Some good thoughts, Craig. I also would have included the cost landlords incur when damage occurs to their property because of intentional acts or otherwise by their tenants. This definitely affects the profits supposedly being reaped. Furthermore, profits may be in order to a landlord as the investor since he/she takes the risk of loss on his/her investment.
Finally, even if profits are being reaped, I would argue that's part of the trade off a tenant gives for the freedom of no responsibility that comes with being a homeowner (taxes, utilities, not being able to just walk away when you're done with the property but having to actually go through the lengthy and costly process of selling it). If, as a tenant, you don't want to part with the profits of land appreciation, then save your money, make sure your credit's in order, and buy a home. Gary Bowman 1-1 On Tue, 18 December 2001, "Craig Miller" wrote: Mr. Valez brings us a teachable moment. A thought on landlords: Why should a landlord expect that rents will cover the entire cost of their investment? Basically, the renters then pay the note and the cost of maintaining a property that they have no interest in and the owner reaps all the "wealth" created as the property appreciates in value both due to the market/land value and the mortgage gradually being paid off. (CM) I suppose landlords could just lose money, everyday, forever. Post continued... --------------------------------------------------- Get your free web based email from Crosswalk.com: http://mail.crosswalk.com _______________________________________ 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
