House crisis

The video below was done by a comedian. I don’t agree with everything he says, some I do.

How many people no longer rent properties because government told tenants they don’t have to pay, they don’t have to pay the water bill, and they can’t be evicted? Government created a housing shortage with stupidity that should have launched class action lawsuits!

This video doesn’t mention any of that:

7 thoughts on “House crisis

  1. Good video. I have sold 4 duplex rentals in the past five years. Just not worth it anymore. Sky high real estate taxes and property insurance are major problems. Greatly inflated supply and labor costs are another reason. Finally, regulation at the federal, state and local level make other investments much more attractive.

    1. It’s not worth it living in a place that allows squatters, people to avoid eviction, and then not to pay their utilities with no recourse.

      Take advantage of the rising property values and reinvest when the market plummets. We aren’t moving, so the increasing property values just means we pay more in taxes without the roads being fixed. We have a mega-million dollar pool we’ll never use though.

      I’d rather the money be used to incentivize a developer to do something with the mall and get that property value up.

    2. Last time I checked, being a landlord wasn’t a job. These are the consequences of your financial descisions. Of course there are risks invovled in being a landlord. Somehow, you want to blame others for those risks affecting yoy. Maybe you should learn to work and not be a lazy freeloader stealing people’s money, just so they can have a roof over their heads. Get a job!

      1. If being a landlord is not a job, I’m interested to hear what exactly it is that all the people working for Young America, First Site, etc are doing.

      2. It can be a job or an investment. Hopefully the latter. Sometimes it’s a job when the tenants have no respect or human decency and destroy the property, forcing, massive costly repairs to house another family in need of a home.

  2. We saw the scenario play out locally, of using the “historical” tag on a building to block owners from action on their own property….
    When State Farm Insurance tried to teardown a building they were no longer using because it was very old and in need of very costly repairs
    /maintenance. A certain group of individuals in the community scurried around to stop this business from moving forward with their plan to take down the building.
    I don’t remember for sure, but I think the group was successful in having the old State Farm building declared a historical building – in the name of “saving” it

    The fact is the building was for sale for a very long time without a new owner. The building is OLD (built in 1929) and has inadequate parking… the list of problems with the building is long – that is the reason it did not sell.

    I have a feeling that tax payer money was involved or will be involved in the future of the State Farm building.

    Look over in Danville, IL at the downtown building called: Bresse Towers
    A similar scenario – very old building (built in 1918) and in need of constant repairs. There is so much past-due maintenance, the building is literally falling down and folks are STILL arguing to keep it!

    Maintenance is EXPENSIVE!! And necessary no matter the age of a structure!
    LOL =)

Leave a Reply