Seattle's war on landlords

Bob_C

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-landlords-must-give-voter-registration-info-to-new-renters-city-council-decides/

Isn't it required that every time you move you must update your address with the DOL? Seems like the logical point to disperse voter information...

Someone please tell me how all of the various recent landlord requirement laws enacted by the city council are actually net benefits to renters over the long term? Other main example being the 1st come, 1st serve application acceptance. Obvious effect here is that risk goes up for landlords who in turn are required to raise rents to cover risk which then further shrinks the pool of qualified applicants...

GrundleStiltzkin

Who the fuck are you?

doogie

Don't rent your property out until the first applican't is the renter you want

dnc

Kaepsknee

Bob_C said:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-landlords-must-give-voter-registration-info-to-new-renters-city-council-decides/

Isn't it required that every time you move you must update your address with the DOL? Seems like the logical point to disperse voter information...

Someone please tell me how all of the various recent landlord requirement laws enacted by the city council are actually net benefits to renters over the long term? Other main example being the 1st come, 1st serve application acceptance. Obvious effect here is that risk goes up for landlords who in turn are required to raise rents to cover risk which then further shrinks the pool of qualified applicants...

I'd just employ some Jewish lightning and the collect the ca$h and be done with it if I owned units in Seattle that are effected by this.

Bob_C

That's what is happening...Since landlords can no longer pick the best renters from a pool of applicants regardless of order applied, landlords are just increasing requirements in terms of income, credit scores and rents.

My question was how are all these requirements actually benefitting the people the SCC is claiming to want to protect? Increased regulatory risk will always get passed back to the consumer. Other alternative is for landlords to sell which further decreases supply or creates newer even higher rents.

pawz

Bob_C said:

That's what is happening...Since landlords can no longer pick the best renters from a pool of applicants regardless of order applied, landlords are just increasing requirements in terms of income, credit scores and rents.

My question was how are all these requirements actually benefitting the people the SCC is claiming to want to protect? Increased regulatory risk will always get passed back to the consumer. Other alternative is for landlords to sell which further decreases supply or creates newer even higher rents.

STOP! LEAVE!


You are using logic. Not Hondo approved.

Pitchfork51

Bob_C said:

That's what is happening...Since landlords can no longer pick the best renters from a pool of applicants regardless of order applied, landlords are just increasing requirements in terms of income, credit scores and rents.

My question was how are all these requirements actually benefitting the people the SCC is claiming to want to protect? Increased regulatory risk will always get passed back to the consumer. Other alternative is for landlords to sell which further decreases supply or creates newer even higher rents.

But think how many less feelings they will hurt!

2001400ex

pawz said:

Bob_C said:

That's what is happening...Since landlords can no longer pick the best renters from a pool of applicants regardless of order applied, landlords are just increasing requirements in terms of income, credit scores and rents.

My question was how are all these requirements actually benefitting the people the SCC is claiming to want to protect? Increased regulatory risk will always get passed back to the consumer. Other alternative is for landlords to sell which further decreases supply or creates newer even higher rents.

STOP! LEAVE!


You are using logic. Not Hondo approved.

Free pub!!!

Mosster47

Pitchfork51 said:

Bob_C said:

That's what is happening...Since landlords can no longer pick the best renters from a pool of applicants regardless of order applied, landlords are just increasing requirements in terms of income, credit scores and rents.

My question was how are all these requirements actually benefitting the people the SCC is claiming to want to protect? Increased regulatory risk will always get passed back to the consumer. Other alternative is for landlords to sell which further decreases supply or creates newer even higher rents.

But think how many less feelings they will hurt!

Homeless and safe is way better than having a place to live while being offended.

doogie

Bob_C said:

That's what is happening...Since landlords can no longer pick the best renters from a pool of applicants regardless of order applied, landlords are just increasing requirements in terms of income, credit scores and rents.

My question was how are all these requirements actually benefitting the people the SCC is claiming to want to protect? Increased regulatory risk will always get passed back to the consumer. Other alternative is for landlords to sell which further decreases supply or creates newer even higher rents.

Kshama Sawant can pick renters better than any rent seeking capitalist can. Added bonus is, Sawant will choose renters to make Seattle Great Again, rather than for profits she can't tax.

Kaepsknee

doogie said:

Bob_C said:

That's what is happening...Since landlords can no longer pick the best renters from a pool of applicants regardless of order applied, landlords are just increasing requirements in terms of income, credit scores and rents.

My question was how are all these requirements actually benefitting the people the SCC is claiming to want to protect? Increased regulatory risk will always get passed back to the consumer. Other alternative is for landlords to sell which further decreases supply or creates newer even higher rents.

Kshama Sawant can pick renters better than any rent seeking capitalist can. Added bonus is, Sawant will choose renters to make Seattle Great Again, rather than for profits she can't tax.

I support Sheela Rajneeshi.

doogie

look at the bright side; at least when she steals your shit to give to a starving child from India, she really means it.