Race in America: The Marital Counselor Analogy

[RZehr]

What prevents a grumpy landlord from selling to an LLC, trust, etc. as a way to raise rents?

I'm guessing nothing. But I think that they would have to evict the existing tenant, and then raise the rent for the new tenant. And the original tenant (as I understand it) has to be given a 90 day notice, and the clock can't start until a purchase agreement is signed. Can't evict in order to list for sale, only can give the 90 day eviction papers after an actual buyer is had.

If the existing tenant is not evicted, then my understanding is that the new owner cannot increase the rental rate beyond the legal limit.

[Josh]

What prevents a grumpy landlord from selling to an LLC, trust, etc. as a way to raise rents?

I'm guessing nothing. But I think that they would have to evict the existing tenant, and then raise the rent for the new tenant. And the original tenant (as I understand it) has to be given a 90 day notice, and the clock can't start until a purchase agreement is signed. Can't evict in order to list for sale, only can give the 90 day eviction papers after an actual buyer is had.

If the existing tenant is not evicted, then my understanding is that the new owner cannot increase the rental rate beyond the legal limit.

So as I see it:

#1. Form LLC (probably one where you aren't the majority member, but the contract can otherwise be written to ensure this)
#2. Arrange purchase agreement with LLC. Ownership changes hands. (There may be significant taxes for this event, in Ohio this costs a few hundred dollars and usually means you need new title insurance.)
#3. Give tenant 90 day notice.
#4. Evict tenant, or else new LLC rents to the new tenant.
#5. Raise rates.
#6. $$$ Profit

The above is probably only suitable for the bigger for profit companies that can afford teams of accountants, lawyers, and administrators.

[RZehr]

What prevents a grumpy landlord from selling to an LLC, trust, etc. as a way to raise rents?

I'm guessing nothing. But I think that they would have to evict the existing tenant, and then raise the rent for the new tenant. And the original tenant (as I understand it) has to be given a 90 day notice, and the clock can't start until a purchase agreement is signed. Can't evict in order to list for sale, only can give the 90 day eviction papers after an actual buyer is had.

If the existing tenant is not evicted, then my understanding is that the new owner cannot increase the rental rate beyond the legal limit.

So as I see it:

#1. Form LLC (probably one where you aren't the majority member, but the contract can otherwise be written to ensure this)
#2. Arrange purchase agreement with LLC. Ownership changes hands. (There may be significant taxes for this event, in Ohio this costs a few hundred dollars and usually means you need new title insurance.)
#3. Give tenant 90 day notice.
#4. Evict tenant, or else new LLC rents to the new tenant.
#5. Raise rates.
#6. $$$ Profit

The above is probably only suitable for the bigger for profit companies that can afford teams of accountants, lawyers, and administrators.

Yes, my understanding is that those steps would be acceptable.

[Josh]

Yes, my understanding is that those steps would be acceptable.

It's really a shame that corporate law etc. allows that kind of thing to be acceptable too, which completely sidesteps the spirit of the law. IMO, people should do business in their own names and it should be very clear who owns a company.

[ohio jones]

#1. Form LLC (probably one where you aren't the majority member, but the contract can otherwise be written to ensure this)
#2. Arrange purchase agreement with LLC. Ownership changes hands. (There may be significant taxes for this event, in Ohio this costs a few hundred dollars and usually means you need new title insurance.)

If you're essentially selling to yourself, the price can be low enough to punt the taxable gain forward to the next sale.

[RZehr]

Maybe if the marital counseling works, the one spouse could simply sell it to the other spouse. Tying the current topic to the initial topic.

[Soloist]

Maybe if the marital counseling works, the one spouse could simply sell it to the other spouse. Tying the current topic to the initial topic.

They need to, those counselors are expensive

[RZehr]

Maybe if the marital counseling works, the one spouse could simply sell it to the other spouse. Tying the current topic to the initial topic.

They need to, those counselors are expensive

If the sale price was low enough to the other spouse, that may also work to enhance their relationship for the better.

[Soloist]

If the sale price was low enough to the other spouse, that may also work to enhance their relationship for the better.

Counselors that good are too expensive for this couple to afford.

[Bootstrap]

A marital counsellor usually doesn’t let one spouse blame 100% of its problems on the other and then hold one spouse to be at fault for the other spouse’s bad behaviour.

Precisely. That's a central point of my analogy.

And it is why your analogy is inaccurate when it comes to race in America.

Just to give one example to make the point. Here is a long story about a certain well-known landlord in New York City who notoriously discriminated against Blacks ...

So you think we should put the blame entirely on one side, always treating blacks as innocent victims of whites? And you have some examples of bad behavior by whites, but none of bad behavior by blacks?

I think that's the problem I'm talking about. People separate into their own camps, blaming the other. Instead of coming together and working things out together. Especially on the national level, I think. In my city, we see blacks and whites working things out at the city government level, in the county, in the schools. Look at our national media. Each side often polarizes race and make it an identity issue - for both whites and blacks - and erupts in blame at the other. On the one side, they claim that they do not see race but simply can't stop talking about it in very emotional tones, it's clearly a big issue on their minds. On the other side, they are building a theology of wokeness and are nervous about facing the complexities of race and class and discussing the importance of personal responsibility. One side emphasizes how much they care about black lives, the other emphasizes how much they care about police lives and law and order, it's hard to find mature discussion that takes both seriously. That's a problem.

As a country, I think we are moving backwards on race. And a big part of that is that we are having a harder time discussing these things in ways that can lead to real solutions. I don't think either a police state or a completely woke society will solve the problems of inner city poverty. I do think there are things society can do that make a difference. But they aren't a prominent part of our discussion. We're too busy blaming each other and taking sides.

Like a married couple who can't balance their budget because they are too busy arguing about whose fault it is. They never get down to the business of calmly talking through income and expenses and making wise choices.