Not one of the good guys in Joplin, MO

FourDeuce · #1 07/15/11, 03:15 PM

The Missouri AG has announced that they are prosecuting a Joplin landlord who jacked up the rent in 2 apartment complexes he owns in Joplin days after the tornado hit. He sent a letter to his tenants telling them the rent was going up and they had 3 days to decide whether to agree to it or move out. Enough complaints were filed that the state AG is filing charges against the landlord.

BTW, his apartment complexes weren't damaged by the tornado.
http://www.news-leader.com/article/2...yssey=nav|head

Wisconsin Ann · #2 07/15/11, 03:24 PM

It's called "price gouging". Glad they're going after him. That's a bad as someone jacking up the price of generators or fresh water after a hurricane.

fantasymaker · #3 07/15/11, 04:10 PM

Right how dare someone with something valuable not just give it away!

**Kung** · #4 07/15/11, 04:18 PM

Are you trying to intentionally be a pain? lol There's a difference between normal price raises and specifically taking advantages of those in a bad situation. I think even you are aware of this.

Pops2 · #5 07/15/11, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kung

Are you trying to intentionally be a pain? lol There's a difference between normal price raises and specifically taking advantages of those in a bad situation. I think even you are aware of this.

you may be giving him too much credit

Gregg Alexander · #6 07/15/11, 05:46 PM

We have the price gouging law here in Alabama . If I remember right the fine is $1000 /per charge and up to 1 yr in jail. All complaints are investigated by the AG

FourDeuce · #7 07/15/11, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fantasymaker

Right how dare someone with something valuable not just give it away!

If he wasn't just giving it away before the tornado, why did he suddenly decide to jack up the price a couple of days after the tornado?

From the way the story was reported on the Springfield, Missouri news, it looks like that landlord is going to be giving away a LOT of his money over this incident(to the tenants, the courts, and probably to his lawyers). They're going to find all kinds of things to charge him with, and each tenant is a separate count.

Justin Thyme · #8 07/15/11, 06:29 PM

And deservedly so.

salmonslayer · #9 07/15/11, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourDeuce

If he wasn't just giving it away before the tornado, why did he suddenly decide to jack up the price a couple of days after the tornado?

From the way the story was reported on the Springfield, Missouri news, it looks like that landlord is going to be giving away a LOT of his money over this incident(to the tenants, the courts, and probably to his lawyers). They're going to find all kinds of things to charge him with, and each tenant is a separate count.

The vast majority of the citizens of that city, this state and indeed people all over the country who have helped have acted with honor and dignity and this guy needs to pay the highest penalty just like the firefighters who got caught looting. They dishonor all of us.

watcher · #10 07/15/11, 07:16 PM

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with most of you. Unless the renters have contracts then the guy should have every right to charge what ever he wants for HIS apartments. Either you have private property rights or you don't. If the government can come in and tell you how much you can charge for some good or service then that good or service is in effect the government's and not yours.

What is to prevent them from telling you how much you may charge for your car when you sell it? Or how much you may charge for your labor when you do a job?

Is the guy a jerk? Sure but being a jerk isn't a crime. Even though many times we think it should be.

Again I state, the government's job is to protect an individual from harm from others, it is NOT its job to protect an individual from himself. If the individual renters didn't get a contract stating how much the rent was and the processes for rent increases including time frame from rent increase announcement and having to vacate the apartment then the harm comes directly from that individual's actions.

salmonslayer · #11 07/15/11, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watcher

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with most of you. Unless the renters have contracts then the guy should have every right to charge what ever he wants for HIS apartments. Either you have private property rights or you don't. If the government can come in and tell you how much you can charge for some good or service then that good or service is in effect the government's and not yours.

What is to prevent them from telling you how much you may charge for your car when you sell it? Or how much you may charge for your labor when you do a job?

Is the guy a jerk? Sure but being a jerk isn't a crime. Even though many times we think it should be.

Again I state, the government's job is to protect an individual from harm from others, it is NOT its job to protect an individual from himself. If the individual renters didn't get a contract stating how much the rent was and the processes for rent increases including time frame from rent increase announcement and having to vacate the apartment then the harm comes directly from that individual's actions.

It happens to be against the law here due to previous actions of tornado chasers and his actions are against the law, did you not read the link?

Justin Thyme · #12 07/15/11, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

It happens to be against the law here due to previous actions of tornado chasers and his actions are against the law, did you not read the link?

And YOU missed his point. Are Personal Property rights "Rights" or just privileges granted and taken away at whim. That is the question. Whether t'is nobler to forego profit for the general good or beat teh crip out of a money-grubbing non-community minded landlord is the question.

#13 07/15/11, 07:50 PM

The apartements are for rent in the free market system. He is in competition with all other landlords. If he prices his apartments too high he won't rent them. Is he a jerk? Yes, but it his right to charge whatever hw wants.

Danaus29 · #14 07/15/11, 08:28 PM

BY LAW, a certain time period is required before increasing rent. Guess what, that time period is MORE than 3 days. How long prior to increase depends on state law but is anywhere from 30 to 90 days depending on the state and the amount of the increase. Also BY LAW he is not allowed to increase the rent in the middle of a contracted rental period. Even the tenants on a month to month lease would be given more than a 3 day notice.

He can charge whatever he wants, he just has to do it legally.

watcher · #15 07/15/11, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

It happens to be against the law here due to previous actions of tornado chasers and his actions are against the law, did you not read the link?

So? It used to be against the law for a black to drink from certain water fountains, does that mean it was a good thing?

watcher · #16 07/15/11, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danaus29

BY LAW, a certain time period is required before increasing rent. Guess what, that time period is MORE than 3 days. How long prior to increase depends on state law but is anywhere from 30 to 90 days depending on the state and the amount of the increase. Also BY LAW he is not allowed to increase the rent in the middle of a contracted rental period. Even the tenants on a month to month lease would be given more than a 3 day notice.

He can charge whatever he wants, he just has to do it legally.

The point still stands. Where did the government the right to force him to give X number of days?

FourDeuce · #17 07/15/11, 10:00 PM

Where the law came from really doesn't make much difference. If the landlord wants to fight the law, he better practice the song "I Fought The Law and The Law Won".

salmonslayer · #18 07/16/11, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watcher

So? It used to be against the law for a black to drink from certain water fountains, does that mean it was a good thing?

So you are saying....as a property owner you should be able to gouge natural disaster victims, minorities, and cripples? I mean, if you are for allowing this guy to illegally (under Missouri state law) gouge disaster victims (because the government has no right to tell you what to do with your own property and all) you obviously and logically could see no issue with someone who owns a rental property from excluding minorities...maybe non-Christians, women with children, the handicapped .....

I think you havent thought this one out very well.

Laura Zone 10 · #19 07/16/11, 06:39 AM

You keep saying 'property owner'.

No one, owns, their property. No one.
You can take out a mortgage, you can pay it off, you can have the deed of ownership in your hand.....and you don't own it.

Quit paying your taxes, and you will find out REAL DANG FAST who OWNS the land and buildings that you call "yours".
The government.

It's UNConstitutional.
But it is fact.

The solution to this jack-wagon's 3 day notice?
Everyone in the whole apartment complex moves out. Everyone.
They collectively get together, and say "bite me", and move out. AND AND AND they let everyone know why they are moving out so NO ONE moves in.
Guess what?
You just showed johnny jack wagon that his little price increase was a bad idea.
He will either change his mind and see the error of his ways, or he will go out of business.
PROBLEM SOLVED.

But noooooooooooooooooo everyone wants to lawyer up cause they don't have the spine OR the stones, to take the bull by his horns and show 'em who's boss.
Our society is hopeless.

.

watcher · #20 07/16/11, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salmonslayer

So you are saying....as a property owner you should be able to gouge natural disaster victims, minorities, and cripples? I mean, if you are for allowing this guy to illegally (under Missouri state law) gouge disaster victims (because the government has no right to tell you what to do with your own property and all) you obviously and logically could see no issue with someone who owns a rental property from excluding minorities...maybe non-Christians, women with children, the handicapped .....

I think you havent thought this one out very well.

I have thought it out very well. It is either his property under his control or its not. There is no in between. If its his property he can do with it what he wishes. If his ability to do that is controlled by someone else then it is clearly not his property.

I find it strange that people here will wail, moan, rant and rave when the government tells a dairy farmer what he can do with his property, i.g. selling raw milk, but have no problem when the government tells someone else what they can do with their property. You can't have it both ways.

I don't have a problem if someone doesn't want to rent an apartment to a non-Christian anymore than I have a problem with a person who doesn't want to marry a non-Christian. Their apartment is just as much their property as their body.