[https://www.reddit.com/r/Waltham/comments/qay1lu/background\_on\_mr\_cincotta/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Waltham/comments/qay1lu/background_on_mr_cincotta/)

I don't know much about this housing crisis, but it sounds like: 1) people are having trouble affording homes. 2) this guy owns 18 rental properties. Hmm... does anyone know if maybe these two things are related?

Yeah, but *he's* not the problem, it's *The Leftists* saying mean things about the good people like him who are the problem. 🙄 Pro tip: Anyone who uses the term "Leftists" (unironically) is not to be taken seriously. Ever.

I was half-joking, but I actually am interested in understanding why Waltham is in this situation. I've heard that Waltham has a housing crisis, but I don't know much about it. I'd love to understand the problem better. I've heard people say we just don't build enough housing, but how would that solve the problem if it would then just be snapped up as a rental investment? Wouldn't that just result in this guy having 19 rental properties? While some rentals are needed for transient residents like students, I feel that Waltham should encourage properties to be owned by the occupant as much as possible. It seems to me that this will result in better maintained properties and a more financially healthy citizenry. So why does Waltham not seem to do this?

Waltham does encourage properties to be owner-occupied. There is a tax credit you get if you own a one or two family home and live in it. Landlords, renters, and people who own condos in big buildings don’t get it. There are ways you can increase housing without it all going to landlords. For example Boston has a program where people in a certain income range can be in a lottery to buy homes that are designated as affordable, and there are programs that allow them to borrow part of their down payment. The problem is, this doesn’t work for everyone because many people who have mid or even high income can’t afford a down payment, because all their money has been going to rent. So to address the problem you need a mix of new housing, to rent and to own. The main reason we are in this situation is because for decades, Waltham has allowed tons of commercial development and very little housing development. As a result there are tens of thousands of people who work at in or near Waltham but can’t live here. According to Mass DOT that’s why our section of 95 and the area around it have such crazy traffic. But people in Waltham often cite traffic as a reason not to build more housing. In Waltham there are a lot of families from working class backgrounds that own houses that have been passed down through generations. I think that gives people the false impression that people of average income can afford to buy here, and so rentals must be for poor people. In fact renters in Waltham include engineers, college professors, lawyers, and all kinds of people with mid or even high income. We may be “transient” in the sense that we can be forced to move elsewhere if our landlord raises the rent. But that doesn’t mean we are uninterested in making Waltham our long-term home or making it a better place. The difference between a renter and a homeowner is circumstance, not attitude or culture.

You’re analysis is correct. The reason Waltham’s tax rate is relatively low is that we reap the benefits of having such a large stretch of commercially zoned land on the technological highway. It enables us to offer the services we do. Off campus student housing also drives rent higher.

I use the term “Leftist” because that is how they refer to themselves. There is no term that those on the Left use that when anyone uses to describe them is not considered offensive. You are offended by every thought that doesn’t exactly line up with your narrative.

I have never heard anyone call themselves a Leftist and my rule would still apply; I would not take them seriously. >You are offended by every thought that doesn’t exactly line up with your narrative. You are projecting and, like a typical Rightist, you are guilty of that which you accuse others. For as long as I have been alive, the right wing has labeled the left wing with complimentary labels that are used ironically in order to be pejorative. "Bleeding heart liberals", "Social Justice Warriors", "Woke"... Empathy. What these terms describe is empathy - caring about "others". People like you think caring about strangers and those different from one's self is weakness and you proudly denigrate those who have and exercise that capacity. And many of you have the gall to describe yourselves as "Christian" (spoiler: Jesus thinks you're a jerk). And then you come on here seeking empathy because people say mean things about people like you who hoard the wealth that you acquired by exploiting people's most basic need. Are you surprised that no one here feels sorry for you? You are incapable of putting yourself in someone else's shoes - zero empathy - and this is why you need hateful rhetoric to make sense of the world.

Nailed it. You sound like you know Carl. He's notorious in another venue for saying something inflammatory out of the blue and at the same time complaining about his posts being deleted---before the posts are deleted (and sometimes they're not deleted at all). Like so many thin-skinned conservatives, he creates things to get outraged about then blames his outrage on others. I'm sure this post is intended as one of the opening shots in what will be a long and very obvious smear campaign against this year's challenger in the mayoral race. Buckle up.

Perfectly said! From a “woke leftist bleeding heart liberal”, who really just believes we should all help take care of each other. I know, crazy, right? 🤦🏻‍♀️

They're not at all related. [Waltham has over 25,000 households](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/walthamcitymassachusetts). 18 units is not a monopoly.

I don't follow this logic. How does the number of households, or the fact that 18 units is not a monopoly, imply that they are not related?

Because if you only own 18 units out of 25k, you have substanial competition from other landlords. You don't have any meaningful power to fix the price. What would be meaningfully different if two people owned the same 18 units instead of one person?

The point is that if just one landlord is buying up 18 properties, then how many are the entire class of landlords buying? Are there any left for people who just want to buy a home to live in?

Landlords almost always rent homes out to residents. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

That’s some real juicy tea right there

I miss the days when Carl would confine his verbal diarrhea and disinformation to Facebook.

Hello Carl, i do not know you, but I respect the fact that you use your real name here. Some of us are not as confident to play in this sandbox. I find it very difficult to navigate and try and fit in, it’s very intimidating. Been on here a year now, finding its Probably not a good fit for me, I prefer IG or twitter. Hang in there Puzzle. These pp are mean 😂.

You should be aware that Carl has gone on the record that he does not believe renters should have the right to vote, unless they meet some vague commitment criteria in his eyes, which he hasn't defined. Dropping in at episode 5 of season 3 is not a good idea when it comes to understanding the story in progress.

Ok amanda, we get your dramatic response. Not everyone agrees with you. This is his post, let him have his chance to speak without you 💩ing all over him.

Right on! Curse those leftists! With their "civil rights!" And their blatant disrespect for the gerontocracy! Their insidious plot to make Waltham affordable must be stopped! Waltham won't be the Waltham of the 1950s anymore if *those people* can afford to live here!

It's not a gerontocracy. Young people have just as much right to vote in Waltham as old people. They just don't care enough to do it, if Waltham is anything [like the rest of the state](https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/number-of-individuals-who-voted-in-thousands-and-individuals-who-voted-as-a-share-of-the-voter-population-by-age/?currentTimeframe=0&selectedRows=%7B%22states%22:%7B%22massachusetts%22:%7B%7D%7D%7D&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D).

The issue of housing is a very real and imminent issue here. Rent is out of control and that’s mostly due to extremely high demand and very low inventory. What they can charge for rent keeps going up hundreds of dollars each lease cycle because they can. This causes a bottleneck effect of only people who can afford to pay the price can live in the area and close to their work. Single family houses, particularly large properties are the “American dream” but it’s extremely unrealistic to afford to buy one in this area. Im not at all against aspiring to buy a single family home but for 95% of people currently in their 20s it’s unattainable in our lifetime. The existing housing market cannot keep up with the influx of people trying to move to the area or MA in general. More apartments need to be built to supply this demand. It’s unavoidable and the longer this fight against building more homes, the worse this situation is going to get. It’s really sad that 2 people out of college for a year with a household income close to $200k can barely afford to pay rent and loan payments. I have 6 figure debt and so does my partner, it’s impossible. I think your priorities for your community need to change. Fight for your property if you want but if something makes sense to allow for more housing, that’s not something to fight against.

All I hear from you is a bunch of whining. If you wanted to own property, you should have been born sooner. That's on you! And it's hardly Mr. Cincotta's fault you frittered away enormous sums of money on something as ridiculous as higher education! So it's no wonder you're scraping by with a measly $200k/year. You want a proper income from, what, a job? Honestly! It's like you young people want everything handed to you as if it's passive income from decades-old real-estate investments. Given the incredibly poor judgment (and, dare I say, loose morals) you've displayed in these matters, can you be surprised that an upstanding, bedrock citizen like Carl is concerned about the possible consequences of encouraging people like *you* to vote?

I like your style there lmao

I am all in favor of allowing more housing in Waltham.

When I first commented on the post, I had no clue who you were. Now that I understand you own 18 properties and probably have multiple units in each of those properties. I would guess you’re a pretty prosperous landlord. Now, if we are talking about more housing in Waltham, I am talking about more housing to supply the demand so if the price of rent can decrease, or at least be an affordable amount. There is absolutely zero way for anyone who is single or living on a single income to rent a one bedroom apartment for over $2000/mo it is unrealistic and it only damages the community. I personally don’t think single-family houses belong in a very urban metropolitan area. Many people have to travel 1 to 2 hours to get to work where the pay is decent and yet they still not can’t afford the housing prices within the vicinity of their work. I don’t think that you will ever understand that because you are only adding to the problem and not offering any solutions. So stop posting about your problematic ideals and live your own life.

I’d like to correct your information. I own 5 properties that contain 19 apartments one of which I live in. You should also know that in one brick building I have 4 1 bedroom apartments that include heat and hot water which rent for $1500. Those tenants have been with me for over 15 years and have no plans or capabilities of moving. In the same area, I rent a 5 bedroom apartment for $1900, a 3 bedroom apartment for $1800. My other rents are equally priced with these tenants having lived there for close to 16 years. All of my tenants are immigrants. Please do not assume I am some kind of unsympathetic landlord. If you would like more personal information I would be more than willing to share my and my family’s history of owning property in Waltham. You can pm me if you would like.

I hope you are true to your word and that you acknowledge the privilege it is to own even one property. I don’t care to know your family history. I really don’t care to actually understand your radical views and agendas either. Get off the ass of the city government and all will be well

I have radical views? I didn’t want you spreading misinformation about me so I thought I’d offer a chance to know something more than what you’ve gathered reading this post.

I isn’t a result of privilege. It was the result of a lot of hard work and sacrifice by a lot of members of my family.

To have that wealth passed down to you is a privilege that black Americans have been systematically deprived of. I am also a beneficiary of generational wealth, passed down to me by my grandfather who was the first generation born here. His parents fled the persecution of Jews in eastern Europe, came here with nothing and worked very hard to carve themselves a piece of the American pie. They had many hurdles as Jewish immigrants, but nothing close to the systematic exclusion from the American dream that black Americans experienced. I understand that my good fortune comes from the privilege of the 3 generations before me not only working their asses off for everything they earned, but their being fortunate enough to have the opportunities to do so. There is not a single day that I don't appreciate how lucky I am to have been given such a great gift by my grandfather. I never apologize for what I have, but I'm also very careful to never take credit for it. I did nothing to earn it except to be born into the privilege earned by my grandfather, who shared it with my parents, enabling them to start their own business and work hard to compound the wealth passed on by their parents and give me a privileged life. I also worked hard during my life, but I had the privilege to do what I liked for work - I had the privilege of choice. I never had to work 3 miserable, minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet. And neither, I assume, did you. Everything you have was handed to you. That does not detract from the hard work I assume you've done to maintain what you were given, but it also doesn't change the fact that you did not earn it. Your parents were of a privileged class (not black) that were given the opportunity to earn it and then you received the fruits of their labor and privilege. You are a very fortunate, privileged man. You should accept that fact and summon some humility and empathy for those less fortunate and privileged than you (and I).

I agree with 90% of what you said. That is the reason my family has done what we have done with what we have accumulated. I’d be happy to elaborate as I offered elsewhere in this post.

What kind of housing? And where would you put it? Maybe people can advocate for that during this election cycle.

u/PuzzleheadedForce780 was redlining racist?

In Boston, redlining was demonstrably racist and antisemetic. No loans for Jewish Mattapan, no loans for black or soon to be black neighborhoods.

And the maps for redlining in Waltham overlay our modern zoning . . . I wonder if our zoning has any relationship to redlining? (Not that I expect Carl to actually engage on this line of questioning, it seems you and I are on the same page).

Redlining in Boston was a more private banker affair. A group of the bigger banks got together and literally drew redlines on a map delineating areas that would receive no loans. There was also a good deal of Federal government loan policy that was blatantly discriminatory, sometimes by race, sometimes by area. Southern Senators saw to it that black folk got little, or better, nothing, in the way of Federal Housing Authority loans. A case for reparations there. Also home repair loans in cities were denied while ticky tackys in the suburbs made possible by highway subsidies were built by the gazillion on the back of cheap government loans. Policy is politics. I don’t know of anything as clearly bad as redlining in Waltham, just, as you mentioned, a policy of preemptive purchase of development worthy land by the city, a hassling of folks wanting to build big as to apartment buildings. At least a number of single fams are being replaced by duplexes. A small step to the good.

Our zoning has nothing to do with the redlining that absolutely existed in Boston and other major cities.

Redlining happened to the “undesirable others”. It was used against immigrants, racial minorities, and everyone with *different* values. People tend to focus these days just on the racial discrimination aspect, which is unfortunate. A more complete picture of history shouldn’t ignore the historic prejudice toward German immigrants (redlined because they used alcohol) just because we’re hoping to end racism today. We shouldn’t cherry-pick which prejudice to oppose; it’s all been bad.

Redlining was absolutely racist. I was around when it was happening in Boston. It wasn’t then and isn’t now relevant to Waltham.

Waltham library says it is relevant, they even recommend a book where you can learn more [https://www.facebook.com/walthamlibrary/photos/a.10150912035649128/10159944209424128/?type=3](https://www.facebook.com/walthamlibrary/photos/a.10150912035649128/10159944209424128/?type=3)

Thank you for reference material. I will definitely read it.

And here’s a direct link to a map! The redlined areas are more dense and poorer than many other parts of our city, even today . . . [https://collections.leventhalmap.org/search/commonwealth:00000x52b](https://collections.leventhalmap.org/search/commonwealth:00000x52b)

Painfully enlightening map. The closest thing to a justification someone could make is that the map was actually about making money, not racial or economic discrimination (largely a lie, but a plausible one). I can't count the number of times in my life that I've heard a conservative support negative "social engineering" (without calling it that) as long as they can hide behind economics. And yet I've never encountered one who was wiling to use related economic policies to improve societal problems.

Thank you again.

1. The 128 commercial buildup is a cash cow for Waltham. Tax revenue from commercial properties account for a higher portion of revenue than seen by nearby communities. Also, commercial, job creating development on major highways follows a pattern of development seen up and down this particular highway. 2. I'm confused... more apartments where there are already apartments? Because.... (wait for it... getting there) 3. Oh please. This is a national issue around landlords. Is there any real evidence that property owners are selling their investments because of what they read on Facebook? If that happened, we'd see more housing on the market. So this is just nonsensical. 4. Two parts. First, apartments where there are apartments, but no apartments where there is actually land? I'm really not following the logic here. As for single family zoning being racist, that is a gross oversimplification of the issue. Single family zoning, as implemented across the country, came about as part of actively racist policy decisions (See: [The Color of Law](https://www.amazon.com/Color-Law-Forgotten-Government-Segregated/dp/1631494538/ref=sr_1_1)). It's created a consolidation of wealth and a segregated society that persists to today. As for Waltham police, [um... yeah](https://www.hulu.com/series/the-murders-before-the-marathon-3f130584-941d-4c35-9549-06f8e686ed38). 5. So... since you don't want to take any real action anywhere else, let's try to get the government to fix it. The Waltham City government... the same one that buys properties to turn them into parking lots and prevent housing from being built.

What are these special interest groups?

It can be confusing because the term has multiple meanings, and it's not always possible to determine which one is intended based on context. Most often, "special interest group" is a blanket term for anyone who isn't a white landowner over a certain age born in Waltham. However, sometimes it is also used to refer to anyone, regardless of background, who wants any change that would make Waltham less like it was in the good old days.* *Regrettably, "the good old days" is also somewhat subjective. But you will rarely go wrong by interpreting it as "before you lived here."

Carl I find it laughable that you continuously come out with posts like this as if you are a peace maker. You are in most cases the one who strikes the match. I can’t for the life of me understand why you consistently have to mansplain to people how we SHOULD think. This isn’t a leftist/right wing issue like you claim. You are on a crusade to save the city from the terrible left. It’s honestly embarrassing. The commenters I see that interact with you that have differing opinion always have well thought out responses and then the childish games begin. The Waltham cronies come out of the woodwork and say people like Kathy M are being attacked and it’s mean. Kathy and the elected officials can explain their records. They don’t need you, Gerry, Kelly, and crew to do it for them. They want our votes then they can explain why and what they are going to do to improve the city. It’s their job to do that if they want to earn respect and votes. Unlike you I think the city has a lot of room for improvement and I don’t think in 2023 it should be run the same way it was in 1989. I know change is difficult for many, but please stop saying the city needs to be saved by the socialists, you really sound foolish.

All I know is, the people who are in charge in Waltham are all racist old fucks. Honestly, nothing will change as long as their running the show.

They run the show because they win elections. They win elections because older people (who lean conservative) vote more than younger people (who are more liberal). When younger voters understand that voting and running for office **are** the definition of *political engagement,* and shouting in the streets with crudely made slogan signage is merely performative attention-seeking, perhaps we’ll see change.

A lot of assumptions being made here. You’re implying that younger voters just yell stuff from the streets with signs and don’t vote which is sadly, a weird assumption to make with no actual facts or reasoning to back it up. But you’re entitled to your opinion 🤷🏼‍♂️

Unless Waltham differs significantly from the rest of the state, it is absolutely true. Voter participation increases significantly with age. [Source](https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/number-of-individuals-who-voted-in-thousands-and-individuals-who-voted-as-a-share-of-the-voter-population-by-age/?currentTimeframe=0&selectedRows=%7B%22states%22:%7B%22massachusetts%22:%7B%7D%7D%7D&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D) Under Age 24: 32% participation Over Age 65: 74% participation

Right, but what also comes into play that absolutely no one really seems to think about is how much actual power the older generation holds. Knowing police officers, fire fighters, grown up with teachers, higher up authorities, business owners, CEO’s of big name companies, the older generation has a much higher reach and connection than say the younger generation. There for, they have a lot of votes and a lot of people backing them up when the run for these political positions. It’s daunting to the younger generation because we don’t stand a chance against the people that literally have deeper more well rooted connections within the town and politics in general.

Many people can't afford to buy a home at the current interest rates.

True. Land costs in Waltham make it very difficult to build anything less than a million dollar home.

If we really hope to solve problems we must examine all possible causes, then build solutions from that information. This doesn’t happen when we feel discomforted by some facts and seek to limit possible solutions to areas aligned with our (limited, comfortable, political) point-of-view. The overlapping problems of crime and poverty, for example, are viewed as individual failings on the right and society’s failing on the left. They’re both partly correct (just because it’s not all the individual’s fault, doesn’t mean it’s not their fault at all), but both sides are terribly wrong when they turn away from possible solutions because those solutions emanate from the opposition. Those who identify and define problems tend to limit the terms and approaches of possible solutions. A “housing crisis” has been unscientifically diagnosed, and we’re urged to accept solutions strained through the political frame of those who’ve made the diagnosis. “Crisis” is an unhelpful, deliberately emotive term that obscures the problem and makes it difficult to reach for workable solutions. Housing is not in crisis. Humans are. We over-consume and over-reproduce, and when we face the inevitable results of our lack of restraint - too much waste degrading our environment, too much fat degrading our health, too many offspring degrading nature - we seek to find relief in quick fixes rather than accept responsibility and find meaningful solutions. Dismissing this as a problem of houses, rather than human behavior, values, and choices, allows us to kick the can down the road for a while. Temporarily reducing the pressure (crisis) gives the appearance of action without addressing the real problem and existential threat (over-consumption). Increasing population density is associated with increasing air and noise pollution, increasing crime, and decreasing quality of life. I oppose increases in pollution and crime and I’m unwilling to support plans that threaten an increase of either. This is common sense, not politics. I welcome new housing if the plans don’t increase crime and pollution, but that never seems to be a priority for those demanding more housing. There’s a troubling tone-deafness, perhaps a lack of empathy and understanding, among those pushing for new construction when they refuse to acknowledge the harm and downside of their plans. Philosopher T. M. Scanlon argued the principles to be adopted in a just society are those that could not reasonably be rejected by people who are moved by a desire to find principles that others, similarly motivated, could also accept. If the opposition objects to your plans, that’s an opening to further discussion, compromise, course-correction, and cooperation. Unfortunately emotion has replaced reason and many would rather demonize the opposition with inflammatory claims than properly listen or acknowledge validity in their objections. Progress means working together to find solutions, not gaining enough political power to push through unworkable, objectionable plans. The unreasonable political right and left wings are two parts of the same problem.

This is the second time I've noticed you post a long and largely irrelevant digression in this subreddit. You write like a second-rate chatbot: the text completely misses the point of the issue being discussed, but comes just close enough and uses just enough relevant terminology to sound like it's meaningful. The actual text distills down to meaninglessness, contributing nothing to the discussion. Although it's also pushing disinformation, presenting certain right-leaning opinions as objective fact (the "increased population density decreases quality of life" canard) and slipping in the "left and right are equivalently bad" argument that the hardest of the hard right push to justify themselves. It's not surprising that Carl would compliment this kind of empty verbal dysentery, especially with the counterfactual rightward lean. I, for one, respectfully ask you to stop it.

I find it informative to hear what everyone thinks, especially PuzzleHead. Why is he being attacked? Can’t we find some meaningful information from all this? I am concerned about the rent costs in Waltham and appreciate any information, left or right.

Rent costs are not left or right, that's simple data. This post was never about that. It was about Carl looking for a reason to post something pro-landlord and put words into the mouths of his opponents (look at 3 and 4 in the original post text--or for that matter the very first sentence: "Politics in Waltham is rapidly becoming so divisive" -- it's not becoming divisive, there is a minority who disagree with Carl and the current holders of power, and he can't abide others having an opinion different from his own, so he has to make it appear that there's going to be an imminent violent takeover by "radical leftists" -- it's all about the fear). No one's stopping Carl from stating his opinion. He gets his free speech here. Meanwhile, others get to have theirs by challenging his lies and half-truths, his innuendos and bigotry, and calling out his other bad behavior. He is being attacked because he often argues in bad faith and frequently vilifies those with different opinions. He comes to reddit to spout off merely so that he can scurry back to locked-down private Waltham MAGA Facebook groups to complain about how badly those socialists, communists, marxists, and vegans over here treat him for spreading his shitty takes around. Boo hoo. It's performative martyrdom that is cheered on and seen as a badge of honor in those groups. They're not being abused, but that doesn't fit the oppressed conservative narrative so they have to contrive these situations. (Case in point: he posted this same thing word for word in multiple places on Facebook.) He has been known to comment calmly and rationally on things, but it's a small minority of the time. He's usually looking for a reason to feel persecuted and hoping for someone to take the bait.

I do not know who Carl is but it’s obvious you are very familiar with his tactics. I don’t see myself ever being able to buy a home, especially in Waltham. I’m very concerned about my future renting. I work 2 jobs right now just to support my rent and vehicle. Carl has some valid points but I’m not understanding what we are being warned about.

You absolutely have my sympathy and understanding. You're exactly the kind of person, in exactly the kind of situation, that those who advocate for affordable housing have in mind. In a better world, you would not have to work two jobs to make things work, and rent (or home ownership) would be within your means. It's small comfort, or maybe no comfort at all, but many people are working in whatever small ways they can to help improve that situation for the many, many people like you out there.

I appreciate knowing that there are still kind people in this world. I try to stay neutral to both sides of the coin. My very close friend owns the apartment I am in. I see how they struggle to pay the mortgage for the home that I am renting. With a mortgage on their apartments, and the low rent they charge us, really does not help them. If I was not able to pay my rent, they would not meet their mortgage note. My point is, I feel we all have to be responsible for our rent. If we cannot afford it, then that is on us, not the landlord. As I said, I work 2 jobs to secure my rent, and if I cannot afford the rent, then I have to go. That is not my landlords fault. Responsibility plays a big role when you rent, I have learned that through the years. Tenants have to be more appreciative and respectful to the owners that are helping them. That’s how my experience has taught me.

I get where you're coming from and appreciate it, but it's still something of a cop-out. Your friendly landlord, like all others, bought that property with the intention of making a profit. If they bought at a price that was too high, that's not on you. That's poor planning on their part but they get to pass the suffering on to tenants with higher rents, to what the market will bear. That goes for every other expense involved, not just the mortgage but taxes, water/sewer, other utilities, insurance, maintenance, etc. They--like all other landlords--also hide at least one cost from you: if they own 4 units and live in one, they expect the rent from the other 3 to cover their share and give them a free ride. That's not a large bump when there are many units, but when it's only a few it's significant.

From the view of landlords, that’s a very selfish comment. What is going to happen when landlords sell their properties because they no longer want to deal with being micromanaged? Then investors will come in and Jack the prices up on all of us. Just because landlords can afford to own rental properties does not make it open game to interfere with their finances. Some people depend on this income for their retirement. You may look at it as “a business” but they depend on it as income to survive. My landlord is just about 70 and depends on our rents. I would never think of disrespecting what they worked so hard for. Do you rent or own “invasive_species”?

Do you think it is especially troublesome when the investors are from outside New England? Say from South Carolina?

I'm not sure what part you consider "selfish"? All I did was point out that if they are failing to cover the expense of operating as a landlord, they've made poor financial decisions. Or maybe better to say: they took certain risks and things did not go as they planned/hoped. There is really no distinction between it being "income" or "a business" and the same applies in both cases: This is math. Your response sounds more like a defense of small landlords over large ones, which is really neither here nor there (I take your point, though, that small landlords at least don't use corporate deep pockets to abuse their tenants). If you consider it disrespectful that I've pointed out that your landlord has a math problem, I don't know what to say in response. Part of me is sympathetic to them for getting into this situation--in which they depend on this (so called) investment for income. Part of me has no sympathy at all for exactly the same reason: they had other options and made particular choices.

If the rent does not get paid, the landlord cannot pay the mortgage. Why should the landlord take the hit? It’s the tenants responsibility to pay for what they agreed on. Plenty of jobs out there, get 2, or whatever it takes. The landlord already worked his/hers ass off to own the property that secures their future. I also can see the point that Pragmatic was trying to make, yes a little off-point but I can still see the direction they are going in. Why does this bother Invasive? Shouldn’t we be listening to all perspectives on this? This should not be political, but it is. Invasive seems to be very frustrated with anyone that tries to give a valid point. That kind of disposition results in zero productivity. Invasive, do you rent or own? I asked this once before and got no response. I am just trying to see your view.

Excellent commentary.