"All I want to do is exploit struggling people for far more than my property is worth. Is that so wrong?!"
Even more ironic is that the "professional" landlords/property holding companies hire property managers who do literally all the work, including both the upkeep for the house and interaction with the tenants. Like, what exactly do you contribute at that point? What would change practically if I hired the property manager directly with the money I would be paying you? Especially when the most common pro-landlord argument (used by landlords themselves) is that they fix things around the house and maintain it.
For individuals who own like a single rental property as an investment property, you could blame the banks. Maybe the tenants don’t have the 20% the bank would require for a mortgage. But they can afford the monthly rent for the larger house rather than a smaller apartment. Also the landlord takes on the risk here. (Market value, no Rent payment, property damage, maintenance…)
In Australia its way more common for landlords to use propert management companies.
They charge about 5%, the tenant rings them and says "The hot water is out" they ring me and say "You need to authorise us to send a plumber" I say "Ok" they ring one of their go-to plumbers who attends super fast because they dont want to lose the repeat business of a property manager who has 100 properties to look after and they fix it at a fair rate because if they dont the property manager will find a new plumber.
When I was renting out my first house (had to move for work for a few years) I couldnt get an electrician for my own house as fast and as cheap as my property manager could get one for my tenants.
You guys are joking and everything, but that's what they actually think
I rent out homes and I dont get any of these because I only rent out to hispanic working families. Fight me
Only some, usually the very right leaning ones or the very left leaning ones. Normal people behave normally.
"Left leaning landlord" is an oxymoron ;p
Or at least if someone actually held to their principles, they would not remain both for very long .
(The concept of a separate ownership class, which is the defining feature of landlordism, is in direct contradiction with leftism, which at the furthest end pushes for the destruction of these sorts of hierarchical class systems, or at the very least attempts to abolish the gatekeeping and hoarding of base necessities like shelter)
Someone I know is like this, unironically.
Historically people with the title "lord" have had it so hard.
The Gaylords would like a word
"Fix my AC!"
Particularly ironic that this is being framed as "unreasonable" because landlords themselves directly argue that their upkeep of the house justifies the significant upcharge they take from tenants. Like, even if we argued that landlord as a career is 100% acceptable and valid, that would literally be your job, would be like a professional chef complaining about people saying "make me food!"
I had a rentoid that would call me for the most insane shit all the time. Changing light bulbs, fixing their own personal AC unit and stopping a neibourhood dog from barking.
When they were evicted I held the damage deposit because the hardwood floors and internal doors were damaged to fuck by their dog which they tried to claim as being normal wear and tear.
Bad renters exist, but for every story like yours I have five places I've lived in where it took months to fix the A/C in summertime and the landlord just let it fucking go meanwhile holding out their greedy mitts demanding $2000 a month.
2 grand! To live in 90° heat, if I wanted to do that I'd just live on the street.
Fucking landloids.
Even the father of capitalism thought landlords were parasites that only leeched off the economy
Adam Smith justifies the existence of rent as improvement in the value of land.
https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/chapter-xi-of-the-rent-of-land
Perhaps you're misunderstanding the term 'rent-seeking' which is a different concept entitely
I feel so bad for mine I’ve raised the amount I tip them every month from ~12% to 20%. You should, too - they struggle so hard.
(Lol)
You should tip at least 200%. Less is just selfish.
Because I love my landlord so much I only communicate with him through my lawyer to make extra sure every letter is worded really nicely and politely, much more polite than anything I would every write him. Also got him two very nicely worded court orders by know he would've missed out on if it wasn't for me.
My old landlord refused to fix our water heater, the leaking roof causing mould and water damage, the outlets that were falling off, the broken light switches that didn't work, the ceiling light that was flickering and and literally hanging by the wires. All for $2000/month + utilities. Then he kicked us out because he wanted to sell the place, but now he can't sell it because no bank will touch it with the amount of water damage it has lmao.
Oh ya, can't forget the 5 times he's banged on our door threatening us with his lawyer because he stole $100 from us, we asked for it back, but he refused to answer our calls, so we had to wait 12 fucking months before our lease was up and we started paying month to month for us to subtract the $100 he owed us for 12 months from the payment.
This landlord loving bullshit always starts as a joke until it isn't.
Buy your own fucking house if you don't think the owner deserves his rent money.
That's an option that is actively being removed by massive firms. Empty houses are common, but available houses are few and affordable available houses are very rare.
Can't. Rich assholes and massive firms are buying them at insane prices so they can rent them out at double what a mortgage would cost. And that drives more people to apartments which drives their prices up.
There's a housing shortage in my area, and 30 percent of houses are empty. But if you jack up the rent enough, you make more money off those that can pay the ransom than you would by lowering the rent to get all units rented. It's an artificial scarcity created by landlords.
I work in municipal development and literally every single-family project that's approached the city in the last 18 months is for rental only, because they figured out that mortgages don't go up and eventually end, so why sell the houses at all?
If he does his job well, he can get the money. Deal?
This means being responsive and responsible when issues happen with water, heating, electricity, mold and vermin. It means making sure that if they repaint an appartment, they don't just set a bomb in there to splatter the place. Actually remove the cupboard doors before painting. It means not painting over electric outlets.
It also means not cutting the water for three days a month, replacing the toilet when it breaks, not a week later. It means maintenance on the building's laundry room. Clean shared spaces. Secure entrance that actually locks, and actually unlocks.
Those are only some of the issues I had when renting. It is demeaning to be treated like that, and then be asked for money.
Your know, I guess experiences vary widely, but the landlords I know don't fit all the hate. For instance, one of my employees decided to rent her house instead of selling it when her family needed a bigger one. They've been renting to the same family for a decade or more without ever raising the rent. The family could not afford to buy any house, let alone the one they're in, so renting allows them to live in a kind of place they couldn't afford otherwise. My employee has let them skip rent a few times when times were hard.
I know a few similar stories. Maybe it's different with people who own apartment buildings or whatever, but I just don't see being a landlord as inherently bad. Like anything else, you can do it ethically or unethically.
Sounds like a problem with the price of housing, which is a not entirely unrelated issue.
Yeah, for sure - I live in southern California, which has about as high a cost of real estate as you're going to find, but that isn't caused by landlords. I mean, if you bought a new car and were selling your old one, you'd probably sell it for whatever the market would pay, right? Maybe if you're really well off you'd just give it to someone, but most of us are going to sell for the going rate. It's the same with houses. If I can easily get $500k for my house, I'm not going to list it for $400k just to be nice - I could use the money.
Do people feel like it's inherently more laudable to sell their house than to rent it? It seems like, as long as they're not gouging, they're doing more of a service by renting to people who can't afford to buy, and also covering all the costs of repairs and risk of damage that renters don't have to worry about.
I just don't get the hate broadly, though the management company who ran my daughter's apartment complex were assholes.
My last land lord raised rent by 2.5x after the first year. When we moved out he kept the full security deposit because "the inside of the oven was dirty"
Your mileage may vary
4 beautiful words that worked wonders with my shitty landlord who tried to keep my deposit "normal wear and tear".
As soon as I stated that, the lady changed her tune completely.
Yeah, that's pretty shitty.
My point wasn't that there are no terrible landlords, just that this popular concept that being a landlord is inherently wrong is misguided.
I only had a couple landlords in my life, and both were good experiences. One was the parents of a friend, and they just asked me to make an effort to do low-cost or low-effort repairs myself (e.g., a dripping faucet) rather than call them, and in return they made our rent much less than it should have been. The other was an apartment, and the lady managing the property liked me and hardly ever raised my rent. She said she never had to deal with issues from me, and wanted me to stay as long as possible.
Maybe that's why I don't have the visceral hate so many seem to.
Your landlord is allowed to raise it by that much? I'm Dutch and we have limits on how much rent can increase, which was a maximum of 4.1% in 2023.
Maybe it's different with people who own apartment buildings or whatever
Yes. My landlord is literally a corporation.
Doesn't matter either way. My landlord is an asshole who never fixes anything he says he will (even things he's legally supposed to.) Can't use the law against him because he's allowed to raise the rent any time he wants with a few simple changes to our lease.
I've never had a good landlord. Most of them are greedy trash.
I'm a land lord, did exactly what people say we all did. 15 years ago I bought two 200k homes for 30k each (30k was the down payment) the houses are worth over 600k each now..
they are an income plan for my kids so they don't have to necessarily worry about taking a better paying job instead of something they want to do. Probably a little naive now. But I run the houses at a bare minimum profit just so the government won't come after me due running a loss on my taxes. I have raised rent only enough to do that.
I pay for a property management firm to take care of the properties so that the tenants have 24 hour response to issues. I've had the same tenants for 12 years in both properties. Every 4 years or so I have one of the rooms that the tenants want renovated. It's a right off so doesn't costa fortune ava the house gets slowly updated. Not every landlord is an asshole. Some of us play the long game without screwing people. But I realize that I am part of the problem. I am part of the reason for less supply in the market. But selling my properties will make my children's lives less secure and I'm not willing to do that. So i do partially deserve some of the blame.
Edited to add down payment info.
I don't see you having any blame. Supply and demand for housing includes everything, including rentals. You would be part of the problem if you bought those places and left them empty as vacation spots or something. You didn't, you're supplying them to people who I'm guessing wouldn't be able to buy them themselves. You're not driving up the cost of housing. I'd argue that, since you're charging less than you could, you're actually lowering it.
This shows one of the most common things landlords tell themselves to justify it.
But I run the houses at a bare minimum profit
You tell yourself this, to make you feel better, but you don't acknowledge that almost all the money your tenants pay you is profit, since they are paying for the mortgage. Even if you rented at 0 immediate profit, for the entire time until you paid off the houses, you would have actually made 1.2million in profit, since you now own 2 houses at 600k each.
And those families, instead of paying a mortgage and ending with hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity, that they could refinance, or use to buy a better house or leave as inheritance for their kids, now have nothing, as all that money has gone to you.
There is no such thing as an ethical landlord. Even the """good""" ones are still exploring people's basic need for shelter to make them rich.
If you really wanted to be a "good" landlord offer those families the chance to buy the house with the 15 years of down payments they already made to you to start it off. But as you said they're an "income plan" for your kids I don't think you would do that.
This is the whole "not all cops are bad a guy I know is a cop and he's nice" argument just for landlords.
Or you could phrase it about slave owners "my freind owns slaves, but he just owns the one and he treats them really well!"
Landlording is inherently immoral and explotative, not matter hoe """ethical""" the landlord is.
Idk I feel like there's also something to be said to have the freedom to just buy another house after saving a bit. It sounds so easy, but most families would have to sell their house in order to upsize.
Never moved but my mom was in credit unions and the trade in of the house was pretty common. In all fairness, there were many "multiple apartment complex owners" at that same CU, they were notably colder and exclusively about numbers (i.e. throwing a fit and sending another appraiser to their barely functional building to get a dozen k).
Yeah, there are honestly a lot of reasons to rent instead of buy. One of the main ones is uncertainty about the market. Lots of times people think that the prices in an area are inflated and likely to come down. If you buy, you risk taking a big loss. The landlord, in that case, is the one with the risk. Similarly, if you don't plan to stay in an area for several years, it can be more trouble (and even cost) than it's worth. I've also known people who simply don't want to be bothered with the upkeep, even if they can afford to buy. There's a real freedom in being able to just pick up the phone when anything isn't working, there's a leak, or whatever.
Even if you try being a good landlord, dealing with some tenants can really darken your soul...
It's also not as lucrative as most would think. I have a few rentals and it's certainly not enough to quit my day job in IT. It's maybe an extra $15-20k in my pocket at the end of the year after expenses and taxes and such, and I spend at least 10-20 hours a week doing accounting, maintenance tasks, coordinating contractors, legal stuff, etc. Sure, the equity is nice too, but it doesn't do a whole lot for me until retirement age.
As far as whether landlords can be "good", I see myself as providing a valuable service to those who cannot or don't want to become homeowners. In a perfect world, those who cannot but want to become homeowners should, but the cost of housing has little to do with rentals and almost everything to do with zoning, development restrictions, and tax structure. Until that world exists, someone has to offer rental properties to these people, otherwise where would they live?
My mom rented out 3 apartments and earned barely enough to take care of the two of us. A significant portion of her expenses go toward treating her type 1 diabetes
What's a "good" landlord? Someone that upholds all of their obligations that the law says they have to do in order to make money off of the actual work of others? Still a parasite.
ThEy PrOvIdE a SeRvIcE!
Yes, the service of buying property so now property is unaffordable for me and I HAVE to rent if from you for more than my mortgage would have been, but you know, banks...
There might not be a good landlord, but there might be landlords that are not bad. My rent is low (too low and the government starts adding taxes to compensate your "non-competition") and did not get increased in the years I have been living here. Broken things get fixed in a reasonable time, there are no scammy charges and so on.
No such thing as a good landlord.
That's not true at all.
I move around a lot and have rented from some great landlords in the past who kept the price low, property in great condition and couldn't be more helpful when I've had problems. Granted I've had some awful ones too, usually big companies, but it's definitely not fair to say there aren't good ones out there.
I get that the world likes things in absolutes, and it's easy to say that landlords are parasites and shouldn't exist .. but that neglects that not everyone wants to put down roots or go through the property of buying and selling a property every time they move. I'm definitely not defending the big investment companies who are just there to monopolise the market and squeeze every penny they can out of it, but it's the same with every industry, there will always be bad actors who will exploit the system if they're allowed to.
All rentoids are bad. Rents due poor.
Ours put our rent up 25% so just because I was upset I paid this month's rent a week late and they were complaining they needed the money to pay their montgage... removed please I don't wanna hear about your financial problems
They need your money to pay their mortgage. Looks like you are paying for their house. I guess it's one thing if that house is entirely occupied by you, but I've had this very same situation where I'm renting their basement yet paying $1300 (which was actually more than their mortgage)
It's so fucking disgusting and insulting to not only not be able to afford your own home because of all this b.s, but to also be paying for someone else's home...
I run a small senior living complex in a rural town. We have the cheapest rent in town. We scrape by, trying to make improvements here and there. They are maintained though. We seriously charge hundreds of dollars less than the next closest complex in the area. We refused to raise our rent in the past 4 years dispite rising taxes and utility bills. Most our tenants are widows/widowers living off a fixed income. We are either too nice or bad business owners because that "fix my AC" One always stings and reaches into my personal budget. And by "personal budget" I mean I eat ramen for a couple weeks.
Anyway, I actually feel like this meme. Other than my tenants are usually happy. Occasionally we get someone who is just never happy no matter what you do. I know all the other complexes are owned by one company essentially creating a monopoly and they have exploited this town. We get calls from people crying because they will be homeless.
It's the model of housing as a business that is the problem, no matter how benevolent an operator may try to be. The market is designed to eliminate you as competition and reward the exploitative monopolistic company.
More importantly is whether or not you are or would ever act as a firewall against competing (or at this point any) housing development.
Like if a subsidized public housing for seniors opened up next door to your complex offering rates at or below your own: would you support it given this persistent at risk population?
We would support it. We only have 24 units, we field at least 50 calls a day. We would be fine. We have turned down an offer from the company that owns the other complexes. The offer was 3 times what we paid 10 years ago and had a few more zeros on the end of what we still owe. But these tenants have become family. Also from a business owner perspective I would rather have this steady income than the BS of a quick payday then having to reinvest somewhere else and work are butts off to get that sustainable without turning into a scumbag landlord. Landlording is easy if you charge exorbitant prices and pay people to do everything. We do all the work ourselves to keep the cost down. Meanwhile I work another full time job. So does my wife and we have two kids. I don't have time to get another property to this point of sustainability.
For every one good landlord like you there's 1mil slumlords that don't think you even need AC, or think that black mould isnt a health hazard.
Bless you.
Tenants deserve to live in house conditions that the landlords themselves would be willing to live in.
Not all heros wear capes
Yeh I support LGBT...
Landlords
GOP
Billionaires
The police
😎
So brave… thank you for your sacrifice!
Now fix my (your) AC.
I'm a landlord. I'm priced WELL below the market because my tenant is state patrol and is a great guy and a good family. I haven't raised his rent ever. I will raise it when my HOA goes up next year, but that's only to help cover my fees. If keep the rent so I can pick the right renters that is compatible with me. I rather have a good renter than a few bucks more a month.
I think the real test is if you give their deposit back. I've never gotten my deposit back without a fight, even after cleaning the apartment top-to-bottom. That's why I always take photos before leaving.
This happened to me once. They sent a guy to check my place out, he said "Looks good, you'll get your security deposit back." Then months went by. Well unfortunately for them my BIL is a real estate lawyer and he was happy to draw up a packet of documents I could take to small claims court. I had to serve them about 3 times, each time the cost of serving them got tacked on. They didn't show so I won by default so now the real work begang, collecting. They FINALLY paid it but I said, "You need to add the cost of serving you to it." so they drew up a new check. Yup, a pain in the ass.
Other landlords have different policies, but personally, what I return depends on if things are damaged not caused by wear and tear. So that depends on how long a tenant rents from my place.
Eg., If someone stays for a year and I got new carpets for them and it's ruined, then I'm charging for the spots that couldn't be cleaned.
Eg.,2: If someone stayed with me for 3 years and the carpet is already 8 years old, it doesn't matter if it's completely ruined, I'm not charging for that carpet.
This holds true for everything in the house.
One of my tenants wants to get a dog and the carpet is already 10 years old. I didn't even charge more security deposits because once he lives, I'm going to replace that carpet.
This is the way!
My previous landlord was like this. Lived there 4 years, rent never went up. We left the place like we found it (which was pristine).
Just bc you are a great landlord doesn't mean anyone should be able to hold such power over anyone. Not to mention ownership of land is a human concept we can live without.
Not to mention ownership of land is a human concept we can live without.
How would you do it differently?
So how do you handle it when there are more people than space available? How do you cover the cost of maintenance? What would prevent someone from taking your house without ownership rights?
'Abolish ownership' is a pretty simple talking point, how would you make it work in a legal sense?
Who determines what is your responsibility vs the neighbor vs the city? How do you establish legal boundaries for purposes of theft, vandalism, or trespassing?
Laws might seem cold (because they are) or inhumane (because they are) but they are also the thing that keeps society organized. And that makes them one of the most important human inventions. Rights are the result of laws.
If you're concerned about land prices, or people being 'priced out' of things, there are important alternate solutions to that kind of problem. Things like social services, improving education, breaking up super corporations, promoting healthy neighborhood design and small business, etc.
I don't have power over my tenants. They have as much power as I do. They can leave and I can also ask him to leave.
They have zero obligation to stay at my place.
I have a space to rent and they need a place to live. It's a business transaction that both parties benefit from.
ah, the typical landlord. A good example of a useless "jobs" that litter the world
Oh, the hard, hard life of the rent-seeker who is stupidly greedy and unwilling to lose a little bit of profit to pay somebody else - like an agency - to take care of all the work and manage their assets, so instead of making money purely from having money without lifting a finger, they have to suffer the indignity of actually working a few hours a week like poor people.
The pain and suffering must be unbearable...
If there's something that landlords and tenants can agree on, I think it's that real estate agencies are the absolute fucking worst.
Indeed!
"Rent-seeking" as an economic concept is not when you collect rent, as a landlord does.
In Economics "rent-seeking" is seeking to receive a "rent", but the concept of "rent" here is broader than merelly the kind of rent paid for a property (for example, when banks place themselves in the position to get a commission out of every small financial transaction out there, through "Touch To Pay" schemes, they are "rent-seeking").
So whilst not all rent-seekers are landlords (probably not even most rent-seekers), all landlords are rent-seekers, which is exactly how I handled those definitions in my post.
Your post is like saying "'Apple' is not the same as 'fruit'" when somebody else whilst talking about apples called them "fruit".
Please suggest a solution.
I don't know if this is the right place for it, but an idea I've had:
Charge a high tax penalty on home ownership if the home is fully functional and livable, but spends over a certain percentage of the year unoccupied by any person as their primary residence (and a steadily accumulating tax for any home that spends too many years in an unlivable state)
This might put pressure back on landlords to put their homes on market for reasonable prices, instead of inflating their rents based on MBA recommendations long past what people can pay simply to "keep the property value high". It would severely devalue the idea of owning homes the same way you would own piles of gold, as long-term investments people are hesitant to actually use.
Image Transcription:
A drawn picture of a woman with shoulder-length blue hair and purple suit jacket over a darker purple long-sleeve button-down shirt, hanging her head dejectedly while a semicircle of fingers ring her head, accompanied by the words: "Parasite!", "Fix my AC!", "Tenants have rights!", "Leech!", "Hope you get Mao'd!", "Let me live here for free!", "Rent control!", and "Rich Scum!". Below the picture is a caption reading: No one understands the landlord struggle...
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
It's missing the wad of 100 dollar bills to wipe away the tears of this hardship
Tenants do have rights. If the AC is owned by the landlord and part of the lease is on the landlord to fix it. And rent control is to keep rent from reaching New York closet for $6K levels.
I remember being so disgusted when Reddit had a sub Reddit start for "landlordlove" or similar. So ridiculous. No I don't give a fuck if your life is hard while you're making everyone else's life twice as hard. Not my fault you chose this as a living. Get out if you don't like it.
You fell for a satirical subreddit, it was also for hate of landlords.
loveforlandlords was a satire subreddit until the mod (community terms here) "gave it to a rentoid", at which point the satire community migrated to loveforlandchads. I don't know if the loveforlandlords sub is currently pro landlord or not, don't care since i left, but at one point, I do think it it WAS a serious community of landlords who were frustrated at being hated. Maybe i fell for satire, maybe the community has had a few to many changes of hand to track, maybe its something in the middle idk.
If all landlords quit, where would you live?
I'm pretty sure I can find a cozy, empty, brainless skull around here that can fit a bed inside.
I'm sure work would buy me a coffin to sleep in until I die
The same house I live in now and the money I spent on rent would cover the mortgage since that was what my landlord spent most of my rent on anyway. Then I would have a couple hundred extra a month to spend on myself AND my "rent" money would actually become equity in the house instead of equity for the landlord so I would really be saving almost 90% of my rent money.
Paranormal story here..
I have the first good landlords I've had in my entire life. We have a clean, decent townhouse - two stories w/ unfinished basement. It's in a safe residential/school zone, right behind my work, and he's renting it to us for several hundred less than he could be getting based on other similar rentals. I guess he grew up here and has sentimental attachment, and just wants it taken care of. He purchased the connecting unit and is renting it equally low to other great tenants who take care of it. Guy is a defense lawyer and doesn't need to squeeze every drop out of it I guess.
Him and his wife are super considerate of our time and our needs, get us nursery/greenhouse gift cards in the spring and Christmas baskets every year. They're fucking anomaly and it's absolutely perplexing after two decades of shitty landlords.
Friend tried renting some property in FL. It was a miserable experience with tenants who constantly trashed the places, having to hound them for rent while she had to pay the mortgage on time, etc. She eventually sold it and said "Never again."
Not counting corporate landlords, cause that's a whole other can of worms, 50% of landlords are below average landlords, and 50% of tenants are below average tenants. So 75% of leases have one below average party, antidotaly anyway. (Obviously this isn't real math)
Pretty much. I will say, although it’s extremely rare to find, but does exist (I know a landlord like this): some landlords get into landlording to try to make places affordable for others, meaning they barely take a cut for themselves. These are not the people you see raising rent at every opportunity. I’m also not refering to any landlord who decides to take “section 8” housing, as some of them are also predatory. To that end, her struggle is the same struggle as her renters, trying to make ends meet, herself. She owns her own “place” but her “place” is on wheels, making her technically a homeless landlord. I doubt that she is the only landlord like this in the US but as a long-time renter, I’m well aware she’s in the minority of landlords. Most landlords do so to earn a profit, the worst offenders being for-profit corporations who own many properties. Some landlords do try to help others, and I really wish there were more like them. I think the majority of landlords simply try to “price what the market will bear” which is usually “increase rent as much as we can by law” with the excuse that “we, the landlords take on all the risk so we need all the profit”.
I would love to see more “worker co-op” style landlording, although I don’t know how that would work techncially.
meaning they barely take a cut for themselves.
Meaning if they just sold the place to the people renting it out would be even more affordable?
Usually the issue would be that these places cost large sums up front to acquire, and there is inherent risk in lending money or selling something for payment over time.
The most equitable solution under those circumstances IMO would be a pay-towards-ownership rental model with an agreed stewardship rate for routine maintenance and if they terminate lease early, the accrued funds towards the ownership are disbursed. This allows the "renter" (future owner) the ability to eventually accrue the value of the home without risk of loss of investment, while also allowing the "owner" (steward) to ensure that maintenance can be performed. Would have to work out how to pay for incidental maintenance like a failed water heater or storm damage, but splitting cost across owned percentage may be fair, or based on fault, etc.
It's a lot of hassle for something that we should instead fix at the systemic level, but so long as we're looking at the current system then this ought to do well by both parties and would be accessible for those fortunate/lucky enough to be pulling significant salaries to help those less fortunate.
Cooperatives are also a good option long-term but I'm thinking in terms of folks that are living hand-to-mouth being able to earn towards a permanent home right away rather than a group of people with enough surplus money to pool for shared home(s). A well-established coop would be a better support network and may be able to grow faster (help more folks) than the alternatives.
I don’t know the details of her situation, but it’s something like in a market that averages over $1000 for housing, she rents out at below $1000. I mean to say for her properties she could choose to rent at the market rate but this would mean the people who wants to rent to, people who aren’t able to afford >$1000 for housing, would you know.. be unable to afford it.
As for barely making a cut for themselves, I’ve only known a few landlords but none who owned the house and title (without a loan with the bank). the landlords I do know, herself included most likely got 30 year fixed mortages on their properties, meaning their interest rate stays the same for 30 years.
Each month those landlords need to pay the mortage and will need to pay for repairs or repair the properties themselves. Say the mortage, due to the landlord’s credit rating is pretty good, and comes in around $800 a month. Say that on average the landlord has to pay $50 a month on maintenance. The landlord needs to charge $850 to make no money, to afford no food for themselves, or otherwise “break even”. What I’m saying here is that in this market, a property just like hers (x beds, y baths) rents out for $1200 a month. I’m saying that she’s more likely to rent her property out at $900 or $850. Although when people fall on tough times, she’ll also just waive the rent or work with them with what they can pay.
Meaning if they just sold the place to the people renting it out would be even more affordable?
Probably not. You’re assuming that the renters have good enough credit to get a loan from the bank at the same interest rate that the landlord can, that the renters can afford a down payment (sometimes that’s $10k+ right there). Keep in mind these are the renters that could not afford a $1200 a month place themselves. You’re assuming that the bank would give them the loan in the first place. You’re assuming that the current interest rates are reasonable (at time of writing, in the US, they are not - the difference between a 3% and 6% interest over 30 years is enormous and would make their rent far greater than $1200 a month).
You’re right that there are some renters who can afford to buy her properties if she put them on the market. Those renters hypthetically live in the property next to hers with x beds and y baths and they’re looking for a place to live. She could sell the property to them, but she’d then need to evict her current tenants, and since there’s a lack of landlords like her, they will probably need to move to another town or be homeless.
There’s not a clear right or wrong answer here.
We had a pair of those in my area. They were famous for "affordable housing".
End up the pair was worth 12 mil from cashing in on all their "goodwill."
I’m a little confused by this.
They were famous for “affordable housing”
If by this you mean they were one of the cheapest places to rent in the area, then good on them. Ultimately this is what tenants need is affordability.
End up the pair was worth 12 mil from cashing in on all their “goodwill.”
This is where you lose me. If you’re saying they rented some of the cheapest properties in your area and they profited $12,000,000 off their tenants, then holy shit man where do you live? That must mean that every other landlord is profiting multiple times this 12mil amount, maybe in excess of $50mil per landlord.
If you’re telling me that they weren’t actually the cheapest, they just called themselves the cheapest and somehow were the most expensive, this justifies the profit more but at $12,000,000 I have to ask how many properties did they own?!
If instead you didn’t mean to say “from cashing in on all their ‘goodwill’”, just that the pair had 12million saved up and were able to make housing affordable then indeed this is amazing! Ultimately the only individuals who are going to be able to do this are people who already come from wealth, or are at least people who can afford to make a loss on their rental properties.
So, somehow I’m not sure any of those are what you meant. Can you explain? Is there a news story about these people?
Username checks out. Also fuck landlords if this was posted unironically.
Landlord struggle lmao. Must be nice living off of other peoples paycheques, ngl
Because maintenance costs and mortgages don't exist.
Wear and tear along with damages are almost always put to the feet of the current renter or they're reno-victed.
Majority of landlords, both corporate and private, abuse the system to profiteer adding vastly more to the rent price than is actually necessary to cover their costs, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous at best or intentionally malicious at worst.
I didn't feel it necessary to have to go and explain this in my reply because, as people posting here, we all very likely have the privilege of living (or having lived) in a house or apartment and by virtue of experiencing reality, innately understand that wear and tear occurs as well as damages over time, so pretending like "maintenance costs and mortgages exist bro" is a serious counter argument is unbelievably derivative and completely incompetent.
I mean torches have been around a lot longer than Nazis. We're not letting the Nazis take our torches.
I remember back in twenty-dickety-two when the Nazis took my circle-made-with-forefinger-and-thumb hand sign. They tried to take my milk, too, but I chased 'em of my property.
The problem is landlords who don't give a fuck about their tenants and are fixated on squeezing the most out of them. I currently own my house, but my previous landlords were very diligent with repairs and kept rent increases to inflation. They knew we were dependable tenants who paid rent on time and were going to leave the place in decent shape.
But yes, renting can absolutely have unscrupulous landlords. Large investors especially use rental pricing software to press tenants to their absolute limit. It becomes a form of price fixing.
Poor poor landowners. 🖕🏿 suck it🏴🏴🏴
You're evicted.
There are a ton of landlords in here that are MALDING.
Because no one will pay their high rent? I hope so. This is the only way I think that rent will come down is if these places sit vacant for a while as it chips away at their mortgage.
What are they gonna do, live on the streets?
We rent our starter home out because we want to eventually move back in when we retire. We keep the rent affordable and fix anything that breaks. Only rent increases that happen are due to HOA and property tax increases.
I'm sure others will disagree but I'm fine with this, especially since it sounds like you're being fair, not greedy, and have a reasonable exit strategy.
You aren't hoarding wealth, buying up all the starter homes, making them into unsightly mcmanasions, and then putting them up for rent like a bunch of houses in my neighborhood. Like 7 houses on my block are owned by 2 people.
My wife and I hope to be in a similar situation in a few years.
I've stopped mentioning it because there was so much negative reaction and I'm tired of explaining. I usually just blurt out whatever is on my mind but this is now among the things I treat as taboo.
What people need to realize is that there are different kinds of people. All kinds of people. There are greedy, corrupt, evil business owners, landlords, politicians, lawyers, cops, etc. But it's not the job that is the problem. It's the people.
The only thing that makes the world better is when better people go into those professions. And the only way that happens is if we appropriately respect the importance of the role.
We aren't interested in price gouging some struggling family that is having trouble making ends meet. We just want to cover maintenance and taxes. If you treat us and our home with respect we will treat you with respect.
I feel like that's how it should be.
I appreciate your story.
If it's not unwelcome, I'd offer, I guess, a bit of an explanation, as I think the lines get kinda blurred in the passion of the moment.
From a leftist perspective, the root of the issue is not personal culpability (as in liberalism's emphasis on the individual), but with the system of organization that creates the "material" conditions. Basically, it's exactly the opposite of what you said:
But it's not the job that is the problem. It's the people.
It's not the people that's the problem, it's the system. There is obviously a spectrum of landlords that make the situation better or worse, but the issue is with the underlying relationship of private ownership itself.
We have to stop seeing rented property as a paternalistic relationship; "this is mine because I paid for it", and more of a coming together of joint interest; "this is ours, because I may have paid for it at first, but you are actually living in it". We let authority be derived from that notion of ownership, and that's the point of concern for those of us being critical of landlords. That we place emphasis on ownership is not anyone's fault (mostly), but it is the thing we need to be able to discuss without alienating others.
I'm truly sorry for making you feel alienated, I hope my explanation is helpful and not adding to your discomfort.
About that iFunny watermark...
Thipical landlord in my country let you live in the shit with black wall full of humidity and no heater with an high price. And then they will also have the habits to Evict you if they don't want to pay taxes. And prefer to leave you in the street. So I think that good landlord exists but most of them are just people that want money without give to you the bare minimum to live.
Poor landlord, I’ll be bartering up my rent this month!
I take real issue with this meme, it's downright offensive that the middle fingers weren't used instead.
So how do I follow a specific user's posts?
So I don't think you did anything wrong, and I'd even go so far as to say selling to anyone but the renters would be tantamount to leaving them to the wolves, but let's lay out some points
They've lived there for over a decade - by all rights except property rights, the house is theirs. At the same time, you played by the rules and built up the slight amount of generational wealth it'll take to give your children a free pass into the rapidly shrinking middle class
From what you've said, your position is not unethical or exploitative - if anything, owning a few properties and renting them at below market value does more good than harm
It's entirely unfair that you get to essentially tax them for the right to survive, but that's the only offer on the table. Ideally, you charge a rate near or below your costs over the long term and only make a profit through equity - they are already paying for the mortgage and you take care of sudden large expenses like appliances and repairs... Double dipping and also squeezing them for an ongoing profit is where it goes from potentially fair to profiteering. You get long term wealth, they get stability
Now where it gets dicey is with the pressures of the situation - management companies are getting real cozy with corporate property investors. When they inevitably ratchet up the prices or drop you to focus on bigger fish, will you pass the costs on to them or look at other options? If someone offers you something way over market value, will they have a seat at the table? When you pass it on to your children, will they end up left to the wolves then?
I think you should put thought into these questions, maybe attempt to get to know your tenants enough to feel emotionally connected to them (if they're amenable to the idea obviously).
And personally, I think you should just do right by them and hold out. Our system is untenable, we've reached the limits of easy growth and our economic systems are cannibalizing themselves - if you provide stability at fair rates until we reach the point of transition, I think at that point you can look back and say you did right by them
Tax them for the right to survive? It's called exploitation, and it's the name of the game. If you can't beat them join them.
Haha, can you imagine landlords playing the victim like this xD classic. Cracked me up, thanks mate!
I have to rent out my basement, otherwise I literally couldn't afford my house plus food for my family of 4 (single income). We're living pay cheque to pay cheque, so I feel a certain amount of "fuck you" to this (assuming) sarcastic post.
cool this post isn't about you
Good old landlords mocking. I bet there is sub-"lemmy" for that
Hey, a new troll
All the renter's calling for the heads of the upper middle class property owners.
Stop coming after us. We already pay the most tax and get the least benefits from the tax.
We don't get all the offsets the millionaires get, and we don't get the handouts the poor get.
We just get gouged everywhere. We don't know enough to invest in anything other than housing.
Stop coming after us. We aren't the problem.
You had me until the handouts
You really are. If you only know how to invest in housing and won't learn than stop investing.
Oh poor baby, everyone is so mean to you for buying houses you don't need to exploit the poor and their inherent need for shelter. No one has it as hard you.
Maybe we wouldn't have a problem if you didn't invest in people's livelihood like the stock market
