-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Cheesecake Factory tells landlords it won't pay rent after april 1st
- Thread starter Deleted member 12790
- Start date
My primary function is to pay for and maintain the property. If there was more demand for ownership than more housing would be built. Right now there are more houses and condos on the market than there are people willing to purchase them. Any of my tenants can leave whenever they want and get a mortgage if that's the path they want to take.
If the housing market goes south again, I'm the one on the hook. That's not a risk many people want to take, so they don't.
It sure is weird that instead of the collective group simply idk, even literally just paying the mortgage themselves. They have to pay a premium to a third party that simply had the capital to buy the property and or leverage a mortgage on it which means they actually end up putting up MORE capital relative not only to their labor, but the capital and "labor" put into the entire situation by the landlord who purchased the building, so that said landlord can also make a profit off the situation.
Very weird indeed, oh well, we'll never crack this cookie.
Freeze rents, then mortgages, and on up until you get to the banks at the top of the food chain that are getting trillions pumped into them right now, and make them take the hit. Easy.
Just out of curiosity do you know what the number of homeless people where you are is? Doesn't need to be an exact number, a rough ballpark estimate is perfectly fine. Like where I am we're talking something like 2K or so depending on how you estimate it.
The median price on a home in New York City is $760,000, entirely because landlords and the landed class have purchased the overwhelming majority of livable buildings in the city in order to build out rental homes/apartments and price out people from owning homes who do not already have an absurd level of capital on hand in order to even put down a payment for a home of their own to own.
You say your primary function is to pay for the property and maintain it, why can your renters not simply do this themselves without you involved? Is there a special skill you have in building maintenance that say, a construction worker or electrician or simply by people learning to do maintenance tasks themselves? Your value is that you provide capital in a capital saturated market that prices out people of a class position lower than you, with less capital, from controlling these things. But if these people collectivized and say, we build a communal structure in which all the working people together in an apartment complex simply did all these things you say you do, but for themselves and one another, and we fostered this because it's what any sane, humane society would do, then your position is nothing more than someone who had the natural luck of possessing capital at a time when you had avenues to leverage it for profit above others.
Let me pose to you a question, if your renters went on a rent strike, what would you do to them.
70,000
My renters can do that in their own property if they want to make the investment. I'm the one risking the money. After 2008, many people are choosing not to own. It's weird, none of my tenants see me as an enemy.
If they went on a strike not cause by actual hardship, I'd have them evicted I suppose. I'd also be forced to turn off all the utilities as well. No heat, water, electricity etc. Worst comes to worst, I sell the place and the person who buys it can deal with it.
Can't imagine why a tenant would choose to not antagonize the person they rely on to have a roof over their head.
How on earth are YOU risking money when you're making people who live in the buildings you own pay for the mortgage you took out on it, plus enough for a profit for yourself? That's totally nonsensical. And of course nobody is buying housing since the housing crash, housing is expensive and most people don't have the fucking money to buy a house. People obviously view you as an enemy, if someone did something you considered egregious enough, they could end up homeless, I can't imagine why nobody would voice critique of you to your face when they depend on you for a home because you, and people like you, bought all the land and monopolize opportunity for people to live.
Also cool so you'd just make people suffer because they have no other leverage other than to withhold their capital from you in order to live as human beings. Cool cool. It's almost like you, as an individual who makes a profit off this, should not have ANYWHERE near that level of control over the life of another human being, because that's cruel, insane, and draconian.
I'm going to go with "you're not making the argument you think you're making" about there being more housing on the market than there are people willing to rent it
Or maybe people don't live their lives angry at everyone for no reason. They can leave and rent another apartment if they want. I have a perfect rating on Yelp from current and former tenants. So someone must be happy.
Because if the market goes under I'm the one on the hook for the mortgage. I would be in debt, renters would not be. That's how an investment works.
As for making people suffer, you asked me what I would do if people stopped paying the rent while I have to continue paying to maintain the place. This is how money works, if I don't have enough to pay the bills, they utility companies will shut things off. This is not a realistic scenario but it's the one you proposed. You're basically asking me if I would pay for everyone's living expenses when I can't afford to. The answer is no. Neither would you.
Yeah, you guys talk a big game but actions speak louder than words. He is basically asking me if I'd be willing to pay the living expenses of my tenants beyond my own means. No, I'm not willing to do that. Neither are you, unless you're paying some random person's rent/mortgage and utilities, which you aren't.
There is also the fact that I literally can't do it. Guess what happens if you don't pay your bills....
People don't like landlords for no reason. You're completely correct.
Well my reputation is strong among my current and former tenants. That says a lot more about me than people on a message board who don't know anything about me other than the fact that I own a property and like Ninja Gaiden.
Regarding the last bit, I mean yeah there's a reason I agitate against the capitalist system on here all the time, but I also don't own section 8 housing so my financial risk isn't being literally directly subsidized by the government (or maybe it is as a subcontractor. I don't know, that feels like a pedantic distinction)
Airbnb hosts can fuck off. I had a trip to Peru I was trying to cancel for a week. Messaged the host asking if we could reschedule as we liked the look of the place, just it's not the best time to travel right now. He said "everything is fine don't worry we've only closed schools"
A few days later I ask again. Doesn't even reply to me. Airbnb lets everyone cancel and get a full refund, so I cancel and then a few hours later I see that Peru closed their borders and everything is shut down. If I had still went to Peru, I would have had my trip cut short as it was a connection through Colombia and they didn't allow connecting flights after March 22nd. That cancellation policy doesn't take into effect a global pandemic that has 75% of the world shut down. These hosts can fuck themselves.
Well I don't know your post history or your stance on anything, but you're jumping on me for not being willing to pay for the living expenses of other people, even when I can't afford to do that. So unless you're paying the rent and utilities for a random person, that's a pretty hypocritical stance to take. It's easy to talk and criticize other people for fictional unrealistic scenarios like the one proposed. Put your money where your mouth is and pay someone's living expenses for them.
My wife, my stepson, and heck the girl in Haiti that I sponsor through a recurring monthly donation to save the children all say hi. My brother stayed in the living room for about half a year while he got situated in his new job too
The "landlord" in this case is often an investment firm that chops these AAA national credit tenant properties into a few or up to a hundred different pieces and sold to various investors. Theoretically they should be diversified into things other than just Cheesecake Factory to where this shouldn't be a problem. The issue will be if other chains start following suit.
At the end of the day, the banks financing everything will 100% work with their customers for as long as they can. Where it gets kinda weird is that it's not missing the payments so much as when you extend out the balloon note and capitalize the interest and then it no longer matches the lease term then the bank's risk appetite might start changing in the long run. For an example what happens when there is 60 months left on the balloon note and the lease agreement between the owner and Cheesecake Factory is now only 54 months and there's now a possibility that the property could be vacant for 6 months at the end of the balloon period.
So either the owner will have to collect the back rents at some point so they can turn around and pay the bank or they'll have to modify the terms of the lease agreement. I'm sure it can get worked out but messes will still be created.
That's just my small town community banking experience though. I'm not sure if the large national banks have more tricks up their sleeves?
At the end of the day, the banks financing everything will 100% work with their customers for as long as they can. Where it gets kinda weird is that it's not missing the payments so much as when you extend out the balloon note and capitalize the interest and then it no longer matches the lease term then the bank's risk appetite might start changing in the long run. For an example what happens when there is 60 months left on the balloon note and the lease agreement between the owner and Cheesecake Factory is now only 54 months and there's now a possibility that the property could be vacant for 6 months at the end of the balloon period.
So either the owner will have to collect the back rents at some point so they can turn around and pay the bank or they'll have to modify the terms of the lease agreement. I'm sure it can get worked out but messes will still be created.
That's just my small town community banking experience though. I'm not sure if the large national banks have more tricks up their sleeves?
I said a random person, not your family members. I know you're purposely being obtuse right now since you obviously know the difference between supporting your wife and kid that live with you, vs random people who aren't related to you.
I also sponsor several kids through Children International, that's hardly paying one's living expenses. It's like 40 dollars a month.
This seems like the solution. Especially since many landlords are just regular folks. I dont get the whole "Fuck landlords" things as if they are all huge million dollar corps that are just being mean. This is the governments responsibility to help us all, because its not the tenant nor the landlords faults here.
Well see here's the thing, I'm not a landlord so I'm not directly subsidizing my own income, and thus my own profit that I have to make as the owner of land and thus, interested in my continued equity and expanding capital, so I am not directly responsible for these people and their health, well being, and most importantly, their ability to have a home. As I do not own land that I do nothing with except use to extract people's value from them as they get nothing in return, as they pay down my costs on the building at little to no real overhead to me on any level.
There's nothing fictional about a rent strike, and there's nothing more callow than saying rather than attempt to perceive the issue of what you do and why you do it, you simply enforce punitive, incredibly cruel measures in order to destroy these people so that you can find new people from whom to extract capital at no cost or effort to yourself other than purchasing land that these people cannot thus purchase themselves. These aren't random people to you, they are people who come to you because they need housing, especially section 8 renters, the most desperate people in our society. And I think it's punitive and cruel, at best, to dismiss these things are farce or as abstracted from reality.
The reality is that the only reason you amassed these assets was because you had the capital to do so at a time when prices were low enough that you could make a profit off them if you used them to, yes, parasitically extract the capital of people who lived there for you as you reap the benefits of continually expanding equity. If it makes you upset that people don't respect your insane and otherworldly privilege to own land in one of the most expensive places to own land in the world, that you directly use to ensure that people have less options for themselves to have and or to live in other than to pay someone who provides nothing in return, then oh well.
How is someone who is paying you money to live at a place you purchased with capital you have now amassed through other people paying you money a random person to you. Also, the distinction is meaningless. It literally doesn't matter if they're family or not, that's not relevant.
With all due respect, you made a monetary investment to profit off of something required for human survival so people are going to be very unsympathetic of you expecting landlords to still rake in their income while the tenants who have to rent somewhere to survive do not. Investments have risks associated with them, and yet because you invest in something that people will die on the streets without you feel you should be sheltered from the risk of not having a return on investment for awhile. Also, deflecting to saying tenants can buy their own land makes you sound like a jackass. Don't do that. Not everybody rents because they like the freedom of not having to maintain property or worry about the housing market.
Now, it may feel like a lot of people are picking on you specifically (and I guess they are because you're saying a lot of vapid stuff), but it's also a lot of anger at the system in general. Your obstinate refusal to understand the posters here and repeated attempts to foist moral culpability on others is just a good lightning rod at the moment.
Your argument that there are properties people aren't willing to invest in is so, so off base I really can't believe it. Anecdotally, I would say every single person I know that currently rents would prefer a mortgage, but they lacked the capital to do so (and I live in one of the cheapest areas of the nation). The person asking you about the homeless situation made it kind of obvious but you didn't seem to pick up on it - are those homeless unwilling to live in a property? No, they lack the means. I'm not unwilling to take the "risk" of owning a home, I've just thus far been unable to do it.
Well since you aren't a landlord and don't seem to know what you're talking about, I'll set the record straight on a few things.
Section 8 tenants get evicted if they don't pay their rent, that's not up to the landlord (me). So in your scenario, if they refuse to pay rent, they would be evicted. That's how Section 8 works. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the government, not me.
Now let me explain how bills work, since you think this is a cruel thing. Once you become and adult and have to pay your bills, you receive said service as long as you pay. So if my tenants, that have an agreement with me to pay rent with utilities included, refuse to pay, then the bills will not get paid. When you don't pay bills, the service will be cut off. For example, if you don't pay your water bill, they turn off your water. If you don't pay electric, they turn off the electricity. So yeah, in the scenario that all of my tenants decide they're not going to pay, the ones on Section 8 would automatically get evicted and the ones who remain would have their utilities shut off. This would also happen to you if you don't pay your bills. It would also happen to me if I don't pay mine.
Lastly, mortgages. Similar to bills, if you don't pay the mortgage, you lose the property. In the event that I cannot pay the mortgage, I would be forced to sell the property so and then new owner would have to deal with the problem.
You can call this cruel if you like, but this is simply how the world works.
Curious, what are the vapid things that I'm saying? That if the bills don't get paid, the utilities get shut off? I do have to wonder what world some of you live in where lights and water stay on with no associated cost. In NYC, you have to pay bills to keep the power on. The utility companies shut them off. You also have to pay a mortgage to keep your property. And Section 8 tenants have to pay their share of the rent to avoid eviction.
63% of millennials who bought homes have regrets—usually because they missed this one crucial step
Just over 1 in 3 millennials are homeowners, but they're not necessarily happy about the decisions they made. Here's the No. 1 reason why young people who managed to buy a home have regrets.
There are a lot of reasons people choose not to buy a home. Yes, some people can't afford it, but many who can end up regretting it. Many others choose not to do so because they're single, willing to relocate for job opportunities, prefer to save (it's a LOT cheaper to rent).
I knew what the other poster was getting at with his homeless question, which is why I answered it. I thought he was going to go somewhere with it and he didn't. I'm well aware that some people cannot afford to buy a home. Minimum wage isn't that great, but that's a different issue.
I'm not sure what area you're in, but here, the renter pays their share of the rent directly to the landlord. The government has no concept if they paid or not unless the landlord reports it to Section 8.
Landlords have to report their income for the Section 8 program. It's a federal program, so it's the same anywhere in the country. Lying about your income for a government program is against the law. I suppose one could break the law, I'm not willing to do that. I have paid a tenants rent before on the program but it's unrealistic to expect me to do that if every tenant is refusing to pay with no real reason other than they don't want to.
This is an impressive amount of effort you've dedicated to missing the point.
'let me explain how bills work' Jesus Christ.
Well people here don't seem to know, so I explained it. The guy literally asked me what would happen if the tenants didn't pay their rent, meaning the bills wouldn't get paid. When I explained what happens he decided that made me evil. So yeah, I had to get elementary and explain that's what happens when you don't pay for things.
Otherwise, point out the evil and cruel things that I would be doing that aren't based on paying the bills.
Nope, that's not true everywhere. I just checked. In Santa Clara County, they hare hands off about this. Evictions are the sole responsibility of the landlord and they will not assist or make the determination. They will continue to pay their portion to the landlord but other than that, it's the responsibility of the landlord to handle things. Also, there is no requirement to report if the renter has made the payment each month either.
muteKi Frozenprince Mekanos hey, I just happened to be reading some of the more recent posts on this thread about rent and what not. I'd just like to know each of your opinions based on my situation if you don't mind. I know it's a bit long but these are real questions and I just want some perspective. Anyone else feel free to jump in too if you feel.
So currently I spend over 60% of my monthly income on rent in a place I don't like, with nowhere enough room and help out family with bills. I've fluctuated in debt but have never gotten out of it, and I've sacrificed by going into more debt to help family. I've lived 7 people in a 2 bedroom duplex in a bad neighborhood. I've worked terrible jobs such as retail, gas station etc. for minimum wage and have spent the last decade working my ass off to get to a better spot in life piece by piece. I'm finally in a position where I'll be able to be debt free and soon purchase my own house so I no longer have to rent. When it comes time, I may end up wanting to rent out said property instead of selling, would that make me a shitty person / part of the problem if I were to do so when getting to that point?
2nd question if you're willing to read.
A good friend of mine is in a similar situation, taking care of a family. They just purchased their first house (after saving for many years) to take better care of said family member as there's not enough space at their current residence that's still got a ways to go before being paid off. My friend would prefer to keep said property and rent it out. They would be able to make $3-400 in profit per month. Keep in mind they'd be on the hook for property maintenance, so if something went wrong that could easily eat up several months of profit. The risk of having a tenant damage the property, the time and money lost if there's nobody currently renting and having to find a new tenant etc. The person renting wouldn't have to worry about a down payment not figuring out how to pay for any ownership maintenance costs, at the expense of paying $3-400 more than the current mortgage payment. But in reality if they bought the house, they'd be paying more in mortgage because of what the house would cost now. Does that make my friend a bad person if they choose to rent out the property? (Just for the record they are 99.9% selling it because they don't believe renting is worth the hassle / risk)
So currently I spend over 60% of my monthly income on rent in a place I don't like, with nowhere enough room and help out family with bills. I've fluctuated in debt but have never gotten out of it, and I've sacrificed by going into more debt to help family. I've lived 7 people in a 2 bedroom duplex in a bad neighborhood. I've worked terrible jobs such as retail, gas station etc. for minimum wage and have spent the last decade working my ass off to get to a better spot in life piece by piece. I'm finally in a position where I'll be able to be debt free and soon purchase my own house so I no longer have to rent. When it comes time, I may end up wanting to rent out said property instead of selling, would that make me a shitty person / part of the problem if I were to do so when getting to that point?
2nd question if you're willing to read.
A good friend of mine is in a similar situation, taking care of a family. They just purchased their first house (after saving for many years) to take better care of said family member as there's not enough space at their current residence that's still got a ways to go before being paid off. My friend would prefer to keep said property and rent it out. They would be able to make $3-400 in profit per month. Keep in mind they'd be on the hook for property maintenance, so if something went wrong that could easily eat up several months of profit. The risk of having a tenant damage the property, the time and money lost if there's nobody currently renting and having to find a new tenant etc. The person renting wouldn't have to worry about a down payment not figuring out how to pay for any ownership maintenance costs, at the expense of paying $3-400 more than the current mortgage payment. But in reality if they bought the house, they'd be paying more in mortgage because of what the house would cost now. Does that make my friend a bad person if they choose to rent out the property? (Just for the record they are 99.9% selling it because they don't believe renting is worth the hassle / risk)
I thought the only thing that varied with Section 8 from state to state is whether or not landlords are required to accept people on the program. Both me and the tenants have to report the payment to Section 8 in an attempt to prevent fraud.
Evictions being solely up to the landlord go against all of the protections Section 8 tenants are supposed to get. It wouldn't be fair to give a landlord that much leverage. I've even had the government evict people without even telling me the reason why. Over here, the government does inspections on the property as well as the finances to make sure everything lines up. I'm not allowed to evict a Section 8 tenant without filing a report to Section 8, I assume they make a decision from there.
Pretty sure they can tell banks to voluntarily freeze mortgages or don't expect any help from the Fed via aid or loans. That would take pressure off of landlords and there could be a tax penalty for them if they don't do the same.
