|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Owed rent
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
Owed rent
Author: Stan Russo
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 04:48 pm |        | Can anyone explain in American monetary terms, how much rent was owed by Mary Kelly and Joe Barnett when the murder in Miller's Court took place?
4/6 [22 & 1/2p] per week = ?????
30 [1.50p] total rent = ?????
STAN |
Author: Jack Traisson
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 06:33 pm | | Hi Stan,
It goes like this:
There were 12 pence in 1 shilling, and 20 shillings to the pound; making 240 pence to the pound before the decimal currency was introduced.
Mary Kelly owed exactly 29 shillings (£1.45). In 1888 the exchange rate was $4.87 for £1. This meant that Kelly owed $7.06 US to McCarthy. There are conversion charts on the web to show how much that would be in today's money but I caution there usage because the value of money from region to region is different ie. what a dollar buys you in New York is different than what a dollar buys in Anchorage. Hope this helps.
Cheers |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 25 November 2002 - 12:27 pm | | Hi All,
I've always felt it a bit of a coincidence, considering MJK had built up such a large debt, that on the very morning she would be discovered dead, and not a penny piece to be found at the scene, McCarthy had seen fit to send Bowyer round to try to collect.
The only way this wouldn't look odd to me is if McCarthy regularly sent someone round, or went himself, in the hope that eventually he would actually catch Mary with the readies on her - or, if the amount of rent arrears claimed was not, shall we say, strictly accurate, perhaps because McCarthy wanted to come across as the benevolent landlord, and hoped someone might be sympathetic and cough up whatever he claimed she owed, as a result of all the publicity surrounding her murder.
Does anyone know if the police checked McCarthy's books?
If, on the other hand, he had been happy to let Mary build up the debt for some reason, over a period of weeks, I wonder what caused his change of heart, on the very day that all hope went of recovering anything. Did Mary know in advance that this particular Friday would be the day of financial reckoning? Or was Bowyer's visit purely on the off-chance?
Getting yourself murdered is one heck of a way of avoiding eviction.
Leading nowhere in particular, but interested in hearing people's thoughts.
Love,
Caz |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 25 November 2002 - 07:08 pm | | I have a feeling this was discussed some time ago, Caz. My feeling then was much as it is now. It is that we can only guess at these things because there are so few hard facts.
In areas such as Spitalfields, where incomes were low and the pattern of earnings irregular, it was very common for landlords to collect rent on a daily basis, as opposed to weekly. With little protection from the law a tenant could – and frequently was – evicted just for owing a couple of days’ rent. That said, John McCarthy did state at the inquest that the room was let on weekly terms, so he appears to have been more relaxed about getting his money than many of his fellow landlords were.
Even so, in the circumstances it does seem extraordinary that McCarthy had allowed Mary Kelly to run up this level of arrears. Some people have attempted to argue that she was a relative of McCarthy, siting the name of one of her previous landladies, a Mrs. Carty, as a pointer. But McCarthy (just like Kelly) was a common name in the area and the family relative argument looks very tenuous and speculative from here.
Other people have sided with the idea suggested by Rumbelow (1987 edition hardback p102) that, "M’Carthy probably allowed her to run up the debt so that he could make even more out of her when he chose". Then there is the suggestion that McCarthy was accepting part of his payment from Kelly in sexual favours rather than cash. I can’t buy the first explanation because the landlord had let the debt spiral right out of control. It was going to take a lot of customers for Mary to repay the 29s. The ‘sex for rent’ idea isn’t impossible but again it is entirely speculative. Anyhow, surely McCarthy would have needed to adjust his books in some way to take account of such payment. What if Mrs. McCarthy had ever looked at the rent book and seen the headline arrears for instance?
Given that the police interviewed McCarthy, his rent collector Bowyer and Joe Barnett (and the debt certainly stretches back into his time in Miller’s Court), it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that they would have examined the books and looked into Mary’s finances. But we have no indication as to how deeply or thoroughly they did so.
There must remain a possibility that McCarthy exaggerated his dues in the hope that a member of the Kelly family might surface to pay off the money. However, any tampering with the books to do this was a risky game whilst the investigation was in progress. If exposed it might attract suspicion to him, it might attract legal proceedings and it would certainly show him up in a very poor light.
It's an open question as to whether or not Bowyer’s visit on the Friday morning was scheduled. In the mid C20th when the majority of workers were still paid weekly in cash, pay day was either Thursday or Friday. If rent was to be paid weekly the optimum time to collect it was therefore at the end of the week. I’ve no idea whether this pattern also applied in the late C19th.
We know frustratingly little about MJK that is concrete. Only sparse documentation of her murder survives in the official records. We have also to contend with the whitewash that was McDonald’s inquest. Consequently, any statements we choose to make about Kelly’s life and the background to her murder are likely to be more holed than a piece of Swiss cheese. Even so here is about the best that this commentator can do…
a). The rent was due to be paid weekly, as stated by John McCarthy at the inquest.
b). McCarthy confirmed on oath that the rent for the room was 4/6d a week. The debt outstanding was 29/-. That doesn’t divide out to a whole number of weeks, suggesting that Mary had paid off a bit of money, but not a full weeks’ worth, on at least one occasion. Probably more than once, I would suggest.
c). Undoubtedly Kelly’s level of rent arrears was exceptional.
d). We are not in a position to explain why her arrears had been allowed to reach this level, but McCarthy must have had some reason. It would be valuable to us to know what this reason was, because it might indicate new facts about who MJK really was and about the nature of her relationship to her landlord.
e). Those people who argue that Kelly’s eviction was imminent on 9th November don’t have a strong case. Her level of debt was such that McCarthy had little to gain and plenty to write-off (up to 6½ weeks of rent) by throwing her out at that point. He would only have done so if he felt that there was no chance of ever recovering the cash. (It’s the old story: owe your bank £10,000 and it’s your problem – they’ll take you for all you’ve got to recover the money. But owe them £10m and it’s their problem!)
f). McCarthy could have exaggerated the amount owed in the hope that somebody would emerge to pay it off, but that is only one possibility.
Regards, V. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 04:01 am | | Thanks V!
So assuming 'the landlord had let the debt spiral right out of control' and wasn't exaggerating it (Bowyer would presumably have had an idea of how much she owed), it would make sense if regular, but mainly fruitless, attempts had been made to collect a bit of back rent from Mary, say every Friday, the day she was discovered dead being no exception. I agree with your point that McCarthy would have had 'little to gain and plenty to write-off' by throwing her out at that point.
If he chose that time of the morning each week, it was presumably the best chance of finding Mary at home, having a lie in, probably nursing a hangover, but at least with her latest takings from the night before.
I just wonder if Jack offered her a much higher payment than usual for her services, perhaps aware of her debt and thinking she was in no position to turn it down, whether the cash was up front or not. From Mary's point of view, think what an ego boost this would be, a punter so desperate for her charms that he was prepared to clear her arrears in one fell swoop. Whether she would have used the cash in that way, or drunk herself silly with it, or planned to get away from it all - again? - is another matter. In the event, what was on the table certainly wasn't cash....
Pure speculation, but as you say, we have precious little else.
Love,
Caz |
Author: spaceyram
Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 10:33 am | | Hi Caz and Viper,
You've both posted very interesting explanations
for Kelly's back rent. I too, thought that her
situation was rather suspect. I doubt that McCarthy would allow this amount of money to just
go unpaid just because he liked her, or felt that
she was good for the money. His wife must not
have known about the extent of the arrears at the
time. The doss house was their living and at the
time, no one could afford to conduct business as
if it were a charity. At least that is what I
feel considering the poverty surrounding them at
the time.
I had thought it were possible that Thomas Bowyer
and or McCarthy were receiving certain benefits
and possibly paid her rent in exchange for sexual
goodies. That way the Mrs (McCarthy) would be none
the wiser. After she died McCarthy then claimed
to be owed this money, in hopes of obtaining it
from other sources, as you have stated.
Of course in order for this to be the case, the
two men must have been in cahoots with each other.
I could be wrong, but it is the only explanation
that makes sense to me.
Great posts people.
regards
spaceyram |
Author: Jack Traisson
Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 06:16 pm | | Hi All,
There are several reasons to believe that McCarthy was owed 29/- back rent. Firstly, Barnett never disputed this point, either at the inquest or in the press. Viper has already pointed out the risks of padding or inflating this figure. We also know that McCarthy turned down a large sum of money (£25 if my memory is correct) for exhibiting the room after Kelly's death. He could have used this to wipe out her debt and make some money, but he didn't. It shows that he realised the negative press it would have cost him personally. Whatever one may think of McCarthy personally - bully, pimp etc. - he was an excellent businessman. His estate upon his death in 1934 amounted to £15,667 13s 9d. So why would he let her stay? It made good business sense. According to McCarthy's inquest testimony, he said that the couple resided at Miller's Court for ten months (Barnett said it was eight, but let's stick with McCarthy's answer for the moment). That equates to 43+ weeks, subtract the time in arrears, and it means that Joe and Mary paid about 37 weeks rent while there, which if my math is correct, amounts to a total of £8 6s 6d. That is a lot of money for McCarthy, which may explain why he allowed them to get a little behind, because, for the most part, they were good rent-paying tenants. A ten month occupancy in that part of the East End is a long time given that many lodgings were temporary and transient. I believe McCarthy was grateful for the long tenancy, and that he didn't have to evict delinquint renters on a weekly or monthly basis, costing him money. If he evicted Kelly, he couldn't be sure of his next tenant. Given Kelly's youth, she was a potentially good wage earner.
There is little doubt that Kelly and Barnett started falling behind on the rent after the latter lost his job at Billingsgate Market sometime that summer. This means that Kelly was the primary wage earner. After food and drink, it is easy to see them falling behind on rent. I believe that money was one of the reasons the they argued, it is the number one reason why most couples do. It actually improved her standard of living to have Barnett leave. The taking in of other prostitutes on Kelly's part may have been a sub-letting arrangement. Now Barnett said that he brought Kelly money a few times. It could not have been much as he wasn't working. I think his main reason for seeing Kelly after October 30th was to try to win her back. With Barnett out of the picture, McCarthy may have saw a better chance of getting his money back. Several prostitutes to share the room and the rent.
When they started falling behind on the rent, McCarthy may have been told that Joe would get a full-time job soon, or that Mary expected her family to send money. These type of excuses probably bought them more time. They were obviously giving McCarthy some acceptable excuse on rent day.
Mary was very hard at work on a cold, rainy night (thursday), suggesting she expected a knock on her door on friday morning. She had already made money from blotchy face but knew she needed more, asking Hutchinson for sixpence. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that she had even more money than this, and that her killer took it away with him. She may have been threatened with eviction around this time. McCarthy may have started to put the squeeze on Mary, demanding she pay rent a couple of times a week, or even daily, in an effort to get the money from her before he lost it to the pubs.
There is no reason to believe that McCarthy was receiving sexual favors in exchange for the rent. It would be dangerous for McCarthy to do this under the nose of his wife. Also, it would be something that Kelly had over him. McCarthy was a very ambitious man, a man who wanted to rise above his station, and ultimately suceeded in this respect. In Victorian England, what would it do for his reputation to have local prostitutes gossip about his sexual proclivities. If he were so inclined it made more sense to do it elsewhere, with a sense of discretion.
As to the alleged family connection, I think this would have come out at the time, if indeed there was one. McCarthy doesn't mention that they were family, and neither does anyone else. So the conclusion is that there is no reason to believe they were related.
Cheers |
Author: Timsta
Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 07:00 pm | | Jack:
Coupla points.
i) Where does the idea that McCarthy was "a bully and a pimp" come from, factually?
ii) Agree with your suggestion that the killer may have taken money, remembering that all of the canonical victims were found without any money on their person. To my mind this suggests the killer was also in an impoverished condition. (Or deliberately trying to appear so.....hmmmm, no I don't buy that one.)
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Jack Traisson
Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 10:59 pm | | Hi Timsta,
1) From Arthur Harding, and Donald Rumbelow.
In 'East End Underworld: Chapters in the Life of Arthur Harding' McCarthy is referred to as a bully by Harding. Viper had an excellent post on this, saying that 'bully' was Victorian slang for pimp, though he believes that Harding was using the word in the more traditional sense.
Rumbelow refers to Miller's Court being locally known as "McCarthy's Rents" because it was a place for prostitutes to reside. This infers that McCarthy was a pimp. Since so many prostitutes were operating out of Miller's Court, there have been a few people speculate that McCarthy must have been taking a cut of the action. We have no way of knowing for sure, but my personal opinion is that he wasn't a pimp.
2) Even if one dismisses Hutchinson's statement completely, "Blotchy" was a paying customer. Yes, it is significant that no money was found in her room, or on any of the other victims. When looking at M.O., or linking the Whitechapel crimes together, some tend to overlook this aspect and focus only on the mutilations of the victims.
Cheers |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 08:37 am | | Terrific poste, Jack. Sound common sense from you here as usual. I particularly like your view that the other prostitutes sharing Mary Kelly’s room constituted a purely economic arrangement to pay the rent. That rings far truer than the other ideas suggested over the years (namely that Kelly was particularly compassionate, was doing friends a favour or had lesbian tendencies). The idea of sub-letting the room may have been Kelly’s own, or it may have been forced on her by McCarthy as a means of recovering his back rent. Given the circumstances I feel the latter explanation is the more likely, as you hint. If that was so, then it highlights another interesting point. If other prostitutes were introduced to 13 Miller’s Court in October as means of paying rent at McCarthy’s instigation then it implies that Mary was on the game at that point, and that her landlord knew all about it. Contrast that his official line that he had only just learned of her occupation. Still, perhaps we shouldn’t be too judgmental there because just like Barnett and some of the witnesses at the other inquests he had to be very careful about what he said.
Having considered the points you make about the ‘sex for rent’ scenario, you have now convinced me that it is a non-runner. It was simply too close to home and Kelly or one of her neighbours was almost bound to blab eventually.
However, though your point about Barnett and Kelly having been good tenants previously is well made, I’m not convinced by all your conclusions there. It would appear that Barnett lost his Billingsgate job some time in July or August and with it his regular income. Yet he was in residence at Miller’s Court until late October. The rent had been in arrears since at least 20th September, quite likely before that. Yes, Barnett was still earning irregularly and probably paying off something towards the rent when he could afford it, but by my calculations the arrears would have been around 22/6d. at the time he left on 30th October (perhaps even more if Mary had managed to pay some off in the meantime). That seems like a lot of money and more than most East End landlords would have allowed to accrue. Hence the question of how the debt was allowed to reach such proportions is still valid.
Kelly was found without money on her person. The same was true of the other canonicals and there does seem to be a pattern here as you and Timsta intimate. We know for certain that Kelly had entertained at least one customer (Mr. Blotchy) just hours before her death and at a time of day when the pubs and shops were closing up.
Regards, V. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 09:37 am | | Hi All,
I agree it makes sense for Kelly and McCarthy to have come to an arrangement whereby other prostitutes would share her room in order for the debt to be paid off. I'm wondering how long this arrangement could have gone on for, and how much back rent was actually recovered as a result. It doesn't look like a huge success, considering how much was still owed when Kelly was killed. But maybe only one or two others had been contributing, rather than several, and possibly only for a short while, or infrequently.
If one or more of these women entertained customers in the room, the question arises again of privacy and any steps that would/could have been taken to avoid being disturbed. Obviously the person who needed information about this more than anyone else was Jack - but did he know, or did he think to ask, or did he just take a chance? Perhaps he got Mary to put the equivalent of a 'do not disturb' notice on the door.
Either that, or he could have been faced with trying to down three in one night. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Timsta
Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 01:04 pm | | Jack:
Thanks. I really must try and get the Harding book. In it I believe he refers to my favorite pub (The Frying Pan) as being a notorious haunt of hookers.
As for the Rumbelow reference, I seem to remember that the 'McCarthy's Rents' thing was only a speculation, right? (Too busy to try and find it right now.)
Viper:
As you undoubtedly know (but other posters may not), McCarthy admitting that he knew prostitutes were working in/out of his property would have laid him open to a charge of 'keeping a disorderly house' (I *think* that was the name of the offence back then, correct me if I'm wrong).
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 03:04 pm | | So, Viper, Kelly and Barnett had been together since April 87. We are told Barnett wanted to get her off the streets, but, really we don't know what sort of relationship they had, do we. They seemed to be doing quite well didn't they?, all okay for money, didn't care whether they had the rent, and if they did they were quite ready to blow it and get kicked out from one place after another. What if Kelly was still on the game?, they went to live in a prostitutes hang-out,(Miller's Court), if Barnett was so concerned about Kelly not going back to the streets,-- he didn't care much about putting temptation under her nose. If she had never given up being prostitute, she and Barnett would be alright financially at Miller's Court, except, they started the game again of not paying the rent!
I think by the time Barnett was jobless, they were already quite a bit in debt with the rent.
Maybe it was McCarthy's way of getting to manage Mary's finances,--by letting them drift into debt,-- he could see possibilities.
I don't think Barnett walked out, I think he was told to clear off, by two women,-- they could also see possibilities!!!
Regards, Rick. |
Author: Jack Traisson
Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 03:58 am | | Viper:
I agree with you on the fact that it is difficult to find a completely convincing argument for Kelly's extremely high debt and why McCarthy tolerated it as long as he did.
Here's a far-fetched idea. What if they owed 31/6d at the time Barnett moved out, or exactly seven weeks back rent. Maybe Mary had managed to get it down to 29/- by November 9. Pure speculation - almost fantasy - but it does bring back in to the equation the nature of McCarthy's role of being more than just the a landlord.
Caz:
You raise an interesting point. One idea is that Jack simply had no idea they may have been disturbed, that it was just one of the many risks he took. According to Hutchinson, Mary and her elaborately described client stood outside the passageway of Miller's Court for about three minutes. I don't really want to debate the merits of Hutchinson's statements all over again, so for this discussion only let's take his word on this one point. Now if this client was the Ripper, the conversation he has with Kelly is useful information. For all we know, given the chance, he may have killed her in the open Court if she had no room there. Once she tells him she has a room, I am sure he wood want to know her living arrangements. Any punter would. Hutchinson allegedly heard her say "come along you will be comfortable." Finding out she lived alone was actually less risky that any previous killing when you think about it, less chance of being disturbed from the usual street traffic.
Interesting idea about a signal system. It makes sense if such a situation as I described earlier (Mary's sub-letting arrangement) was happening. The simple act of covering the windows might do. I used to live down the street from a massage parlour. When it was busy the blinds were drawn on the rooms upstairs, and when it wasn't the blinds were up.
Timsta:
Yes, the name 'McCarthy's Rents' is speculation, though McCarthy's ignorance isn't. There is no question that he wanted to portray himself in the best light possible by denying he knew Mary Kelly's occupation. This is common with people directly involved in a murder victim's life. Barnett did this also, but that's another issue. McCarthy rented out Miller's Court to prostitutes in my opinion because it was good business. Working men in Spitalfields (or any other East End district for that matter) often had to resort to casual labour, meaning sporadic income. Women could always sell themselves, and the ones who did it professionally could survive quite well. I don't know whether McCarthy was a pimp or not but he was defintely savvy enough to rent rooms to people who could pay for them. This bears out by the fact that when reporter Kit Watkins visited Miller's Court (along with all the other murder sites) in February 1892, Prater is still there, along with a woman named "Lottie" (possibly Julia Venturney) who was living at No. 13. An ideal tenant for McCarthy was a man who was working living with a woman who was on the game.
I better stop now, I have done far too much theorizing, and speculating as it is. I'm getting carried away by own ideas...and that can be dangerous; fool's gold in the mind's eye :-)
Cheers |
Author: anthony pearson
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 07:54 pm | | Warwick, Jack et al
Everyone has got so close to the answer of MJK's back rent but I reckon you possibly missed the one other piece of the jigsaw that I think might give you the simplest answer of all. Keeping one foot in Dorset Street (degradation, vice and reality) . . . ever wondered what all those ponces and bullies did for a living?
Imagine, (as you find almost anywhere that is the sump of our society) that MJK is a saleable commodity in a nightmare world of violence, poverty and filth, then the maintenance of that asset in order that full value can be squeezed from it would be of prime concern to any investor . . . No?
You provide a base for your asset to work from but will need to ensure maximum efficiency . . . enter the pimp! Whether it is Joe B. or some other 'heavy' it doesn't matter because he is simply part of the machinery that exploits the unfortunate wretch through every contract that she is obliged to undertake with her clients.
If McCarthy's main line of business is low lodging houses at 4 pence a night with hundreds crammed into his stinking airless middens, why let a relatively large 12' x 14' room for 8 pence a night to a single occupant? . . . Why?, because the brothel that he operates at 13 Millers Court is a veritable cash cow!
If you wanted to survive as a prostitute in hell then you would need a 'minder'. In less vicious areas this could, would and can be accomplished by a much older matron, as chaperone . . . In Dorset Street you would need my old chum, Bill Sykes!
Then, as now, every client of at least a reasonably attractive doxy would be clocked by her pimp, (she possibly working on a fixed time and probably for a fixed price) and, at the end of the 'shift' comes the real bummer . . . when 'Mr Sykes' comes for his rapacious cut of the takings!
The fact that Mz Kelly is in serious rental arrears is a positive advantage for Jack McCarthy for he now has total control of her existence. She can't bilk the rent, move out (and live!) . . . but she has a roof over her head. Meanwhile Jack can vary (with threats) the amount of the takings he can command (e.g. 8 clients a day at 6 pence = 4 shillings) . . . Jack and Bill take (say) three quarters (because MJK is now in dire financial straits) . . . what a little earner!!
No wonder Mary started to sub-let the room, no wonder the love sick but totally powerless (and jobless) Joe B. tried to get a few pence to her . . . but it would never be enough to break the shackles . . . she was doomed from the moment Joe fell by the wayside. One can only speculate on his state of mind as he saw her disappearing into ruin and despair.
Regards T.P. |
Author: richard nunweek
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 07:04 am | | | HI EVERYONE.anthony has made a good point about the despair of kelly ,she appeared to be desperate she was getting further in dire straits.one point i feel is somewhat bewildering is she told a friend earlier the night before she died she was sick of the life she was leading and wanted to go home to ireland to her family .she certainly was depressed ,yet she is singing at midnight full of the joys of spring.the question being why? drink can loosen you up but i would doubt she would have consumed that much that evening .drink costs money . also hutchinson just called her a bit spreeish. did she arrange to meet the gent in astracan coat at a later date and he promised her he would take care of her and her money worries and that is why hutchinson heard him say ;you will be all right for what i have told you. i believe the killer gained his victims confidence by his considerate manner and promise of help, and his ultimate thrill was to dispatch them suddenly at his convenience. regards richard. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 03:14 pm | | Hi All,
Well some things that are possible that we've all overlooked.
1.) McCarthy lied about the Back Rent owed. MJK may have owed some money, but not necessarily 6 weeks Back Rent. It is possible that she was only a little late, and McCarthy thought that he might be able to get a little money from the City or maybe even Barnett.(Notice Barnett never mentioned anything about owing any Back Rent to McCarthy.)
Plus, let's not forget, McCarthy's Mother actually owned the place. Meaning she probably took her own share of the money for the Rents. Does this mean Mrs. McCarthy was in on the suspected 'Pimping'? Doubtful.(Although McCarthy himself could be taking in EXTRA money than the normal rent his Mother gets.) Or perhaps Mrs. McCarthy was a nice enough ole' bird to allow someone rent free for six weeks? Even More Doubtful. Now perhaps Mary and Joe paid part of the rent every week but not all? A little more likely, but still Doubtful. So how do we explain the bill?
Plus let's look at Mr. McCarthy being arrested a few months later for theft and brawling. This doesn't bode too well for McCarthy's reliability.
2.) Some are saying 8 pence a night for that room in Miller's Court was WAY too Cheap. But we also have to look at WHERE Miller's Court is. For many New Yorkers, they'll tell you that most of the 'Rent Controled' apartments are in some of the WORST neighborhoods. Or you can check into Apartments/Homes in your own town and find out that those areas that are Bad Crime/Poor Neighborhoods have the Cheapest(sometimes OBSCENELY CHEAP) Rent.
So we could all be making A LOT of hubbub over nothing.
Regards,
Chris H. |
|
|
|
|
