|
On April 02 2020 21:20 Sr18 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 06:05 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2020 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 05:46 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2020 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 04:45 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2020 04:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 04:09 LegalLord wrote:On April 02 2020 03:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Who do you expect to enforce those evictions and what extent of force would you condone were those renters to defend themselves from being thrown into the street?
The standard legal process is appropriate. Landlord follows the standard process to get an eviction order, and let the court enforce that order the way they normally would. You're clearly trying to build up towards a bigger point; might as well make that point instead of doing it piecemeal. I'm taking care not to assume anything about your argument and make sure I understand it correctly. So when the police come to evict and the tenants refuse, what extent of force would you condone the police using to remove them. Lethal? Would you have the police kill tenants that refuse to be left to live on the streets? All state force is ultimately backed by lethal force but it would be inaccurate to describe anyone advocating for property rights to be enforced as advocating for the execution of anyone who does not comply, even if sufficient violent resistance to the state did ultimately result in death. If it's good for the state it's good for the tenant, no? It would also be inaccurate to describe anyone advocating for human rights (Art. 25) as advocating for the execution of anyone who does not comply, even if sufficient violent resistance by the state did ultimately result in death. Those ideals create a burden on the state to achieve them, they do not give license for individuals to occupy the houses of other individuals. We’re also moving past the point which is that the thing where person A says “I think there should be a law against something relatively minor” and then person B, here played by you, says “so you think the police should kill anyone who does that minor thing! You’re a monster!” and then person A says they never said that but person B argues that because all laws are backed by state force and that violent resistance of state force results in death then really that is what they argued for is a stupid argument. It’s a stupid argument and you shouldn’t be trying it. Yes, all laws are ultimately enforced at gun point. No, that doesn’t mean that people should be shot if they don’t leave any more than it means jaywalkers should be shot. Which is my point. Rent strikers have the leverage and unless the people doing the evicting/supporting it think people should get shot for not leaving, then they don't get evicted. No they don’t. It’s not the trespass that gets them shot, it’s the violent resistance to the police attempting to remove them when they’re trespassing. While people are generally not okay with police shooting people for trespass they become much warmer when police shoot people for resisting, regardless of the original cause. Furthermore the police seem to like shooting people quite a lot and so the proposed leverage (people don’t want the homeless to be shot) doesn’t work as well as you’d hope. While the public may eventually demand reform as the police flood the streets with blood that doesn’t help the dead very much. For them to have leverage they would need to be more willing to die for the cause than the police are to shoot them. Most people generally don’t want to die that badly. Well that's where a global pandemic and collapsing economy comes in. It shifts the perception of everything. The reason the Governors are the ones stopping evictions right now is that they know despite the "rules" saying the landlords should be able to evict, they would lose control of the situation rapidly if they allowed landlords and police the discretion to enforce evictions at their will. Also why Republican governors are less likely to do it because they implicitly trust those parties and, like the virus, aren't going to realize the storm they're brewing till it kicks them in the metaphorical face. The key for tenants is organizing so they can keep the leverage when the pandemic abates and if/when the economy recovers. Ensuring that after months of rent freezes and whatever they are collectively represented in the solution instead of getting shafted by pitting us against each other like usual. EDIT: I'd add that at least notionally (ymmv) most all states are still allowing eviction procedures for things that aren't paying rent. You might be overthinking this. Evictions are very disruptive to the lifes of those evicted, often disabling them for some time from being productive members of society. As a society, you therefore create rules to only allow evictions in special cases. Not paying rent normally qualifies. If not being able to pay rent is a temporary condition caused by a temporary global crisis, it only makes sense to temporarily stop evictions that are based on this condition. This is politically neutral and just good governence.
I disagree. The financial crisis from 08 is a good example of that not being the case.
|
On April 02 2020 21:52 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 17:10 Velr wrote:
Reads like a pretty standard letter to me, I would even put it on the nicer side? I don't see how it is especially outrageous or anything of the sort.
If you want a general change due to extraordinary events/corona it has to come from the goverment, not from each individual landlord.
Yeah, besides the "still due" being in caps and maybe the "this is very important" at the end, I don't find it strange either. I would assume that this letter came about after a few resident contacted them asking if april would be different because of corona.
Yeah, it doesn't strike me as being rude. Unprofessional yes, what with all the exclamation marks, but I can only presume that the property manager recieved many calls to the effect that the renters will not be paying rent, and wants to make sure that renters are paying rent so they do not have to try to evict them from their homes when they could had paid.
|
I have to write similar letters from time to time and seriously (refusing demands for payment delays), using unprofessional words and writing as if your talking to a 5 year old often is the only thing that sticks. If you stay in purely professional lingo, often you just get a second demand with 0 change in the proposal or what basically is a "but why?!".
|
I've gotten something fairly similar. It's just the standard way of saying, "we still expect you to pay your rent."
Frankly it strikes me as a sign of fear from the landlord / property manager. They're worried enough about people not making their rent that they feel they need to try to explicitly scare folks into paying.
|
On April 02 2020 23:30 LegalLord wrote:
I've gotten something fairly similar. It's just the standard way of saying, "we still expect you to pay your rent."
Frankly it strikes me as a sign of fear from the landlord / property manager. They're worried enough about people not making their rent that they feel they need to try to explicitly scare folks into paying.
Yeah, it is definitely a threat. Everyone that can't afford to pay can expect to be evicted (if/when not protected by the law) and they should organize together imo to protect themselves. What's probable to happen is the landlord will get bailed out and will still expect to get double compensated. The people that can afford to pay rent and do turn into the equivalent of scabs during a labor strike from my perspective.
|
On April 02 2020 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 23:30 LegalLord wrote:
I've gotten something fairly similar. It's just the standard way of saying, "we still expect you to pay your rent."
Frankly it strikes me as a sign of fear from the landlord / property manager. They're worried enough about people not making their rent that they feel they need to try to explicitly scare folks into paying. Yeah, it is definitely a threat. Everyone that can't afford to pay can expect to be evicted (if/when not protected by the law) and they should organize together imo to protect themselves. What's probable to happen is the landlord will get bailed out and will still expect to get double compensated. The people that can afford to pay rent and do turn into the equivalent of scabs during a labor strike from my perspective.
Scabs huh. Glad you think so highly of people.
|
On April 02 2020 23:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 23:30 LegalLord wrote:
I've gotten something fairly similar. It's just the standard way of saying, "we still expect you to pay your rent."
Frankly it strikes me as a sign of fear from the landlord / property manager. They're worried enough about people not making their rent that they feel they need to try to explicitly scare folks into paying. Yeah, it is definitely a threat. Everyone that can't afford to pay can expect to be evicted (if/when not protected by the law) and they should organize together imo to protect themselves. What's probable to happen is the landlord will get bailed out and will still expect to get double compensated. The people that can afford to pay rent and do turn into the equivalent of scabs during a labor strike from my perspective. Scabs huh. Glad you think so highly of people.
It's a labor term in case you're not familiar.
Alternatively they could organize with the people that are going to put out on the street because of not making rent amid a global pandemic and economic stand-still instead of just making sure they keep their own place. That's what I'm doing anyway.
|
United States43666 Posts
On April 02 2020 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 23:30 LegalLord wrote:
I've gotten something fairly similar. It's just the standard way of saying, "we still expect you to pay your rent."
Frankly it strikes me as a sign of fear from the landlord / property manager. They're worried enough about people not making their rent that they feel they need to try to explicitly scare folks into paying. Yeah, it is definitely a threat. Everyone that can't afford to pay can expect to be evicted (if/when not protected by the law) and they should organize together imo to protect themselves. What's probable to happen is the landlord will get bailed out and will still expect to get double compensated. The people that can afford to pay rent and do turn into the equivalent of scabs during a labor strike from my perspective.
People have signed a contract giving them a legal obligation to pay rent in exchange for receiving an obligation from the property owner to provide access to the property. It’s one thing to not sell your labour during a strike in order to avoid undermining the union, it’s quite another to unilaterally break the contract that provides you somewhere to live without cause.
People should fulfill their contractual commitments. People who cannot due to macroeconomic circumstances outside of their control have a pretty great excuse and have my support. They’re not choosing to steal housing from the people who own the houses, they’re literally unable to pay, their hands are tied. But if you can pay and choose not to then you’re essentially no different from the dipshit looting designer shoes during a bread riot.
|
On April 03 2020 00:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 23:30 LegalLord wrote:
I've gotten something fairly similar. It's just the standard way of saying, "we still expect you to pay your rent."
Frankly it strikes me as a sign of fear from the landlord / property manager. They're worried enough about people not making their rent that they feel they need to try to explicitly scare folks into paying. Yeah, it is definitely a threat. Everyone that can't afford to pay can expect to be evicted (if/when not protected by the law) and they should organize together imo to protect themselves. What's probable to happen is the landlord will get bailed out and will still expect to get double compensated. The people that can afford to pay rent and do turn into the equivalent of scabs during a labor strike from my perspective. People have signed a contract giving them a legal obligation to pay rent in exchange for receiving an obligation from the property owner to provide access to the property. It’s one thing to not sell your labour during a strike in order to avoid undermining the union, it’s quite another to unilaterally break the contract that provides you somewhere to live without cause. People should fulfill their contractual commitments. People who cannot due to macroeconomic circumstances outside of their control have a pretty great excuse and have my support. They’re not choosing to steal housing from the people who own the houses, they’re literally unable to pay, their hands are tied. But if you can pay and choose not to then you’re essentially no different from the dipshit looting designer shoes during a bread riot.
A fair disagreement. I'd argue capitalism serves as duress invalidating them, though I doubt a court would (but evicted people might) agree.
Just not paying I might agree resembles the luxury looter, but I'm advocating they use their resources to aid in the organizing of the crude equivalent of a tenants union to protect themselves and those less fortunate from being exploited by a landlord and system that will in all likelihood protect and aid the landlord.
If nothing else I'd feel like a sucker paying rent when others aren't AND the landlord is going to be bailed out anyway. Paying in this example is like buying the luxury shoes during the riot and then donating them back to the store to make up for the stolen ones that are covered by their insurance anyway.
|
If you would replace "capitalism" with "the world we life in" your post would make just as much sense. But it would make it clearer as to how big the "change" your proposing is.
|
On April 03 2020 04:15 Velr wrote:
If you would replace "capitalism" with "the world we life in" your post would make just as much sense. But it would make it clearer as to how big the "change" your proposing is.
That phenomena is what the word "hegemonic" is typically referring to. When people realize "that's life" is usually a euphemism for "that's capitalism" and that we don't have to have live in a capitalist world it is quite a liberating experience imo.
|
On April 03 2020 00:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2020 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 23:30 LegalLord wrote:
I've gotten something fairly similar. It's just the standard way of saying, "we still expect you to pay your rent."
Frankly it strikes me as a sign of fear from the landlord / property manager. They're worried enough about people not making their rent that they feel they need to try to explicitly scare folks into paying. Yeah, it is definitely a threat. Everyone that can't afford to pay can expect to be evicted (if/when not protected by the law) and they should organize together imo to protect themselves. What's probable to happen is the landlord will get bailed out and will still expect to get double compensated. The people that can afford to pay rent and do turn into the equivalent of scabs during a labor strike from my perspective. People have signed a contract giving them a legal obligation to pay rent in exchange for receiving an obligation from the property owner to provide access to the property. It’s one thing to not sell your labour during a strike in order to avoid undermining the union, it’s quite another to unilaterally break the contract that provides you somewhere to live without cause. People should fulfill their contractual commitments. People who cannot due to macroeconomic circumstances outside of their control have a pretty great excuse and have my support. They’re not choosing to steal housing from the people who own the houses, they’re literally unable to pay, their hands are tied. But if you can pay and choose not to then you’re essentially no different from the dipshit looting designer shoes during a bread riot.
Now that you're bringing up the lease contract i wonder what the force majeur clause has to say about a pandemic. (rushes off to read lease)
|
On April 03 2020 23:00 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2020 00:20 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2020 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 23:30 LegalLord wrote:
I've gotten something fairly similar. It's just the standard way of saying, "we still expect you to pay your rent."
Frankly it strikes me as a sign of fear from the landlord / property manager. They're worried enough about people not making their rent that they feel they need to try to explicitly scare folks into paying. Yeah, it is definitely a threat. Everyone that can't afford to pay can expect to be evicted (if/when not protected by the law) and they should organize together imo to protect themselves. What's probable to happen is the landlord will get bailed out and will still expect to get double compensated. The people that can afford to pay rent and do turn into the equivalent of scabs during a labor strike from my perspective. People have signed a contract giving them a legal obligation to pay rent in exchange for receiving an obligation from the property owner to provide access to the property. It’s one thing to not sell your labour during a strike in order to avoid undermining the union, it’s quite another to unilaterally break the contract that provides you somewhere to live without cause. People should fulfill their contractual commitments. People who cannot due to macroeconomic circumstances outside of their control have a pretty great excuse and have my support. They’re not choosing to steal housing from the people who own the houses, they’re literally unable to pay, their hands are tied. But if you can pay and choose not to then you’re essentially no different from the dipshit looting designer shoes during a bread riot. Now that you're bringing up the lease contract i wonder what the force majeur clause has to say about a pandemic. (rushes off to read lease)
Totally off topic, but standard life insurance here in Brazil doesn't cover new pandemics (aka today it would cover H1N1 but not corona).
The life insurance companies met and decided to cover it anyway to avoid the PR disaster that would have come otherwise, and though I understand their self-interest in not rallying the population against them, I can also appreciate their action.
|
On April 03 2020 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2020 00:20 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2020 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 23:30 LegalLord wrote:
I've gotten something fairly similar. It's just the standard way of saying, "we still expect you to pay your rent."
Frankly it strikes me as a sign of fear from the landlord / property manager. They're worried enough about people not making their rent that they feel they need to try to explicitly scare folks into paying. Yeah, it is definitely a threat. Everyone that can't afford to pay can expect to be evicted (if/when not protected by the law) and they should organize together imo to protect themselves. What's probable to happen is the landlord will get bailed out and will still expect to get double compensated. The people that can afford to pay rent and do turn into the equivalent of scabs during a labor strike from my perspective. People have signed a contract giving them a legal obligation to pay rent in exchange for receiving an obligation from the property owner to provide access to the property. It’s one thing to not sell your labour during a strike in order to avoid undermining the union, it’s quite another to unilaterally break the contract that provides you somewhere to live without cause. People should fulfill their contractual commitments. People who cannot due to macroeconomic circumstances outside of their control have a pretty great excuse and have my support. They’re not choosing to steal housing from the people who own the houses, they’re literally unable to pay, their hands are tied. But if you can pay and choose not to then you’re essentially no different from the dipshit looting designer shoes during a bread riot. A fair disagreement. I'd argue capitalism serves as duress invalidating them, though I doubt a court would (but evicted people might) agree. Just not paying I might agree resembles the luxury looter, but I'm advocating they use their resources to aid in the organizing of the crude equivalent of a tenants union to protect themselves and those less fortunate from being exploited by a landlord and system that will in all likelihood protect and aid the landlord. If nothing else I'd feel like a sucker paying rent when others aren't AND the landlord is going to be bailed out anyway. Paying in this example is like buying the luxury shoes during the riot and then donating them back to the store to make up for the stolen ones that are covered by their insurance anyway.
Ok well, I guess you can not pay if you want to find a new place to live when this is all over.
|
On April 04 2020 01:02 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2020 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 03 2020 00:20 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2020 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 23:30 LegalLord wrote:
I've gotten something fairly similar. It's just the standard way of saying, "we still expect you to pay your rent."
Frankly it strikes me as a sign of fear from the landlord / property manager. They're worried enough about people not making their rent that they feel they need to try to explicitly scare folks into paying. Yeah, it is definitely a threat. Everyone that can't afford to pay can expect to be evicted (if/when not protected by the law) and they should organize together imo to protect themselves. What's probable to happen is the landlord will get bailed out and will still expect to get double compensated. The people that can afford to pay rent and do turn into the equivalent of scabs during a labor strike from my perspective. People have signed a contract giving them a legal obligation to pay rent in exchange for receiving an obligation from the property owner to provide access to the property. It’s one thing to not sell your labour during a strike in order to avoid undermining the union, it’s quite another to unilaterally break the contract that provides you somewhere to live without cause. People should fulfill their contractual commitments. People who cannot due to macroeconomic circumstances outside of their control have a pretty great excuse and have my support. They’re not choosing to steal housing from the people who own the houses, they’re literally unable to pay, their hands are tied. But if you can pay and choose not to then you’re essentially no different from the dipshit looting designer shoes during a bread riot. A fair disagreement. I'd argue capitalism serves as duress invalidating them, though I doubt a court would (but evicted people might) agree. Just not paying I might agree resembles the luxury looter, but I'm advocating they use their resources to aid in the organizing of the crude equivalent of a tenants union to protect themselves and those less fortunate from being exploited by a landlord and system that will in all likelihood protect and aid the landlord. If nothing else I'd feel like a sucker paying rent when others aren't AND the landlord is going to be bailed out anyway. Paying in this example is like buying the luxury shoes during the riot and then donating them back to the store to make up for the stolen ones that are covered by their insurance anyway. Ok well, I guess you can not pay if you want to find a new place to live when this is all over.
Housing recognized as a human right would be a sizable victory indeed.
|
On April 04 2020 01:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2020 01:02 IgnE wrote:On April 03 2020 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 03 2020 00:20 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2020 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 23:30 LegalLord wrote:
I've gotten something fairly similar. It's just the standard way of saying, "we still expect you to pay your rent."
Frankly it strikes me as a sign of fear from the landlord / property manager. They're worried enough about people not making their rent that they feel they need to try to explicitly scare folks into paying. Yeah, it is definitely a threat. Everyone that can't afford to pay can expect to be evicted (if/when not protected by the law) and they should organize together imo to protect themselves. What's probable to happen is the landlord will get bailed out and will still expect to get double compensated. The people that can afford to pay rent and do turn into the equivalent of scabs during a labor strike from my perspective. People have signed a contract giving them a legal obligation to pay rent in exchange for receiving an obligation from the property owner to provide access to the property. It’s one thing to not sell your labour during a strike in order to avoid undermining the union, it’s quite another to unilaterally break the contract that provides you somewhere to live without cause. People should fulfill their contractual commitments. People who cannot due to macroeconomic circumstances outside of their control have a pretty great excuse and have my support. They’re not choosing to steal housing from the people who own the houses, they’re literally unable to pay, their hands are tied. But if you can pay and choose not to then you’re essentially no different from the dipshit looting designer shoes during a bread riot. A fair disagreement. I'd argue capitalism serves as duress invalidating them, though I doubt a court would (but evicted people might) agree. Just not paying I might agree resembles the luxury looter, but I'm advocating they use their resources to aid in the organizing of the crude equivalent of a tenants union to protect themselves and those less fortunate from being exploited by a landlord and system that will in all likelihood protect and aid the landlord. If nothing else I'd feel like a sucker paying rent when others aren't AND the landlord is going to be bailed out anyway. Paying in this example is like buying the luxury shoes during the riot and then donating them back to the store to make up for the stolen ones that are covered by their insurance anyway. Ok well, I guess you can not pay if you want to find a new place to live when this is all over. Housing recognized as a human right would be a sizable victory indeed.
It is. Of course, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is non-binding, so even if you *recognize* it as a human right doesn't mean you have to do anything about it...
|
On April 04 2020 01:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2020 01:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2020 01:02 IgnE wrote:On April 03 2020 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 03 2020 00:20 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2020 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 23:30 LegalLord wrote:
I've gotten something fairly similar. It's just the standard way of saying, "we still expect you to pay your rent."
Frankly it strikes me as a sign of fear from the landlord / property manager. They're worried enough about people not making their rent that they feel they need to try to explicitly scare folks into paying. Yeah, it is definitely a threat. Everyone that can't afford to pay can expect to be evicted (if/when not protected by the law) and they should organize together imo to protect themselves. What's probable to happen is the landlord will get bailed out and will still expect to get double compensated. The people that can afford to pay rent and do turn into the equivalent of scabs during a labor strike from my perspective. People have signed a contract giving them a legal obligation to pay rent in exchange for receiving an obligation from the property owner to provide access to the property. It’s one thing to not sell your labour during a strike in order to avoid undermining the union, it’s quite another to unilaterally break the contract that provides you somewhere to live without cause. People should fulfill their contractual commitments. People who cannot due to macroeconomic circumstances outside of their control have a pretty great excuse and have my support. They’re not choosing to steal housing from the people who own the houses, they’re literally unable to pay, their hands are tied. But if you can pay and choose not to then you’re essentially no different from the dipshit looting designer shoes during a bread riot. A fair disagreement. I'd argue capitalism serves as duress invalidating them, though I doubt a court would (but evicted people might) agree. Just not paying I might agree resembles the luxury looter, but I'm advocating they use their resources to aid in the organizing of the crude equivalent of a tenants union to protect themselves and those less fortunate from being exploited by a landlord and system that will in all likelihood protect and aid the landlord. If nothing else I'd feel like a sucker paying rent when others aren't AND the landlord is going to be bailed out anyway. Paying in this example is like buying the luxury shoes during the riot and then donating them back to the store to make up for the stolen ones that are covered by their insurance anyway. Ok well, I guess you can not pay if you want to find a new place to live when this is all over. Housing recognized as a human right would be a sizable victory indeed. It is. Of course, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is non-binding, so even if you *recognize* it as a human right doesn't mean you have to do anything about it...
I suppose I meant in the sense of how constitutional rights are legally recognized in the US which I suppose has some of the same problems to some extent.
The critique is well taken
|
On April 03 2020 23:00 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2020 00:20 KwarK wrote:On April 02 2020 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2020 23:30 LegalLord wrote:
I've gotten something fairly similar. It's just the standard way of saying, "we still expect you to pay your rent."
Frankly it strikes me as a sign of fear from the landlord / property manager. They're worried enough about people not making their rent that they feel they need to try to explicitly scare folks into paying. Yeah, it is definitely a threat. Everyone that can't afford to pay can expect to be evicted (if/when not protected by the law) and they should organize together imo to protect themselves. What's probable to happen is the landlord will get bailed out and will still expect to get double compensated. The people that can afford to pay rent and do turn into the equivalent of scabs during a labor strike from my perspective. People have signed a contract giving them a legal obligation to pay rent in exchange for receiving an obligation from the property owner to provide access to the property. It’s one thing to not sell your labour during a strike in order to avoid undermining the union, it’s quite another to unilaterally break the contract that provides you somewhere to live without cause. People should fulfill their contractual commitments. People who cannot due to macroeconomic circumstances outside of their control have a pretty great excuse and have my support. They’re not choosing to steal housing from the people who own the houses, they’re literally unable to pay, their hands are tied. But if you can pay and choose not to then you’re essentially no different from the dipshit looting designer shoes during a bread riot. Now that you're bringing up the lease contract i wonder what the force majeur clause has to say about a pandemic. (rushes off to read lease)
Contracts dealing with residential property interests rarely if ever include force majeure language outside the commercial context. Sorry to be a bummer :D
|
Been having more success organizing people to push for cancelling rent for at least 3 months. Part of that is people already not paying April, because they couldn't, finding power and security in their collective interests. Hardest part is trying to talk to strangers from 6 ft away with a mask on. Once they realize I'm not robbing them they are quite receptive at this new apartment complex I'm working though.
Saddest part is people (typically older) who desperately want to pay their bills and are selling what little they have left only to not be able to make rent a month or two from now anyway with nothing left to their name.
|
Ahm.. are you actually talking people into not paying their bills?
WTF will you tell them if it doesn't work out, which is the more likely outcome?
Saddest part is that you're just too deep into your beliefs to not see that you're playing with actual peoples lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
