your being obtuse Watcher and dancing around what everyone says. If you sell milk to the public but decide you wont sell to blacks or Mormons or Hispanics or any other group you have targeted as undesirable then yes I believe the government has a responsibility to step in. And nothing you have said in this post about private property rights I really disagree with but then, thats not what we were talking about and you conveniently decided to shift gears in your skewed argument. I think all of us have said you should be able to charge what the market will bear but that was not what the subject of the OP did was it? This guy didnt just put a new property onto the market and decided to charge a high rent, he was trying to profiteer on the backs of existing renters. And as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, once you put your private property into the public domain you do lose some property rights. You give up unlimited access, you have to give notice of eviction, you have to stick to rental agreements the whole works. If you think your place is worth 10K a month and someone agrees then great, you have a contract. If you put that place up for 5K per month and later found out you could have gotten 10K then your stuck for the duration of that contract.

But we will fundamentally disagree that its okay to decide to not rent to someone solely based on race, ethnicity, gender, or religion. That Sir is bigotry in its purest form and yes I agree you have the right to be a bigot. Just about everyone has some prejudice in them of one form or another but when you have entered something into the public domain and you exercise that prejudice then it becomes illegal. If you only want to surround yourself with like minded white guys I have no problem with that, but if you offer something to the public, like a rental property, you have changed the game.

kbabin · #55 07/21/11, 01:35 PM

Watcher,

I see what point you are making about possible value loss, but it seems that you are missing that the landlord is making a choice to rent property where the laws already exisit. Like the seatbelt law if you don't want to use the seat belt your choice are... don't drive, chance the ticket or call your rep to get it changed.

Kevin

FourDeuce · #56 07/21/11, 01:39 PM

Some serious thread drift here, eh? It started out as a discussion of the ethical aspects of what was done and has morphed into a discussion of the legal rights of ownership.
Many people forget(or don't even know) the difference between what's legal and what's ethical. Laws are society's standards. Ethics are our own standards. Regardless of what is legal or illegal, people have to decide for themself what is ethical. Sure, it may be legal to screw over people when you can, but does that make it ethical?

watcher · #57 07/21/11, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

Your being obtuse Watcher and dancing
around what everyone says.

No I'm being logical because I'm applying the same personal property rights and freedom to milk and cars and apartments and houses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

If you sell milk to the public but decide you wont sell to blacks or Mormons or Hispanics or any other group you have targeted as undesirable then yes I believe the government has a responsibility to step in.

Why? Please tell me why the government should have the power to force you to sell something to someone? If it has that power does it not have the same power to FORBID you from selling something to someone one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

And nothing you have said in this post about private property rights I really disagree with but then, thats not what we were talking about and you conveniently decided to shift gears in your skewed argument. I think all of us

It is all the same thing its you who can have the skewed view. A good is a good is a good. It doesn't matter if that good is a consumable good such as milk or a durable good such as an apartment. In your view you think a farmer should be able to sell his goods the way he sees fit but you think a land owner should have his ability to sell his goods restricted by the government. That sounds like a 5 y.o. saying the kid with the cupcakes should be forced to share but he shouldn't be forced to share his bubble gum. PLEASE tell me who your logic isn't skewed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

have said you should be able to charge what the market will bear but that was not what the subject of the OP did was it? This guy didnt just put a

Nope but the thread hasn't gone to charging what the market would bear. Its gotten into the fact most people in the US don't give a dang about freedom if someone using that freedom might just cause someone to be upset. About how most people in the US are more than willing to let the government nanny them by removing all personal responsibility from them by passing laws. In another post I listed some; seatbelts, light bulbs and others. You go out and stick your hand under a running mower and YOU are not responsible the government should have passed a law requiring mower makers to rig a mower where you can't stick your hand under it. I could sit here for many minutes giving examples but I don't think you care. All you seem to want is for the guy with the cupcakes to be forced to give some to you while you keep your bubble gum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

new property onto the market and decided to charge a high rent, he was trying to profiteer on the backs of existing renters. And as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, once you put your private property into the public domain you do lose some property rights. You give up unlimited access, you have to give notice of eviction, you have to stick to rental agreements the whole works. If you think your place is worth 10K a month and someone agrees then great, you have a contract. If you put that place up for 5K per month and later found out you could have gotten 10K then your stuck for the duration of that contract.

We are not talking about personal contracts, after all those require PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, if you read what I have written you will see I'm all for contracts and the government having the power to enforce them. We are talking about government control of what used to be private property no matter what the owner wishes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

But we will fundamentally disagree that its okay to decide to not rent to someone solely based on race, ethnicity, gender, or religion. That Sir is bigotry in its purest form and yes I agree you have the right to be a bigot.

No you do not. You have CLEARLY stated you think the government should have the power to force a bigot to sell to someone of a race he hates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

Just about everyone has some prejudice in them of one form or another but when you have entered something into the public domain and you exercise that prejudice then it becomes illegal.

Where does the government get the power to force you to act against your beliefs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

If you only want to surround yourself with like minded white guys I have no problem with that, but if you offer something to the public, like a rental property, you have changed the game.

Why and where do you and the government get this power? Also what other beliefs do you think the government should have to power to force people to stop believing when they are dealing with the public?

Freedom can suck. Freedom requires you to allow people to do thing you totally disagree with. If you allow the government to have the power to take that freedom from them what is to prevent it from using that same power to prevent it from taking a freedom from you?

Freedom also sucks because if you have freedom you are held responsible for your actions.

watcher · #58 07/21/11, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourDeuce

Some serious thread drift here, eh? It started out as a discussion of the ethical aspects of what was done and has morphed into a discussion of the legal rights of ownership.
Many people forget(or don't even know) the difference between what's legal and what's ethical. Laws are society's standards. Ethics are our own standards. Regardless of what is legal or illegal, people have to decide for themself what is ethical. Sure, it may be legal to screw over people when you can, but does that make it ethical?

The major problem is people want to try to enforce ethics by using the law. This is where rights get trampled. Its unethical to shoot someone because their AC unit dripped on your girlfriend to prevent this some will say we should remove the right of people to own firearms. That way such an unethical thing will not happen.

linn · #59 07/21/11, 04:03 PM

As much as I distrust government interference, this guy's actions are shameful. I hope he gets fined big time.

Danaus29 · #60 07/21/11, 05:33 PM

watcher, you owe me $20 for every cup of milk you have in your refrigerator at this very second. Pay up or my attys will find you and take your pillows. You don't have a contract with the store you bought milk from that says I can't come along and charge you more for it.