Occupy Wall Street

[retro-man]

So if Grandma sold her income property to a REIT for a tidy sum, that's bad?

So Grandma must suffer only minimal profit for her income property? Or is she limited on the percent of profits allowed? What is that limit? Why do you get to set that limit?

If Grandma has to sell her property, which historically, given the trends of housing prices (we'll see what the next 20 years brings - or some of us will anyway) would have been for a "tidy sum", she should sell it to an owner-occupier, or another local party looking for "income property". You can twist my words however you want. When I got married, I rented from a woman who owned the house I lived in, and a small apartment building (with her name on it). I paid $225 / mo. for the house, a 2 bedroom house on 5 acres. Audrey (the landlady) was retired comfortably on income from her properties + a Boeing pension. The properties were built up over her working life (here's the distinction: she worked), and the house was inherited from her mom. I had a friend / coworker at the time who was in a similar situation, paying about $250.00 / mo. from an elderly owner. Rents at the time for a vinyl-clad, REIT-owned, professionally managed apartment complex (where the on-site manager, as in the case of one friend, might be an older alcoholic couple who were getting a break on their rent in exchange for their duties) were running around $400.00/mo. They would routinely screw you out of your damage deposit - just because they could, increase your rents - just because they could (taking dollars out of the rest of the local economy, and siphoning it off to some leeches on the other side of the country somewhere) - turning the screws to the maximum that "the market" would bear. Look, absentee ownership is destructive to communities. I have seen it, I have learned it. I don't want to say I am closed-minded about it, but let's just say my opinions are well-observed and fully-formed. If you want to ignore empirical observation and cling to ideological purity on the issue, go ahead - knock yourself out.

[NickF1011]

I had a friend / coworker at the time who was in a similar situation, paying about $250.00 / mo. from an elderly owner. Rents at the time for a vinyl-clad, REIT-owned, professionally managed apartment complex (where the on-site manager, as in the case of one friend, might be an older alcoholic couple who were getting a break on their rent in exchange for their duties) were running around $400.00/mo. They would routinely screw you out of your damage deposit - just because they could, increase your rents - just because they could (taking dollars out of the rest of the local economy, and siphoning it off to some leeches on the other side of the country somewhere) - turning the screws to the maximum that "the market" would bear.

 

Okay. And what would have been on that land if not for the REIT-owned apartment complex? Anything? I've seen plenty of cases of outside management turning run-down, nearly abandoned crap property back into something of value to the community again. The door swings both ways.

[retro-man]

Okay. And what would have been on that land if not for the REIT-owned apartment complex? Anything? I've seen plenty of cases of outside management turning run-down, nearly abandoned crap property back into something of value to the community again. The door swings both ways.

Something of value to the community?

 

 

......... You've never lived in a real community, have you?

[NickF1011]

......... You've never lived in a real community, have you?

 

No sir. They've all been imaginary. :rolleyes:

Edited November 1, 2011 by NickF1011

[FiredMotorCompany]

Quote:

---

If Grandma has to sell her property, which historically, given the trends of housing prices (we'll see what the next 20 years brings - or some of us will anyway) would have been for a "tidy sum", she should sell it to an owner-occupier, or another local party looking for "income property".

(That's a personal decision. You cannot make that decision for another. I don't think you should use whole milk in your cereal, but I am NOT going to berate your decision to pour it on your breakfast. Live by your own moral compass. Set an example. Just never confuse YOUR choices with another's right to make their OWN decisions as freely.)

 

You can twist my words however you want. When I got married, I rented from a woman who owned the house I lived in, and a small apartment building (with her name on it). I paid $225 / mo. for the house, a 2 bedroom house on 5 acres. Audrey (the landlady) was retired comfortably on income from her properties + a Boeing pension. The properties were built up over her working life (here's the distinction: she worked), and the house was inherited from her mom. I had a friend / coworker at the time who was in a similar situation, paying about $250.00 / mo. from an elderly owner. Rents at the time for a vinyl-clad, REIT-owned, professionally managed apartment complex (where the on-site manager, as in the case of one friend, might be an older alcoholic couple who were getting a break on their rent in exchange for their duties) were running around $400.00/mo. They would routinely screw you out of your damage deposit - just because they could, increase your rents - just because they could (taking dollars out of the rest of the local economy, and siphoning it off to some leeches on the other side of the country somewhere) - turning the screws to the maximum that "the market" would bear. Look, absentee ownership is destructive to communities. I have seen it, I have learned it. I don't want to say I am closed-minded about it, but let's just say my opinions are well-observed and fully-formed. If you want to ignore empirical observation and cling to ideological purity on the issue, go ahead - knock yourself out.

 

(Personal choices have consequences. Due diligence could/should have exposed the history of abusive security deposit withholding. Then again, a full documented pre-occupancy walk-through, with detailed remarks, photographs and anything else to document the condition of the property is no less than self-preservation. Alas, few renters go through the process. Instead, they naively shake their heads, say "Ok. Here's my check. Where's the key?" That's on them. On move-out, you have to be just as persnickety. And clean the place up before leaving. Most tenants pack-up and "hope" they can get away with "normal wear and tear" allowances and get all their deposit back. If the property is returned in near new rental condition, you could win your court costs easily on top of a full refund. Sure, you may put more sweat equity into your security deposit, but if you want to be certain of a full refund, it's what MUST be done. If the landlord refuses to return the deposit in full and in a timely manner, it is YOUR job to make it hard for them to refuse.......I have owned rental property, maintained it myself, sacrificed wealth to provide affordable housing for a community that has suffered economically over the past 20 years. But if a REIT approached me with the right price, I'd have sold to them, no qualms. Who among you would refuse 2x or 3x what you paid for a property if it was offered by a REIT, just on principal? If you are honest, none of you I dare say! But if you do stand on those principals, good for you and I respect your selflessness.)

---

End Quote

[retro-man]

Along with his friends....

LOL (I had to post this. My one '+' wasn't enough to overcome all the knee-jerk '-'s - which I have come to see, as I hope you have, as badges of honor.)

[retro-man]

Quote:

---

 

If Grandma has to sell her property, which historically, given the trends of housing prices (we'll see what the next 20 years brings - or some of us will anyway) would have been for a "tidy sum", she should sell it to an owner-occupier, or another local party looking for "income property".

(That's a personal decision. You cannot make that decision for another. I don't think you should use whole milk in your cereal, but I am NOT going to berate your decision to pour it on your breakfast. Live by your own moral compass. Set an example. Just never confuse YOUR choices with another's right to make their OWN decisions as freely.)

 

You can twist my words however you want. When I got married, I rented from a woman who owned the house I lived in, and a small apartment building (with her name on it). I paid $225 / mo. for the house, a 2 bedroom house on 5 acres. Audrey (the landlady) was retired comfortably on income from her properties + a Boeing pension. The properties were built up over her working life (here's the distinction: she worked), and the house was inherited from her mom. I had a friend / coworker at the time who was in a similar situation, paying about $250.00 / mo. from an elderly owner. Rents at the time for a vinyl-clad, REIT-owned, professionally managed apartment complex (where the on-site manager, as in the case of one friend, might be an older alcoholic couple who were getting a break on their rent in exchange for their duties) were running around $400.00/mo. They would routinely screw you out of your damage deposit - just because they could, increase your rents - just because they could (taking dollars out of the rest of the local economy, and siphoning it off to some leeches on the other side of the country somewhere) - turning the screws to the maximum that "the market" would bear. Look, absentee ownership is destructive to communities. I have seen it, I have learned it. I don't want to say I am closed-minded about it, but let's just say my opinions are well-observed and fully-formed. If you want to ignore empirical observation and cling to ideological purity on the issue, go ahead - knock yourself out.

 

(Personal choices have consequences. Due diligence could/should have exposed the history of abusive security deposit withholding. Then again, a full documented pre-occupancy walk-through, with detailed remarks, photographs and anything else to document the condition of the property is no less than self-preservation. Alas, few renters go through the process. Instead, they naively shake their heads, say "Ok. Here's my check. Where's the key?" That's on them. On move-out, you have to be just as persnickety. And clean the place up before leaving. Most tenants pack-up and "hope" they can get away with "normal wear and tear" allowances and get all their deposit back. If the property is returned in near new rental condition, you could win your court costs easily on top of a full refund. Sure, you may put more sweat equity into your security deposit, but if you want to be certain of a full refund, it's what MUST be done. If the landlord refuses to return the deposit in full and in a timely manner, it is YOUR job to make it hard for them to refuse.......I have owned rental property, maintained it myself, sacrificed wealth to provide affordable housing for a community that has suffered economically over the past 20 years. But if a REIT approached me with the right price, I'd have sold to them, no qualms. Who among you would refuse 2x or 3x what you paid for a property if it was offered by a REIT, just on principal? If you are honest, none of you I dare say! But if you do stand on those principals, good for you and I respect your selflessness.)

---

End Quote

I remember the apartment my wife was living in when she was in college. She left the place more spotless than you can believe (I remember going over the tile grout with a toothbrush and comet) - but they knew she was going home and couldn't do anything about it, so they withheld her deposit. Crooked as hell. Anyway, yes, it is your right to sell to an REIT. All Im saying is that, as a matter of public policy, funds going to absentee landlords should be taxed 20% at each level on their way out of town. It would help fund public services at the municipal, county, and state levels, and would encourage local ownership which is, by nature, more responsible.

Edited November 1, 2011 by retro-man

[FiredMotorCompany]

I remember the apartment my wife was living in when she was in college. She left the place more spotless than you can believe (I remember going over the tile grout with a toothbrush and comet) - but they knew she was going home and couldn't do anything about it, so they withheld her deposit. Crooked as hell. Anyway, yes, it is your right to see to an REIT. All Im saying is that, as a matter of public policy, funds going to absentee landlords should be taxed 20% at each level on their way out of town. It would help fund public services at the municipal, county, and state levels, and would encourage local ownership which is, by nature, more responsible.

 

That's called "property tax". It exists now. What should be your concern is the wisest use of that revenue and the levy's detrimental effect on property ownership. Public Services, while they make you feel good voting to provide them, does cost money. That money comes from property taxes. Higher property taxes makes home ownership more expensive, sometimes to the point of driving the owner into foreclosure. That makes individual ownership less feasible. REITs are more likely to be successful because they are typically created by and for businesses, who have the discipline to operate in a cost effective manner.

 

I also would argue that local ownership is not self-evidently more responsible. Emotionally if feels accurate, but you'd have to provide evidence to support that assertion.

It must be nice to demand everything on your wish list and have others, non-residential and non-voting, pay for it.

"Yeah anything is possible. All it takes is more taxation upon the other guy."

[xr7g428]

I remember the apartment my wife was living in when she was in college. She left the place more spotless than you can believe (I remember going over the tile grout with a toothbrush and comet) - but they knew she was going home and couldn't do anything about it, so they withheld her deposit. Crooked as hell. Anyway, yes, it is your right to see to an REIT. All Im saying is that, as a matter of public policy, funds going to absentee landlords should be taxed 20% at each level on their way out of town. It would help fund public services at the municipal, county, and state levels, and would encourage local ownership which is, by nature, more responsible.

 

The problem with this kind of thinking (actually one of many) is that is fails every logical test. Businesses don't pay taxes they merely collect them, and when they do so, they make money for providing the service. Nothing is free. The tax would cut both ways: there are lots of LOCAL REIT investors. Money is flowing in both directions. When you increase the cost to one market participant, you subsidize the others; ALL at the expense of the consumer. REIT's tend to lower costs for consumers, not raise them. They allow more people to enter into the real estate market, in particular institutional investors, like retirement funds that accept lower rates of return in order to obtain diversity for their portfolios.

 

The presumption is that one person acting alone is virtuous, but two persons or more acting together is evil. And this is coming from a socialist? Really? REIT's reduce risk by spreading it over many investors and multiple properties. This concept should be very familiar to those that advocate mandatory heath insurance, or taken to it's penultimate position single payer coverage.

Edited November 1, 2011 by xr7g428

[FiredMotorCompany]

The problem with this kind of thinking (actually one of many) is that is fails every logical test. Businesses don't pay taxes they merely collect them, and when they do so, they make money for providing the service. Nothing is free. The tax would cut both ways: there are lots of LOCAL REIT investors. Money is flowing in both directions. When you increase the cost to one market participant, you subsidize the others; ALL at the expense of the consumer. REIT's tend to lower costs for consumers, not raise them. They allow more people to enter into the real estate market, in particular institutional investors, like retirement funds that accept lower rates of return in order to obtain diversity for their portfolios.

 

The presumption is that one person acting alone is virtuous, but two persons or more acting together is evil. And this is coming from a socialist? Really? REIT's reduce risk by spreading it over many investors and multiple properties. This concept should be very familiar to those that advocate mandatory heath insurance, or taken to it's penultimate position single payer coverage.

 

Worthy points to consider. Well said.

[retro-man]

The problem with this kind of thinking (actually one of many) is that is fails every logical test. Businesses don't pay taxes they merely collect them, and when they do so, they make money for providing the service. Nothing is free. The tax would cut both ways: there are lots of LOCAL REIT investors. Money is flowing in both directions. When you increase the cost to one market participant, you subsidize the others; ALL at the expense of the consumer. REIT's tend to lower costs for consumers, not raise them. They allow more people to enter into the real estate market, in particular institutional investors, like retirement funds that accept lower rates of return in order to obtain diversity for their portfolios.

 

The presumption is that one person acting alone is virtuous, but two persons or more acting together is evil. And this is coming from a socialist? Really? REIT's reduce risk by spreading it over many investors and multiple properties. This concept should be very familiar to those that advocate mandatory heath insurance, or taken to it's penultimate position single payer coverage.

Who ever said I was a Socialist? (I might think Sweden and Denmark have their shit together a lot more than the US does right now - does that make me a Socialist?) My thinking on this doesn't have anything to do with individual vs. collective risk or action. My thinking is simple: we are far less likely to foul our own nest, while it is very easy to foul somebody else's. (This is the basic principle you see in evidence when you look at the air quality in Chongqing for example, vs. Baltimore - we've got cheap MP3 players, they've got mercury in their streams.) The REIT in Florida doesn't care if this whole town out here dries up and blows away - as long as they're divested by then, at a tidy profit. I've seen plenty of Architectural projects that were "built for sale", or "improved" - with crap materials that look great for a day - for real estate purposes - and don't hold up. I know the difference, but Joe buyer (and that includes some supposedly sophisticated real estate people) don't.

 

To tell you the truth, I just pulled that tax idea out of my arse yesterday. It is not something that I've necessarily thought through. But the main point is to weight the incentive toward local investment. If, incidentally, it helps offset the costs of local services, all the better. When people are anchored, rooted, in a community, they take care of it. There should be risk. (Let me here acknowledge your comparison to health care - the limitation of that comparison is that, with health care, you are betting your life on your behaviors, regardless of who picks up the tab.) We have just seen what happens with clever market mechanisms for the diffusion (obfuscation) of risk in real estate. When you can pick up and go: when your very mindset is to pick up and go, the tendency is toward slash and burn. I believe that is a very evident fact. The commoditization of our homes and workplaces is destructive to quality of life.

Edited November 1, 2011 by retro-man

[NickF1011]

(This is the basic principle you see in evidence when you look at the air quality in Chongqing for example, vs. Baltimore - we've got cheap MP3 players, they've got mercury in their streams.)

 

Baltimore's air quality is good because it blows out to sea. I'm not about to take a swim in the Inner Harbor though.

[retro-man]

Baltimore's air quality is good because it blows out to sea. I'm not about to take a swim in the Inner Harbor though.

LOL. Now that you mention it, if I went swimming in the Duwamish River here in Seattle, I would expect to come out with an extra finger or two. Growing out of my back.

[edit in] But if I went swimming in the Yangtse in Chongqing, I wouldn't expect to come out at all. And that's the truth.

Edited November 1, 2011 by retro-man

[xr7g428]

I would expect to come out with an extra finger or two. Growing out of my back.

 

Nominate for post of the week! LOL!

[retro-man]

Just to pile another log on the fire here - I just got off the phone with a commercial real estate guy who is helping our distressed store owner try to locate another site. He has been in the commercial real estate business for 30 years. In discussing our situation here - without any prompting or comment on my part - he started going off about how bad REITs are, making statements like "They don't care anything about people, only numbers." and etc. - basically echoing my critique of them. He also complained about land use restrictions in this town - but he doesn't seem to like REITs any better than I do, and he no doubt has a lot more experience with them.

 

p.s. xr7 - thanks for the POW nomination. The Duwamish for decades served as a toxic dump for Boeing and other companies that had facilities along it. It empties into Puget Sound at the bottom of Elliott Bay around Harbor Island - where most of Seattle's port is located. There has been extensive cleanup work in recent decades - but I don't think I'd eat vegetables grown along its banks.

[retro-man]

I also would argue that local ownership is not self-evidently more responsible. Emotionally if feels accurate, but you'd have to provide evidence to support that assertion.

I don't feel compelled to jump through a hoop in response to this canard - but this issue has been studied to death for decades. Start with George Sternlieb's "The Tenement Landlord" - Rutgers University Press 1966:

 

Just as speculation and the profit motive make it impossible for people to adapt their houses to their own needs, so tenancy, rental, and landlords do the same. Rental areas are always the first to turn to slums. The mechanism is clear and well known: The landlord tries to keep his maintenance and repair costs as low as possible; the residents have no incentive to maintain and repair the homes - in fact, the opposite - since improvements add to the wealth of the landlord, and even justify higher rent. And so the typical piece of rental property degenerates over the years. The landlords try to build new rental properties which are immune to neglect - gardens are replaced with concrete, carpets are replaced with linoleum [remember, this was written in the 60s], and wooden surfaces by formica: it is an attempt to make the new units maintenance-free, and to stop the slums by force; but they turn out cold and sterile and again turn into slums, because nobody loves them.

 

or Turner and Fisher "The Freedom to Build" Macmillan 1972:

 

Even modified forms of rental can help the situation if they allow people to change their houses according to their needs and give people some financial stake in the process of maintenance. This helps, because renting is often a step along the way to home ownership; but unless tenants can somehow recover their investments in money and labor, the hopeless cycle of degeneration of rental property, and the degeneration of the tenants' financial capability will continue.

 

These deal primarily with housing - but the effect is similar for commercial properties and the effects are well documented. If my store owner's situation doesn't represent "degeneration of the tenants' financial capability" due to the actions of the REIT, I don't know what does.

Edited November 2, 2011 by retro-man

[RangerM]

Occupy Wall Street Kitchen Revolts Against Homeless Moochers

The complimentary cuisine at Occupy Wall Street has been widely lauded for its surprising sophistication and gourmet varietynot counting a mixed review from curmudgeonly critic Steve Cuozzo, of course. Volunteers toil for as many as 18 hours a day to prepare three square meals for the hungry dissidents. And they're doing such a good job that word has spread among some of the city's homeless population that there's a soup kitchen in Zuccotti Park. In response, the kitchen workers are rising up and going on three day strike to send a message to the freeloadersthe ones who just a little too 99%.

 

The kitchen volunteers refused to serve any food whatsoever for two hours yesterday, and now one worker, Rafael Moreno, tells the Post, "We need to limit the amount of food were putting out." In an "exclusive" report, the Post says for the next three days the cooks will serve only brown rice "and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheeps-milk-cheese salad." Kitchen workers will also be handing out directions to soup kitchens to anyone suspected of being a mere vagrant, and not an activist.

 

'Occupy Wall Street' Kicks Hungry Homeless Out of Park

 

Irony: Occupy Wall Street Protesters Tired Of Homeless People Mooching And Not Pulling Their Weight

You can’t make this stuff up:

 

Enticed by the allure of free food and a community of open-minded people, increasing numbers are leaving New Yorks shelters to join the Occupy Wall Street protesters. ….

 

Nieves volunteers on Occupy Wall Streets security team, but says many new arrivals do not pull their weight.

 

We have compassion toward everyone. However, we have certain rules and guidelines, said Lauren Digioia, 26, a member of the sanitation committee.

 

If youre going to come here and get our food, bedding and clothing, have books and medical supplies for no charge, they need to give back, Digioia said. Theres a lot of takers here and they feel entitled.

 

Things that make you go............

Edited November 2, 2011 by RangerM

[xr7g428]

Retro, Honestly, except for the fact that writing is now probably an even worse profession financially than architecture, you have a gift. You do better research than most of the so called professional journalists I work around. Now if you tell me that your real talent is repairing fax machines, I am just going to start crying...

[retro-man]

You're very kind.

[Edstock]

Now if you tell me that your real talent is repairing fax machines, I am just going to start crying...

Me too, XR, me too — I just threw mine out in the garbage. Damn.

[30 OTT 6]

Retro, Honestly, except for the fact that writing is now probably an even worse profession financially than architecture, you have a gift. You do better research than most of the so called professional journalists I work around. Now if you tell me that your real talent is repairing fax machines, I am just going to start crying...

 

If you haven't already, you must see (the movie) Office Space for a detailed tutorial on fax machine repair.

[mettech]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK4s3ss8a5I

[xr7g428]

have you seen my red stapler?

[RangerM]

It's over there.

[Mark B. Morrow]

have you seen my red stapler?

 

 

Milt, we're gonna need to go ahead and move you downstairs into storage B. We have some new people coming in, and we need all the space we can get. So if you could just go ahead and pack up your stuff and move it down there, that would be terrific, OK?