|
| My Dad and I don't rent land, and we drive a $250 car around checking our crops and don't really have many toys other than my Dads car he had as a teenager (we're not too showy or materialistic). But I've been reading a lot about the rents being high and the farmers wanting the landlords to drop them with the change in commodity prices, and understandably so. Some are saying that it's not right when the 20 something beginning farmer swings in with his new pickup to ask the landlord to lower the rent because he can't afford it. The landlord understandably thinks he gave up revenue in the past and that he shouldn't have to lower rent if the tenant hadn't "blown" his money on a new pickup, or new Harley, or whatever. All of this is understandable as farming has been tough most of the time and it pays for those that save. But landlords, your asset isn't fixed and is susceptible to the very risk the tenants deal with on a larger scale. And over the past years, your cash rent was obviously acceptable, or you would have asked for it to be higher or gone to the next guy waiting at your doorstep. The tenant took the risk at the time and it paid. How can you justify not lowering rent due to past business? No other business justifies their costs or prices from the past 5 years. (I'm sure someone will think of something to prove me wrong here, but it's beside the point). And finally, why can't the tenant enjoy a new vehicle or toy, or a little bit higher standard of living that is equivocal to our fellow Americans? Is that illegal to actually make money and spend it. Has anyone noticed how many newer vehicles are on the road these days? After all, tenants are taking the largest risk in leasing your land for you. Historically, if you take out the last 5 years, tenants haven't made much money. Tell me what I'm missing. Other businesses do not operate on a loss just because they thought they made too much money previously. And if you respond, I expect it to be dignified and respectful, and mostly a response that answers my questions and not something that is stupid and picked out to insult my imbedded questions, that in which is probably far from the point of this conversation. | |
|
Playing devils advocate of the devils advocate!
