So I'm just a dumb euro-poorand I'd never knew that the whole going to the laundromat/building washing machine was common in the US, i thought it always was just a thing in new york tv-series.
It's not that common. Of course, people do it out of necessity - mostly urbanites and those living in efficiency apartments.
Geez pal, you’re wasting my time.
My "argument", as you put it, is ONLY that there are more laundromats because many landlords don't install laundry facilities due to cost. Period!
And, when it comes to those said laundry facilities, the cost of the building department's oversight is one source of expense which contributes to the issue of not putting those laundry facilities in. Do you disagree with that?
What problem do you have in understanding that?
Your having trotted out a definition of "argument",(to quote you) "persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong", has no bearing here.
You are begging a point that was never made.
I am *not* saying whether landlords should be allowed to do their own plumbing work ... I am stating that the effect of more expensive contracted work, leads to having to make further choices in what improvements might be added to a rental ... and in *my* experience, did lead me to decide that I would not put laundry facilities in three of my previous rental units.
And yes, my renters did in fact have to go to the laundromat.
Yes, yes I hear your "don't run with those pencils you'll poke out an eye" whine about not letting a landlord do their own work. Your one-sided, irrational disdain for landlords in general makes you not credible and makes anything you say indelibly suspect.
Again, my comment is NOT about whether property-owner landlords should be allowed to do such work; my comment is about the effect of costs on the lack of laundry facilities in rentals, and how that drives people to need laundromats.
This is not about what *you* want the topic to be but what the *original poster* wanted the topic to be.
You state: "... (notorious alligators), which is in effect you making the case that landlords need to be cheap to begin with"
You are so delusional that it is hard to believe. I never made the case that landlords need to be cheap! ... I suggested that, when evaluating improvements to a rental, that higher costs knock certain improvements like laundry facilities out of contention.
That "alligators" statement I made alludes to the fact that in the battle between the cost of establishing a rental unit, and keeping rents reasonable so that people can afford them - at a certain point, some improvements can't be made.
Either you raise the rent, or don't do the improvements ... or don't buy the building.
And as I note, this has lead to a lot of property-owner landlords accepting the reality of not being profitable ... and instead hoping their efforts reward them with capital gains in the end. I have been careful to not get myself in that position, but I've seen it happen ... in fact, this was the case for the sellers in more than one of the properties I've purchased.
Plainly you are only capable of responding from one, biased perspective.
You stated that what I said implies I "disagree with the Building Department's procedures" ... it does *not* imply that. My statements imply that using contracted trades work increases the cost of adding of laundry facilities in rentals.
NO ... I do NOT support drunken shoemakers installing home wiring instead of electrical contractors. I've fully renovated a number of houses, one 4-unit purpose built building, a number of single family homes, and 3 duplexes converted from single family ... including at least one going back to 1892 ... I have seen my share of head-scratching ridiculousness in the work done from years gone by. I fully endorse the desirability of work done to code and using good professional contractors.
And as far as complications with building departments; you probably don't understand this but, the completion date for a unit determines when rents can start; and *that* specifically affects the overall feasibility (and rents) of a project.
I've previously had inspections for work delayed over and over, and in one case by more than 5 months due to alleged staffing shortages. In that particular municipality the well-known fact was that the city had instructed the building department to squeeze the rentals out of the city.
You hear people complain about the unaffordability of housing? - well THAT is part of it. You may not be sympathetic to that issue but it is a huge problem.
You should not be so self-consumed with your own narrow-minded, tiny-fisted petulant rants, pal.
You are picking fights over imaginary points that exist only in your own head.
My posts are a comment about why there are more laundromats. Period.
Your off-topic and unfounded rants have successfully reduced your personal credibility to the point that I am not willing to reply back to you further.
Seems like you can't even keep your argument straight at this point so good you won't respond. This is exactly what you said in post #27
Then up above in post #54 you say the following:
You are obviously complaining about the building department requirements in the rant you initiated. Yet you are calling the building department difficult for doing something you endorse. If you and the building department are in agreement then, that means you and the dept. expect the work to be to the same level of quality, therefore the work wouldn't cost any more. I don't see how you think that the building dept is making it difficult and expensive when doing something you endorse? Which one is it pal? Making it difficult and expensive (YES or NO).
Kind of moot though as it's the builder, whether that is the current landlord or not, who is responsible for the lack of laundry hookups. Full stop. It's THE BUILDER. What happens afterward is predicated on the unit being built. Which I already said with no response from you so any poor reading comprehension is evidently on you. (I even bolded it in the post for you pal, post #39.) I am ignoring your boldface question above because (in case you missed where I said "Kind of moot") it is kind of moot to claim the landlords being the reason, since the builders are the real reason. From the get-go, the builders create a pool of laundromat users about a week into the very first rental of a unit without hookups.
Besides you also assuming landlords act rationally in their decision making, which also is kind of moot (again).
Are you two married?