> Honest question for landlords on the list: I've noted a tone of > satisfaction among some landlords (not on the list) that there may in > some way be a lessening of the affordable housing crisis--with terms > such as "vacancy explosion" being used and so forth--but why the > satisfaction or excitement? Just curious as to how lessening of a tight > market benefits landlords who otherwise are getting high rents and > little turnover. Is it political satisfaction in some way? Or am I > reading the landlord response differently? > You are mistaken. There is no satisfaction on my part. I am trying desparetly to avoid the hammer on the eggshell theory being played out. The old adage goes something like this. We want to enjoy the egg with out totally destroying the shell. And the hammer could be better used elsewhere. Loosening of a tight market does not benefit the landlord, at all.
The housing crisis is ending. I don't want to see an overbuilding. First the resources could be better used elsewhere (hammer of government spending on housing). The shell is the current private sector market. We don't need to smash it like 1986-94. During that time a glut of rental was avail. This led to better deal for the renter. It also meant disaster for the neighborhoods. Bankrupt properties that did not get maintained for years. Landlords renting to ANYONE. The government is always late to the party. Now we will see if the many levels of government are going to pile on a soon to be soft market or will they tend to their own patch. Sum up. Over building is just as bad as under building. Craig Miller .org/mpls _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
