The Rent On Their Honest Tenants

The problems that arise from housing are numerous. Housing takes up more than half of all real property tax. Not only that, it’s also the largest issue in a family’s budget. The federal government spent $38 billion in preferential subsidies and $2 trillion on housing in total in the year 2006. Rigid zoning codes prohibit certain types of housing from being built. This prevents some citizens from being provided with homes that fit their budget and ads to the chronic problem of homelessness our communities face. Too many houses can crowd neighborhoods and make transit difficult. They can also obstruct view and, when foreclosed upon, lead to plummeting property values.

Every New Yorker has the right to a safe and affordable place to live in. New York’s shortage of affordable housing has reached a crisis point. Poor and elderly people throughout New York City are at a greater risk of homelessness and forced low-income residents do not have food or medical care to stay in their homes. A sinful structure of homelessness in New York City is New York’s shortage of affordable housing. Millions of New Yorkers are desperate to find affordable housing and tens of thousands are forced to live either in dirty shelters or on the streets. Recent data indicates that nearly 60,000 people, including more than 23,000 children, stay in the city’s main homeless shelter system (Guelpa). A small amount of poor renter households received a housing subsidy from the local government. Little assistance is being provided which means that most poor families and individuals that seek assistance

As if all of the more or less hidden fees were not bad enough, young, single, and poor families able to find a rental property are often discriminated against. Landlords tend to use factors such as income and credit history in determining who gets their rental property Richer families end up doing better with rent control laws because of this. Poorer people who make up a larger part of the population end up out of a house to live in.

For the past fifty years the shift from meeting the housing needs of the poor through government projects-based housing to a more individual approach, has been slowly implemented. Housing vouchers now enable underprivileged populations to move from high-poverty, segregated neighborhoods to more un-segregated, low-poverty neighborhoods. Low-poverty neighborhoods have less crime, better opportunities for employment, and more diverse schooling options. Some housing advocates however, contend that housing assistance is unnecessary and is an income subsidy that should be combined with other social safety nets (Clark, W. 2008).

Since the impact of homelessness varies depending on the population and setting people are in, state and local leaders have a greater ability than the federal government to judge what actions need to be taken to help the homeless. Unfortunately, many communities have put more effort into hiding or keeping out people affected by homelessness rather than ending homelessness itself. One example is laws that work against the homeless rather than help them. Not only do these laws discourage the homeless from seeking help but they also discourage agencies and local officials from providing that help. “In recent years, there has been an increase in the enactment of laws and ordinances intended to regulate the activities of the homeless people” (“Dealing

“Supporters of strict laws barring behavior associated with the homeless argue that allowing large numbers of homeless people to commit quality-of-life offenses in urban neighborhoods is unfair to those who work, live, and play in those neighborhoods” (“Homelessness”).Allowing homeless people to linger in communities is unjust to the people who live there and work there. “Proponents of housing first note that the cost of providing homeless people with apartments is far less than the cost of letting them remain on the street” (“Homelessness”).It costs less to house the homeless rather than to let them stay on the street. “Housing first, they contend, has demonstrated that chronically homeless people are not beyond help but just require permanent housing before they can properly address mental or physical disabilities” (“Homelessness”).Housing first will help address a homeless person’s problems and will have permanent housing for the

Those who cannot afford the high prices of housing are often forced out into the streets where they face a very uncertain future due to the number of abuses they encounter daily from all walks of life, with the most damning being the vagrancy laws that come into vogue in areas that are getting gentrified, which many cities have passed to “protect” their newfound assets and tax base from the “lowering” of property values. Furthermore, when cities such as Los Angeles demand that property developers set aside affordable housing for lower income people, they get sued in court, such as in 2009, when real estate developer Geoffrey Palmer successfully sued in order to overturned an ordnance which required that. This was also the same man who also proposed building a footbridge connecting two of his buildings to minimize contact with people he deemed undesirable (Davis).

In “The Complexities and Processes of Racial Housing discrimination” by Vincent J. Roscigno, Diana L. Karafin, and Griff tester, the main concept of racial disparity and inequality among neighborhoods is discussed, and how those inequalities became to be. They first highlight the wide range of potentially exclusionary practices, through qualitative and quantitative data comprised of over 750 verified housing discrimination cases (Roscigno, p. 162). Citing the U.S. Census, it is found that Blacks, compared to Hispanics and Asians, continue to experience high levels of residential segregation. This is done through discriminatory practices, whether they be by exclusionary or non-exclusionary methods. Even after the passing of the Fair Housing Act in 1988, discrimination against Blacks and Hispanics decreased somewhat, though African Americans still appeared to take part in racial steering, and Hispanics continued to have limitations in regards to opportunities and access to rental units (Roscigno, p. 163).

It is often easy to castigate large cities or third world countries as failures in the field of affordable housing, yet the crisis, like an invisible cancer, manifests itself in many forms, plaguing both urban and suburban areas. Reformers have wrestled passionately with the issue for centuries, revealing the severity of the situation in an attempt for change, while politicians have only responded with band aid solutions. Unfortunately, the housing crisis easily fades from our memory, replaced by visions of homeless vets, or starving children. Metropolis magazine explains that “…though billions of dollars are spent each year on housing and development programs worldwide, ? At least 1 billion people

   To save their homes from becoming open land, the nine petitioners sued New London and Pfizter Inc., to whom New London has given eminent domain power. The petitioners argue that what incorporation is doing, and what the government of the state has allowed violates their fifth amendment rights. Petitioners are not arguing about the fact of a new

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that housing is a fundamental component to a decent standard of living, yet few city governments--even in the most developed economies--have proven themselves capable of ensuring such a basic right to their constituents (United Nations, General Assembly). Ranked 49th among the 50 U.S. states for its number of housing units per capita, California has notoriously struggled with chronic shortages in its urban housing market. With 118,142 homeless people recorded in 2016, California holds almost 22% of the nation’s homeless population (Fact Sheet: Homelessness in California 1).

The Leno Amendment can help solve some of the issues that surround the act, by imposing new restrictions and regulations that will hopefully reduce the number of “casualties”. In imposing fines for violations of the act and limiting the number of times the act can be enforced, California is headed in the right direction. However, it has some missteps, such as the lack of time extension for evicted tenants to find new homes. Despite this, the Leno Amendment is the right choice for California. As the Leno Amendment attempts to aid the financial situation of the tenants by giving them more time to relocate, as well as being paid relocation fees, the state of California is attempting to even out the wealth gap. The landlords gained the most money and made up smaller, but wealthier end of the spectrum, whereas the tenants gained the least, and made up the poor majority while the Ellis Act is in place. However, with the aid of the Leno Amendment, California is not only addressing the issue of greed and high tenant evictions, it is also taking a progressive step forward in the fight against the wealth

In my work respect is key. As I manage my rentals, I treat my tenants with respect. I always stand by written and verbal agreements and honor contracts. However, when the need is there to go above and beyond, I will. I communicate with them while being careful to meet needs that arise. If they have an issue I put myself in their place and strive to be honorable in trying to fix the issue. Because there is mutual respect I have had old tenants or their family members over the years, call and check to see if I have a property available because they want to rent from me again. Being a landlord is not just about receiving rental income every month but it is also about caring and respecting the tenants.

One of the reasons that many people rent is because they want to save money. However, if you are not careful, then you could easily end up spending money unnecessarily while you are renting. There are many things that you can do that will save you money.

In Grootboom the Court was faced with the issue of a group of displaced squatters, who felt that their rights under sections 26 (everyone has right to adequate housing) and 28 (1) (c) (every child has right shelter) were being violated. The Court’s ruling found that the government was not meetings its obligations under sections 26 (2) of the Constitution, which required that the state take measures to increase access to housing; specifically the Court noted that the state had especially failed in providing any sort of aid to those poor who were in desperate need of places to live. Thus the Court issued an order declaring that the state devise and implement a program to