Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
US PRESIDENT DONALD Trump has threatened to hold up federal funds for two election battleground states that are trying to make it easier and safer to vote during the coronavirus pandemic.
Trump backed away from that threat but stuck with his unsupported claim that widespread voting by mail promotes “a lot of illegality”.
The president targeted Michigan with a false tweet on its voting plans and also went after Nevada in the latest — and most confused — episode in his campaign against voting by mail.
The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends postal voting as a safe option during the pandemic.
Trump has said repeatedly, without evidence, that mailed ballots allow widespread fraud and has worried publicly that wide availability could lead so many people to vote that Republicans would lose in November.
GOP allies have fought changes to voting in court and opposed funding to expand mail-in voting in Congress.
Yesterday marked the first time Trump has tried to use federal aid money to beat it back.
The president began by targeting Michigan, mis-stating Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s announcement that she would send applications for absentee ballots to every voter in the state.
Though Republican secretaries of state have taken this step elsewhere, Trump pounced on the move in a state key to his reelection hopes.
“Michigan sends absentee ballots to 7.7 million people ahead of Primaries and the General Election,” Trump tweeted yesterday morning.
That brought strong criticism from Democrats in Michigan and elsewhere, pointing out that the state was sending applications, not actual ballots, an error the president corrected in a subsequent tweet six hours later.
He stuck with the rest of his tweet: “This was done illegally and without authorization by a rogue Secretary of State. I will ask to hold up funding to Michigan if they want to go down this Voter Fraud path!”
Trump later tweeted a similar threat to pull back funds from Nevada, which has sent ballots to voters for its 9 June state primary.
A federal judge recently cleared Nevada’s decision to mail ballots, which were sent by the Republican secretary of state.
It was not clear exactly what funds Trump was referencing, but the states are paying for the voting changes with federal aid intended to support elections during the pandemic.
By yesterday evening, Trump told reporters he had spoken with Democratic Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer and did not think funding would have to be cut.
“I don’t think it’s going to be necessary,” he said at the White House, adding he stood by his opposition to mail voting.
Voting is an honour. It shouldn’t be something where they send you a pile of stuff and you send it back.
“If people mail in ballots, there’s a lot of illegality.”
Trump himself has requested an absentee ballot to vote in Florida.
Trump did not threaten Republican-dominated states that are doing the same thing as Michigan.
West Virginia governor Jim Justice, an ally of the president, said he’s not concerned about Trump’s threats even though his administration approved mailing absentee ballot applications to all registered voters in the state.
“I can’t imagine that the president is going to withhold funding in any way to West Virginia; that’s not going to happen,” Justice told reporters.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I dont see the problem, the landlords own the property, the tenants sign a contract, break the contract and you risk being evicted.
Idiot tenants breaching their leases by subletting.
You’re right – they did break the law so they should face consequences.
Still maybe the legislation needs changing. As long as the property is maintained and the landlord gets his rent what’s the problem. I know it’s a real struggle for many in SF to pay the sky high rentals.
Also it would provide real value to tourists arriving in SF.
At least the landlords stateside can actually do something about their tenants flouting the terms of the lease … Here they would have to deal with the ridiculous PRTB … Wait months to get a hearing and more than likely receive no rent in the meantime …. And the the PRTB finding in favour of the tenant as the land lord forgot to cross a ‘t’ on one of the forms.
I don’t see why landlords should have a problem with this as long as their rent is being paid and no damage is being done to the property.
Tenants have no right to sub-let and thereby profit from a service that is not theres to provide.
Because a landlord presumably is happy with the tenants they let to. They have no control over who the tenant sub lets to.
Extra wear and tear
That could all be added in as terms and conditions. Wear and tear, insuring the room etc. let the landlord get his piece of the pie – after all it’s all about the money – it’s not some morality.
A friend lives in San Fran with his missus, 2 years ago he rented another 1 bed just so he could let it out on AirBnb.
He charges $125 a night and is fully booked 365 nights a year, it’s like a full time job for him, he even hires a cleaner.
I know in Dublin there are hundreds of people sub letting illegally on AirBnb, why the hell not if it helps pays the scandalous rent, AirBnb cover damages for guests so landlords should have no problem.
I assume that your friend is making considerably more from AirBnB than he pays in rent for the apartment. You don’t mention whether the landlord is aware, but judging by you opinion of illegal subletting in Dublin, I’m guessing they’re not.
I think scandalously high rents are greedy and unethical, but if the landlord is charging close to the going rate and is fair and decent towards the tenant then it is equally unethical to sublet illegally. Typically the landlord has made a significant financial investment in buying the property and decorating and furnishing it to a reasonable standard. They need the rent to recoup their costs and then make enough profit to make the venture worth their effort. If there is a way of making more profit from their property then that is their opportunity to take advantage of, not their tenant’s.
I don’t know a lot about business but in my layman’s opinion if the landlord has any financial sense they should “evict” your friend (their tenant) and make it available on AirBnB themselves. If they don’t want to do the work of dealing with new AirBnB tenants every day they should demand a considerable percentage profit from your friend or employ him to manage it.
Well said donal…. exactly my toughts…
I read that in an Ali G voice….reconize!
Lol!
I don’t see the problem here at all. If you don’t own the property, you have no business putting rooms in said property up for rent. If I did that, and was caught out by the landlord, I’d fully expect to be evicted.
My tenant should be thankful that at least I gave her 3 weeks to vacate my property after I found out she was hosting people from Airbnb. Thankfully, my neighbor called me and told me that on numerous occasions, people were staying at my house. In fact, on one weekend, there was a wedding. My daughter found my house listed on Airbnb and I took action. How dare she rent my house without my permission. I work hard for that house and it will be my retirement home in a few years. I want to know, am I entitled to the profits she made off of MY home? Oh, and she thinks she is getting her security deposit back which I am looking into.
have your say