11 ms·

Landlord Tech Watch – What Is Landlord Tech?

66 points by dfgdghdf 6y ago

joshuaheard 6y ago
Brokers for home sales are "speculationtech"? "Landlordism"? What is this Marxist nonsense?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- liability 6y ago
  That seems like a question which contains it's own answer.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  Further nonsense from the author: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=tBsrpJAAAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=tBsrpJAAAAAJ&hl=en Whenever you see anything that's hosted on RiseUp, you know it's going to be intellectually bankrupt.
  - joshuaheard 6y ago
    From the titles, those publications seemed pretty mainstream. The posted article analyzed the landlord tenant relationship using a Marxist analysis. It's nonsense because Marxism has universally failed, and should not be used to analyze anything.
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      Essays can be mainstream and nonsense at the same time, and anyone who would employ the word "neoliberalization" cannot be taken seriously.
rocketmaster1 6y ago
A similar discussion around Alexa for landlords 2 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24450360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24450360
kadabra9 6y ago
So what exactly is this article advocating for? - Not running background checks or verifying income on tenants? - Stopping listing sites like Zillow from listing foreclosures? - Stopping cash RE transactions? Sorry, but as someone who has been involved with properties for years I am going to use the tools and data needed to ensure I am finding the right tenants that can afford to live there and will respect my property. I really couldn't care less what the "Woke Police" think about it.
- nicoffeine 6y ago
  In civilized societies, the right to shelter is part of the social contract.[1] The Unites States does not provide this, so people are at the whims of private enterprises for their survival. What the "woke police" are saying is that letting this kind of infrastructure spread is setting the stage for more inequality. A private, unregulated Big Brother ruling real estate for a few wealthy owners is the definition of oppression. Anger against aristocracy and feudalism is one of the reasons we fought for independence.[2] Let's take your situation as an example. Unless you are fabulously wealthy, you are only one market crash and/or critical illness away from bankruptcy. Larger competitors will gobble up your assets for pennies on the dollar, and then everyone will refuse to rent to you because of your financial history. Right now the system is working in your favor. What happens when it isn't? [1] https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/housing/2019/09/housing-basic-human-right-vienna-model-social-housing https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/housing/2019/09/housi... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/does-income-inequality-really-violate-us-principles/479577/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/does-in...
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    I don't think the tech listed in this article are at odds with wanting government to provide more housing options. The number one thing to improve most situations is to just build more housing and stop inflating asset prices as a handout to the middle and (increasingly just) upper class. It's possible this tech gives power to landlords over tenants. It's also possible that its a net benefit to society, even if landlord power is a big problem on its own.
teejmya 6y ago
On track towards Unauthorized Bread: https://craphound.com/category/radicalized-full/ https://craphound.com/category/radicalized-full/
wtracy 6y ago
I really wish this page did a better job explaining why "landlord tech" is problematic. It doesn't really go deeper than mentioning erosion of privacy (without concretely explaining how that happens) and making vague statements about racial inequity and evictions. As it is now, it reads like an appeal to the general resentment of "big tech" and of landlords ("if it makes their jobs more efficient, it must be bad!") than an actual exploration of the problem. I don't doubt that the articles linked at the end describe some horrifying real problems, but making the audience sift through a list of links is not an effective way of motivating people.
- jxramos 6y ago
  Yah it came across to me as pretty one sided. I'd love to hear a balanced take on the subject and hear both sides of the story. Hotels abandoned traditional keys long ago. I don't get why security cameras are such a menace too. They don't prevent crimes but I'd sure love to know they were around if ever I was assaulted and they increased the odds of landing a conviction to get that criminal off the streets.
  - xtian 6y ago
    In most cases the tech is used as cover for eroding already minimal tenant rights and services. For example, one building I lived in switched to digital locks and the price for a lost key replacement went from $10 to $50. And according to them the digital key replacement process was much more efficient.
    - metiscus 6y ago
      That could be due to several possible legitimate reasons in addition to the obvious. The key fee may have been set 20 years ago when 10 dollars was reasonable and not updated to cover labor and the deterrent effect for losing keys. When updating the new system, the cost could have been adjusted to keep up with the times. The new system could be genuinely more expensive to buy keys for (assuming like RFID) or require a more technical user to perform the update. Unlike metal keys that can be pre-cut often manual intervention is required to replace a dead key since there is a database association with the key that needs to be established. $50 is enough to be a deterrent and not enough to be considered excessive considering that replacing a car key can run over $200 for the fob alone depending on make and model.
aiisahik 6y ago
I read this and realized I fully support landlord tech. - Tenant screening? I want to live with good neighbors. - Cameras in the apartment building? Yes please. I want to catch package thieves. - Brokers for home sales? Absolutely - traditional brokers take 3-6% and drive up the cost of housing. - Rent to own? The renter / owner divide has gotten wider in cities and we need solutions to fix this. Landlord tech is certainly not good for city renters who think they deserve lower than market rent purely on account of (1) how long they have lived in the city and (2) how little they earn. But being pro tenant doesn't mean you need to oppose everything that landlords do. Technology is one the very very few ways an oppressive system can change. The oppressors are not always landlords - they are brokers, real estate developers, law makers, voters, other tenants who sit on their rent controlled housing until they die. P.S. I'm a tenant paying market price for rental housing.
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  > "Tenant screening? I want to live with good neighbors." And there's the other side. A landlord has an obligation to ensure things are in good working order, pay the mortgage, upkeep common areas, and pay the taxes. Whether your tenant pays or not, those bills are still due. One tenant being late once is irritating but not catastrophic. Tenant(s) not paying for months burns through reserves quickly. It's in everyone's best interest to ensure tenants can pay the rent.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    > It's in everyone's best interest to ensure tenants can pay the rent. Which is why it's so weird to see landlords advertising "no Section 8" (which is unlawful in California, FYI). Section 8 is an ironclad guarantee that you will get paid in full and on time every month. https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa?query=%22no+section+8%22&availabilityMode=0&sale_date=all+dates https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa?query=%22no+section+...
    - jakear 6y ago
      But of course it means you’ll have “those people” as tenants, for whatever worst-nightmare definition of “those” the landlord can concoct.
owenversteeg 6y ago
I'm very surprised to see most of the comments here in favor of the "landlord tech" described. Some examples, from the site, are movement recognition systems forcing you to perform a "humiliating dance" to enter the building, being forced to install multiple apps to maintain access to your apartment, and mandatory facial recognition to enter your apartment. These are all real examples that are installed today! This is a disgusting violation of people's privacy.
- thursday0987 6y ago
  how is facial recognition any more of a violation of privacy than signing a lease? the landlord already knows who you are and they already know that you live there.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    How many times do you need to tell your landlord you are entering/leaving the property? At what hours? Because I'm guessing your lease does not include a detailed writeup of everyone who will be coming and going from your place and when.
    - Can_Not 6y ago
      Also, when you do tell your landlord every time you enter/leave, how often do you inform a random facial recognition software vendor about it?
- SilasX 6y ago
  And if that were the top complaint, that would be a great alarm to raise! That kind of thing is stupid and abusive. But they lead with "how dare they use an online resident portal and screen tenants". What?
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    Online portals have problems -- not everyone has equal access to the internet, and tenant screening has a whole host of problems. Think about credit reporting companies, then imagine that they are even less credible, the results even more inscrutable, and more error prone. You think Equifax is doing a great job? The tenant screening companies are doing much, much worse. You are giving landlords more power to turn away poor and minority tenants.
temporama1 6y ago
Very funny site. Great trolling.
Pfhreak 6y ago
HN seems to be very anti-surveillance tech, I guess until it's the landlords doing the surveilling? Housing should not be a commodity at all. In my lifetime I've seen the landlord move from someone who might live on site to someone who has money to pay a property manager to manager their portfolio of properties. Your super these days is as likely to be an underpaid worker as anyone living on site. All this tech is doing is further solidifying the powers of the landlord over the tenant, increasing the surveillance of tenants, and normalizing surveillance culture. I'm surprised to see it supported on HN of all places, which is usually very privacy oriented. Edit: To not just be negative, let me present some positive alternatives for discussion: * Housing cooperatives -- Tenants can collectively own the building they live in, and decide as a community what technology works for them * Tenants unions -- Tenants can collectively discuss what the property should be using, what the rules should be, and negotiate as a unit with their landlord.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > Housing should not be a commodity at all. what do you mean by this exactly? "commodity" usually means a fungible good (ie, one where individual units are interchangeable), which housing is certainly not (if you think it is, I have an old trailer that I would gladly trade you for your house). are you saying literally all housing should be free?
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    Housing should be priced by how effectively it houses people. The idea that housing is a market good that people can use as an investment vehicle undermines the actual value of having places for everyone to live at an affordable rate. I believe everyone should have access to free housing should they require it, but that's different than housing should be free.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

66 points by dfgdghdf 6y ago

joshuaheard 6y ago

Brokers for home sales are "speculationtech"? "Landlordism"? What is this Marxist nonsense?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
liability 6y ago
That seems like a question which contains it's own answer.
jeffbee 6y ago
Further nonsense from the author: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=tBsrpJAAAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=tBsrpJAAAAAJ&hl=en Whenever you see anything that's hosted on RiseUp, you know it's going to be intellectually bankrupt.
- joshuaheard 6y ago
  From the titles, those publications seemed pretty mainstream. The posted article analyzed the landlord tenant relationship using a Marxist analysis. It's nonsense because Marxism has universally failed, and should not be used to analyze anything.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    Essays can be mainstream and nonsense at the same time, and anyone who would employ the word "neoliberalization" cannot be taken seriously.

rocketmaster1 6y ago

A similar discussion around Alexa for landlords 2 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24450360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24450360

kadabra9 6y ago

So what exactly is this article advocating for? - Not running background checks or verifying income on tenants? - Stopping listing sites like Zillow from listing foreclosures? - Stopping cash RE transactions? Sorry, but as someone who has been involved with properties for years I am going to use the tools and data needed to ensure I am finding the right tenants that can afford to live there and will respect my property. I really couldn't care less what the "Woke Police" think about it.

nicoffeine 6y ago
In civilized societies, the right to shelter is part of the social contract.[1] The Unites States does not provide this, so people are at the whims of private enterprises for their survival. What the "woke police" are saying is that letting this kind of infrastructure spread is setting the stage for more inequality. A private, unregulated Big Brother ruling real estate for a few wealthy owners is the definition of oppression. Anger against aristocracy and feudalism is one of the reasons we fought for independence.[2] Let's take your situation as an example. Unless you are fabulously wealthy, you are only one market crash and/or critical illness away from bankruptcy. Larger competitors will gobble up your assets for pennies on the dollar, and then everyone will refuse to rent to you because of your financial history. Right now the system is working in your favor. What happens when it isn't? [1] https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/housing/2019/09/housing-basic-human-right-vienna-model-social-housing https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/housing/2019/09/housi... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/does-income-inequality-really-violate-us-principles/479577/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/does-in...
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  I don't think the tech listed in this article are at odds with wanting government to provide more housing options. The number one thing to improve most situations is to just build more housing and stop inflating asset prices as a handout to the middle and (increasingly just) upper class. It's possible this tech gives power to landlords over tenants. It's also possible that its a net benefit to society, even if landlord power is a big problem on its own.

teejmya 6y ago

On track towards Unauthorized Bread: https://craphound.com/category/radicalized-full/ https://craphound.com/category/radicalized-full/

wtracy 6y ago

I really wish this page did a better job explaining why "landlord tech" is problematic. It doesn't really go deeper than mentioning erosion of privacy (without concretely explaining how that happens) and making vague statements about racial inequity and evictions. As it is now, it reads like an appeal to the general resentment of "big tech" and of landlords ("if it makes their jobs more efficient, it must be bad!") than an actual exploration of the problem. I don't doubt that the articles linked at the end describe some horrifying real problems, but making the audience sift through a list of links is not an effective way of motivating people.

jxramos 6y ago
Yah it came across to me as pretty one sided. I'd love to hear a balanced take on the subject and hear both sides of the story. Hotels abandoned traditional keys long ago. I don't get why security cameras are such a menace too. They don't prevent crimes but I'd sure love to know they were around if ever I was assaulted and they increased the odds of landing a conviction to get that criminal off the streets.
- xtian 6y ago
  In most cases the tech is used as cover for eroding already minimal tenant rights and services. For example, one building I lived in switched to digital locks and the price for a lost key replacement went from $10 to $50. And according to them the digital key replacement process was much more efficient.
  - metiscus 6y ago
    That could be due to several possible legitimate reasons in addition to the obvious. The key fee may have been set 20 years ago when 10 dollars was reasonable and not updated to cover labor and the deterrent effect for losing keys. When updating the new system, the cost could have been adjusted to keep up with the times. The new system could be genuinely more expensive to buy keys for (assuming like RFID) or require a more technical user to perform the update. Unlike metal keys that can be pre-cut often manual intervention is required to replace a dead key since there is a database association with the key that needs to be established. $50 is enough to be a deterrent and not enough to be considered excessive considering that replacing a car key can run over $200 for the fob alone depending on make and model.

aiisahik 6y ago

I read this and realized I fully support landlord tech. - Tenant screening? I want to live with good neighbors. - Cameras in the apartment building? Yes please. I want to catch package thieves. - Brokers for home sales? Absolutely - traditional brokers take 3-6% and drive up the cost of housing. - Rent to own? The renter / owner divide has gotten wider in cities and we need solutions to fix this. Landlord tech is certainly not good for city renters who think they deserve lower than market rent purely on account of (1) how long they have lived in the city and (2) how little they earn. But being pro tenant doesn't mean you need to oppose everything that landlords do. Technology is one the very very few ways an oppressive system can change. The oppressors are not always landlords - they are brokers, real estate developers, law makers, voters, other tenants who sit on their rent controlled housing until they die. P.S. I'm a tenant paying market price for rental housing.

caseysoftware 6y ago
> "Tenant screening? I want to live with good neighbors." And there's the other side. A landlord has an obligation to ensure things are in good working order, pay the mortgage, upkeep common areas, and pay the taxes. Whether your tenant pays or not, those bills are still due. One tenant being late once is irritating but not catastrophic. Tenant(s) not paying for months burns through reserves quickly. It's in everyone's best interest to ensure tenants can pay the rent.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  > It's in everyone's best interest to ensure tenants can pay the rent. Which is why it's so weird to see landlords advertising "no Section 8" (which is unlawful in California, FYI). Section 8 is an ironclad guarantee that you will get paid in full and on time every month. https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa?query=%22no+section+8%22&availabilityMode=0&sale_date=all+dates https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa?query=%22no+section+...
  - jakear 6y ago
    But of course it means you’ll have “those people” as tenants, for whatever worst-nightmare definition of “those” the landlord can concoct.

owenversteeg 6y ago

I'm very surprised to see most of the comments here in favor of the "landlord tech" described. Some examples, from the site, are movement recognition systems forcing you to perform a "humiliating dance" to enter the building, being forced to install multiple apps to maintain access to your apartment, and mandatory facial recognition to enter your apartment. These are all real examples that are installed today! This is a disgusting violation of people's privacy.

thursday0987 6y ago
how is facial recognition any more of a violation of privacy than signing a lease? the landlord already knows who you are and they already know that you live there.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  How many times do you need to tell your landlord you are entering/leaving the property? At what hours? Because I'm guessing your lease does not include a detailed writeup of everyone who will be coming and going from your place and when.
  - Can_Not 6y ago
    Also, when you do tell your landlord every time you enter/leave, how often do you inform a random facial recognition software vendor about it?
SilasX 6y ago
And if that were the top complaint, that would be a great alarm to raise! That kind of thing is stupid and abusive. But they lead with "how dare they use an online resident portal and screen tenants". What?
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Online portals have problems -- not everyone has equal access to the internet, and tenant screening has a whole host of problems. Think about credit reporting companies, then imagine that they are even less credible, the results even more inscrutable, and more error prone. You think Equifax is doing a great job? The tenant screening companies are doing much, much worse. You are giving landlords more power to turn away poor and minority tenants.

temporama1 6y ago

Very funny site. Great trolling.

Pfhreak 6y ago

HN seems to be very anti-surveillance tech, I guess until it's the landlords doing the surveilling? Housing should not be a commodity at all. In my lifetime I've seen the landlord move from someone who might live on site to someone who has money to pay a property manager to manager their portfolio of properties. Your super these days is as likely to be an underpaid worker as anyone living on site. All this tech is doing is further solidifying the powers of the landlord over the tenant, increasing the surveillance of tenants, and normalizing surveillance culture. I'm surprised to see it supported on HN of all places, which is usually very privacy oriented. Edit: To not just be negative, let me present some positive alternatives for discussion: * Housing cooperatives -- Tenants can collectively own the building they live in, and decide as a community what technology works for them * Tenants unions -- Tenants can collectively discuss what the property should be using, what the rules should be, and negotiate as a unit with their landlord.

leetcrew 6y ago
> Housing should not be a commodity at all. what do you mean by this exactly? "commodity" usually means a fungible good (ie, one where individual units are interchangeable), which housing is certainly not (if you think it is, I have an old trailer that I would gladly trade you for your house). are you saying literally all housing should be free?
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Housing should be priced by how effectively it houses people. The idea that housing is a market good that people can use as an investment vehicle undermines the actual value of having places for everyone to live at an affordable rate. I believe everyone should have access to free housing should they require it, but that's different than housing should be free.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]