My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence - #32
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2021
>
07/20/2021 Regular
>
Correspondence - #32
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2021 4:44:04 PM
Creation date
7/19/2021 4:44:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Date
7/20/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
and rent at a higher rate to new tenants. And $2,300 is not gonna pay for a deposit (generally two months' rent <br />for unfurnished units - again this is allowed by state law) on top of the first month's rent on a new place coupled <br />with moving costs. <br /> <br />p.p.s. If we were to argue that Tenants should somehow have enough in savings to be able to shoulder these <br />costs of relocation somehow and $2300 is just a cherry on top... why aren't we also holding landlords to this <br />same standard? If "investors" are so overleveraged on their properties that even a month or two of missed rent <br />puts them at risk of mortgage foreclosure (which isn't a process that takes place overnight btw... the LL might <br />even be able to short sell a property in a relatively quick time before the finance company can even file the case <br />in court...) or serious financial distress, then maybe this type of process shouldn't be allowed to exist. <br /> <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.