U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Renting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-13-2021, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX and Las Vegas, NV
7,280 posts, read 6,353,764 times
Reputation: 16718

Advertisements

[quote=Sonic_Spork;61447126]Yeah... I've rented from Mom & Pop types in the past, private owners who had maybe one or two properties in townthout a fuss.

I have not had that experience with the kinds of rentals owned by distant investors and managed by big PM companies. They don't seem to care much if you're a good tenant or not, they will raise the rent every year, it's no skin off their back if you move out, they realize they can just jack the rent up even more if you do, and rent to someone else. And because they own lots of properties (diversified investment strategies) they will do better to raise rents as much as possible even if some units wind up vacant for a bit (defying the laws of supply and demand) because that way they can game a whole region's markets.



My taxes and insurance go up EVERY year but you think I’m a greedy Landlord when I raise the rent every year?? Hummmm…….
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-13-2021, 06:02 PM
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
23,876 posts, read 11,765,656 times
Reputation: 24449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork View Post
Yeah... I've rented from Mom & Pop types in the past, private owners who had maybe one or two properties in town that they rented out and they were THE BEST. Because I am a damn good tenant, and they appreciate that. We got to be friends, and never had an issue. But they also appreciated US. Not only did we pay rent on time, we took good care of their property, notified them if something needed fixed and cooperated with getting it done, we followed the rules and we were quiet neighbors. So in turn, because they were happy to have good tenants, they never jacked up our rent (in fact, didn't raise it over 4-5 years we stayed!) and we got our deposits back without a fuss.

I have not had that experience with the kinds of rentals owned by distant investors and managed by big PM companies. They don't seem to care much if you're a good tenant or not, they will raise the rent every year, it's no skin off their back if you move out, they realize they can just jack the rent up even more if you do, and rent to someone else. And because they own lots of properties (diversified investment strategies) they will do better to raise rents as much as possible even if some units wind up vacant for a bit (defying the laws of supply and demand) because that way they can game a whole region's markets.

It is impersonal...those making the rules, the tenants will never even meet them. They have employees in the leasing offices to enforce on their behalf. Easy to be downright cruel to people, even to a point of violating contracts and rights, if they are just figures on a spreadsheet, not real human beings. It's also been revealed that out there on Reddit, there was a landlord complaining about a tenant that took too good a care of a place and they were MAD that they'd have to give a deposit back, and landlords scheming on how to keep deposits when there was not cause. Knowing full well that most renters don't have the means to hire a lawyer and fight it and will just allow themselves to be screwed.

Even small realty companies that function as PMs don't mind doing unethical things at times, they have no investment in the property itself. Only the profit they can garner as the middleman. When I landed here in a house I'd rented sight unseen from out of state once, and found several fire and safety hazards not to mention a messily and hastily patched collapsed ceiling among other issues...I was not angry at the OWNER, he was a soldier stationed out of state. I was angry at the PM company that he hired and paid to manage the place, that was failing him and my family both.

Another thing that has always rubbed me the wrong way, is that even knowing what a great tenant I am (and I can prove it)... When I go to apply for a rental, there is this vibe like I'm a supplicant, assumed to be dirt, treated like I'm probably no good, "applicant"...beg for the privilege of a roof over your head, peasant! From the LAND LORD. This kind of language is like a holdover from feudalism. The choice to rent, rather than to own, doesn't remotely make someone inferior, and I'm sick to death of some property owners acting as though it does.

There are benefits to either choice. And if we can get freaking real for a second, TONS of "owners" don't really...really, actually...own their homes, either. The bank does. Until that note is paid. And even then, if you don't pay your property taxes? Guess what... So to some degree, your taxing authority "owns" your house, too, or at least has an interest in it.

No one likes to be looked down on, especially by people who don't even know us, and the choice to rent can be a completely sensible one depending on a person's situation.

All of that said? I 100% absolutely understand how terrible some tenants CAN be, and have massive sympathy for owners who act in good faith only to have their property destroyed by problem renters.
You seem to have good experiences with your LLs. I will say that I treat my tenant similarly, especially in these pandemic times when I know that I'd be essentially out of luck if my tenant up and decided not to pay rent (good luck with me getting that back) or the tenant up and left and I had to find someone else to move in (and all of the risk involved with that). As a result, I have not raised my tenant's rent at all and do not intend to raise his rent for what I hope will be a final lease before I move back to the unit next year.

But this isn't a way I expect LLs to act and I will never be upset with LLs for raising rent to match increases in operating expenses. The fact that you are a good tenant should not make any LL feel obligated to keep your rent steady year after year. Your kindness and the such doesn't pay for property tax increases and the such.

Just my two cents anyway.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2021, 12:19 PM
 
8,134 posts, read 4,398,949 times
Reputation: 4811
I have a condition called landlorditis. I don't harbor personal dislike for most of them. It's just that landlords and I are not compatible.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2021, 12:29 PM
 
8,134 posts, read 4,398,949 times
Reputation: 4811
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
Many Renters don’t perceive landlords as doing this to earn a living ….they think because it is passive many times that it isn’t part of the money they live on or landlords are all filthy rich.
Well Donald Trump is filthy rich, as is Elon Musk. Can't really say I harbor any personal animosity towards them due to their filthy richness, but their wealth really has no direct affect on me. "Filthy rich" landlord? Different story.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2021, 04:32 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
16,231 posts, read 10,502,092 times
Reputation: 30275
Quote:
Originally Posted by WorldKlas View Post

My taxes and insurance go up EVERY year but you think I’m a greedy Landlord when I raise the rent every year?? Hummmm…….
That depends.

Are you raising rent in any kind of proportion to this increase?

I have not found private owner type landlords to be greedy people in the slightest. If you are not the owner of some kind of huge company that runs hundreds of thousands of residential units, I'm probably not talking about you. Had one of my private landlords ever come to me and told me that their taxes went up and they did not want to bear the burden of that on their own, we could have discussed an increase, and the ones I am talking about likely wouldn't have been greedy about it.

But you know what? I'm already paying off any mortgage they might have and they are already profiting AND at the end of the day, week, lease term...they still have an investment and I do not. If their taxes went up, there's a good chance that the value of their investment asset has, too. I'm an accounting & data science nerd, so I do have some understanding of how all of this works.

But I have found large firms to be impersonally profit driven way out of proportion to their rising expenses. I know a lot about what they are up to, as they are my clients at my job. I do analytics work for them.

My main point is that I feel that private "landlords" have more personal cause to consider the risks whenever they have to find a new tenant, they will feel the pain of it should someone trash their property or turn out to not pay the rent or something like that. Larger firms managing many thousands of units can absorb that a bit better with diversification and economies of scale.

This stuff matters when we talk about entire regions rental markets shifting, and the fear and outrage people feel, when they are told that they can no longer live in a lower middle class suburb even on six figure incomes in some cities. And no, I don't only mean California, though Californication might be part of the issue.

Bob the Landlord may or may not think he's better than renters just because he owns property, but he isn't gaming the market on an entire region, or multiple cities at once. I know of a few firms that totally are.

So I think that any "hate" that Bob is gonna get isn't about greed so much. It'll be either because he's dealing with entitled renters who really are kinda lowlifes and expect to never have to answer for that, or because he doesn't hold up his end of contracts (like repairs and maintenance)...or it might be because he has a big ol' attitude and looks down on all renters whether they deserve it or not. I haven't run into that from my private owner type landlords, but I can see from certain sites online, that it does seem to be a thing that exists out there.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2021, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Elsewhere
71,384 posts, read 67,397,230 times
Reputation: 89177
Quote:
Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke View Post
People pay huge amounts of money for electronics, cars, restaurants and you never hear them going on with resentment about the greedy cell phone company or the greedy car dealer.
I do go on about the greedy cell phone company. I don't spend megabucks on a car, so I've never dealt with a greedy car dealer.

But I've had a greedy landlord. Mind you, I was paying $2200 a month to rent a house in a decent, middle-to-upper-middle-class town, and my rent was paid on time every month. The landlord was a veterinarian who owned two animal hospitals and a few rental properties. He just didn't want to part with a dime and he traveled a lot, plus he had married a second, much younger wife who I think was costing him. He had a Costa Rican maintenance guy to take care of his properties who was pretty nice, but he would only do what his boss let him do, and every so often I would call and the maintenance guy would answer--from Costa Rica. Not sure what that was all about.

Not getting the heat fixed in the dead of winter for three weeks, forcing your tenants to buy space heaters is greedy and disgusting. Having your maintenance guy tell you to just throw your toilet paper in the garbage because he doesn't want to get the plumbing fixed is greedy and disgusting. (That one backfired on him when the whole piping system on that side of the house turned out to be leaking into the walls, and he eventually had to open it all up from the outside and replace pipes from the first story bathroom to the second-story bathroom.) There were other issues, some of which we just fixed ourselves if we could rather than wait until this guy got around to getting the work done.

And then finally, when I moved out, he sent me a letter telling me that not only wasn't I getting my security back, I OWED him more money with a list of things he claimed I'd broken or whatever, like a missing pane of glass over the exterior door leading from the back porch. Apparently it slipped his mind that five years earlier when I moved in I had sent him a list of all the things that were wrong or missing, and I forwarded him the copy. I didn't dispute some of his items like me painting the walls in colors because I didn't want my kid to grow up feeling like she lived in some kind of institution, and my sick cat had ruined one of the bedroom carpets. Fine, keep the security for those things. But don't make up stupid crap to try to squeeze more money out of me. Never heard from him again.

He'd bought four older houses built in the 1890s on that street because he was trying to get the area changed to commercial zoning so he could tear them down and build an office building, but the town wasn't allowing it, so I guess he was trying to get extra bucks out of his tenants.

In fairness, I'd had a previous private landlord who was just fine except that the house burnt down eight months after I moved in (not his fault, old furnace caught fire) and other than that, I lived in two garden apartments owned by corporations. Whether or not things got fixed in the garden apartments depended upon your relationship with the building supers.

I was a good tenant. As I said, he got his rent every month on time. I'd started with a roommate who paid one-third of the rent and I paid two-thirds (I had a daughter), but I had to ask her to leave as she was an alcoholic who fell off the wagon and was not staying sober, so for the last two years I paid it all until my dd graduated from high school and I could move out of that town.

As a matter of fact, the house had been empty for eighteen months before I moved in. There were more than a dozen rosebushes on the property that had not been cared for, and I brought them back to life. I chopped out an old rotting stump in the front yard and planted some new perennials. The property looked much nicer when I moved out than when I moved in. I took care of it.

Eh, water under the bridge. Hope karma got him good.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: http://www.city-data.com/terms.html

Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 07-17-2021 at 12:00 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2021, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Elsewhere
71,384 posts, read 67,397,230 times
Reputation: 89177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork View Post

<snip>

All of that said? I 100% absolutely understand how terrible some tenants CAN be, and have massive sympathy for owners who act in good faith only to have their property destroyed by problem renters.
I agree. My own parents rented out their Pocono house years ago to a lady with three sons and three dogs, and they utterly destroyed the house and left it full of cockroaches. They apparently let the dogs just poop on the carpet, and all of it had to be torn up. My parents made the repairs and sold the house after they finally got the woman out for non-payment. They were done.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: http://www.city-data.com/terms.html
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2021, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
16,231 posts, read 10,502,092 times
Reputation: 30275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
I agree. My own parents rented out their Pocono house years ago to a lady with three sons and three dogs, and they utterly destroyed the house and left it full of cockroaches. They apparently let the dogs just poop on the carpet, and all of it had to be torn up. My parents made the repairs and sold the house after they finally got the woman out for non-payment. They were done.
This house, the story went viral not long back and it's right here in my town. I know the area. A lot of people are stunned that it's been listed for over half a mil even in this shape, but that isn't just the crazy real estate market talking (partly) it's also the particular fancy old money neighborhood it is in.

It will need to be gutted and renovated, yes. But yeah...this was a horrifying example of a nightmare tenant.

https://cospringsrealestatenews.com/...ell-nightmare/

Thing is though, while I 100% agree that a landlord has a right to be concerned about his investment, his property, I also think that renters have a stake because for at least a time, it is the HOME that they live in, it is their LIVES and often that of their families. Both people's positions count for something.

Both need to be professional, friendly, and uphold their end of a contract. Seems pretty simple to me.

But just as bad tenants exist... Yeah, what you describe is what leads to a bad reputation that is totally deserved by some landlords. And anyone who has ever been poor and rented in a big city knows that Slumlords are every bit as heinous as the name would imply.

It's a special kind of morally reprehensible to do everything to avoid spending a penny on maintenance, failing to uphold your legal and contractual obligation to provide a safe and up to code residential housing situation, when you're a rich dude who owns multiple complexes. It is callous and cruel behavior, caring that little about the lives and safety of other human beings.

Good and bad definitely exist out there on both sides of the landlord/tenant relationship equation.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2021, 10:15 PM
 
Location: Houston
37 posts, read 9,740 times
Reputation: 117
Yes, it is long. But this is a comprehensive discussion about what more and more people, particularly those of us under 40, are starting to think and feel. Landlords frequently ask why people hate them, why tenants push back, and what renters are thinking. Too often the discussion turns toxic because someone thinks they're cute by resorting to insults and references to a certain Chinese dictator that are neither clever nor appropriate.

This is not intended to be insulting, trolling, or brigading. This is an attempt to have a frank and real discussion about this issue.
Landlords are not scapegoats, and they are not the victims; they are the bad guys in our society. It is time to reign them in.
Over the last year, there have been a countless number of news articles, local TV reports, and nationwide stories about the struggles being faced by people who rent. When the coronavirus pandemic ramped up, millions of people suddenly found themselves out of work, with no warning. Stay at home and lockdown orders were initiated throughout the country, mandating people remain at home to attempt to mitigate the spread of the virus, which at the time was not very well understood. It was an act taken out of an abundance of caution. Many people were out of work and with no income, or severely reduced income, for at least two to three months.
Congress did get around to passing a relief bill, which sent out stimulus checks directly to millions of Americans, and expanded unemployment benefits so that they were easier to obtain (well they were supposed to be), and added $600 a week to recipients’ payments. SNAP food benefits were also made easier to obtain, and a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures was enacted, with generous provisions allowing for mortgage forbearance and refinancing without penalty.
And landlords all around the country lost their minds. Despite the fact that many had been able to refinance their mortgages, or forbear payments which would have tacked on a few extra months at the end, they were livid that they could not evict. There is no shortage of examples of cruel, heartless, condescending, and out of touch notices and letters that were sent out to people who were already struggling and worried for their health and their future. One landlord threatened to cut off residents’ cable and remove their internet wiring if they couldn’t pay. Another told renters who might work in the service industry that they “could borrow money from family or friends, or take out a payday loan.”
That last example was in a letter sent from a property management company with $8.2 billion in assets. The same letter admonished the renters by reminding them “we have expenses too, like payroll for our employees.” What they did not mention, however, was that they received close to $15 million in funds from the Payroll Protection Program, which would have covered their expenses for those things. Instead, they encouraged people who were out of work and already economically stressed and likely worried about losing their homes in the middle of a pandemic, to go and saddle themselves with payday loans, which are notorious for their incredibly high (up to 1900%) interest rates.
The original moratorium ended in May 2020, but the CARES Act was also passed, which protected renters in HUD or federally backed mortgage properties, again providing the owners with forbearance and refinancing options. In September, after thousands of people were again being evicted, and the infection and death rates continued to spike, the CDC issued a moratorium on evictions for nonpayment of rent. Many states and local governments had already done so, and some had pretty strict bans. The federal ban only placed a moratorium on nonpayment evictions.
Landlords immediately began to complain. The website bigger pockets.com, where landlords post advice and opinions on their “career” on forums, became overrun with posts complaining about not being able to kick people out of their homes in a global pandemic. Landlord lobby groups immediately began to bring lawsuits. Most of which they lost, but then they would just file again, somewhere else. Big corporate landlords kept filing anyway, as did many individuals, despite it being illegal. Even as the death toll climbed past 100,000; 250,000; 400,000 they were more concerned about not being able to throw people out to die in the streets.
At the same time, we began to see two types of news stories come out: the first category were news stories about the small “mom and pop landlords” who were being hurt and suffering because of the moratorium. The second category involved stories of people who were still being evicted, either through courts or by their landlords threatening, intimidating, and forcing them out. People had their belongings seized, utilities shut off, locks changed. The moratorium only covered evictions for nonpayment so many landlords just suddenly discovered “unauthorized occupants” and “unapproved pets.” One lady in Houston Texas was evicted for “alcohol and drug use.” Her landlord had done a surprise inspection when she was not home and found her wine collection; she was a sommelier before the pandemic.
For months, the biggest complaint they had was that people were getting all this extra unemployment money and stimulus checks, but that landlords weren’t getting any relief. Aside, of course, from the ability to get forbearance or refinance without penalty. And they conveniently leave out the fact that even with a mortgage, they have equity in the property that they can utilize, a privilege renters are not afforded. The refrain was the same for months: we need major rent relief: rent assistance payments to the landlords to prevent them from going under, and to keep people in their homes. It was one time when both sides of the issue agreed on something. So tenant rights advocates, legal aid lawyers, housing departments, individual renters, landlord and apartment groups, and lawmakers all banded together and managed to lobby and get passed a massive rent relief bill, with billions set aside specifically for rent. Everyone got what they wanted: the system worked.
And then landlords all across the country promptly refused to accept the money, cooperate with the programs, or, in many cases, took the money and then evicted people anyway. In the middle of a pandemic. Many people were evicted during a historic winter freeze in Texas; evicted during a time when almost half of the state was without power, yet some courts still insisted on zoom hearings, and issued default judgements against people who were just trying not to freeze to death in their homes. Why are they refusing? Because the programs won’t let them charge usurious late fees, and they can’t evict or gouge people on rent for a year after they accept it. They act like that is such an unacceptable string attached. But who honestly can say they don’t absolutely know that if that provision were not in place, they would all gladly take the money and then still kick everyone out into the street anyway.
I’m sick of hearing about the “mom and pop” landlords and how much they are suffering so badly. The bigger pockets forums, as well as any forum where landlords are allowed to post freely and openly is riddled with these people complaining about renter protections of any kind, and claiming that this is all the government taking their property and using them as scapegoats. They have this huge victim mentality that its the whole world against them and that they are unfairly targeted. At the same time, they grouse about tenants with their “excuses and blaming everyone else for their troubles, trying to make you part of their drama.”
Because of the last year, many of them are selling properties out of spite, making it increasingly more difficult to qualify for a rental, jacking rents up to insane levels, bragging about how they are going to get back at the people who couldn’t pay and the society that wronged them. And it’s all everyone else’s fault. Its the renters for not having enough savings; its the government for trying to protect citizens from greed and cruelty (and ****ing death by a pandemic). None of these things they are doing are actually necessary. They simply cannot get it in their heads that this past year was an unusual, once in a century event where things were just different. Instead of holding grudges and further contributing to the downfall of our society through evictions, homelessness, poverty, and pettiness, they should be thankful to still be alive and that they still have their property. As well as all the extra homes they’re holding and preventing millions of Americans from purchasing for themselves and their families.
In America, wages have stagnated. Minimum wage has not increased in almost two decades; millions of people make $7.25 an hour. Even people with college degrees are underpaid, and the rising cost of college ensures that most graduates enter their adulthood tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Meanwhile, rent and home prices have skyrocketed. IN 2010, a one bedroom apartment in Houston Texas could be easily found for between $590 and $900, with $900 being the very high end. Now, the cheapest rentals in the same city range from $1000 to $3000 per month. With rent rising and wages either staying the same or decreasing, more and more Americans are paying out half or more of their salary to rent. This erases any chance of saving up to buy their own home; it barely even leaves them enough for food and other utilities. The vast majority of Americans do not have enough savings to cover a $300 emergency.
The issue with landlords is that a house for rent is not a house for sale. You can rent a house for 30 years but never own it. In fact you are doing nothing more than paying a landlord's mortgage. So in 15 or 30 years the landlord gets a free house in return for labor that you provided. So what did you get in return? Nothing, the house is not yours. So what service did the landlord offer? None. They just happened to have more money and a higher credit score than you. Possibly (and very realistically) they bought it for cash. They buy tax liens and bank foreclosures and other homes you or I have no access to, because many sell within a few days to people with briefcases of cash. It takes the average person over a month to close on a mortgage. But what if you want to buy a home and not rent? The price now is higher than ever before. That's because about 20 percent of all homes are rental homes. No, not apartments, not duplexes, but single family homes. We are facing a housing shortage and the demand rises because the more homes landlords buy, money furnished by the toil of your labor, the less homes that are for sale. The median price of a home in 1970 was $23,000, or $155,000 today with inflation. Today the median home price is $270,000, almost double what many people’s parents would have paid for a home. With each rent check you sign, you raise the price of a home. You give the landlord more capital to buy more homes and shrink the number of homes for sale which only worsens supply and increases demand. Most houses, once they become a rental, will never be for sale again. Some of you may laugh at this and that's fine, your are probably older and already own your own home or are a landlord, but the housing market and the affordability of a house are no laughing manner for those of us under 40. It's downright depressing. Landlords should only preside over apartments, and apartments should only be for young people, college students, or divorced older people as a stepping stone to home ownership. You should not have to rent your entire life, and if you think about it, the end goal of a landlord is total home ownership at your expense and the removal of ever owning your own home and having something to pass off to your children. So yes, landlords are completely unnecessary in terms of single family homes and put unnecessary burden on the already strained real estate market and keep putting the chances of home ownership out of the reach of younger generations.
Now is a good time to discuss one of landlords’ favorite arguments: why should they be hated for being successful? They worked hard and had enough money to buy rental property; they’re housing providers. They barely make any profit anyway; they need to pay their mortgages and property taxes, etc. Ok, lets examine these points one by one.
First, no one is hating anyone for being successful. But when your success hinges on taking away someone else’s money just because you have something every human needs, with the threat of the legal and police system readily at your disposal, its going to garner some resentment. That property that is an investment to you, that is someones home. Thats the place where they go to shut out the world and relax; where they may spend time with their family. Its where they lay their head at night to rest, and where they feel safe. And in the back of their mind, they always have to worry about when you’re going to take it away from them. One emergency, one serious illness, one other person who offers to pay more, one missed phone call, and they could forced out with no recourse.
As to the argument that they worked hard to obtain these properties, that may be true. A large number of rental housing units are owned by big corporate firms or REITs, which are basically groups of people and/or hedge funds, Wall Street types, or other investors who all get together, pool their money and buy property. These small “mom and pop” landlords we keep being reminded to care about generally own less than ten units, usually either single family homes, small apartment buildings, or duplexes. Most of these are either inherited, in which case the owner did nothing special to get them other than be born. Many others are purchased by people who already own their own homes, and have watched enough HGTV and read all the articles about how “rental property makes great passive income>” and rush out and buy additional property with a mortgage.
And that brings us to a major problem. Landlords, both “mom and pop” and large corporations are buying up houses and entire neighborhoods for the purpose of renting them out, which artificially inflates the home prices in a region, while simultaneously shutting out people who might want to buy them. Once a house is turned into a rental, it very rarely ever becomes owner-occupied again. Old homes in historic neighborhoods are carved up into 4 or 5 separate tiny apartments. Old houses are bulldozed so developers can build two condos set wall-to-wall on that one lot, which they then rent for $2000 a month.
Millions of young Americans are starting to look for homes to own and finding that they are shut out of many markets because investors offer $50,000-$100,000 over the asking price, in cash. Or the realtor specifies that a property is being sold as “investment only.” This added to the difficulty in obtaining a mortgage since the 2008 financial crisis, is leading to a point where most people are stuck in a cycle of renting.
As for the argument that landlords barely make a profit and have expenses; then what is the point? Why not just sell the house to the person renting it? You don’t live in it. You don’t need it. All of these are used as excuses for why landlords like to evict so much. But, if you are so underwater that one person needing to be a few weeks late is going to cause you to lose everything, maybe you should lose it because you can’t afford it.
Which brings me to another problem: evictions and homelessness. The vast majority of people who get evicted are evicted after one late or missed month’s payment. Many landlords have absolutely no compassion or tolerance for any late payment. They want it on the first, period. In states where they are allowed to, many landlords issue threatening letters at 5 pm on the first and are at the courthouse filing for eviction on the second. They don’t care when the renters’ paychecks arrive, or what other bills or needs they have, and they certainly don’t care about illness or death. One landlord on biggerpockets even brags that his tenants know paying him comes before everything, including food. And payments must be in full—no making arrangements with someone who is struggling and just needs time to get caught up. From their point of view, doing so only allows the renter to get DEEPER in debt. They use the Fair housing Act as a shield for these draconian measures by saying “I could get sued if I don’t do it the same way with everyone.”
Just take a second to think about how disgusting it is to twist a legislation meant to prevent discrimination against someone because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, health status, mental health status, or ethnicity into a cover for throwing people out for being one day late. Or for why they just deny anyone for any reason and never tell them why.
Which brings up another point: the argument that they have bias to pay on that property. A mortgage is due on the first and late on the 15th, which is when the grace period ends and a late fee is added. One fee is added per month. It takes up to six or ten months for a foreclosure to be sought, and the lender will almost certainly have sent notices, allowed partial payments, principle only payments, or interest only payments. But a renter gets until maybe the 3rd or 5th, and by then the rent has ballooned with a late fee, daily late fees, notice posting fees (that is a complete rip off. You cannot expect me to believe it costs you $40 or $100 to print a one page note and tape it to the door. That is utter bull****.) So it really does not hurt the landlord in anyway if they get the rent on the first, third, or tenth. If its before the 15th, why should it matter?
Property taxes! I hear landlords shouting. Nice try. Property taxes are assessed and paid once a year, here in Harris County its generally due in February. Late charges only accrue per MONTH. It takes up to a year or more for a tax lien to seize a home. Compare that to a renter who can be made homeless in under a month.
Finally, there’s the attitude. Many, many landlords have this attitude that they are smarter, better, and more entitled to whatever they want simply because they own extra property. They look down on people who rent, talk about them like they are children, and demand strict obedience and deference at all times. It is especially galling to be an adult who works and is paying someone else’s bills, building their equity and wealth at the expense of their own, and to have to ask for permission for everything. To be reminded nonstop that even though you are paying for everything and living in a home, it will never be yours to truly enjoy. You must ask permission for anything. Want to hang a picture? Install a latch on bidet? Get a pet? Get married and have your spouse move in? He better be approved or I guess you better divorce. Does the ac never cool the house above 80 in summer? Don’t even think about a window unit or portable AC.
The entire system has gotten way out of hand. There is too much of a power imbalance and too much cruelty and lack of basic human decency meted out by the landlord class. These people evict renters who are in the hospital, who are dying, who are pregnant; they do it in winter and during pandemics. An estimated 15,000 deaths per year are linked to evictions, and there aren’t even good estimates as to how many people are trapped in poverty and misery forever because of evictions and landlord policies. Because landlords are vindictive. Its not enough to make someone homeless, they have to make sure they STAY that way. Ruin their credit, report it all over the world, garnish their paychecks and bank accounts and ensure they never ever have a chance to get back up. Kick them when they’re down—then kick them again but harder. That late payment cost you a vacation to Europe, or a new BMW. How dare they?
It needs to end. Maybe it is best if we make it so hard on landlords that they all sell—they can be compelled to sell to the people who actually live in the homes. Big corporate landlords can buy up the buildings and SFRs; with their bottomless vaults of Scrooge McDuck money, they can afford to be regulated heavily. Easier to regulate a company that an individual. Pass strict nationwide laws that mandate mediation and payment arrangements before eviction can even be considered. Ban no fault evictions, and seal eviction records so they can never be used against anyone ever again. Nationwide rent control, and mandate that developers must build low and mid income units, not just luxury condos. Any company who violates any part of the law will first be fined 50 million dollars. A second offense nets all involved a jail sentence of at least 3 years. Third offense? The company is seized, all properties confiscated and turned over to a company that does follow the law.
People have had enough of the damage landlords do to our society. Sooner or later, there will be a reckoning
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2021, 12:13 AM
 
8,134 posts, read 4,398,949 times
Reputation: 4811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles765 View Post



As to the argument that they worked hard to obtain these properties, that may be true. A large number of rental housing units are owned by big corporate firms or REITs, which are basically groups of people and/or hedge funds, Wall Street types, or other investors who all get together, pool their money and buy property.
What makes you think all those greeeedy hedge funds aren't going to be about as bad as these landlords?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Renting

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top