Quote:
Originally Posted by stan the man
When I first moved here many year ago. You could only own one house. Of course there was always the people Who thought it was the American way to find a way to beat the system. Back then they would buy one house and tell of villages that the house they bought was either too big or too small so they wanted to buy another one while the original house was up for sale. But the asking price for the original house was so high that nobody would ever buy it and therefore they were able to buy another house.. The second house became a rental. They would then take the original house off the market and stay in the original house. But as time went on and the developer got greedy he really didn't care That a good development is "owner occupied" and not people who buy for investment. I know of some communities where it is not legal to own two homes and the difference is like night and day. Rentals bring problems,, don't get me wrong there are people that want to rent before they buy but there also the entrepreneurs who could care less who they rent to as long as they make money. You can see it in some of the neighborhoods where on some blocks there are many rentals and the camaraderie between the neighbors ceases to exist. This is always not the case There are exceptions. When it is owner occupied seems to be a much better neighborhood.
|
stan the man
thank you. for whatever reason even if I wrote iT all in capital letters that my comments are not directed at renters BUT AT THE PROBLEMS CREATED NOT BECAUSE OF RENTALS BUT BECAUSE AN OWNER CAN TRANSFER/ASSIGN HIS/HER AMENITY RIGHTS it still would be lost on some. its not about people its about policy.
Madeline Amee is right its too late
i don't recall a sales person ever informing me that I could buy or rent. of course when I bought they told you you had to take the house as it was under their conditions or hit the road.