Posted by jay on June 23, 1997 at 04:52:54:
In Reply to: Boycott us ? ho-hum (yawn) posted by Jay on June 23, 1997 at 02:34:10:
My entire point is:
1) most upstate new yorkers aren't going to really understand what the fuss
is all about,and therefore wouldn't be too sympathetic towards the issue.
especially if their daily bread is threatened.
2)Upstates economy and job market is so bad that the economic boycott
probably wouldn't do much more than give pataki a reason to raise taxes
due to the increased welfare load it would cause by putting even more people
out of work.
3)forcing landlords to keep rents below fair market value while forcing other tenants to take up the slack seems to be unfair
4) the problem with older folks not having enough money to live on is the
fault of the social security dept. they are paid benefits based on wages
that they worked at 50 cents, maybe a buck an hour. yet those same jobs today pay 10.00 an hour.
the social security funds have been robbed for other things, and there is enough money in it.
as far as "inheriting" a lease that is set grossly below present market value,if the lease was for a set period of time, o.k.,
I could see it. but just to continually pass it on without taking inflation into account,seems to be nuts.
Unless it was for purchase with a prepetual care deal attached to it.
On the other hand, landlords who purchase these buildings with these leases,should be aware of them,and shouldn't
buy them if they feel they can't make money with them.
In western Ny the Senaca Indians had a lease deal that ran out,(if you weren't an inian you had to pay on the lease)
it was 99 years long.it ran out.
the indians were willing to renew the lease at present market value,some objected, they had to move eventually.
what sounds like a possible solution to some of your problems might be this:
A landlord shouldn't be able to charge more than fair market value. for an apartment.
by the same token,a landlord should be able to get a subsidy from the government to pay the difference between
those old leases and present market value.
landlords should be compelled to keep rental units in livable condition, tenants should be held responsible for damages.
To assist landlords in updating buildings, we have progams like fha, HUD, etc.
Until we, as a people realize that the government is for the people,and by the people,that the government is here to serve
us, not the other way around, and act as one accordingly, we will continue to have these problems.
I'm just guessing, but a boycott would only do the following: create a glut on the upstae market, lowering the price farmers are
paid for their product on a wholesale level,and creating unemployment.When the boycott lifted,big business would try to make up
for lost profits by selling products for a higher price,while paying a lower price to the farmer.
I get this mental picture of politicians and big business sitting around figuring out how to profit from our squabbling.
A lawyer I know once said to me there are only a few things in life that are really important,and after long thought,
I figured those to be a secure home, a warm meal and someone to go through life with.
Your housing issue is very complicated and I can't begin to give you more than simple common sense solutions,
but I'm fairly sure that the solution is not to also cause problems within the state economy by boycotting your own local food supply.
boy, the jokes have already started! we heard tell that ny had a dog crap problem. Well, if you boycott the food, you could always eat the dogs,
then you won't have a dog crap problem, you won't have to pay people to clean up the streets or run the dog pounds, thereby lowering property taxes,
which might lower your rents!
after all, how many chickens, cows, and vegatables can you raise in an apartment? Bon Apetit!
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup