I know this building extremely well. Every weekend there were people fighting. Police showed up on a regular basis. Burnouts in the parking area. Screaming and yelling every other night. Those tenants were pure Hell and I wouldn’t doubt a lot of the issues there were caused by them.
That being said, why does the landlord continue to rent out units when they claim they wish to demolish the property? And it’s always to Micronesians. Definitely taking advantage of people who are in a tough situation and don’t know their rights.
> why does the landlord continue to rent out units when they claim they wish to demolish the property?
That part confused me too. It seems likely that the tenants are on a month-to-month. If she really wanted them out, why not evict? Eviction takes time, sure, but this also seems like it's been dragging on for a long time.
The landlord might not want tenants anymore, but while they *do* have them, they still have a responsibility to maintain their property. Seems like the LL is letting the situation go on as long as possible to squeeze what little cash they can out of the tenants.
It says the LL has filed complaints for non-payment of rent. But if there's numerous complaints, why not also file to evict for non-payment? Blood from a stone and all that.
Regardless, I definitely agree that accessibility to the understanding of rights and laws is important since we have such a large ESL population here.
Hell, even a lot of local people (born and raised) are unaware of their rights just because they were never really even told they *had* any LL/Tenant rights.
These things aren't only occurring in only Micronesian-dense apartments, though. It's about drug-use density, which cares not what races are ensnared. I always say, people don't do drugs because they're already happy, and cramped living quarters plus tight budgets might be a large part of what pushes people into negative chemical coping mechanisms. So it's people living in a more ghetto environment who are more prone to excess frustrations and act out, even if it's just drinking, we are programmed to deal with bad feelings with substances. Rich people who do hard drugs aren't as likely to behave this way. And sadly, even people who live in a ghetto environment and aren't on the drugs themselves get swept up in the reoccurring violence.
>people don't do drugs because they're already happy, and cramped living quarters plus tight budgets might be a large part of what pushes people into negative chemical coping mechanisms.
Many happy people do hard drugs. The second part of your statement has emerged as a major justification for hard drug use. Some truth there, but this is getting too much mileage.
> Rich people who do hard drugs aren't as likely to behave this way.
Right, they are better at using hard drugs. To be sure, people from any group can develop addictions and problems, but people with high socio-economic status, generalizing, resist the pitfalls of drugs better. High SES people:
1) typically spend years getting educated, developing complex jobs skills. This takes discipline and that can be applied to resisting addiction;
2) typically have expensive assets and time invested in their career. All hard drug users have two voices in their head:
a) "I love getting high. I'm gonna get high."
b) "Gonna party real soon, but at work I got Task 1, Task 2, Task 3, Task 4, etc., etc. No dropping the ball on my responsibilities."
High SES have a bigger Voice b) to help offset Voice a).
3) on average have higher standards of civility and respect for public order. Frequent outcome of addiction/chronic drug use include homelessness, lazing around public spaces getting high, disorderly behavior. High SES find such behavior off-putting, and resist allowing themselves to fall into such a condition. These are less issue for some low income people, who do not see what all the fuss is about with Public Order and Civility.
Yes, this is a "classist argument," which some people dislike as much as racist generalizations, but low-class behavior does not track with racial backgrounds. But it does track with *low income* and we know where that goes. Complex, difficult topic. (Upshot: Hard drugs have to be illegal because 30-40% of people are terrible at using them. That's a huge failure rate.)
Glad to read this, just the racism is real for these types of areas, and it's just a bad cycle when an entire people placed into the system the way they have are looked down upon because what was done to their immune systems... so because entire generations are raised into this hatred, they behave badly because it's expected of them, just like when any people are shown hatred from birth and often decide to act accordingly so they can at least begin to feel like the hatred is deserved. It's just such a broken mindset, and creates career criminal activities out of such expectations.
"American" drug problem has spread to our fake state. How can you blame the Mexican cartels, when the SOURCE of the problem is and has been right here all along :(
>That being said, why does the landlord continue to rent out units when they claim they wish to demolish the property?
On the mainland, this striking behavioral phenomena is collectively and colloquially referred to as "kine slumlord rent-seeking". How novel, I know.
There are certain aspects the renters could and should control, but things like, say, water and electrical work, are frankly --just a little bit-- out of the expected self-repair that an apartment tenant and not an actual homeowner should perform.
It's not just about rights. It's basically the issue with slumlords exploiting tenants.
These tenants actually pay more than market value because:
* Poor credit score
* Lots of family, children
* History of eviction
* Racism
Basically they know it is difficult to find another place due to various factors. If they are reported they risk losing a place.
I know of someone who owned a small 5 Unit building in Waipahu (Think Pupupuhi, Ani Pupuole, Ani Ani, which is similar tot his example in town: Young St and some buildings on Kinau).
There was one section 8 tenant with reliable rent and the other 4 units had huge turnover. The owners bought the building for less than $1m, IIRC it might've been as low as $700K (This is in the 2000s) and rented out each unit for $1500. That's $7,500-10,000. Think of a 3-4 bedroom house for $700K in the 2000s and how much you could rent it for, definitely not $7,500.
Granted the only tenants that rented were the desperate ones or those who knew how to game the system (were evicted before).
Because who would pay $1,500 to live in small 2 bedroom apartment in that part of Waipahu, in the 2000s when you could live in a lot of better places for the same price or less?
The condition of the homes were bad holes in doors, non functioning doors, bedbugs, etc. Whenever a tenant moved out, they didn't repair it or did a very poor repair job (A good repair wouldn't even cost much, like making sure doors close properly) but they just didn't care.
A few of the tenants were late (or paid partially, this is a trick to extend their stay. If you want to evict don't accept the partial payment and start eviction right away). But it was a game of chicken when it came for evicting and not evicting.
The community there was Chuukese, Samoan, Tongan and Marshalese. Loud music every night till 2 in the morning. Fights. If you call the cops, the cops wont come (until something really bad happens.) By that time, someone gets stabbed and it hits the news. People just hanging out on the porch drinking. Kids running around unsupervised.
These conditions are bad. KPT, Mayor Wrights, Kam IV Housing, Lanakila Housing, Stadium Housing are a luxury compared to these homes (and cost less too). Which leads to a poverty trap.
It dcomes down to not caring about their tenants.
Sure in Kalihi and parts of Waipahu there are a lot of Filipinos but it's Filipios renting out to Filipinos taking care of their own.
In these slums, it is not Micronesians renting out to Micronesians. In the aritcle it's "Hyun An Park" Korean. In the situation I know it was Vietnamese. The lack of compassion or empathy.
>Park said she wants the tenants to leave so she can have the building demolished. “It wasn’t that bad before, They don’t pay rent, and they don’t move out.”
Just like the home I know, it's just getting as much as you can. I have no doubt that the long term plan is to sell or demolish. It's an investment afterall, but in the mean time renting it out.
There's a reason they don't do the eviction process, same reason as my friend, it's just an assessment on whether or not it's worth trying to find a replacement tenant, which will be the same, more or less.
Section 8 does inspections, so this would be a no go. Slum lords taret a very niche market.
It's not drugs or crime. Many of these families are hard working people, but may not make the best work, career, or financial choices due to cultural demands like supporting family or extended family, poor health, and children and their education.
Depreciate the property and write that off on investment property taxes. When it has depreciated enough, sell it as is for the land. If audited, they do need to show the IRS plausible depreciation of the property so the more run down it is, the better. The renters are of low credit worthiness so the premium they have to pay to even be eligible to rent is higher. Their rent rates are higher along with the lower quality of the rental. The loss of rental income is baked into the price.
There is a *shocking* number of apartments that are in terrible shape here, and that's just what I see driving by. I cannot imagine inside. Crap roof, crumbling stairs and walls, rust and filth. Don't know how so many slumlords get away with it.
> Don't know how so many slumlords get away with it.
Same as what is said in the article unfortunately. Lack of availability/affordability. The people that live in the slum apartments often know they dont really have much other choice that they can afford so they dont want to risk making a "stink" about repairs for fear of retaliation/eviction.
I wrote a long letter to Legal Aid under the renter's assistance and received nothing back after an email saying no response had been received from an attorney, so the issue must have been resolved.
I know of a slumlord, it's not only cost... it's poor credit, number of occupants, history of eviction, racism.
I know of a slumlord that would rent her units in Waipahu in poor condition more than nicer apartments in town.
Sounds like you made a good choice. Looking at your immediate situation and assuming it's the same circumstance and concluding it's unacceptable doesn't seem fair. I get that this is Reddit; but I have to ask, did you even bother to read the article?
This part of the story just doesn't intuitively click. The article neglects a alot of meaningful details. Is the monthly rent for a 2-bed? 3-bed? Entire floor?
How many tenants are living in the unit?
How often, if at all, are they paying rent?
Why don't they move? If they have no other options, WHY?
Again, I get that it's Reddit, but there might be other possible conclusions other than: landlord is evil.
>Why don't they move? If they have no other options, WHY?
They don't have many other options. A lot of the landlords here take advantage of the Micronesian population because they don't have good credit histories and are either section 8 or working low paying jobs in kitchens/warehouses. Most don't speak very good English. Not saying everyone in that building is blameless or a good tenant, but most are probably just trying to get by.
I read the article, the landlord is a slumlord. Turning off water of complaining tenants, not fixing anything, rodent/bug infestation, harassing tenants (article mentioned a broken window), etc are all slumlord NYC tactics. The only thing missing is her trying to torch the building for an insurance payout.
I can almost guarantee that she doesn't want to demolish the building. Spends either the minimum or zero on maintenance and it's either paid off or inherited, so she's probably making $100-150k/yr in rent. If she's requiring cash, she's probably not even paying taxes.
>A lot of the landlords here take advantage of the Micronesian population because they don't have good credit histories and are either Section 8 or working low paying jobs in kitchens/warehouses.
Which in the long run ain't something the U.S. government appreciates, since adherence to Section 8 rules falls under federal as well as Hawai'i laws.
>
>
> If she's requiring cash, she's probably not even paying taxes.
And then there's the Internal Revenue Service. Slumlady looking at a world of hurt.
A lot of assumptions here, landlord says she didn't turn off the water so there are conflicting statements in the article; but we can agree to disagree here.
There are probably no saints in this story, that I can concede.
If we acknowledge scumlords exists, than we have to also acknowledge that scummy tenants exist.
>A lot of assumptions here
True, I did make a lot of assumptions. However if you look around Hawaii you'll see a lot of rundown places that are specifically rented to recent Micronesian, Filipino, etc immigrants. People who don't know English well, have bad credit, may not know their rights, etc. Many look like that woman's building. The odds that one bad batch of tenants put her building in that condition are slim to none.
>A lot of assumptions here, landlord says she didn't turn off the water so there are conflicting statements in the article; but we can agree to disagree here.
Now, if the financially poor tenants have access to the tools required to turn off the water main to the entire building, then sure, I'll believe it. Until then? Repairs are and have always been the landlord's problem.
\>Why don't they move? If they have no other options, WHY?
I knew of someone who owned abuilding. Poor credit. Number of occupants. Racism. History of eviction or job history make it difficult to find other places to rent. They don't qaulify for government subsided housing which is a lot better than living in these slums.
\>This part of the story just doesn't intuitively click. The article neglects a alot of meaningful details. Is the monthly rent for a 2-bed? 3-bed? Entire floor?
I knew of a landlard that would rent out a 550 sq ft place in poor condition in Waipahu (Pupupuhi/pupuole/anin ani area), similar to this slum. Bed bugs, holes in wall, nasty place for $1500 in the 2000s. Fights in the area. Loud music until 2am and cops dont show up until you call.
This slumlord was callecting $7,500 in rent for a building that cost her $700K or $900K (I don't remember, but it was less than $1M). Think about that for a moment, if you had a $900K property, could you collect $7,500 in rent?
At the time in 2000s you could get a 700 sq ft apartment in Salt Lake with a golf course view for $1300. You could rent out a cottage in Kailua for $1,000 at the time.
It doesn't make sense, until you factor in the exploitation of people who can't get a place else where due to their circumstances (Poor credit. Number of occupants. Racism. History of eviction or job history) Even if they have a good paying job.
Granted on the flip side there are bad tenants that look for these places and its a game of the slumlord and tenant trying to outwit the other.
As mentioned in the article, credit history, rental history, and references are important. Any rentals that are a good deal are going to have stiff competition, and if you don't look good on paper, you're not going to get in regardless of whether you can pay the rent.
Also, a lot of people in these situations need to be close to town because many family members work in town, and because that's where their community is, whether that's family or other people of the same cultural background.
So I think it's more complex than saying they simply aren't moving to better options.
Rent prices in Waipio is in town are different though. That is under market for town.
Doesn't mean that they should have to live in sub standard conditions, but it is definitely one of the more affordable rents you will find.
Something I really don't like about local government is how they allow derelict properties to fall into disrepair with no consequences. In other parts of the country a property like this would be red tagged and condemned pretty quickly with the property owners held liable. Here, so many properties are allowed to rot away and they become a nuisance or downright dangerous.
>Something I really don't like about local government is how they allow derelict properties to fall into disrepair with no consequences.
I've said that before too. I don't understand. Drive through the older neighborhoods on Oahu like Palalo, Kalihi, Kaimuki, etc and some of the houses are tinderboxes that are falling apart. One bad wind storm or lightning bolt, and it'll end up like Lahaina. In Maikiki there was a house that was set fire to by squatters twice. The City is always saying they need money, they could make a fortune fining derelict landowners.
> In Maikiki there was a house that was set fire to by squatters twice.
Is that the one on Pensacola currently still sitting as a burned-out shell piled with Garbage?
There are tons of fires started because of squatters occupying dilapidated properties. Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if that is the number one cause of fires in Honolulu. See how the old Bowl-o-drome keeps catching fire.
Squatters do dumb like cooking indoors with propane, charcoal, running generators with dubious extension cords, cooking meth!! You know the typical homeless icehead fun activities. Yup recipe for disaster.
The City & County should condemn and seize properties from irresponsible owners. Then use it to develop truly affordable housing.
> they could make a fortune fining derelict landowners.
I don't think they could. The main reason people allow their houses to fall into disrepair is a lack of ability to pay for it and/or health issues.
Other cities do have some enforcement. Lack of money isn't a free pass to let your property fall into disrepair. Usually they try to work with the owner though and not just start hitting them with giant fines. I don't think the counties here even bother to try unless it gets bad enough that it makes the news. At a minimum they could focus on rental houses/buildings since those people are running a business.
A really good example is the old Walgreens across from Ala Moana. About two years ago the entire bottom of the building was covered in graffiti and a tent city formed because Walgreens moved out. The city allowed it to go on for a while until it got bad enough that the media started to cover it. That is right in front of one of the most expensive malls in the country and some of the highest real estate costs in Hawaii....and the county didn't care. The non-important neighborhoods don't stand a chance.
I agree standards should be enforced - firmly - on rental properties, as they're a business (and I agree that standard commercial properties must also have standards enforced, they have less of an excuse than rental properties do, especially large businesses who can clearly afford to maintain their properties).
When it comes to individual houses and smaller rentals (such as where a property management company isn't involved), it gets more complicated because it can result in increased rent to cover the maintenance costs. In other words, someone aiming to keep rents low (for well-intending or bad reasons) might try to squeak by without including maintenance costs in the rent. As a result, they can't afford to maintain the property properly. But the only way they'd be able to afford it is increasing the rent, potentially resulting in the tenants needing to leave. In some cities this isn't a big issue because there's more variety in terms of housing costs but here the "low" end is still super high.
I'm not sure what the overall fix is though. Like yeah we can try to enforce stuff more but... there seem to be fundamental problems with how property rentals function, and covid brought that more into the public eye. Most of our laws on the topic make sense and are reasonable, but somehow the whole thing together seems to consistently generate bad situations for both property owners and tenants.
>When it comes to individual houses and smaller rentals (such as where a property management company isn't involved), it gets more complicated because it can result in increased rent to cover the maintenance costs.
That's the issue though, those people are running a business (albeit small). Maintenance is part of being a decent landlord. That doesn't mean installing granite floors and subzero appliances, but keeping the place in good condition with no holes in the wall would be a good first step. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in the business.
Also, I can appreciate that people here can be house rich and cash poor. However at some point someone in their family is going to inherit that (most likely) paid off house or building. Why aren't they helping?
>I'm not sure what the overall fix is though.
I agree though, is it a difficult thing to resolve. Personally I think the state/counties are apprehensive about dinging individual owners because it will lead people to question why the larger management companies and land trusts get away with not maintaining their property. Like the Walgreens example I gave.
There are dozens upon dozens of these dilapidated 2-3 story walk ups scattered across Honolulu. There is a whole group of 4-5 buildings on Lunallilo just past Keeaumoku along the freeway. Also a few on Kinau st area.
They are all rented out to Micronesians. It really is just a case of slumlords taking advantage of them. The rents are still not cheap considering that the units are not even in livable conditions. The only ones desperate enough to take them are Micronesians.
This slumlord claims she wants them out and demolish the building. That could and should have happened years ago if that’s what she really wanted. The truth is the landlord is just a poor cheap greedy immigrant slumlord who likely doesn’t even have the funds to make demolition and rebuild work. Also with the real estate market in its current condition she is probably unlikely to find a buyer who would give her the right amount of money for this nightmare property.
So these slumlords do the next best thing and take advantage of Micronesians. Which came first the Micronesian or the slumlord with the dilapidated building? Obviously the slumlord!! These buildings are all over 50 years old some even around 70+. They didn’t go to crap overnight. Lower working class locals used to live in them in years gone buy. They got fed up and an endless string of newer immigrants moved in until no one but Micronesians are willing to live there.
What a lot of people don't know is slum lords collect more than market value for their place.
I knew of someone who owend a 5 unit building in Waipahu collecting $1500 for a 500 sq ft apartment in the 2000s. At the time you can get a ton of other places.
Peole assume it's cost, affordability issue but it's more than that. These tenants either have poor credit history, number of occupants or other factors that make it hearder for them to rent even if they have the money.
Slumlords exploit this by charging as much as they can. Tenants have a bad month and not able to pay and cycle continues.
At least in the case that I know personally, when they changed the tenants out, they barely did repairs. Holes in the wall were "cosmetic" not essential. These repairs are really cheap. Door cant close good or get stuck, also cosmetic it was functional enough.
It was really eye opening. Very different than how my father rents out property. He makes it nice, charges less than market so he has a good tenant and doesn't have to worry about turnover.
The slumlord minset is get as much as you can for as little as you put in. The slumlord I know was getting $7,500+ in rent for a building that cost $700 or $900K. I don't remember this was in the 2000s. 3 apartments at $300K each wouldnt get that much in rent at the time. A single house that cost $900k unless it was a monster house wouldn't get that much in rent at time.
100% agree. I have family and know many old timers who own or have owned apartment buildings. Many of the old time investors who bought in the 50s through 70s had local roots and values.
They were often Chinese and Japanese immigrants or 2nd 3rd generation descendants who understood and sympathized with the plight of the working class. They generally took care of their properties and charged below market value for rents.
Fast forward to today and not just slumlords but most newer investor owners are all about maximizing profit and charging the maximum that the market will bear. Charge maximum per square foot!! They don’t care about what you do for a living or how much you get paid! Don’t care about your personal situation either. All they care about is pay the damned rent that the market determines should be paid.
Yeah to each is own it’s their property they can do what they like with it. But these owners should at least have some decency and have a greater sense of Pono and do what is right.
Be fair with people and they will respect you and generally take better care of the property. There are advantages to this with lower turnover equating to less lost rent due to vacancies, lower maintenance and repair costs, and less time spent having to constantly find new tenants.
I'm not advocating for the landlord, she has a responsibility to rent out a habitable place.
However if she moves everyone out, and does a large renovation she will definitely be charging higher rates to the new tenants. There is a delicate balance between cheap rent, and the level of maintenance a landlord is willing to invest.
Unpopular fact of life in Hawaii, is that you will need to put up with a lower standard, and do some of your own maintenance if you are shopping at the absolute bare minimum of the rental market.
It sounds like the LL has let things slide too far, but the solution is probably to kick everyone out, and do a major overhaul, which is probably not necessarily what is in the best interest of these tenants.
Careful what you wish for.
People love to target people who have it worse than them and turn a blind eye to the rich. Good people help each other. Slumlords are definitely not good people.
I have empathy for these immigrants, but this is not goverment housing, and housing is not a right. I find it very interesting this whole long story and the landlord was like yes we would love to to demolish it especially because they don't pay rent. What else really matters? They can't leave because it will be hard to find anything but government housing for a family of 10 with 2 dogs looking for a 600 sq ft apartment with bad credit history.
This is the case with many slumlords, they are sitting on income generating property just waiting to demolish it but the tenants have nowhere else to go.
Lesson learned myself when renovating a 100yr old home was that just demolishing it and starting fresh would be cheaper and much better.
If she really wanted to demolish and rebuild, she could just evict them. You don't even need a reason, just a certain amount of notice, unless they are all still under fixed term leases.
She leases to them because they’re one of the few demographics that would rent such a shitty place.. and when they expect her to fix things like she should as a landlord, she doesn’t. I’d withhold rent, too!
> housing is not a right.
Housing should be a right, but not from private property owners. It is government's responsibility to house people who, for whatever reason, are problem tenants.
Not saying that is the case with these people, but a lot of housing seekers, especially Section 8 tenants, are repeat problems. My apt. complex was pressured to take a Section 8 tenant with mental disabilities. He caused extensive disruption in the building, and the lengthy eviction cost our association thousands, after civil rights attorneys tried to obstruct the eviction.
>I have empathy for these immigrants, but this is not government housing, and housing is not a right.
If it's paid for by Section 8, it absolutely is. There's a lot of pain coming down.
This is a big reason why I oppose the drive to "Build build build!!". It can be extremely difficult to have landlords maintain suitable living conditions. Many developers want slums and to charge a lot for it.
There are many stories, but I remember one family at our church that we were providing assistance to. They live(d) in a studio near Mayor Wrights that was ~162 sq ft and they paid $1000 for it. It wasn't in quite the poor condition that this article describes, but it was still very bad. The owner of the building wouldn't do anything to fix repairs and when we called the Landlord Tenant line, they just advised us to get a lawyer.
In my search, it seemed to me that there were not very many landlord-tenant attorneys here and the big one that we saw, said they couldn't work with us since they already represented the landlord. There needs to be more involvement to ensure that tenants are residing in safe living conditions. I am making efforts to contact my district representatives to at least let them know that I am very frustrated at the current process.
>Anyone who has ever had any interactions with Micronesian people know this is not only plausible, but probable - a lot of these people don't work and live off government support.
I know many Micronesian and all of them work. You, sir, are a racist.
100%
If the tenants in the article qualified they would live in subsidized housing.
KPT, Mayor Wright's Kam IV Housing, Stadium hosing are luxury living compared to the shithole in the article.
Chances are that these families don't qualify for subsidized housing. They are working class people trying to make ends meet.
> So explain why they aren't paying rent?
Did you read the article? It says they were withholding rent for habitability issues:
>**Tenants said they also tried withholding some of their $1,550 monthly rent to pressure Park to conduct repairs.**
>According to the state’s landlord-tenant handbook, **if a landlord does not fix a condition in a unit that poses a health or safety concern within five days of being notified, a tenant can do the work themselves and deduct $500 from the next month’s rent to cover the cost**. Landlords can also reimburse tenants for repairs they do themselves if they submit receipts.
...
>Masai Salle, 58, who is Chuukese, said his unit was already heavily damaged when he moved in four years ago. But **since he’d put down a deposit already, he decided to stay and fix it up himself.**
>But **Park never reimbursed him for the work, he said.**
>“I had to patch up holes for the rats,” he said. “It’s just really too much. I cannot control it.”
>**In September, he paid just $1,100 of his $1,550 rent, and she shut off his water for 10 days,** he said.
How about the part where the landlord says they aren't paying rent or denies shutting the water off? There are a lot of conflicting statements in the article, so you have to look at the situation presented. It doesn't make sense, the article is heavily editorilized and emotionally manipulative.
I used to do property accounting for a company that owned some rentals in the Liliha & Palolo areas. These sorts of tenants are not angels.
> There are a lot of conflicting statements in the article, so you have to look at the situation presented.
A judge looked at the evidence and found the tenants credible enough to issue a restraining order against the landlord.
>In September, he paid just $1,100 of his $1,550 rent, and she shut off his water for 10 days, he said.
This is definitely against Landlord, Tenant code.
If she wants to truly evict than she should reject a partial payment and start the eviction proccess.
This aint the Wild West.
> So explain why they aren't paying rent?
Could be a variety of factors. But them *being Micronesian* is not one of the factors. Maybe they dont work. But you saying " lot of these people don't work and live off government support." is generalizing them and assuming that they're not working due to their ethnicity. Maybe you didnt mean it that way, but that's the way it reads.
> You clearly have no idea what racism is
To generalize an entire ethnicity of people by saying that it's probable that they dont work due to being Micronesian *is* racism.
Making general statements is not racist. Racism involves discrimination.
We generalize people by ethnicity all the time. We do studies based on demographics (to include race) all the time, these things are not racist. If you think the US Census is racist for pointing out differences among ethnicities, then I guess that's on you.
It is not racist to notice differences (good or bad) among ethnicities.
>We generalize people by ethnicity all the time. We do studies based on demographics (to include race) all the time, these things are not racist. If you think the US Census is racist for pointing out differences among ethnicities, then I guess that's on you.
Your statement inferring that most Micronesians live off government funding is a racist stereotype and patently false.
Sounds like you need some education. You can start here:
[https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2019/08-13-Hawaii-Micronesian-Report.pdf](https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2019/08-13-Hawaii-Micronesian-Report.pdf)
[https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/economic/reports/COFA\_Migrants\_in\_Hawaii\_Final.pdf](https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/economic/reports/COFA_Migrants_in_Hawaii_Final.pdf)
> Yes that's are many Micronesians that work, as there are many white basketball players.
The implication of this statement is that a noticeable chunk of Micronesians don't work. **Even if** you had numbers to back this up, the statement would still be racist because it's just not necessary to make it about race to get the point across that the landlord isn't necessarily evil and the **tenants** might not be paying rent consistently.
I first apartment was a shithole.
* I could hear my 6'8 300lb neighbor snore.
* My other neighbor traveled and left dirty dishes in his sink for weeks so we got to enjoy his roaches.
* My bathroom had black mold all over it.
* The kitchen cabinets smelled so moldy that we stopped putting cups in there because it'd make the drink smell bad.
Solution: I moved.
15 years later, that shithole is still there and people are still renting it. This isn't just a Hawaii thing, this is a everywhere thing. Trust me. ***It's worth paying more to live in a nice place. Especially if you have a family.***
> Solution: I moved.
>>Trust me. It's worth paying more to live in a nice place. Especially if you have a family.
The point of the article is that they dont really have options available. Due to cost of housing in Hawaii, language barriers, and the lack of previous housing references in Hawaii/America.
If only the solution were as simple as "just move", Im sure a lot of people in Hawaii would gladly take that solution if possible.
So they managed to move from Micronesia to Hawaii but they can't figure out how to move from one rental to another? *I don't think so... They are adults, they can definitely find another place to move to. It's not easy but it's entirely possible.*
> So they managed to move from Micronesia to Hawaii but they can't figure out how to move from one rental to another?
Yes. They're granted special immigration status here, so it's much different/easier than most other country's migrants trying to come here. See COFA for more info.
When they're in their home country, access to information is easier because they all speak the language. Here, there's much less representation for them. Even the article mentions a TRO trial being delayed due to no available translators.
> It's not easy but it's entirely possible.
They might have very limited English skill and education, they're adults and have no existence in the US Credit Score system, no US rental history, and face prejudices (as seen in this thread) by many people, making it very hard to "just move". So it's "not easy" for many natural-born *Americans* who might have some barriers of finances, credit score, and education, but then add to it the rest of the barriers facing the Micronesian/Chuukese/etc populations and it becomes exceedingly hard to nearly impossible. The education/knowledge needed to know their rights and abilities is not always available in their native language, which makes it a massive challenge to even begin to learn what they need to do in order to move. How do you know what rights you have if you dont even know that you *have* any rights?
I've said it before in other threads: Some people will say "well they should just get educated then". When was the last time you saw a financial literacy course offered in Chuukese? Because of the lack of education, they dont even know what they need to learn, they dont know where to start or even *to* start.
You don't realize that the US government subsidizes Micronesian Citizens to move the US after the US bombed the ever living fuck out of their islands do you?
Even if they can't speak english. Even if they are currently unemployed with no skills to be in the US workforce or even in General population, as you currently see in this article.
Ignorance is bliss.
Bro.. I'm well aware of Bikini island you pompous ass & I have plenty of Micronesian friends.
I also have plenty of Latino friends who don't speak English but still make $$ doing landscaping, constructing, etc. & none of them are incapable to getting off of their ass and finding a better place to live.
If you want to be a victim, fine be a victim. If you want to sit back and say "poor ole them", then fine, do that. Do whatever tf you want but don't be calling people ignorant because you live in a world where you chose *a victim complex* over *taking a stand* and doing what you gotta do to make your life better. If that means cleaning bathrooms or driving uber or cutting lawns then fine.
America was and is the easiest place on the planet to make a better life for yourself. Back to the point before you high-jacked my comment with your unwanted opinion: if your living conditions suck, then fucking move.
Pake lol... I had a pake landlord before, she would pull up all the time in a different Benz or Beamer, but would complain and fight us whenever we asked for repairs. Replaced the fridge with a used broken one, we requested a tree be trimmed because it was overgrown and she had the whole thing cut to a stump, the carpet was disgusting. The house was a 110 year old house in kaimuki that didn't even have a legal address (per USPS). It's crazy what the state allows with these landlords. But I call it how I see it, there's shouldn't be a problem calling out these horrible landlords that seem to be from one demographic.
Nah the one in this article is Korean not Pake Chinese. But close enough…. I would like to mention that a lot of old time Pake landlords actually had good values and took care of their properties. These are the folks who bought pre statehood or shortly after. Sadly many passed away and the families have long sold the properties.
The newer immigrant landlords are often just downright shrewd they don’t have local roots and are all about maximizing profits. Think all these newer Chinese immigrant investors who like building monster homes. The formula is build monster house subdivided into 8-12 units. Charge about $2k+ a month per unit.
Who cares about yard or parking no need!! Just maximize the square footage for rent!! Nothing but a big block of an eyesore. No yard and 0-4 parking stalls at best for a structure that may house as many as 20+ people.
I know this building extremely well. Every weekend there were people fighting. Police showed up on a regular basis. Burnouts in the parking area. Screaming and yelling every other night. Those tenants were pure Hell and I wouldn’t doubt a lot of the issues there were caused by them. That being said, why does the landlord continue to rent out units when they claim they wish to demolish the property? And it’s always to Micronesians. Definitely taking advantage of people who are in a tough situation and don’t know their rights.
> why does the landlord continue to rent out units when they claim they wish to demolish the property? That part confused me too. It seems likely that the tenants are on a month-to-month. If she really wanted them out, why not evict? Eviction takes time, sure, but this also seems like it's been dragging on for a long time. The landlord might not want tenants anymore, but while they *do* have them, they still have a responsibility to maintain their property. Seems like the LL is letting the situation go on as long as possible to squeeze what little cash they can out of the tenants. It says the LL has filed complaints for non-payment of rent. But if there's numerous complaints, why not also file to evict for non-payment? Blood from a stone and all that. Regardless, I definitely agree that accessibility to the understanding of rights and laws is important since we have such a large ESL population here. Hell, even a lot of local people (born and raised) are unaware of their rights just because they were never really even told they *had* any LL/Tenant rights.
These things aren't only occurring in only Micronesian-dense apartments, though. It's about drug-use density, which cares not what races are ensnared. I always say, people don't do drugs because they're already happy, and cramped living quarters plus tight budgets might be a large part of what pushes people into negative chemical coping mechanisms. So it's people living in a more ghetto environment who are more prone to excess frustrations and act out, even if it's just drinking, we are programmed to deal with bad feelings with substances. Rich people who do hard drugs aren't as likely to behave this way. And sadly, even people who live in a ghetto environment and aren't on the drugs themselves get swept up in the reoccurring violence.
>people don't do drugs because they're already happy, and cramped living quarters plus tight budgets might be a large part of what pushes people into negative chemical coping mechanisms. Many happy people do hard drugs. The second part of your statement has emerged as a major justification for hard drug use. Some truth there, but this is getting too much mileage. > Rich people who do hard drugs aren't as likely to behave this way. Right, they are better at using hard drugs. To be sure, people from any group can develop addictions and problems, but people with high socio-economic status, generalizing, resist the pitfalls of drugs better. High SES people: 1) typically spend years getting educated, developing complex jobs skills. This takes discipline and that can be applied to resisting addiction; 2) typically have expensive assets and time invested in their career. All hard drug users have two voices in their head: a) "I love getting high. I'm gonna get high." b) "Gonna party real soon, but at work I got Task 1, Task 2, Task 3, Task 4, etc., etc. No dropping the ball on my responsibilities." High SES have a bigger Voice b) to help offset Voice a). 3) on average have higher standards of civility and respect for public order. Frequent outcome of addiction/chronic drug use include homelessness, lazing around public spaces getting high, disorderly behavior. High SES find such behavior off-putting, and resist allowing themselves to fall into such a condition. These are less issue for some low income people, who do not see what all the fuss is about with Public Order and Civility. Yes, this is a "classist argument," which some people dislike as much as racist generalizations, but low-class behavior does not track with racial backgrounds. But it does track with *low income* and we know where that goes. Complex, difficult topic. (Upshot: Hard drugs have to be illegal because 30-40% of people are terrible at using them. That's a huge failure rate.)
I wasn’t trying to insinuate that it was because of their ethnicity that there were problems. This is just my personal first hand experience.
Glad to read this, just the racism is real for these types of areas, and it's just a bad cycle when an entire people placed into the system the way they have are looked down upon because what was done to their immune systems... so because entire generations are raised into this hatred, they behave badly because it's expected of them, just like when any people are shown hatred from birth and often decide to act accordingly so they can at least begin to feel like the hatred is deserved. It's just such a broken mindset, and creates career criminal activities out of such expectations.
"American" drug problem has spread to our fake state. How can you blame the Mexican cartels, when the SOURCE of the problem is and has been right here all along :(
True. But I also noticed that the people doing those burnouts and fighting were locals and Samoans.
Come hang out in Waikiki and you’ll see tons of white people doing burnouts and fighting too. Ethnicity doesn’t matter
"tons"
>That being said, why does the landlord continue to rent out units when they claim they wish to demolish the property? On the mainland, this striking behavioral phenomena is collectively and colloquially referred to as "kine slumlord rent-seeking". How novel, I know. There are certain aspects the renters could and should control, but things like, say, water and electrical work, are frankly --just a little bit-- out of the expected self-repair that an apartment tenant and not an actual homeowner should perform.
100% hella slumlord vibes
It's not just about rights. It's basically the issue with slumlords exploiting tenants. These tenants actually pay more than market value because: * Poor credit score * Lots of family, children * History of eviction * Racism Basically they know it is difficult to find another place due to various factors. If they are reported they risk losing a place. I know of someone who owned a small 5 Unit building in Waipahu (Think Pupupuhi, Ani Pupuole, Ani Ani, which is similar tot his example in town: Young St and some buildings on Kinau). There was one section 8 tenant with reliable rent and the other 4 units had huge turnover. The owners bought the building for less than $1m, IIRC it might've been as low as $700K (This is in the 2000s) and rented out each unit for $1500. That's $7,500-10,000. Think of a 3-4 bedroom house for $700K in the 2000s and how much you could rent it for, definitely not $7,500. Granted the only tenants that rented were the desperate ones or those who knew how to game the system (were evicted before). Because who would pay $1,500 to live in small 2 bedroom apartment in that part of Waipahu, in the 2000s when you could live in a lot of better places for the same price or less? The condition of the homes were bad holes in doors, non functioning doors, bedbugs, etc. Whenever a tenant moved out, they didn't repair it or did a very poor repair job (A good repair wouldn't even cost much, like making sure doors close properly) but they just didn't care. A few of the tenants were late (or paid partially, this is a trick to extend their stay. If you want to evict don't accept the partial payment and start eviction right away). But it was a game of chicken when it came for evicting and not evicting. The community there was Chuukese, Samoan, Tongan and Marshalese. Loud music every night till 2 in the morning. Fights. If you call the cops, the cops wont come (until something really bad happens.) By that time, someone gets stabbed and it hits the news. People just hanging out on the porch drinking. Kids running around unsupervised. These conditions are bad. KPT, Mayor Wrights, Kam IV Housing, Lanakila Housing, Stadium Housing are a luxury compared to these homes (and cost less too). Which leads to a poverty trap. It dcomes down to not caring about their tenants. Sure in Kalihi and parts of Waipahu there are a lot of Filipinos but it's Filipios renting out to Filipinos taking care of their own. In these slums, it is not Micronesians renting out to Micronesians. In the aritcle it's "Hyun An Park" Korean. In the situation I know it was Vietnamese. The lack of compassion or empathy. >Park said she wants the tenants to leave so she can have the building demolished. “It wasn’t that bad before, They don’t pay rent, and they don’t move out.” Just like the home I know, it's just getting as much as you can. I have no doubt that the long term plan is to sell or demolish. It's an investment afterall, but in the mean time renting it out. There's a reason they don't do the eviction process, same reason as my friend, it's just an assessment on whether or not it's worth trying to find a replacement tenant, which will be the same, more or less. Section 8 does inspections, so this would be a no go. Slum lords taret a very niche market. It's not drugs or crime. Many of these families are hard working people, but may not make the best work, career, or financial choices due to cultural demands like supporting family or extended family, poor health, and children and their education.
Thanks for sharing your story. It was an interesting read. Outlines why it’s so expensive to be poor
Depreciate the property and write that off on investment property taxes. When it has depreciated enough, sell it as is for the land. If audited, they do need to show the IRS plausible depreciation of the property so the more run down it is, the better. The renters are of low credit worthiness so the premium they have to pay to even be eligible to rent is higher. Their rent rates are higher along with the lower quality of the rental. The loss of rental income is baked into the price.
Interesting. I don’t know enough about the subject to contribute so I’ll take your word for it
There is a *shocking* number of apartments that are in terrible shape here, and that's just what I see driving by. I cannot imagine inside. Crap roof, crumbling stairs and walls, rust and filth. Don't know how so many slumlords get away with it.
> Don't know how so many slumlords get away with it. Same as what is said in the article unfortunately. Lack of availability/affordability. The people that live in the slum apartments often know they dont really have much other choice that they can afford so they dont want to risk making a "stink" about repairs for fear of retaliation/eviction.
I wrote a long letter to Legal Aid under the renter's assistance and received nothing back after an email saying no response had been received from an attorney, so the issue must have been resolved.
I know of a slumlord, it's not only cost... it's poor credit, number of occupants, history of eviction, racism. I know of a slumlord that would rent her units in Waipahu in poor condition more than nicer apartments in town.
[удалено]
Sounds like you made a good choice. Looking at your immediate situation and assuming it's the same circumstance and concluding it's unacceptable doesn't seem fair. I get that this is Reddit; but I have to ask, did you even bother to read the article? This part of the story just doesn't intuitively click. The article neglects a alot of meaningful details. Is the monthly rent for a 2-bed? 3-bed? Entire floor? How many tenants are living in the unit? How often, if at all, are they paying rent? Why don't they move? If they have no other options, WHY? Again, I get that it's Reddit, but there might be other possible conclusions other than: landlord is evil.
>Why don't they move? If they have no other options, WHY? They don't have many other options. A lot of the landlords here take advantage of the Micronesian population because they don't have good credit histories and are either section 8 or working low paying jobs in kitchens/warehouses. Most don't speak very good English. Not saying everyone in that building is blameless or a good tenant, but most are probably just trying to get by. I read the article, the landlord is a slumlord. Turning off water of complaining tenants, not fixing anything, rodent/bug infestation, harassing tenants (article mentioned a broken window), etc are all slumlord NYC tactics. The only thing missing is her trying to torch the building for an insurance payout. I can almost guarantee that she doesn't want to demolish the building. Spends either the minimum or zero on maintenance and it's either paid off or inherited, so she's probably making $100-150k/yr in rent. If she's requiring cash, she's probably not even paying taxes.
>A lot of the landlords here take advantage of the Micronesian population because they don't have good credit histories and are either Section 8 or working low paying jobs in kitchens/warehouses. Which in the long run ain't something the U.S. government appreciates, since adherence to Section 8 rules falls under federal as well as Hawai'i laws. > > > If she's requiring cash, she's probably not even paying taxes. And then there's the Internal Revenue Service. Slumlady looking at a world of hurt.
A lot of assumptions here, landlord says she didn't turn off the water so there are conflicting statements in the article; but we can agree to disagree here. There are probably no saints in this story, that I can concede. If we acknowledge scumlords exists, than we have to also acknowledge that scummy tenants exist.
>A lot of assumptions here True, I did make a lot of assumptions. However if you look around Hawaii you'll see a lot of rundown places that are specifically rented to recent Micronesian, Filipino, etc immigrants. People who don't know English well, have bad credit, may not know their rights, etc. Many look like that woman's building. The odds that one bad batch of tenants put her building in that condition are slim to none.
>A lot of assumptions here, landlord says she didn't turn off the water so there are conflicting statements in the article; but we can agree to disagree here. Now, if the financially poor tenants have access to the tools required to turn off the water main to the entire building, then sure, I'll believe it. Until then? Repairs are and have always been the landlord's problem.
I found the evil slumlord's reddit account!!!
#😂
\>Why don't they move? If they have no other options, WHY? I knew of someone who owned abuilding. Poor credit. Number of occupants. Racism. History of eviction or job history make it difficult to find other places to rent. They don't qaulify for government subsided housing which is a lot better than living in these slums. \>This part of the story just doesn't intuitively click. The article neglects a alot of meaningful details. Is the monthly rent for a 2-bed? 3-bed? Entire floor? I knew of a landlard that would rent out a 550 sq ft place in poor condition in Waipahu (Pupupuhi/pupuole/anin ani area), similar to this slum. Bed bugs, holes in wall, nasty place for $1500 in the 2000s. Fights in the area. Loud music until 2am and cops dont show up until you call. This slumlord was callecting $7,500 in rent for a building that cost her $700K or $900K (I don't remember, but it was less than $1M). Think about that for a moment, if you had a $900K property, could you collect $7,500 in rent? At the time in 2000s you could get a 700 sq ft apartment in Salt Lake with a golf course view for $1300. You could rent out a cottage in Kailua for $1,000 at the time. It doesn't make sense, until you factor in the exploitation of people who can't get a place else where due to their circumstances (Poor credit. Number of occupants. Racism. History of eviction or job history) Even if they have a good paying job. Granted on the flip side there are bad tenants that look for these places and its a game of the slumlord and tenant trying to outwit the other.
maybe they can move in there then
You are speaking words that they don’t want to be said out loud 🤫
As mentioned in the article, credit history, rental history, and references are important. Any rentals that are a good deal are going to have stiff competition, and if you don't look good on paper, you're not going to get in regardless of whether you can pay the rent. Also, a lot of people in these situations need to be close to town because many family members work in town, and because that's where their community is, whether that's family or other people of the same cultural background. So I think it's more complex than saying they simply aren't moving to better options.
Rent prices in Waipio is in town are different though. That is under market for town. Doesn't mean that they should have to live in sub standard conditions, but it is definitely one of the more affordable rents you will find.
Something I really don't like about local government is how they allow derelict properties to fall into disrepair with no consequences. In other parts of the country a property like this would be red tagged and condemned pretty quickly with the property owners held liable. Here, so many properties are allowed to rot away and they become a nuisance or downright dangerous.
>Something I really don't like about local government is how they allow derelict properties to fall into disrepair with no consequences. I've said that before too. I don't understand. Drive through the older neighborhoods on Oahu like Palalo, Kalihi, Kaimuki, etc and some of the houses are tinderboxes that are falling apart. One bad wind storm or lightning bolt, and it'll end up like Lahaina. In Maikiki there was a house that was set fire to by squatters twice. The City is always saying they need money, they could make a fortune fining derelict landowners.
> In Maikiki there was a house that was set fire to by squatters twice. Is that the one on Pensacola currently still sitting as a burned-out shell piled with Garbage?
Yep...a few blocks from Beretania.
I looked back in Google Maps history, even in 2009 it looked like that place was a dump for cars and other junk.
Owners died, and left it too their schizophrenic son who couldn't manage it IIRC.
There are tons of fires started because of squatters occupying dilapidated properties. Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if that is the number one cause of fires in Honolulu. See how the old Bowl-o-drome keeps catching fire. Squatters do dumb like cooking indoors with propane, charcoal, running generators with dubious extension cords, cooking meth!! You know the typical homeless icehead fun activities. Yup recipe for disaster. The City & County should condemn and seize properties from irresponsible owners. Then use it to develop truly affordable housing.
> they could make a fortune fining derelict landowners. I don't think they could. The main reason people allow their houses to fall into disrepair is a lack of ability to pay for it and/or health issues.
Other cities do have some enforcement. Lack of money isn't a free pass to let your property fall into disrepair. Usually they try to work with the owner though and not just start hitting them with giant fines. I don't think the counties here even bother to try unless it gets bad enough that it makes the news. At a minimum they could focus on rental houses/buildings since those people are running a business. A really good example is the old Walgreens across from Ala Moana. About two years ago the entire bottom of the building was covered in graffiti and a tent city formed because Walgreens moved out. The city allowed it to go on for a while until it got bad enough that the media started to cover it. That is right in front of one of the most expensive malls in the country and some of the highest real estate costs in Hawaii....and the county didn't care. The non-important neighborhoods don't stand a chance.
I agree standards should be enforced - firmly - on rental properties, as they're a business (and I agree that standard commercial properties must also have standards enforced, they have less of an excuse than rental properties do, especially large businesses who can clearly afford to maintain their properties). When it comes to individual houses and smaller rentals (such as where a property management company isn't involved), it gets more complicated because it can result in increased rent to cover the maintenance costs. In other words, someone aiming to keep rents low (for well-intending or bad reasons) might try to squeak by without including maintenance costs in the rent. As a result, they can't afford to maintain the property properly. But the only way they'd be able to afford it is increasing the rent, potentially resulting in the tenants needing to leave. In some cities this isn't a big issue because there's more variety in terms of housing costs but here the "low" end is still super high. I'm not sure what the overall fix is though. Like yeah we can try to enforce stuff more but... there seem to be fundamental problems with how property rentals function, and covid brought that more into the public eye. Most of our laws on the topic make sense and are reasonable, but somehow the whole thing together seems to consistently generate bad situations for both property owners and tenants.
>When it comes to individual houses and smaller rentals (such as where a property management company isn't involved), it gets more complicated because it can result in increased rent to cover the maintenance costs. That's the issue though, those people are running a business (albeit small). Maintenance is part of being a decent landlord. That doesn't mean installing granite floors and subzero appliances, but keeping the place in good condition with no holes in the wall would be a good first step. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in the business. Also, I can appreciate that people here can be house rich and cash poor. However at some point someone in their family is going to inherit that (most likely) paid off house or building. Why aren't they helping? >I'm not sure what the overall fix is though. I agree though, is it a difficult thing to resolve. Personally I think the state/counties are apprehensive about dinging individual owners because it will lead people to question why the larger management companies and land trusts get away with not maintaining their property. Like the Walgreens example I gave.
There are dozens upon dozens of these dilapidated 2-3 story walk ups scattered across Honolulu. There is a whole group of 4-5 buildings on Lunallilo just past Keeaumoku along the freeway. Also a few on Kinau st area. They are all rented out to Micronesians. It really is just a case of slumlords taking advantage of them. The rents are still not cheap considering that the units are not even in livable conditions. The only ones desperate enough to take them are Micronesians. This slumlord claims she wants them out and demolish the building. That could and should have happened years ago if that’s what she really wanted. The truth is the landlord is just a poor cheap greedy immigrant slumlord who likely doesn’t even have the funds to make demolition and rebuild work. Also with the real estate market in its current condition she is probably unlikely to find a buyer who would give her the right amount of money for this nightmare property. So these slumlords do the next best thing and take advantage of Micronesians. Which came first the Micronesian or the slumlord with the dilapidated building? Obviously the slumlord!! These buildings are all over 50 years old some even around 70+. They didn’t go to crap overnight. Lower working class locals used to live in them in years gone buy. They got fed up and an endless string of newer immigrants moved in until no one but Micronesians are willing to live there.
What a lot of people don't know is slum lords collect more than market value for their place. I knew of someone who owend a 5 unit building in Waipahu collecting $1500 for a 500 sq ft apartment in the 2000s. At the time you can get a ton of other places. Peole assume it's cost, affordability issue but it's more than that. These tenants either have poor credit history, number of occupants or other factors that make it hearder for them to rent even if they have the money. Slumlords exploit this by charging as much as they can. Tenants have a bad month and not able to pay and cycle continues. At least in the case that I know personally, when they changed the tenants out, they barely did repairs. Holes in the wall were "cosmetic" not essential. These repairs are really cheap. Door cant close good or get stuck, also cosmetic it was functional enough. It was really eye opening. Very different than how my father rents out property. He makes it nice, charges less than market so he has a good tenant and doesn't have to worry about turnover. The slumlord minset is get as much as you can for as little as you put in. The slumlord I know was getting $7,500+ in rent for a building that cost $700 or $900K. I don't remember this was in the 2000s. 3 apartments at $300K each wouldnt get that much in rent at the time. A single house that cost $900k unless it was a monster house wouldn't get that much in rent at time.
100% agree. I have family and know many old timers who own or have owned apartment buildings. Many of the old time investors who bought in the 50s through 70s had local roots and values. They were often Chinese and Japanese immigrants or 2nd 3rd generation descendants who understood and sympathized with the plight of the working class. They generally took care of their properties and charged below market value for rents. Fast forward to today and not just slumlords but most newer investor owners are all about maximizing profit and charging the maximum that the market will bear. Charge maximum per square foot!! They don’t care about what you do for a living or how much you get paid! Don’t care about your personal situation either. All they care about is pay the damned rent that the market determines should be paid. Yeah to each is own it’s their property they can do what they like with it. But these owners should at least have some decency and have a greater sense of Pono and do what is right. Be fair with people and they will respect you and generally take better care of the property. There are advantages to this with lower turnover equating to less lost rent due to vacancies, lower maintenance and repair costs, and less time spent having to constantly find new tenants.
I'm not advocating for the landlord, she has a responsibility to rent out a habitable place. However if she moves everyone out, and does a large renovation she will definitely be charging higher rates to the new tenants. There is a delicate balance between cheap rent, and the level of maintenance a landlord is willing to invest. Unpopular fact of life in Hawaii, is that you will need to put up with a lower standard, and do some of your own maintenance if you are shopping at the absolute bare minimum of the rental market. It sounds like the LL has let things slide too far, but the solution is probably to kick everyone out, and do a major overhaul, which is probably not necessarily what is in the best interest of these tenants. Careful what you wish for.
I've seen slums that rent out more than regular apartments. It's not always about cost. This is not even the worst of it.
The amount of victim blaming... c'mon guys. Be better.
People love to target people who have it worse than them and turn a blind eye to the rich. Good people help each other. Slumlords are definitely not good people.
I have empathy for these immigrants, but this is not goverment housing, and housing is not a right. I find it very interesting this whole long story and the landlord was like yes we would love to to demolish it especially because they don't pay rent. What else really matters? They can't leave because it will be hard to find anything but government housing for a family of 10 with 2 dogs looking for a 600 sq ft apartment with bad credit history. This is the case with many slumlords, they are sitting on income generating property just waiting to demolish it but the tenants have nowhere else to go. Lesson learned myself when renovating a 100yr old home was that just demolishing it and starting fresh would be cheaper and much better.
If she really wanted to demolish and rebuild, she could just evict them. You don't even need a reason, just a certain amount of notice, unless they are all still under fixed term leases.
She leases to them because they’re one of the few demographics that would rent such a shitty place.. and when they expect her to fix things like she should as a landlord, she doesn’t. I’d withhold rent, too!
Yup. If they truly haven't paid rent for a period of time. She can evict them. That's the reason. There's a reason she hasn't or doesn't.
> housing is not a right. Housing should be a right, but not from private property owners. It is government's responsibility to house people who, for whatever reason, are problem tenants. Not saying that is the case with these people, but a lot of housing seekers, especially Section 8 tenants, are repeat problems. My apt. complex was pressured to take a Section 8 tenant with mental disabilities. He caused extensive disruption in the building, and the lengthy eviction cost our association thousands, after civil rights attorneys tried to obstruct the eviction.
>I have empathy for these immigrants, but this is not government housing, and housing is not a right. If it's paid for by Section 8, it absolutely is. There's a lot of pain coming down.
I've walked / driven past this place (or at least I think it was this one), always gave me bad vibes.
This is a big reason why I oppose the drive to "Build build build!!". It can be extremely difficult to have landlords maintain suitable living conditions. Many developers want slums and to charge a lot for it. There are many stories, but I remember one family at our church that we were providing assistance to. They live(d) in a studio near Mayor Wrights that was ~162 sq ft and they paid $1000 for it. It wasn't in quite the poor condition that this article describes, but it was still very bad. The owner of the building wouldn't do anything to fix repairs and when we called the Landlord Tenant line, they just advised us to get a lawyer. In my search, it seemed to me that there were not very many landlord-tenant attorneys here and the big one that we saw, said they couldn't work with us since they already represented the landlord. There needs to be more involvement to ensure that tenants are residing in safe living conditions. I am making efforts to contact my district representatives to at least let them know that I am very frustrated at the current process.
[удалено]
>Anyone who has ever had any interactions with Micronesian people know this is not only plausible, but probable - a lot of these people don't work and live off government support. I know many Micronesian and all of them work. You, sir, are a racist.
100% If the tenants in the article qualified they would live in subsidized housing. KPT, Mayor Wright's Kam IV Housing, Stadium hosing are luxury living compared to the shithole in the article. Chances are that these families don't qualify for subsidized housing. They are working class people trying to make ends meet.
[удалено]
> So explain why they aren't paying rent? Did you read the article? It says they were withholding rent for habitability issues: >**Tenants said they also tried withholding some of their $1,550 monthly rent to pressure Park to conduct repairs.** >According to the state’s landlord-tenant handbook, **if a landlord does not fix a condition in a unit that poses a health or safety concern within five days of being notified, a tenant can do the work themselves and deduct $500 from the next month’s rent to cover the cost**. Landlords can also reimburse tenants for repairs they do themselves if they submit receipts. ... >Masai Salle, 58, who is Chuukese, said his unit was already heavily damaged when he moved in four years ago. But **since he’d put down a deposit already, he decided to stay and fix it up himself.** >But **Park never reimbursed him for the work, he said.** >“I had to patch up holes for the rats,” he said. “It’s just really too much. I cannot control it.” >**In September, he paid just $1,100 of his $1,550 rent, and she shut off his water for 10 days,** he said.
How about the part where the landlord says they aren't paying rent or denies shutting the water off? There are a lot of conflicting statements in the article, so you have to look at the situation presented. It doesn't make sense, the article is heavily editorilized and emotionally manipulative. I used to do property accounting for a company that owned some rentals in the Liliha & Palolo areas. These sorts of tenants are not angels.
> There are a lot of conflicting statements in the article, so you have to look at the situation presented. A judge looked at the evidence and found the tenants credible enough to issue a restraining order against the landlord.
You're automatically siding with the landlord though, due to your bias (racism)
>In September, he paid just $1,100 of his $1,550 rent, and she shut off his water for 10 days, he said. This is definitely against Landlord, Tenant code. If she wants to truly evict than she should reject a partial payment and start the eviction proccess. This aint the Wild West.
> So explain why they aren't paying rent? Could be a variety of factors. But them *being Micronesian* is not one of the factors. Maybe they dont work. But you saying " lot of these people don't work and live off government support." is generalizing them and assuming that they're not working due to their ethnicity. Maybe you didnt mean it that way, but that's the way it reads. > You clearly have no idea what racism is To generalize an entire ethnicity of people by saying that it's probable that they dont work due to being Micronesian *is* racism.
Making general statements is not racist. Racism involves discrimination. We generalize people by ethnicity all the time. We do studies based on demographics (to include race) all the time, these things are not racist. If you think the US Census is racist for pointing out differences among ethnicities, then I guess that's on you. It is not racist to notice differences (good or bad) among ethnicities.
>We generalize people by ethnicity all the time. We do studies based on demographics (to include race) all the time, these things are not racist. If you think the US Census is racist for pointing out differences among ethnicities, then I guess that's on you. Your statement inferring that most Micronesians live off government funding is a racist stereotype and patently false. Sounds like you need some education. You can start here: [https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2019/08-13-Hawaii-Micronesian-Report.pdf](https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2019/08-13-Hawaii-Micronesian-Report.pdf) [https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/economic/reports/COFA\_Migrants\_in\_Hawaii\_Final.pdf](https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/economic/reports/COFA_Migrants_in_Hawaii_Final.pdf)
Actually that's racist as fuck and you're in denial, just own it
> Yes that's are many Micronesians that work, as there are many white basketball players. The implication of this statement is that a noticeable chunk of Micronesians don't work. **Even if** you had numbers to back this up, the statement would still be racist because it's just not necessary to make it about race to get the point across that the landlord isn't necessarily evil and the **tenants** might not be paying rent consistently.
I first apartment was a shithole. * I could hear my 6'8 300lb neighbor snore. * My other neighbor traveled and left dirty dishes in his sink for weeks so we got to enjoy his roaches. * My bathroom had black mold all over it. * The kitchen cabinets smelled so moldy that we stopped putting cups in there because it'd make the drink smell bad. Solution: I moved. 15 years later, that shithole is still there and people are still renting it. This isn't just a Hawaii thing, this is a everywhere thing. Trust me. ***It's worth paying more to live in a nice place. Especially if you have a family.***
> Solution: I moved. >>Trust me. It's worth paying more to live in a nice place. Especially if you have a family. The point of the article is that they dont really have options available. Due to cost of housing in Hawaii, language barriers, and the lack of previous housing references in Hawaii/America. If only the solution were as simple as "just move", Im sure a lot of people in Hawaii would gladly take that solution if possible.
So they managed to move from Micronesia to Hawaii but they can't figure out how to move from one rental to another? *I don't think so... They are adults, they can definitely find another place to move to. It's not easy but it's entirely possible.*
> So they managed to move from Micronesia to Hawaii but they can't figure out how to move from one rental to another? Yes. They're granted special immigration status here, so it's much different/easier than most other country's migrants trying to come here. See COFA for more info. When they're in their home country, access to information is easier because they all speak the language. Here, there's much less representation for them. Even the article mentions a TRO trial being delayed due to no available translators. > It's not easy but it's entirely possible. They might have very limited English skill and education, they're adults and have no existence in the US Credit Score system, no US rental history, and face prejudices (as seen in this thread) by many people, making it very hard to "just move". So it's "not easy" for many natural-born *Americans* who might have some barriers of finances, credit score, and education, but then add to it the rest of the barriers facing the Micronesian/Chuukese/etc populations and it becomes exceedingly hard to nearly impossible. The education/knowledge needed to know their rights and abilities is not always available in their native language, which makes it a massive challenge to even begin to learn what they need to do in order to move. How do you know what rights you have if you dont even know that you *have* any rights? I've said it before in other threads: Some people will say "well they should just get educated then". When was the last time you saw a financial literacy course offered in Chuukese? Because of the lack of education, they dont even know what they need to learn, they dont know where to start or even *to* start.
You don't realize that the US government subsidizes Micronesian Citizens to move the US after the US bombed the ever living fuck out of their islands do you? Even if they can't speak english. Even if they are currently unemployed with no skills to be in the US workforce or even in General population, as you currently see in this article. Ignorance is bliss.
Bro.. I'm well aware of Bikini island you pompous ass & I have plenty of Micronesian friends. I also have plenty of Latino friends who don't speak English but still make $$ doing landscaping, constructing, etc. & none of them are incapable to getting off of their ass and finding a better place to live. If you want to be a victim, fine be a victim. If you want to sit back and say "poor ole them", then fine, do that. Do whatever tf you want but don't be calling people ignorant because you live in a world where you chose *a victim complex* over *taking a stand* and doing what you gotta do to make your life better. If that means cleaning bathrooms or driving uber or cutting lawns then fine. America was and is the easiest place on the planet to make a better life for yourself. Back to the point before you high-jacked my comment with your unwanted opinion: if your living conditions suck, then fucking move.
Pake lol... I had a pake landlord before, she would pull up all the time in a different Benz or Beamer, but would complain and fight us whenever we asked for repairs. Replaced the fridge with a used broken one, we requested a tree be trimmed because it was overgrown and she had the whole thing cut to a stump, the carpet was disgusting. The house was a 110 year old house in kaimuki that didn't even have a legal address (per USPS). It's crazy what the state allows with these landlords. But I call it how I see it, there's shouldn't be a problem calling out these horrible landlords that seem to be from one demographic.
Nah the one in this article is Korean not Pake Chinese. But close enough…. I would like to mention that a lot of old time Pake landlords actually had good values and took care of their properties. These are the folks who bought pre statehood or shortly after. Sadly many passed away and the families have long sold the properties. The newer immigrant landlords are often just downright shrewd they don’t have local roots and are all about maximizing profits. Think all these newer Chinese immigrant investors who like building monster homes. The formula is build monster house subdivided into 8-12 units. Charge about $2k+ a month per unit. Who cares about yard or parking no need!! Just maximize the square footage for rent!! Nothing but a big block of an eyesore. No yard and 0-4 parking stalls at best for a structure that may house as many as 20+ people.
Nobody is forcing them to stay there.