3 ms·

Ask HN: Would you pay to acquire tenants?

• byoung2 8y ago
  In my area (Los Angeles, CA) landlords have the opposite problem. Tenants are tied up in long term leases and the landlords want them out so they can raise the rent for the next tenant. There are cases where the landlords ate not only waiving any cancellation fees, they are paying to relocate tenants to other areas.
  • amerf1 8y ago
    wow, never heard of that before. It is interesting though. I think long-term leases are going to disappear things are moving too fast and changing very quickly for anyone to commit to long term leases
    • byoung2 8y ago
      Plus these penalties for breaking a lease were supposed to compensate the landlord for lost rent while looking for a new tenant. If a new tenant is always around the corner, how can they justify the penalties?
      • amerf1 8y ago
        True makes 100% sense
    • rahimnathwani 8y ago
      It's not that 'things are moving too fast', but that LA's system of rent control puts a ceiling on annual increases for existing tenants.
• enonevets 8y ago
  Can't speak for others and this is not indicative of the idea not having merit but... For me, I wouldn't. I've owned multiple properties and have rented out those properties without much issue. If anything at a certain scale having a reliable yet affordable option for property management makes more sense. I just never got to that point to feel about the existing property management companies in my area.
• gtsteve 8y ago
  So your service would effectively be the tenant? Certainly an interesting concept although the landlord would have to agree to sublet. The lease agreement for my apartment for example says I can sublet but I can't allow my tenants to sublet so I don't think I could use it. I don't know if that's common outside of London. What's in it for the tenant though? If an individual needs that level of flexibility but want something beyond a hotel then there are options such as serviced apartments in most major cities.
  • amerf1 8y ago
    Thank you for your comment! Sorry I was not very clear in the concept, I tried to make it clearer below A subscription-based rental service company, we break your lease contract and you pay us. We find you apartments and rent it for you. You pay us not the landlord. That is a great question on whether the landlord will agree to sublet, but for me as a service company my argument is I have a customer with a good credit rating who is ready to move in to your apartment. I know many landlords who are desperate to get tenants. The problem is some tenants are ready to move in, but they already have a long-term contract with another apartment. I am here to break it for you, but you pay me
    • gtsteve 8y ago
      I've always lived in areas with very high demand for rental property and I always had the opposite problem in that I couldn't stay in the property long enough - landlords often wouldn't agree to 2 year leases for example. Possibly your proposed service might be useful to users in cities without this demand but it might follow that you are looking at lower income landlords. Perhaps offering a guaranteed rental income as part of the business model would work. As a former renter I don't think I'd want to sign up to this because (in the UK at least), tenants really don't have a good deal as it is. Why would I want to replace a lease with a subscription? That is unless you can effectively offer the tenants better rights than you normally get... but then why would a landlord want to give up a system currently rigged in their favour? This isn't a business model I've heard of and I find stuff like this quite interesting to think about. Let me know your thoughts.