hank.walker@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU (08/05/86)
Anyone who thinks that owners won't run down property have had either limited experience or incredible luck with landlords. If the landlord truly cared about long-term value, or leaving the best possible property for their kids, they would keep it up. In fact I have had landlords whose conscious policy was to run an apartment into the ground, so that ideally it had zero value on the day they died. Not all landlords are like this, but some are. In some cases, running into the ground means destroying the value of the land for a long time, such as creating a bogus toxic waste dump. It only takes one in a long string of owners to do this. -------
kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/10/86)
There is no rent control in Pittsburgh, nor do they build toxic waste dumps. My point was that land owners often do things that do not make long-term economic sense because the consequences are beyond their planning horizon. I was trying to deflate these odes to land owners that I was hearing. -------
kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/10/86)
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
My point was that land owners often do things that do not make
long-term economic sense because the consequences are beyond their
planning horizon.
I have seen little evidence for long term government planning. By
long term I mean anything past the next election. At least landlords
are interested in the property for their expected lifetime.
Not that it would matter if the evidence was otherwise. The point
is that the owner of a thing, whether the thing be land or whatever,
is the owner and has control. He is not a trustee, holding the land
in trust for the benefit of the tenants, potential future tenants, the
government, or whoever. If he wants to chase everyone out when their
lease expires and turn it into a toxic waste dump, that is his
perogative (so long as he can guarantee none of the toxic waste
escapes from his land). Not that I have heard of many landlords doing
that!
I was trying to deflate these odes to land owners that I was
hearing.
It is not that I am terribly fond of land owners, and it is not
that I have any vested interest. I don't own any land, and I rent
an apartment and have been doing so for many years, during which
time the rent has nearly doubled. It is simply that I don't think
that the land really belongs to the government or the tenants, and
I cannot and will not condone robbery or slavery, however soft the
velvet glove that contains the iron fist.
I get the impression that we are talking past eachother. I think I
understand what you are saying, but you don't seem to understand what
I am saying. To make sure I understand you, let me try to paraphrase
what I think your position might be:
1) Land cannot really belong to anyone but the government. The
government allows the semblance of private ownership for
efficiency's sake, but always retains the real title. Government
can and should decide how each parcel of land should be utilized,
and should take an especially agressive role if the landlord
seems to be doing something unreasonable with the land.
2) The landlord really does own the land. But government has the
power to interfere in this ownership if it thinks it knows better
than the landlord. Similarly, it can interfere with any
transaction and lifestyle based on the whim of congress or even the
whim of unelected Nth agency bureaucrats. The citizens should
cooperate with this in all cases, as it is the citizen's duty to be
subservient to the State in all cases.
3) The free enterprise system is good, but landlords are not a part
of it. Renting out apartments is actually a form of extortion or
other coercion and the landlords should be punshed.
Please tell me which of these (if any) represents your position,
and we can continue from there.
...Keith
-------