29 ms·

I don't see how this is even in question. The landlord should always be taking on the risk, that's literally their only job -- they provide nothing of value, be

I don't see how this is even in question. The landlord should always be taking on the risk, that's literally their only job -- they provide nothing of value, besides that one thing. (They often don't even maintain the property or upkeep, in the US that's usually entirely on the tenants, through a third-party management service priced into the rent). If landlords aren't willing to take the risk of tenant defaults on, then landlording should just be universally-illegal, and let the government directly cut rent-like mortgages and property-management-like upkeep for those properties. If the general public is going to keep bailing out wealthy deadbeat landlords every decade, we better at least get to keep the property.

jariel 7y ago
This is upside down. It is absolutely not a landlord's job to assume the business risks of their tenants. Definitely not. If the restaurants declare bankruptcy, yes, then there is limited ability for them to get their rent, but otherwise, the restaurants 'owe'. It may be a good idea for renters to renegotiate and for smart landlords to take heed. But in general - contracts need to be obligated. It doesn't matter that you view the 'landlord' as 'doing nothing'. Also, in most cases, remember that land has been commoditized, it's not like the 'King' owns everything - the land was purchased for some amount, has a value, it's being 'managed' like any other asset, and if there's competition in this industry (there is a lot), the surpluses are going to be thin, just as thin as any other industry. While there are existential issues about the 'productivity' of real estate, they don't really matter at the most local level, because the most local 'landowner' is just playing in a competitive layer of business like anyone else. So for now - it's best to honor contracts, re-negotiate, and follow the laws. The government may want to intervene in a 'really really smart way' but I don't see how this is perfectly possible.

jariel 7y ago

This is upside down. It is absolutely not a landlord's job to assume the business risks of their tenants. Definitely not. If the restaurants declare bankruptcy, yes, then there is limited ability for them to get their rent, but otherwise, the restaurants 'owe'. It may be a good idea for renters to renegotiate and for smart landlords to take heed. But in general - contracts need to be obligated. It doesn't matter that you view the 'landlord' as 'doing nothing'. Also, in most cases, remember that land has been commoditized, it's not like the 'King' owns everything - the land was purchased for some amount, has a value, it's being 'managed' like any other asset, and if there's competition in this industry (there is a lot), the surpluses are going to be thin, just as thin as any other industry. While there are existential issues about the 'productivity' of real estate, they don't really matter at the most local level, because the most local 'landowner' is just playing in a competitive layer of business like anyone else. So for now - it's best to honor contracts, re-negotiate, and follow the laws. The government may want to intervene in a 'really really smart way' but I don't see how this is perfectly possible.