Landlord business (page 2)

Band on the Run

I studied English real property as the backdrop to American property law. Is it true that most Brits do not own their land outright but have a 1,000 year lease from the Queen?

Listener

They would possibly have to pay tax if they were landlords.

I don't think I would want to live in a complex run by the Washtowel Babble and Crap Slaveholdery. The rents would be exorbitant, and you would need permission for every little thing you do. You want a computer hookup? An extra 200 toilet papers a month per outlet. Cable? Expect to lose another 50 a month. And zero tolerance for things like Christmas lights in the hallways or apartments.

If it would be like that for worldly tenants, imagine what it would be for witlesses. First, I believe they would include responding to witlesses by studying and joining as part of the lease, legal or not. Once you are in, or if you are already in, they would expect you to pious-sneer. If you wish to keep your full time job so you have a bit of security, you could be looking for another place (have fun, since they would own everything). You are expected to work as few hours as possible, living a stripped down existence, so you can pious-sneer. And don't even think about keeping that tub of silver you bought late in 2008, because they would expect you to donate it to the Worldwide Pedophile Defense Fund or sell it at whatever you can get and use it to support the pious-sneers (of which you are supposed to be one).

It is bad enough to be in a regular apartment. Most of them are lax in maintenance (though I will claim responsibility for the negligence where my Christmas decorations were up, cleaning dust out from behind them, because the decorations prevented them from accessing those areas). They don't vacuum rugs in common areas (where they have open access to do so) enough. They use crap parts when repairing things within the apartments (and, in April 2011, they replaced all light bulbs with squiggly things--I declined because I had already done that, and more recently I replaced my squiggly things with LEDs that they refuse to buy). However, it's better than the washtowel does. I replaced 2 blown incandescent bulbs in the basement with LEDs before they could put squiggly things there. I place Christmas (and Halloween and Easter) decorations in the hall, and management actually appreciates it. People are allowed to own dogs and cats, albeit it does cost extra for rent. I have access to the Internet, which I had to get the landlord's approval for to retrofit my cable to accept Internet (and that took quite little time).

I don't think I would like not being able to go online at all. Or, display Christmas decorations within my apartment (and they keep barging in). Or having mandatory squiggly things after replacing them with superior LEDs that actually lower my electricity usage visibly. Or not being able to store silver or gold without a hassle. Or being censored because I have "a big-screen TV" (the big screen" is only 70 cm). Or having to have Kingdumb maladies going if they show up without notice to inspect things. Or to have them check my field circus time, and cross-reference to make sure it isn't fake. Or needing permission before getting simple things like batteries, battery chargers, a Fenix HP20 headlamp, LED lanterns, and hand-held emergency flashlights. Or having the rent keep going up because I am not doing enough or because some hounder decides that I should be held to arbitrary higher standards.

Phizzy

Dear Band, most of us in the U.K who own property, own it fully, however their are a good number of leasehold properties, and a good number where the property (building) may be owned freehold, but the land it stands upon is leased. A good number of buildings are on Crown land so those do pay at the minimum a Ground Rent to the Crown, who do not often sell land or property, though some newsworthy ones have been sold recently.

Still, the vast majority here who own property do so outright.

Back to the topic, I think the WT, despite having In House expertise, and being able to consult externally, are amazingly inept in business matters. They sell property at the wrong time etc

However attractive being Landlords may be from a profit point of view, I think that even they would not have the bare faced effrontery to engage in such enterprises, they have pointed the finger too often at the Catholic church and others for their great retained wealth, the WT has to maintain the fiction that they spend all their loot on the Worldwide Work, and as said above, cash is relatively easy to squirrel away out of sight.

Chaserious

If it would be like that for worldly tenants, imagine what it would be for witlesses.

By all accounts they were good landlords to the "worldly" tenants in the Bossert hotel. Didn't preach to them, let them put up holiday decorations on their apartments doors, maintained it well, etc. Probably not looking for any more bad PR in Brooklyn.

cliff

In the UK, most owned individual households (ie not blocks of appartments) are freehold, BUT it is rare to also own the mineral rights to anything below ground level.

Balaamsass

They have a free (slave) labor pool for building new facilities upstate for pennies on the dollar.

The cash they recieve can be moved around offshore, safe from legal judgments.

Now they are in the hedge fund business, if they can get the money managed in friendly countries, they can avoid U.S. Securities regulators and employ insider trading tactics if needed (theocratic strategy).

Can you imagine the potential hedge fund profits on one Billion dollars with little regulation ?

JakeM2012

Where there is that kind of money, especially when it is more liquid than real estate, there is corruption. They've been taken before.

Think About It