Vicky Heller and I advocate some of the same positions. But when we part ways is when she takes a particular position and tries to refute it with a whole bunch of cases that are only partly relevant. We are talking about the profitability of renting housing, but she drags in all the subsidies to Target, Brookfield, and whatever other cases.
Those subsidies didn't get handed out due to the unprofitability of building. They got handed out because (a) politicians were trying to demonstrate a "can do" approach to business development which, unfortunately, has come to mean being very loose with public funds; and (b) because the businesses were insistent on going for the MOST profitable deal they could find. Since they could build anywhere they wanted or even NOWHERE, it was essentially a question of "how sweet will you make the deal for me". Just exactly the same way that Richard Burke wanted a flat-out bonus of $7 million to bring the Winnipeg Jetes to Target Center. It wasn't a matter that he needed that amount to make the hockey franchise pofitable, it was what it took to make him SATISFIED with the profit. Oddly enough, the city showed some spine in that case (go figure). But none of this is relevant to the notion that landlords who rent homes to private citizens are not making money. Of course, they are. When they don't, it really comes from making bad deals to fill empty space. Which backfires when the tenants do damage or don't pay rent. ___________________________________________ Kejuan Miller's comments were interesing. As I drove down Frankly, almost the only gatherings I saw were people standing at bus stops. Now I wonder if Jim G and Barb are really contending that every gathering at a bus stop is PRESUMPTIVELY a drug deal going down. I wonder if the police allow ride-alongs. I'd like to hear law enforcement tell me which are the real drug activity as distinct from gatherings that white people ASSUME are drug activity. Sometimes I see a group of three or four minority teens walk down Cooper streets. Should I be assuming they are gangs looking for a chance to start trouble? _____________________________________________ In my opinion, the word "stench" applied to the Biernat case is totally inappropriate. I guarantee you there are innumerable cases of such "corruption" in the private sector that won't even be pursued because prosecutors are convinced they have bigger fish to fry and the COST of prosecution would exceed the actual funds involved by hundreds of times. IF Joe Biernat is actually guilty (which I have a shadow of doubt about), I won't sit idly by while people with axes to grind try to make this the kind of "mountain out of a molehill" that was made out of Monica Lewinski. I suggest we discuss the future of ward politics with our feet on the ground rather than with these flights of fancy. ____________________________________________ The responses on landlord risk ignored most of what I said. It isn't a question of "some risk or zero risk", it is a question of relative risk. And if you think the risk of owning real property is greater than working for someone else, you haven't been paying attention to what is happening to employees in today's economy. Huge swaths have been cut in employees net assets due to stock market losses. We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars. You can't equate that with a damaged rug and a $500 deposit. I agree that landlords provide a needed service. And I certainly would not encourage anyone whose risk tolerance is that low to get into that service. And I would encourage those who do get into it to check out prospective tenants. As the Better Business Bureau says "investigate before you invest". I guess whatever is the downside risk exposure must dictate the degree of caution a landlord needs to use in turning his property over to a tenant. As for lawsuits, give me an example. The kind of money being discussed here is small-claims court stuff. If you hire a lawyer for that, then you're too foolish to be in business. And my main point is still unaddressed. If anyone tells me that they own rental property in order to provide the service, not to make money, I think I could laugh. The fact is that income property, if actively managed, is one of the few investments you can make in which the property appreciates while the owner gets to claim DEPRECIATION for tax purposes. The only change made in 1986 is that you can't buy up as many as you can borrow for and then not manage them. Otherwise, it is a no-brainer in terms of taxes. The landlords present aren't getting out of the business because they look at the sick stock market and ultra-risky bond market and KNOW they are in the safest thing around. =========== Jim Mork--Cooper (30-year renter, now homeowner) __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
