Vegas Emptied by Greed
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: DougGanderQuote: AZDuffmanAs to Americans, the only thing I think people are "scared" of is having to zip their wallet because the fees have gotten to the point that the hotels might soon have the HVAC run on quarters.
Not sure why people keep going on about that.
Casinos are greedy. They have always been greedy. Nothing has changed there. They have never been philanthropic institutions, they have a fiduciary legal responsibility to create as much shareholder value as possible.
link to original post
Wanting to make a profit is not greed. But the problem is about how they are doing it. Show a cheap price for a room then add a bunch of junk fees? People do not like that. A $250 a night room charges for WiFi when Motel6 gives if for free? Feels like a ripoff. Limit the free drinks when you play, charge to park, fee here, fee there. People do not like how that feels.
I will keep saying it. Vegas no longer wants the small business owner from Fort Wayne. They no longer want the middle America that built their business in the Mirage era. It is the 80/20 rule where 20% of your customers give 89% or your profit. But you cannot just drive away that 80% or else there is a new 80/20.
link to original post
How much of the money in Vegas comes from foreign tourists because every time I've ever been there in the last 40 years that's all I see. I haven't been there since 2019 and I'm never going back but every time before that the Strip was always jammed with foreign tourists. And they aren't rich, these high prices have to be driving them away.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: DougGanderQuote: AZDuffmanAs to Americans, the only thing I think people are "scared" of is having to zip their wallet because the fees have gotten to the point that the hotels might soon have the HVAC run on quarters.
Not sure why people keep going on about that.
Casinos are greedy. They have always been greedy. Nothing has changed there. They have never been philanthropic institutions, they have a fiduciary legal responsibility to create as much shareholder value as possible.
link to original post
Wanting to make a profit is not greed. But the problem is about how they are doing it. Show a cheap price for a room then add a bunch of junk fees? People do not like that. A $250 a night room charges for WiFi when Motel6 gives if for free? Feels like a ripoff. Limit the free drinks when you play, charge to park, fee here, fee there. People do not like how that feels.
I will keep saying it. Vegas no longer wants the small business owner from Fort Wayne. They no longer want the middle America that built their business in the Mirage era. It is the 80/20 rule where 20% of your customers give 89% or your profit. But you cannot just drive away that 80% or else there is a new 80/20.
link to original post
Well you can because that is what they are doing. That's capitalism. Not sure where you are going with this.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyThe resort fees have carried over to apartment rentals too. They don't call them that but they will call them "amenity fees" or something like that, bunch of junk fees, and that $1000/mo apartment is actually a $1500/mo apartment. If you walk away from it they've already bagged you for the application fee which is all profit and they can do that indefinitely. Really sleazy.
link to original post
Application fee? I'm totally unfamiliar with that world, I would never pay such a thing. I would laugh in their face.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: AutomaticMonkeyThe resort fees have carried over to apartment rentals too. They don't call them that but they will call them "amenity fees" or something like that, bunch of junk fees, and that $1000/mo apartment is actually a $1500/mo apartment. If you walk away from it they've already bagged you for the application fee which is all profit and they can do that indefinitely. Really sleazy.
link to original post
Application fee? I'm totally unfamiliar with that world, I would never pay such a thing. I would laugh in their face.
link to original post
It's not really a renter's market.
You pay, or your application gets ignored.
Quote: DieterQuote: EvenBobQuote: AutomaticMonkeyThe resort fees have carried over to apartment rentals too. They don't call them that but they will call them "amenity fees" or something like that, bunch of junk fees, and that $1000/mo apartment is actually a $1500/mo apartment. If you walk away from it they've already bagged you for the application fee which is all profit and they can do that indefinitely. Really sleazy.
link to original post
Application fee? I'm totally unfamiliar with that world, I would never pay such a thing. I would laugh in their face.
link to original post
It's not really a renter's market.
You pay, or your application gets ignored.
link to original post
I was a bit shocked when moving into town, not so much by the prices but by the shameless duplicity, talking to some of these companies. If you ask enough times, they will tell you that the junk fees are variable, which to me sounds an awful lot like "We can raise your rent as much as we want any time we want." So you don't really have a lease.
After an incident where I had to grieve it with the credit card company to get an application fee back, I started asking very precise questions and requesting the answers in writing before giving them anything. Most of them didn't like that very much. But I did find a few good guys in the bunch.
Quote: DougGanderQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: DougGanderQuote: AZDuffmanAs to Americans, the only thing I think people are "scared" of is having to zip their wallet because the fees have gotten to the point that the hotels might soon have the HVAC run on quarters.
Not sure why people keep going on about that.
Casinos are greedy. They have always been greedy. Nothing has changed there. They have never been philanthropic institutions, they have a fiduciary legal responsibility to create as much shareholder value as possible.
link to original post
Wanting to make a profit is not greed. But the problem is about how they are doing it. Show a cheap price for a room then add a bunch of junk fees? People do not like that. A $250 a night room charges for WiFi when Motel6 gives if for free? Feels like a ripoff. Limit the free drinks when you play, charge to park, fee here, fee there. People do not like how that feels.
I will keep saying it. Vegas no longer wants the small business owner from Fort Wayne. They no longer want the middle America that built their business in the Mirage era. It is the 80/20 rule where 20% of your customers give 89% or your profit. But you cannot just drive away that 80% or else there is a new 80/20.
link to original post
Well you can because that is what they are doing. That's capitalism. Not sure where you are going with this.
link to original post
OK, then, for the ESL crowd. Just because you can does not mean you should. In this case "you can't" means that if you do it your business will eventually wither away and fail. Do not take everything you read literally.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: DougGanderQuote: AZDuffmanAs to Americans, the only thing I think people are "scared" of is having to zip their wallet because the fees have gotten to the point that the hotels might soon have the HVAC run on quarters.
Not sure why people keep going on about that.
Casinos are greedy. They have always been greedy. Nothing has changed there. They have never been philanthropic institutions, they have a fiduciary legal responsibility to create as much shareholder value as possible.
link to original post
Wanting to make a profit is not greed. But the problem is about how they are doing it. Show a cheap price for a room then add a bunch of junk fees? People do not like that. A $250 a night room charges for WiFi when Motel6 gives if for free? Feels like a ripoff. Limit the free drinks when you play, charge to park, fee here, fee there. People do not like how that feels.
I will keep saying it. Vegas no longer wants the small business owner from Fort Wayne. They no longer want the middle America that built their business in the Mirage era. It is the 80/20 rule where 20% of your customers give 89% or your profit. But you cannot just drive away that 80% or else there is a new 80/20.
link to original post
How much of the money in Vegas comes from foreign tourists because every time I've ever been there in the last 40 years that's all I see. I haven't been there since 2019 and I'm never going back but every time before that the Strip was always jammed with foreign tourists. And they aren't rich, these high prices have to be driving them away.
link to original post
If they are traveling internationally they are probably well off. Especially the Asian crowds. Trans-pacific flights are not cheap.
Unless a landlord is handing out dozens of applications to people they know won't qualify, I've no issue with prospective renters paying to apply.. I believe I paid a $99 application fee for The Commons, and it was applied to the end of the lease. One good thing about application fees is that they can result in smaller security deposits. In my case, the security deposit was waived based on my thirty-year background of timely payments. Someone with a history of late payments might have had to pay a month's rent.
In my case, the landlord did a background check, conducted a personal interview, and wanted to meet my dog before approving me.
Quote: AZDuffman
OK, then, for the ESL crowd. Just because you can does not mean you should. In this case "you can't" means that if you do it your business will eventually wither away and fail. Do not take everything you read literally.
link to original post
I understood your meaning.
I see no evidence that this strategy is less profitable than the alternative, you have not provided any, and none exists.
Here is how business people operate: they maximize wealth for themselves. If a decision is unprofitable they stop doing it. Wealth has massively concentrated into fewer hands and it doesn't make sense to cultivate a larger audience any more.The money is with the 1% that is all that matters.
You just seem to be angry because capitalism doesn't value you and has excluded you from the market. Welcome to the club everyone else is in.
Quote: odiousgambitThere is such a thing as gouging.... not excused by need for profit
link to original post
This doesn't mean the legal definition of gouging which is generally focused around the concept of exploiting general emergencies/disasters.
In one of the most significant periods of economic expansion in history, Harrah's, and whatever name it gives itself this year, has seen its debt load nearly triple while losing substantial chunks of its customer base.
Quote: billryanA landlord has a responsibility to provide all their tenants with a safe environment. As a tenant who is signing a lease, I think I have the right to expect that my landlord won't move in a sex offender or violent felon. To protect themselves and their tenants, landlords must conduct background checks, and I don't see why anyone but the applicant should pay for them. If the application and background check are free to the applicant, it just means the landlord passed the cost on to everyone via the rent.
Unless a landlord is handing out dozens of applications to people they know won't qualify, I've no issue with prospective renters paying to apply.. I believe I paid a $99 application fee for The Commons, and it was applied to the end of the lease. One good thing about application fees is that they can result in smaller security deposits. In my case, the security deposit was waived based on my thirty-year background of timely payments. Someone with a history of late payments might have had to pay a month's rent.
In my case, the landlord did a background check, conducted a personal interview, and wanted to meet my dog before approving me.
link to original post
In certain states, application fees, background check fees or other named or unnamed fees are illegal. For example, here in MA, a landlord or prospective landlord may only charge first and last months rent, a sec deposit and a lock change fee. And that's it. Can't charge anything else. Doesn't mean landlords won't do it or at least try to do it, but it's illegal. Even a pet deposit or pet surcharge or move out cleaning fee is out. Can't even charge for snow removal in the winter. Source? Me. Owner-occupied two family homeowner with tenants since 2008.
I had a friend who rented an apartment and the landlord corporation charged an application fee. He then deducted the application fee from the next month's rent, with a carefully worded letter stating such fees are illegal and consider the payment of such a fee as partial payment on the rent due. Landlord took him to small claims court and my friend not only won but won triple damages, as allowed by law.
Honestly, I've never understood the rationale that a landlord can't pick and choose their tenants.
It doesn't make sense that as a business owner, I can choose who I wish to do business with, but I don't get to pick who lives in an apartment in my house.
Quote: billryanThe way to get around that is to have the landlord's agent require an application fee. The landlord's realtor may legally require prospective renters to fill out an application and can charge for that.
Honestly, I've never understood the rationale that a landlord can't pick and choose their tenants.
It doesn't make sense that as a business owner, I can choose who I wish to do business with, but I don't get to pick who lives in an apartment in my house.
link to original post
Again, MA law prevents application fees, no matter who on the part of the landlord is collecting. No getting around it. Some have tried. All, to my knowledge, have failed. Indeed, a new law makes it mandatory that landlords pay the RE brokers' fee as well. I never bothered. Calling employers to verify employment and salary and calling previous landlords costs me nothing. I can also roll the $50 criminal record check fee or anything else into the rent. In your state, YMMV.
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: billryanThe way to get around that is to have the landlord's agent require an application fee. The landlord's realtor may legally require prospective renters to fill out an application and can charge for that.
Honestly, I've never understood the rationale that a landlord can't pick and choose their tenants.
It doesn't make sense that as a business owner, I can choose who I wish to do business with, but I don't get to pick who lives in an apartment in my house.
link to original post
Again, MA law prevents application fees, no matter who on the part of the landlord is collecting. No getting around it. Some have tried. All, to my knowledge, have failed. Indeed, a new law makes it mandatory that landlords pay the RE brokers' fee as well. I never bothered. Calling employers to verify employment and salary and calling previous landlords costs me nothing. I can also roll the $50 criminal record check fee or anything else into the rent. In your state, YMMV.
link to original post
Incorrect. The law doesn't allow landlords to collect fees. The law allows realtors to collect application fees, and the landlord can choose to use a realtor exclusively.
Quote: billryanA landlord has a responsibility to provide all their tenants with a safe environment. As a tenant who is signing a lease, I think I have the right to expect that my landlord won't move in a sex offender or violent felon. To protect themselves and their tenants, landlords must conduct background checks, and I don't see why anyone but the applicant should pay for them. If the application and background check are free to the applicant, it just means the landlord passed the cost on to everyone via the rent.
Unless a landlord is handing out dozens of applications to people they know won't qualify, I've no issue with prospective renters paying to apply.. I believe I paid a $99 application fee for The Commons, and it was applied to the end of the lease. One good thing about application fees is that they can result in smaller security deposits. In my case, the security deposit was waived based on my thirty-year background of timely payments. Someone with a history of late payments might have had to pay a month's rent.
In my case, the landlord did a background check, conducted a personal interview, and wanted to meet my dog before approving me.
link to original post
No I don't think you can have any expectation that there won't be a violent felon or sex offender. I know for a fact that there are both, in my apartment complex. I've even seen them practicing their crafts. Some places choose to exclude them (where the law allows) and others don't.
Quote: billryanQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: billryanThe way to get around that is to have the landlord's agent require an application fee. The landlord's realtor may legally require prospective renters to fill out an application and can charge for that.
Honestly, I've never understood the rationale that a landlord can't pick and choose their tenants.
It doesn't make sense that as a business owner, I can choose who I wish to do business with, but I don't get to pick who lives in an apartment in my house.
link to original post
Again, MA law prevents application fees, no matter who on the part of the landlord is collecting. No getting around it. Some have tried. All, to my knowledge, have failed. Indeed, a new law makes it mandatory that landlords pay the RE brokers' fee as well. I never bothered. Calling employers to verify employment and salary and calling previous landlords costs me nothing. I can also roll the $50 criminal record check fee or anything else into the rent. In your state, YMMV.
link to original post
Incorrect. The law doesn't allow landlords to collect fees. The law allows realtors to collect application fees, and the landlord can choose to use a realtor exclusively.
link to original post
Your incorrect is mostly incorrect. In Massachusetts, landlords can only charge new tenants for the first month's rent, last month's rent, a security deposit (up to one month's rent), and the actual cost of a new lock and key; landlords cannot charge application fees, background check fees, or the landlord's broker fee as of August 1, 2025, with that broker fee now the landlord's responsibility if they hire the broker. Tenants only pay a broker fee if they hired the broker independently, and landlords must provide receipts for all payments. Ref: MGL c. 186, § 15B and MGL c. 112, § 87DDD1/2.
Anything else?
Tenants have a right to enjoy their premises peacefully, and landlords have a responsibility to ensure it.
It is the Doctrine Of Peaceful Enjoyment.
Quote: DieterQuote: EvenBobQuote: AutomaticMonkeyThe resort fees have carried over to apartment rentals too. They don't call them that but they will call them "amenity fees" or something like that, bunch of junk fees, and that $1000/mo apartment is actually a $1500/mo apartment. If you walk away from it they've already bagged you for the application fee which is all profit and they can do that indefinitely. Really sleazy.
link to original post
Application fee? I'm totally unfamiliar with that world, I would never pay such a thing. I would laugh in their face.
link to original post
It's not really a renter's market.
You pay, or your application gets ignored.
link to original post
When I first moved to California in the mid70s I applied for a job that made me take a test and they charged a $25 fee just to take the test. Because I just arrived I still had my out of state checking account from Michigan so I wrote them a check and took the test and went back in the next day and he told me that I was not the type of person they're looking for. So I asked for my money back on the test and he said that's non-refundable and I said that's fine, I'll just cancel the check as soon as I leave here. I said to him what did you think, I was going to take a chance of you not hiring me and give you $25 for the privilege? He just sat there staring at me and of course I canceled the check I never heard a word about it. In those days it would take a week for that check to get to Michigan so canceling checks was a real weapon. I see people writing checks today and they actually hand the check back to them because the store automatically deducts it from their checking account just like they're using a debit card.
It didn't take me long to find out that in those days writing bad checks in California was out of control. In any of the major grocery stores like Safeway or Vons you couldn't even write a check unless the assistant manager knew you personally as a regular customer. And even then there was a $50 limit unless they knew you extremely well.
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: billryanQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: billryanThe way to get around that is to have the landlord's agent require an application fee. The landlord's realtor may legally require prospective renters to fill out an application and can charge for that.
Honestly, I've never understood the rationale that a landlord can't pick and choose their tenants.
It doesn't make sense that as a business owner, I can choose who I wish to do business with, but I don't get to pick who lives in an apartment in my house.
link to original post
Again, MA law prevents application fees, no matter who on the part of the landlord is collecting. No getting around it. Some have tried. All, to my knowledge, have failed. Indeed, a new law makes it mandatory that landlords pay the RE brokers' fee as well. I never bothered. Calling employers to verify employment and salary and calling previous landlords costs me nothing. I can also roll the $50 criminal record check fee or anything else into the rent. In your state, YMMV.
link to original post
Incorrect. The law doesn't allow landlords to collect fees. The law allows realtors to collect application fees, and the landlord can choose to use a realtor exclusively.
link to original post
Your incorrect is mostly incorrect. In Massachusetts, landlords can only charge new tenants for the first month's rent, last month's rent, a security deposit (up to one month's rent), and the actual cost of a new lock and key; landlords cannot charge application fees, background check fees, or the landlord's broker fee as of August 1, 2025, with that broker fee now the landlord's responsibility if they hire the broker. Tenants only pay a broker fee if they hired the broker independently, and landlords must provide receipts for all payments. Ref: MGL c. 186, § 15B and MGL c. 112, § 87DDD1/2.
Anything else?
link to original post
If a new law has come into effect on August 1 of this year, it might have closed that loophole, but it existed in the not-distant past.
Some places are very landlord-friendly, some are incredibly tenant-friendly. Thankfully, we all have the right to live and invest where we like. Living in Massachusetts doesn't mean you can't rent out property in other jurisdictions.
Quote: billryanMy complex in Henderson was quite strict—no Domestic Violence, no sex offenders, no drug traffickers. My neighbor let her brother move in after he got out of prison, and they refused to take her rent checks and proceeded to evict them. Another neighbor got a bull puppy and they gave them a choice- the dog goes or they do. There were plenty of places that didn't care about such things.
Tenants have a right to enjoy their premises peacefully, and landlords have a responsibility to ensure it.
It is the Doctrine Of Peaceful Enjoyment.
link to original post
That's true, but words like "quiet" and "peaceful" mean different things to different people. I would rather have for a neighbor a drug dealer who sells his wares quietly, than a saint who prays loudly.
And in general I'd rather have fewer rules and less enforcement, than more. Too many rules plus a means of enforcement, they get enforced selectively and in a personal and retributive manner, by incompetent people carrying enough baggage of their own, and you end up a player in the game of corrupt police and prison/school officials, where they can always find something to ring you up for and that gets directed towards those who do not sufficiently placate the officials. Then it escalates. Those same people in charge of investigating sexual deviancy and drug practices will eventually get around to wondering where I go to in the night and what is done in my laboratory.
That's part of what went wrong. I remember when Las Vegas and also New York were cities with few rules, for those willing to take their chances, and there was also a lot more fun and opportunity available. More self-reliance was necessary and there were occasionally times when a man would need to raise his hands to face level on an ordinary day. That part of life has mostly been edited out now, but I can't say we're any better off for it.
Quote: DougGanderQuote: AZDuffman
OK, then, for the ESL crowd. Just because you can does not mean you should. In this case "you can't" means that if you do it your business will eventually wither away and fail. Do not take everything you read literally.
link to original post
I understood your meaning.
I see no evidence that this strategy is less profitable than the alternative, you have not provided any, and none exists.
Here is how business people operate: they maximize wealth for themselves. If a decision is unprofitable they stop doing it. Wealth has massively concentrated into fewer hands and it doesn't make sense to cultivate a larger audience any more.The money is with the 1% that is all that matters.
You just seem to be angry because capitalism doesn't value you and has excluded you from the market. Welcome to the club everyone else is in.
You keep acting like maximizing profit is a bad thing. The thing is Mirage-era Vegas is geared to high volumes. What will happen is managers will not care about occupancy, they will say REVPAR is what matters. It does on one level, but lower occupancy means less and less people there to buy everything else in the place.
Detroit learned this the hard way. They ignored market after market, insisting they were just on the fringes. Then by the late-2000s imports were more than half the market and Detroit led in trucks and little else. Vegas will keep saying they do not want this and that customer so much then one day wonder where the crowds went.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanMy complex in Henderson was quite strict—no Domestic Violence, no sex offenders, no drug traffickers. My neighbor let her brother move in after he got out of prison, and they refused to take her rent checks and proceeded to evict them. Another neighbor got a bull puppy and they gave them a choice- the dog goes or they do. There were plenty of places that didn't care about such things.
Tenants have a right to enjoy their premises peacefully, and landlords have a responsibility to ensure it.
It is the Doctrine Of Peaceful Enjoyment.
link to original post
That's true, but words like "quiet" and "peaceful" mean different things to different people. I would rather have for a neighbor a drug dealer who sells his wares quietly, than a saint who prays loudly.
And in general I'd rather have fewer rules and less enforcement, than more. Too many rules plus a means of enforcement, they get enforced selectively and in a personal and retributive manner, by incompetent people carrying enough baggage of their own, and you end up a player in the game of corrupt police and prison/school officials, where they can always find something to ring you up for and that gets directed towards those who do not sufficiently placate the officials. Then it escalates. Those same people in charge of investigating sexual deviancy and drug practices will eventually get around to wondering where I go to in the night and what is done in my laboratory.
That's part of what went wrong. I remember when Las Vegas and also New York were cities with few rules, for those willing to take their chances, and there was also a lot more fun and opportunity available. More self-reliance was necessary and there were occasionally times when a man would need to raise his hands to face level on an ordinary day. That part of life has mostly been edited out now, but I can't say we're any better off for it.
link to original post
I am completely okay with the editing out of of any scenario where I may be compelled at any time to raise my hands to face level for any reason that threatens my health or safety.
Quote: billryanQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: billryanQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: billryanThe way to get around that is to have the landlord's agent require an application fee. The landlord's realtor may legally require prospective renters to fill out an application and can charge for that.
Honestly, I've never understood the rationale that a landlord can't pick and choose their tenants.
It doesn't make sense that as a business owner, I can choose who I wish to do business with, but I don't get to pick who lives in an apartment in my house.
link to original post
Again, MA law prevents application fees, no matter who on the part of the landlord is collecting. No getting around it. Some have tried. All, to my knowledge, have failed. Indeed, a new law makes it mandatory that landlords pay the RE brokers' fee as well. I never bothered. Calling employers to verify employment and salary and calling previous landlords costs me nothing. I can also roll the $50 criminal record check fee or anything else into the rent. In your state, YMMV.
link to original post
Incorrect. The law doesn't allow landlords to collect fees. The law allows realtors to collect application fees, and the landlord can choose to use a realtor exclusively.
link to original post
Your incorrect is mostly incorrect. In Massachusetts, landlords can only charge new tenants for the first month's rent, last month's rent, a security deposit (up to one month's rent), and the actual cost of a new lock and key; landlords cannot charge application fees, background check fees, or the landlord's broker fee as of August 1, 2025, with that broker fee now the landlord's responsibility if they hire the broker. Tenants only pay a broker fee if they hired the broker independently, and landlords must provide receipts for all payments. Ref: MGL c. 186, § 15B and MGL c. 112, § 87DDD1/2.
Anything else?
link to original post
If a new law has come into effect on August 1 of this year, it might have closed that loophole, but it existed in the not-distant past.
Some places are very landlord-friendly, some are incredibly tenant-friendly. Thankfully, we all have the right to live and invest where we like. Living in Massachusetts doesn't mean you can't rent out property in other jurisdictions.
link to original post
If loophole you meann tenant paying a broker's fee to find an apartment and negotiate lease terms and help sign the lease, you are correct. If by loophole you mean tenant pays the broker explicitly for a background check, or criminal check, or application fee or whatever fee, you are incorrect. That loophole hasn't existed for decades. I've seen brokers get their license sanctioned. I've seen landlords loose in court over this issue. Again, YMMV. Living in Massachusetts doesn't mean you can't rent out property in other jurisdictions. Living in MA does however mean it's best to know Massachusetts law.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: DougGanderQuote: AZDuffman
OK, then, for the ESL crowd. Just because you can does not mean you should. In this case "you can't" means that if you do it your business will eventually wither away and fail. Do not take everything you read literally.
link to original post
I understood your meaning.
I see no evidence that this strategy is less profitable than the alternative, you have not provided any, and none exists.
Here is how business people operate: they maximize wealth for themselves. If a decision is unprofitable they stop doing it. Wealth has massively concentrated into fewer hands and it doesn't make sense to cultivate a larger audience any more.The money is with the 1% that is all that matters.
You just seem to be angry because capitalism doesn't value you and has excluded you from the market. Welcome to the club everyone else is in.
You keep acting like maximizing profit is a bad thing. The thing is Mirage-era Vegas is geared to high volumes. What will happen is managers will not care about occupancy, they will say REVPAR is what matters. It does on one level, but lower occupancy means less and less people there to buy everything else in the place.
Detroit learned this the hard way. They ignored market after market, insisting they were just on the fringes. Then by the late-2000s imports were more than half the market and Detroit led in trucks and little else. Vegas will keep saying they do not want this and that customer so much then one day wonder where the crowds went.
link to original post
Many yeara ago, Jimmy Carter invited the CEOs of the Big Three to the White House to come up with a plan to counteract the increasing market share of Japanese imports in the US. The then CEO of Gm told him "Mr. President, don't worry. The American public will buy whatever car we tell them to." Well, it didn't quite work that way
Quote: AZDuffman
You keep acting like maximizing profit is a bad thing. The thing is Mirage-era Vegas is geared to high volumes. What will happen is managers will not care about occupancy, they will say REVPAR is what matters. It does on one level, but lower occupancy means less and less people there to buy everything else in the place.
Detroit learned this the hard way. They ignored market after market, insisting they were just on the fringes. Then by the late-2000s imports were more than half the market and Detroit led in trucks and little else. Vegas will keep saying they do not want this and that customer so much then one day wonder where the crowds went.
link to original post
Vegas doesn't care where the crowds go because the crowds don't have any money.
I'm guessing you are an older person who doesn't keep track of inflation. Using examples from decades ago doesn't work because it ignores the massive decline in purchasing power of the middle class. The typical family has the same purchasing power they did 20 years ago while the cost of everything else skyrocketed.
The only choice Vegas has now is to go after high-rollers.
Quote: billryanMy complex in Henderson was quite strict—no Domestic Violence, no sex offenders, no drug traffickers. My neighbor let her brother move in after he got out of prison, and they refused to take her rent checks and proceeded to evict them. Another neighbor got a bull puppy and they gave them a choice- the dog goes or they do. There were plenty of places that didn't care about such things.
Tenants have a right to enjoy their premises peacefully, and landlords have a responsibility to ensure it.
It is the Doctrine Of Peaceful Enjoyment.
link to original post
I don't think the complex has any right to exclude those people. I think they should definitely notify the other tenants and let them make a decision if they want to leave or not.
Quote: DRichQuote: billryanMy complex in Henderson was quite strict—no Domestic Violence, no sex offenders, no drug traffickers. My neighbor let her brother move in after he got out of prison, and they refused to take her rent checks and proceeded to evict them. Another neighbor got a bull puppy and they gave them a choice- the dog goes or they do. There were plenty of places that didn't care about such things.
Tenants have a right to enjoy their premises peacefully, and landlords have a responsibility to ensure it.
It is the Doctrine Of Peaceful Enjoyment.
link to original post
I don't think the complex has any right to exclude those people. I think they should definitely notify the other tenants and let them make a decision if they want to leave or not.
link to original post
As it was explained to me, in Nevada,sex offenders can't live within 1000 feet of a playground or pool that children mainly use. By strategically placing the pool and community playground, the entire complex was in such a zone.
