• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Land LORD now your judge jury and evictor

As a landlord, you have a lot of power already, including, if you have a lease like most that I've signed, being able to begin the eviction process if they have people living with them that are not on the lease or if they are doing other things. But overall, you are responsible for actually vetting those you are renting to. Hell, I can't imagine why you couldn't imagine why bullet holes alone wouldn't allow you to evict them or at least refuse to fix such problems since bullet holes are pretty obviously that. No getting around those as something that wore out.

The problem with your post above, is that it is both logical and reasonable - neither of which tend to get you very far regarding the law in most instances.

As you probably know, in our state the law benefits the renter/lessee and not the property owner. For instance, NC General Statute (NCGS) § 42-10 stipulates that tenants are not liable for accidental damage, so bullets from another person are not their responsibility.

This is one of the few NCGS's that benefits the property owner, but it does nothing to recovery any damages, just makes such damages a misdemeanor: § 42-11. Willful destruction by tenant misdemeanor. If any tenant shall, during his term or after its expiration, willfully and unlawfully demolish, destroy, deface, injure or damage any tenement house, uninhabited house or other outhouse, belonging to his landlord or upon his premises by removing parts thereof or by burning, or in any other manner, or shall unlawfully and willfully burn, destroy, pull down, injure or remove any fence, wall or other inclosure or any part thereof, built or standing upon the premises of such landlord, or shall willfully and unlawfully cut down or destroy any timber, fruit, shade or ornamental tree belonging to said landlord, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (1883, c. 224; Code, s. 1761; Rev., s. 3686; C.S., s. 2351; 1993, c. 539, s. 402; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)


even though a renter may sign a rental agreement that stipulates that if they miss a payment, they can be evicted with 10 days, 20 days, or 30 days notice, the law says that regardless of what a written lease or rental agreement states the tenant has the right to appeal to the District Court (§ 42-34. Undertaking on appeal and order staying execution.)

Basically, here's how it works in NC - The land owner must go to the County Clerk of Superior Court and get a summons for the renter to appear before the County Clerk of Superior Court for a hearing (county clerk has 7 days not including holidays or weekends to issue the summons - so 10 days), then the Sherriff serves the summons (5 more days), then the Clerk sets a hearing date (another 10 days before the hearing), then during the Clerk's hearing the renter is told by the Clerk that they can plead no contest or guilty and immediately go to a Magistrate Judge right then to sign their Notice of Summary Ejection (that is if the claim is less than $10,000.00, but that never happens in my experience), once the renter says no to pleading guilty, then they are given a form to fill out that that allows them to request a trial by judge in the County Magistrate Court for claims that are less than $10,000.00 (another 10 days) then of they are found guilty in Magistrate Court or if the claim is above $10,000.00 but less than $25,000.00 they can appeal the decision of the Clerk or the Magistrate to District Court (another 10 days), then the District Court Trial Court Administrator (same one that sends you your jury notices and sets the court calendar) will set a trial date for the appeal (this guy also gets 10 days), then you have the real trial, which can be continued basically automatically by just asking the judge for a time extension... THREE TIMES (30 days), then once the judge FINALLY issues a Notice of Summary Ejection (official name in NC for an eviction notice) the renter can post a bond for the amount due and appeal to NC Superior Court (30-45 days, just call it 45), the NC Court of Appeals (90 days) and the NC State Supreme Court (who the hell knows, but most end at District or Superior Court anyway).

So, basically it take 85 to 90 days to evict someone, and a hell of a lot of time and court costs to do so, and the property owner will probably STILL not get their money, and in the mean time the renter is living rent free for three months and there's not a thing the property owner can do in the mean time.
 
I am not living in what is basically a dog house for humans. Besides that considering the cost of some of those mini homes you can buy a real house.

WOW, they cost $250k? Like most other homes do!

Did not know that ! LMAO.

You can build one for 10k-15k. DYI.
 
If you're a renter it's likely you cannot afford the 60-100 grand that little baby will cost you. And then you need the land to park it on, land zoned for parking such things. That means renting/leasing.

You can get by cheaper by just buying an old motorhome.

EEEEEEEKKKKK. You fail.

ZONING does not apply. It is a RV. And can be parked in any "mobile home" community, and parked in 90% of back yards.

"The Cathy custom 16-foot tiny house has a lofted bed with room underneath, a compact kitchen, and in-floor storage. We love the robin’s egg blue color this client chose for the outside.

Price: $19,900. Price may vary based on options. This is just one of our highly customized tiny houses. For more information about this model, or to discuss building your own custom tiny house, contact Trekker Trailers owner and builder Andrew Bennett: 352-409-4005 or campers@trekkertrailers.com"

60-100 G's? There is one builder I saw that builds hand made, curved, custom wood art homes for $80k.
Mostly $15k to $35k.

Motor homes rot in 10 years. A mini home will last just like a regular home. Made of the same stuff.
 
So are you for or against the proposed Bill?

against.

Sorry, LL do not get to convict me or anyone for "crimes" THEY THINK people are doing.
 
The problem with your post above, is that it is both logical and reasonable - neither of which tend to get you very far regarding the law in most instances.

.....

So, basically it take 85 to 90 days to evict someone, and a hell of a lot of time and court costs to do so, and the property owner will probably STILL not get their money, and in the mean time the renter is living rent free for three months and there's not a thing the property owner can do in the mean time.

You do realize that you are describing what happens when the person actually fights the owner, right? It doesn't always work that way. You see it from only one point of view, yours. I look at it from the other side as well. There are plenty of people who are renting and do what they need to do to maintain their lease in good standing and still fear having one thing that gets them evicted. What you described is the landlord actually going through (what I can only assume is) the correct procedure to evict someone. Another way is to simply tell someone they are evicted. It doesn't really matter if it is legal or not because there are some people who will believe it anyway. (I'm telling you that had any of the places I rented at told me I was evicted, I would have probably cried and figured "oh great now I'm going to have to come up with enough money to find somewhere else to live" at least if I felt they had a legitimate reason for evicting me.) Not everyone goes through all of what you described.
 
You do realize that you are describing what happens when the person actually fights the owner, right? It doesn't always work that way. You see it from only one point of view, yours. I look at it from the other side as well. There are plenty of people who are renting and do what they need to do to maintain their lease in good standing and still fear having one thing that gets them evicted. What you described is the landlord actually going through (what I can only assume is) the correct procedure to evict someone. Another way is to simply tell someone they are evicted. It doesn't really matter if it is legal or not because there are some people who will believe it anyway. (I'm telling you that had any of the places I rented at told me I was evicted, I would have probably cried and figured "oh great now I'm going to have to come up with enough money to find somewhere else to live" at least if I felt they had a legitimate reason for evicting me.) Not everyone goes through all of what you described.

It becomes pretty hard to get another place with an eviction on your record. Most people wont let it get that far. Most.
 
Should have found some neighborhood kid that wanted the recycling money in exchange for picking up the cans.

I did the trash out. Probably could have made some money off the cans, but It to was disgusting.

The old beer permeated right through the sub floor in the living room and hallway bedrooms.
 
You do realize that you are describing what happens when the person actually fights the owner, right? It doesn't always work that way. You see it from only one point of view, yours. I look at it from the other side as well. There are plenty of people who are renting and do what they need to do to maintain their lease in good standing and still fear having one thing that gets them evicted. What you described is the landlord actually going through (what I can only assume is) the correct procedure to evict someone. Another way is to simply tell someone they are evicted. It doesn't really matter if it is legal or not because there are some people who will believe it anyway. (I'm telling you that had any of the places I rented at told me I was evicted, I would have probably cried and figured "oh great now I'm going to have to come up with enough money to find somewhere else to live" at least if I felt they had a legitimate reason for evicting me.) Not everyone goes through all of what you described.

I see it from both sides. I've rented for years when I was younger. I took some serious risks, and now I own. The problem that I see creeping in our society is less rights for property owners and more "created rights" (legal protections is a more accurate term) for those who do not own the property. I agree there should be a balance - we cannot allow slumlords to exist, for instance. But, the property owner should be able to do as they wish with their own property when it comes to who they allow or deny occupancy of their property - again, within reason, not including discrimination of a protected class or for anything that is not destructive or dangerous - for instance, I don't believe that those in a SSM should be discriminated against for that reason. When a property owner is loosing money, or value, or property due to destruction, or is in fear of such a loss due to the renters participating in criminal activity, they should be able evict the renter without having to go through a lengthy and expensive process - that's all I'm saying here in this thread.

Truth be told, you and I are not that far apart here, if at all. I just focus more on the property rights of the property owner and you focus more on the legal protections of the renter, but we both recognize the position and needs of the other side.
 
Most renters I know could very easily afford that, it is just that it is essentially living in a shoe box without all the convenience and amenities of a condo.

Really? 60-100 grand? Then why the hell are they renting? That's a hellacious down payment.
 
I see it from both sides. I've rented for years when I was younger. I took some serious risks, and now I own. The problem that I see creeping in our society is less rights for property owners and more "created rights" (legal protections is a more accurate term) for those who do not own the property. I agree there should be a balance - we cannot allow slumlords to exist, for instance. But, the property owner should be able to do as they wish with their own property when it comes to who they allow or deny occupancy of their property - again, within reason, not including discrimination of a protected class or for anything that is not destructive or dangerous - for instance, I don't believe that those in a SSM should be discriminated against for that reason. When a property owner is loosing money, or value, or property due to destruction, or is in fear of such a loss due to the renters participating in criminal activity, they should be able evict the renter without having to go through a lengthy and expensive process - that's all I'm saying here in this thread.

Truth be told, you and I are not that far apart here, if at all. I just focus more on the property rights of the property owner and you focus more on the legal protections of the renter, but we both recognize the position and needs of the other side.
I agree with what you say, but to be fair when we get draconian consumer protections laws they are usually the result of some schmuck abusing their authority. Consumer protections laws tend to be reactionary, not pro-active. Hence, it's a relative few who screw it for everyone else, so it's great to promote (near-)absolute property owners rights, but we also need to know that if we condone unfettered property rights to the point of defending questionable behavior then it is going to come back and bit us in the butt later on, and we will wind up with less rights than we had before.

I know you are not advocating absolute and unfettered property rights, just connecting the dots as to why get end up with less freedom via consumer protections laws for others who may be reading.
 
Way to easy to abuse this law. It essentially would be a get out of the lease free clause for any landlord because all they'd have to do is claim they suspected the person of doing something illegal. Maybe call the cops a couple of times themselves about "suspicious activity" without any actual evidence, get a couple of statements made to the cops though and bam, the person is then evicted (5 days). It's awful and gives way too much power to landlords.

Blah blah blah our land our rules.
 
Oh come off it. For years and years, the law has been so lopsided in the favor of tenants despite the fact that it is OUR land (my family rents a lot of properties).

Depends upon which state you're in. Some are weighted towards the property owners, some the renters.
 
Really? 60-100 grand? Then why the hell are they renting? That's a hellacious down payment.

When homes are well over a million and a condos can easily go for 300,000$-400,000$, 60 grand is nothing.
 
I agree with what you say, but to be fair when we get draconian consumer protections laws they are usually the result of some schmuck abusing their authority. Consumer protections laws tend to be reactionary, not pro-active. Hence, it's a relative few who screw it for everyone else, so it's great to promote (near-)absolute property owners rights, but we also need to know that if we condone unfettered property rights to the point of defending questionable behavior then it is going to come back and bit us in the butt later on, and we will wind up with less rights than we had before.

I know you are not advocating absolute and unfettered property rights, just connecting the dots as to why get end up with less freedom via consumer protections laws for others who may be reading.

Well put, and of course I agree. I must not have been as clear as I had hoped in my defining of my position. I do not, as you recognized, support serfdom for renters being beholding to the property overlord, yet neither do I support those without an ownership interest being granted de facto legally protected rights equivalent to that of ownership.

And, you are dead on when you place the blame on the few property owners that abuse their renters for being at fault for the pendulum swing toward ridiculousness in consumer protections - and the same can be said for the few renters that abuse their property owners being the reason for property owners demanding stricter protections of their property rights. Most renters are just average Joe's and Jane's going about their lives who care about living in a clean and safe environment and do what's required to maintain their home and their neighborhood in such a safe and clean manner. Those aren't the ones I have problems with, and in fact try my best to keep those renters from moving out - most of those folks, the young ones not the older ones, will eventually buy their own land and house, which means they will eventually leave, while the older ones will stay but are less able to maintain the house without help.
 
When homes are well over a million and a condos can easily go for 300,000$-400,000$, 60 grand is nothing.

Then they're looking in the wrong area.

In my county, next to Charlotte, older homes can be bought for $50k to $80k with newer larger homes in real nice neighborhoods going for $100k to $250k and upwards of $500k for around 4,000 square feet of house. Not well over a million, but less than half a million for a HUGE house. Here's a link to some listings.
 
Then they're looking in the wrong area.

In my county, next to Charlotte, older homes can be bought for $50k to $80k with newer larger homes in real nice neighborhoods going for $100k to $250k and upwards of $500k for around 4,000 square feet of house. Not well over a million, but less than half a million for a HUGE house. Here's a link to some listings.

The entire GTA is like that, Vancouver is even worse, the average home is above 2 million and it does not get much better the further out you go.

This teardown went for 2.5 million.
backyard-of-2-4m-vancouver-home.jpeg


Browse Vancouver and Toronto listings it will give you a heart attack.
 
Last edited:
The entire GTA is like that, Vancouver is even worse, the average home is above 2 million and it does not get much better the further out you go.

This teardown went for 2.5 million.
backyard-of-2-4m-vancouver-home.jpeg


Browse Vancouver and Toronto listings it will give you a heart attack.

That makes no sense. You guys have more land and less people than almost any other country (short of Russia). Your real estate prices should reflect that. Unless you all decided to pile in on top of each other in a certain few places... that would run up prices like your talking about.
 
Your real estate prices should reflect that. Unless you all decided to pile in on top of each other in a certain few places

That is exactly what we do. There are other cities but jobs are concentrated in only a handful at the very most. Jobs are for the most part concentrated in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Edmonton/Calgary (slowly declining). Vancouver also has little to no room for expansion as it is wedged between mountains and has rather extensive urban planning. Though the main cause for the housing bubble is the extremely low interest rates compounded by wealthy foreigners (the Chinese mainly) buying up houses like that above, tearing it down building a McMansion then just never living in it. They also play semi-illegal negotiation games that also drives up the price. Then there is a lack of government intervention in attempting to cool it down.
 
Last edited:
Then they're looking in the wrong area.

In my county, next to Charlotte, older homes can be bought for $50k to $80k with newer larger homes in real nice neighborhoods going for $100k to $250k and upwards of $500k for around 4,000 square feet of house. Not well over a million, but less than half a million for a HUGE house. Here's a link to some listings.

You fail to recognize that job concentration tends to jack up housing prices. I know Gaston county well (went to elementary school there, and middle school and high school in Cleveland, and my dad still lives there in Gaston). That area has really not grown that much, so housing prices stay low because jobs aren't exactly paying great and people don't want to pay for a house (in general) where they really aren't earning the money to pay for it or they have to drive more than an hour or so away to earn that money.
 
Blah blah blah our land our rules.

Actually, no it isn't. There are laws that recognize that when you agree to lease/rent your land to another person, they have rights regarding that land, even if you own it.
 
So, basically it take 85 to 90 days to evict someone, and a hell of a lot of time and court costs to do so, and the property owner will probably STILL not get their money, and in the mean time the renter is living rent free for three months and there's not a thing the property owner can do in the mean time.

My uncle owned rental properties in a high demand area. He only offered 3 month leases so at any given time he could boot the tenants if he wanted without all the hassle and legal nonsense.
 
You fail to recognize that job concentration tends to jack up housing prices. I know Gaston county well (went to elementary school there, and middle school and high school in Cleveland, and my dad still lives there in Gaston). That area has really not grown that much, so housing prices stay low because jobs aren't exactly paying great and people don't want to pay for a house (in general) where they really aren't earning the money to pay for it or they have to drive more than an hour or so away to earn that money.

That was my point, when I said they were looking in the wrong place. Later on in the thread I even mentioned how the Canadians are piling in on each other in a limited number of cities which runs their prices up.

Oh, and you and I have talked a number of times about how you used to be from here. :2wave:
 
My uncle owned rental properties in a high demand area. He only offered 3 month leases so at any given time he could boot the tenants if he wanted without all the hassle and legal nonsense.

Makes good business sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom