Poll of the Day > Seriously, never be a landlord

(+) Yeah! (+)

Far-Queue posted...

Disagree that tenants shouldn't be afforded special protections. It would be inhumane to evict a family during the winter in New England. It's inhumane in general, and eviction should be an absolute last resort. I may be in the minority but other landlords I've spoken with echo the same sentiment.

Eviction is generally a last Resort for commercial as well.

its inhumane to take advantage and get free housing and not pay rent. Owners dont evict just because. A buidling is a business the least amount of headaches and the smoothest operation is what owners want. A non paying tenant is a problem. So the owner should dig in his or her pocket to pay for upkeep and utilities when the tenant isnt paying? Winter or no. Owners have expenses and everyone likes to pretend every landlord is mr/mrs moneybags.

If a tenant (commercial or other) comes to you and says they are having troubles and works something out Or at least tries to then that is not only a good tenant but a stand up Person and most owners will work something out with them.

the likelihood of A commercial tenant in trouble doing so is greater than residential because of the its my home mentality.


---

I know its semantics but the term landlord also is archaic.

owner is more appropriate as it is 100% accurate and fits all property types. It seems off to call the owner of a condo (Or condos) who rents said condo a landlord.

property owner or owner seems more fit.
but- semantics.

---

papercup posted...

I cant think of bigger leeches on society than landlords

Time to buy some houses.
---

AwesomeTurtwig posted...

Renters are garbage, dealing with them is like pulling teeth. Yes you have to pay to live here you dummy. Rent is due first of the month, not whenever. I give these assholes so much wiggle room and they just take an take. Garbage people.

This is your problem right here. Youre their landlord, not their friend.

How are you obtaining tenants? If you use an agent you typically end up with better tenants.

---

Conner4REAL posted...

If you dont like the idea of renting then buy your own home. If you cant afford it then remember you would be out on the street if not for a landlord willing to rent.

On my current inflation-adjusted salary (which is pretty comfortably middle class), I could have bought a home in my city 9-10 years ago. I know this for a fact because one of my current managers did exactly that. I can't afford to now because greedy real estate investors - landlords included - have driven up housing prices to the point where home ownership is no longer attainable for even the middle class, leaving no alternative except to rent from those same investors that are charging so much that amassing the necessary capital to get out of renting is made even more difficult.

I don't know why you think I owe some debt of gratitude to landlords for selling me the only available solution to a problem they created for the sole purpose of selling me the solution, but it really doesn't reflect how anyone buying those solutions thinks. Pretty much all of them would very strongly prefer to have accessible alternatives. Long-term renting should not be the norm. It should remain an option, for those that are comfortable with the idea of paying a premium to insure themselves against the potential unpredictable costs of owning their own place, but the fact that so many middle class people don't have a viable path to home ownership is a very significant problem.

---

Conner4REAL posted...

If a tenant (commercial or other) comes to you and says they are having troubles and works something out Or at least tries to then that is not only a good tenant but a stand up Person and most owners will work something out with them.

this does not happen, you live in a fantasy world

---

hey quick question what are the rents like in NYC? or did you drop that gimmick?

---

Conner4REAL posted...

a universal rating system would also help based on failure to pay and screwing around so those w low ratings required to post more security.

Social credit scores? Didn't know this board was full of communists :/

---

adjl posted...

Alternatively, sell it as three condos (or a triplex, or whatever you want to call it). That's going to require some regulatory changes, certainly, but the "problem" of so many houses being too large for single families can be solved without permanently keeping them as rental units. It just takes some actual will to do so from the government, who's rather enamoured with all the lobbying money they get from real estate investors and is therefore pretty keen on maintaining the status quo for as long as they can.

Even though I own the property (as long as I pay my taxes, anyway) I can't just build whatever I want. I'd have to look into the building statutes and zoning and everything, as well as submit plans to the town and put in for permits, but I believe in that town I would have to convert that particular building into a two-family condo if I were to go that route, which would require a near-complete remodel. Might be more cost-effective to demo and rebuild honestly. But any major construction would put my tenants out, which is something I wouldn't want to do.

---

Far-Queue posted...

Even though I own the property

how do you own land lol. think about what youre saying

---

Same way I own my wife, I married it

---

Far-Queue posted...

Even though I own the property (as long as I pay my taxes, anyway) I can't just build whatever I want. I'd have to look into the building statutes and zoning and everything, as well as submit plans to the town and put in for permits, but I believe in that town I would have to convert that particular building into a two-family condo if I were to go that route, which would require a near-complete remodel. Might be more cost-effective to demo and rebuild honestly. But any major construction would put my tenants out, which is something I wouldn't want to do.

That's why I think that sort of change has to happen at a regulatory level. If you've got two families (or three, or whatever) living in there now, I see no reason those units couldn't be sold to two families as condos without making any significant changes (except possibly adding extra meters or otherwise tweaking utility provision). The only thing preventing that is the local zoning regulations, and saying "this can be rented individually as flats but not sold individually as condos" is really pretty arbitrary.

There are indeed a lot of houses that have been broken up into apartments because they're too large for single-family homes, and I agree that pushing to have them remodelled into single-family homes and sold isn't really going to help the housing issue much, but treating those houses as rental units forever isn't the only way to move forward.

Incidentally, for what it's worth, I appreciate that you generally try to be a good landlord. You are still part of the problem of real estate investors injecting themselves into the market as middlemen and driving prices up by artificially inflating demand, but I recognize that your personal contribution to the problem is pretty minimal and that you can't really do much to change it yourself. Your properties would indeed just be bought up by somebody that's likely worse than you if you were to decide you didn't want to be a part of the paradigm anymore, so I'm not about to suggest that you sell when you're being a decent person about it.

---

chelsea_wtf posted...

Social credit scores? Didn't know this board was full of communists :/

Lol, haven't been here long? Just look at the topic; leeches who believe they're entitled to your shit.

---

adjl posted...

What do you think "market prices" would look like if every rental property suddenly went on sale and was no longer allowed to be rented out? Throw in some reasonable restrictions on what percentage of a region's housing any given individual or corporation can own so you don't get them all being bought up by development megacorps, and yes, most renters could afford to buy a property comparable to the one they were renting in. Heck, any renter that can afford their rent can afford to own the place they're renting even without crashing the market. If they couldn't, their landlord couldn't make money.

The service that landlords provide is to take on the risk of home ownership so that those without the necessary capital to cover unexpected expenses can live somewhere without having to worry about becoming homeless over a roof leak. Landlords provide insurance, not housing. On a long-term basis, though, the premium landlords charge exceeds the capital needed to have that security (since otherwise they wouldn't make money), so it's not a matter of the tenants being unable to afford those costs. It's a matter of the landlords being able to afford them first and turning a profit by exploiting those that weren't lucky enough to be born a few years earlier (both in terms of seizing the opportunity and in terms of taking advantage of lower prices when they bought).

Alternatively, sell it as three condos (or a triplex, or whatever you want to call it). That's going to require some regulatory changes, certainly, but the "problem" of so many houses being too large for single families can be solved without permanently keeping them as rental units. It just takes some actual will to do so from the government, who's rather enamoured with all the lobbying money they get from real estate investors and is therefore pretty keen on maintaining the status quo for as long as they can.

still too much for people with little/no savings to pay for. people can't even pay their rent right now, how can they afford a down payment plus monthly mortgage? You'd need to take down prices A LOT (i.e., have it tax-funded) for most people to actually be able to afford buying. If that's the solution you are proposing...good luck with that.

Fam_Fam posted...

still too much for people with little/no savings to pay for. people can't even pay their rent right now, how can they afford a down payment plus monthly mortgage? You'd need to take down prices A LOT (i.e., have it tax-funded) for most people to actually be able to afford buying. If that's the solution you are proposing...good luck with that.

Which is why nobody's really proposing that solution. That's a bit too extreme. Solving the problem is going to entail making sure more affordable rentals are available and otherwise including regulations to keep the housing market from ballooning out of control (such as, like I said, limiting the number of properties a given entity can own in the region). That will drive prices down without completely crashing them, while providing suitable interim options for those that currently struggle with rent to amass some capital and eventually move into ownership.

---

adjl posted...

Which is why nobody's really proposing that solution. That's a bit too extreme. Solving the problem is going to entail making sure more affordable rentals are available and otherwise including regulations to keep the housing market from ballooning out of control (such as, like I said, limiting the number of properties a given entity can own in the region). That will drive prices down without completely crashing them, while providing suitable interim options for those that currently struggle with rent to amass some capital and eventually move into ownership.

for most people, the price WOULD have to crash for them to afford it. The only fair way, imo, to have property owners not be screwed (having bought into/invested in a different system) would be for the government to buy them out and then lower the costs and take the losses themselves. drastically cutting the prices down through policy (for most renters to be able to buy themselves) screws over a ton of individuals whose assets will lose hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars, which I think is wrong/unfair.

The_tall_midget posted...

Lol, haven't been here long? Just look at the topic; leeches who believe they're entitled to your shit.

i'm looking at the topic and mostly i just see people simping for landlords for some reason. what do you think they're gonna give you?

---

Fam_Fam posted...

property owners not be screwed

property owners aren't screwed. they still own their property under adjl's scheme.

if they bought it to live in, they still have it. if they bought it as an investment, then they made a bad investment

---

While I'm a renter (and have been for years), I still think that, due to Covid-19, landlords were shafted. The banks should've given landlords a break on the mortgages on their properties, which would've kept prices from zooming once things improved but they didn't; so now prices have shot through the roof and keep climbing. Also, years ago there should've been laws in place that limited foreign investment in housing stock but nobody thought of that either; so that puts us where we are now. It's a perfect storm of no vision of the future market; only of how much profit banking, hedge fund managers and others can make off of the misery and suffering of others in the name of the free market.

chelsea_wtf posted...

property owners aren't screwed. they still own their property under adjl's scheme.

if they bought it to live in, they still have it. if they bought it as an investment, then they made a bad investment

something being made into a bad investment due to no fault or lack of planning is what i find unfair. If this was announced FAR in advanced, and only applied to places where people had the information prior to buying, then it would be reasonable. otherwise, this is what i am calling being screwed.

Fam_Fam posted...

something being made into a bad investment due to no fault or lack of planning is what i find unfair.

you probably shouldn't invest then. investment involves risk, duh.

capitalists like you have this unrealistic idea that having money should just make them more money and this process should go on forever without interruption. sorry honey, it doesnt work like that

---

Fam_Fam posted...

for most people, the price WOULD have to crash for them to afford it.

As it stands now, yeah. With more affordable rents (allowing more money to be saved), lower prices across the board (meaning you need to save less to make a down payment), and maybe a minimum wage that isn't based on the cost of living in 1960, though, it becomes a lot more attainable, especially if there's also a push for all of those 2-4-unit houses to be eligible for individual sale (since that's the sort of home most lower-income renters would be interested in buying). There are also rent-to-own programs to consider, subsidies for first-time buyers, and plenty of resources that can help people improve their credit scores to be approved for a mortgage. It's certainly not going to happen overnight, but it's not insurmountable, by any means.

Fam_Fam posted...

The only fair way, imo, to have property owners not be screwed (having bought into/invested in a different system) would be for the government to buy them out and then lower the costs and take the losses themselves. drastically cutting the prices down through policy (for most renters to be able to buy themselves) screws over a ton of individuals whose assets will lose hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars, which I think is wrong/unfair.

Ultimately, this isn't a problem that is going to be solved if "It's unfair for people to lose money on their investments" is going to be used as an excuse to avoid doing anything about it that might cause property values to go down. That's not to say any changes should completely disregard those investments, but in the end, investments in real estate are considered high risk for exactly this reason (that is, that the market fluctuates considerably in response to how the local situation changes), so anyone making such investments should be prepared for considerable losses (and I value people having homes over protecting the investments of people who can afford to lose them).

Really though, real estate investment shouldn't even be a thing. Housing is a basic necessity for life. The fact that people treat it like a casino is all but single-handedly responsible for most of the increase in costs of living that have created such glaring wealth disparity. That's not to say that people shouldn't be able to buy and sell property as desired, and market fluctuations according to supply/demand are inevitable, but the investment market really needs some restrictions because it's a real problem for pretty much everyone that isn't among the handful of people profiting from it.

---

GastroFan posted...

The banks should've given landlords a break on the mortgages on their properties, which would've kept prices from zooming once things improved but they didn't; so now prices have shot through the roof and keep climbing.

what does this have to do with tenants. sometimes you can't invest or you lose money because of the world economy changing, that's how investing works

---

landlords be like "ugh, my tenants are asking me to fix their broken AC again. don't they know i'm doing them a service by providing them a place to live"

---

landlords be like "can't believe my tenant had an emergency resulting in them not paying rent immediately at 12:00:00 on the 1st, time to call the police"

---

Lorthremar posted...

landlords be like "can't believe my tenant had an emergency resulting in them not paying rent immediately at 12:00:00 on the 1st, time to call the police"

this actually happened to us once. the landlords called us screaming minutes after the bank opened because they needed cash immediately (i'm sure that's not weird at all)

---

Lorthremar posted...

landlords be like "can't believe my tenant had an emergency resulting in them not paying rent immediately at 12:00:00 on the 1st, time to call the police"

You could be arrested and put in jail immediately for stealing a handbag (see the recent cases) worth hundreds, so yeah, the police might get involved if you owe someone thousands of dollars.

Fam_Fam posted...

so yeah, the police might get involved if you owe someone thousands of dollars.

That's not how it works with rent but ok

---

Jen0125 posted...

That's not how it works with rent but ok

from what I'm understanding, some people are saying that's how it works for them/others they know.

Fam_Fam posted...

from what I'm understanding, some people are saying that's how it works for them/others they know.

Police only get involved on rent issues once the judge has granted a legal eviction. They can't just remove you for nonpayment without a court order. So no, it doesn't just work that way lol

Like a landlord can't just call the police if rent is behind to have the police come remove them. The sheriff dept will help remove people who have been legally evicted and haven't left the property.

---

Fam_Fam posted...

something being made into a bad investment due to no fault or lack of planning is what i find unfair.

That's the nature of real estate investments. Unless you're actively working to improve your property and increase its value (or causing significant damage to it), the vast majority of fluctuations - in either direction - are outside of your control and can't really be planned for. This is why many like HOA's so much: By exerting some degree of control over your neighbourhood, you take away some of the unpredictability inherent in property values. Again, that doesn't necessarily justify the government saying "lol get rekt, landlords" and completely destroying their investments without warning, but that also doesn't mean that "landlords will lose some money" should prevent the government from enacting the regulations that need to be enacted to ensure a stable housing market and avoid homelessness crises.

Of course, that kind of falls apart when so many in government have real estate investments themselves, since that's a major conflict of interest and introduces a significant degree of bias in favour of investors, but government being invested in things it's supposed to be policing is a problem in every field, not just housing.

---

Mostly just edgelords here. Lmao got em

I learned that when these pieces of shit refused to pay my grandma for 6 months before she tried to get them evicted (she should have sooner but she's the stereotypical sweet old grandma), it ate up a big chunk of her retirement

---

Jen0125 posted...

Police only get involved on rent issues once the judge has granted a legal eviction. They can't just remove you for nonpayment without a court order. So no, it doesn't just work that way lol

Like a landlord can't just call the police if rent is behind to have the police come remove them. The sheriff dept will help remove people who have been legally evicted and haven't left the property.

sure they can call the police. that's what the people did. whether or not they do anything is a different issue.

Fam_Fam posted...

sure they can call the police. that's what the people did. whether or not they do anything is a different issue.

??? You can call the police for anything. What is your point? People call the police when a fast food place makes their order wrong.

---

Jen0125 posted...

??? You can call the police for anything. What is your point? People call the police when a fast food place makes their order wrong.

my point was that people are mocking people calling the cops for people staying on their property without paying as if this is shocking/ridiculous behavior. people can and do call the cops for much less (as you point out), so this isn't particularly outlandish

TC, I agree w/ your topic title. And w/ Adj and Jen.

You should sell your rental property and never be a landlord again.

But you won't do that, will you? Because as much of a pain as some tenants might be, you know deep down it's still getting you lots of money for doing almost nothing (hiring someone to fix a maintenance issue isn't "work") and you'll never give that up, no matter how hard you try to virtue signal otherwise to us online.

Fam_Fam posted...

my point was that people are mocking people calling the cops for people staying on their property without paying as if this is shocking/ridiculous behavior. people can and do call the cops for much less (as you point out), so this isn't particularly outlandish

Fam_Fam posted...

my point was that people are mocking people calling the cops for people staying on their property without paying as if this is shocking/ridiculous behavior. people can and do call the cops for much less (as you point out), so this isn't particularly outlandish

Why call the cops in situations they can't assist with? I don't understand your contribution to this topic.

---

Fam is wrong. No landlord calls the cops over unpaid rent unless they're an idiot. There's a process to eviction, and before it even comes to that you need to go through some steps to see if you can work things out with the tenant amicably. A full eviction can take months, and cops won't get involved until it comes to the bitter end and you need to forcibly evict someone.

No one wants to go to court. That shit is expensive. Landlords don't want to get courts and cops involved any more than tenants do. It's a bunch of extra work and money that could be better spent elsewhere.

---

Most people will pay out on a lease to get someone out before they try to do an eviction

---

Set expectations with your tenants up front. When you give wiggle room on certain things such as paying rent late, theyre going to expect wiggle room the next time an issue comes up.

---

just kick out bad tenants

Streamofsky is literally virtue signaling in his post. Awesome.

accord posted...

just kick out bad tenants

This. And do ignore the usual commies telling that you should sell your assets BECAUSE MUH OTHER PEOPLE. They still don't understand the basic principle that losers aren't entitled to stuff you legally acquired.

---

BEERandWEED posted...

Streamofsky is literally virtue signaling in his post. Awesome.

BeerandWeed: ...No, you are! *pouts*

The_tall_midget posted...

This. And do ignore the usual commies telling that you should sell your assets BECAUSE MUH OTHER PEOPLE. They still don't understand the basic principle that losers aren't entitled to stuff you legally acquired.

Selling property is communism now. And buying it for money is being "entitled" to it.

Ok leech.

What did I come back to yeesh. I'm probably not going to read this whole topic.

---

Lots of shitty landlords, lots of shitty tenants.

---

UnMead posted...

Lots of shitty landlords, lots of shitty tenants.

And the reason you only hear about the shitty ones is cause people are more likely to say something about a bad experience vs a good one

---

Ogurisama posted...

And the reason you only hear about the shitty ones is cause people are more likely to say something about a bad experience vs a good one

both are prevalent unfortunately, Ive seen plenty of both in my time

we have the capability to give every American family a home, no one should have to struggle and find success in capitalism just to survive

---