5 ms·

As a former landlord even in the very red business friendly Georgia, there are plenty of protections for tenants that make it almost impossible to evict anyone

As a former landlord even in the very red business friendly Georgia, there are plenty of protections for tenants that make it almost impossible to evict anyone in less than three months.

was_a_dev 4y ago
I agree there are a lot of protections for tenants. I do no think they're sufficient and go far enough. I say this as someone living in the UK.
- scarface74 4y ago
  How much further should they go?
  - was_a_dev 4y ago
    In a lot of ways. They have in the UK with the latest Renter Reform Bill 2022. https://www.lettingaproperty.com/landlord/blog/renters-reform-bill-2022/ https://www.lettingaproperty.com/landlord/blog/renters-refor... I'd like to see some proposals on how much rent can be raised with respect to local rates. Some European cities have attempted this, but not without issues. And some enforcable time limits on how soon repairs can take - for example a broken boiler.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      And how would that increase inventory and why invest in rental real estate if my return is limited to inflation? In that case, why not just buy bonds?
      - was_a_dev 4y ago
        Increasing inventory occurs by building more housing. It wouldn't be linked to inflation, as the housing and renting market has historically been above inflation. So limiting to market rate would still be beyond inflation. It would be balancing between having housing as a necessity vs a comodity.
        scarface74 4y ago
        “The market rate” is by definition set by people acting in their own self interest in a competitive market.
      - truckerbill 4y ago
        Exactly. It shouldn't be an investment vehicle, rent on land causes rocketing costs on everything down the chain. Only big monopolies survive. Places that are well governed and cheap to live in are often creative hubs. You might want to argue that monopoly is efficient, but it's only a temporary thing until they have built their moat.
        scarface74 4y ago
        So who is going to spend millions on multi unit dwellings? Do you think everyone should be forced to buy a home as soon as they move out?
        truckerbill 4y ago
        Tail wagging the dog. Land costs wouldn't be millions if you couldn't turn the thumbscrews on tenants. To be a little less glib, it's easy to imagine other non-profit funding structures such as co-ops and government help (dirty phrase in the U.S. I know). I imagine a lot of the costs of actually building would decrease a lot when remove the incentive for NIMBYish building codes. There would be challenges as you point out, but the overall situation would be much better for all of society.
        scarface74 4y ago
        Yes because government housing has worked so well in the US and condo associations that are owner managed have such a good history.
    - easytiger 4y ago
      This will cause a crash in supply and a follow on rental cost increase.
      - was_a_dev 4y ago
        The solution is to build more housing A simple supply/demand model is useful but limited when the demand is everyone.
        scarface74 4y ago
        And who is going to foot the bill for building more houses without a profit incentive? Builders of individual homes are building larger houses that are unaffordable to the people who need them the most. The answer is multi unit housing - like those being built by the evil profit seeking capitalists.
        easytiger 4y ago
        His answer will be an all benevolent all generous and arbitrarily infinitely funded government. Infinite housing, for infinite people - the motto of the true altruist - all paid for by persons TBD. The same position held widely in this thread
        easytiger 4y ago
        If it were that simple would not the mass exodus of landlord owners have reduced prices? There are massive amounts of new supply being built. Single person occupancy growth in the last 20 years has pushed up pressure on stock as has the addition of many millions of persons beyond the national fertility rate. Incredible levels of regulation of which I wager you know nothing make building nearly impossible. I've built many properties, managed many, sold many, bought many. These flippant simplifications don't make sense. Costs to building quality housing to a modern standard are considerable. This the explosion in generic poor quality housing with aesthetics that are vile. If there were real cost pressures we'd see trailer parks everywhere in the UK. But we don't.
  - rcpt 4y ago
    How long can you not pay property taxes before the state comes after you? In California owners have a minimum of 5 years for example.
jonahrd 4y ago
Genuinely curious, are you pointing this out as a case of "very protected"? To me this seems absurdly low. Losing a dwelling is much more difficult than losing a job. It can be absolutely traumatic, and set people back financially, or worse for people who are already on the brink. In Quebec, where I live, thankfully it's one year. But it should be longer unless you can demonstrate some sort of valid legal reason like your tenant is damaging the building. Just cause you can extract a higher rent shouldn't mean you upend where someone lives.
- scarface74 4y ago
  So who should foot the bill when a tenant isn’t paying rent? Isn’t fulfilling their lease requirements like not paying for utilities?
  - rcpt 4y ago
    The landlord. If you're not ok with that risk then you should sell to someone who is.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Yes because decreasing profit potential is going to do an amazing job at increasing capital inflows, increasing supply and affordability. If I know that there is more risk involved in being a landlord, why wouldn’t I increase the rent to compensate?
      - rcpt 4y ago
        Higher profit risk means you won't bid as high for investment property. Sounds good to me. If you could increase the rent and still find tenants you'd do it right now. No reason to wait for any legislation
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        4y ago
UncleMeat 4y ago
Does this meaningfully tip the balance? Even if you don't get evicted (let's be clear - made homeless), your credit is still in shambles at this point. I've rented from several different single-person landlords. None of them have ever done any preventative maintenance on the property and every single one dragged their feet terribly when it came to urgent and necessary maintenance. Two summers ago my AC broke and my landlord was uncontactable (I tried for days). I arranged for a HVAC company to come and repair it on my own and my landlord refused to pay for the bill because I didn't use their normal company (I was never informed of their normal company). Even though in my state it is a legal requirement that rented homes have working air conditioning, it was a huge fucking ordeal to get my landlord to take the cost off my rent. Now imagine I'm a non-native english speaker who didn't have spare time to dig through state regulations and this happens to me. I'd just get fucked. That's what happens to a huge number of tenants.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Why shouldn’t it affect your credit if you don’t pay your bills? According to the law in GA, you have the right to put your rent toward necessary repairs. But, all of your anecdotes argue for professionally managed properties - like ones being built by JPM.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    I am not saying that refusing to pay rent shouldn't affect your credit. I am saying that the "renter rights leads to people just deciding to not pay rent" claim is BS. My experience with corporate landlords has also been shitty, but in different ways. They've done fun things like have terribly sealed granite countertops with stains that they charge each tenant for "ruining" but then don't actually change out between tenants. I was dinged for $2,100 for stains that were present when I moved in (I foolishly didn't have photos). The new tenant was in a few days later without new countertops.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      It’s part of every walk through that I’ve ever done to note any pre-existing damage. But I do always take pictures. But we have plenty of evidence from especially around 2008-2011 that people were both not worried about squatting and not paying their rent and owners doing “strategic defaults” credit be damned.
standardUser 4y ago
90 days should be the absolute minimum any human being should be expected to vacate their home (or receive a rent increase).
- scarface74 4y ago
  Sure in that case, an efficient market would raise the rent to compensate.

As a former landlord even in the very red business friendly Georgia, there are plenty of protections for tenants that make it almost impossible to evict anyone in less than three months.

was_a_dev 4y ago

I agree there are a lot of protections for tenants. I do no think they're sufficient and go far enough. I say this as someone living in the UK.

scarface74 4y ago
How much further should they go?
- was_a_dev 4y ago
  In a lot of ways. They have in the UK with the latest Renter Reform Bill 2022. https://www.lettingaproperty.com/landlord/blog/renters-reform-bill-2022/ https://www.lettingaproperty.com/landlord/blog/renters-refor... I'd like to see some proposals on how much rent can be raised with respect to local rates. Some European cities have attempted this, but not without issues. And some enforcable time limits on how soon repairs can take - for example a broken boiler.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    And how would that increase inventory and why invest in rental real estate if my return is limited to inflation? In that case, why not just buy bonds?
    - was_a_dev 4y ago
      Increasing inventory occurs by building more housing. It wouldn't be linked to inflation, as the housing and renting market has historically been above inflation. So limiting to market rate would still be beyond inflation. It would be balancing between having housing as a necessity vs a comodity.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        “The market rate” is by definition set by people acting in their own self interest in a competitive market.
    - truckerbill 4y ago
      Exactly. It shouldn't be an investment vehicle, rent on land causes rocketing costs on everything down the chain. Only big monopolies survive. Places that are well governed and cheap to live in are often creative hubs. You might want to argue that monopoly is efficient, but it's only a temporary thing until they have built their moat.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        So who is going to spend millions on multi unit dwellings? Do you think everyone should be forced to buy a home as soon as they move out?
        truckerbill 4y ago
        Tail wagging the dog. Land costs wouldn't be millions if you couldn't turn the thumbscrews on tenants. To be a little less glib, it's easy to imagine other non-profit funding structures such as co-ops and government help (dirty phrase in the U.S. I know). I imagine a lot of the costs of actually building would decrease a lot when remove the incentive for NIMBYish building codes. There would be challenges as you point out, but the overall situation would be much better for all of society.
        scarface74 4y ago
        Yes because government housing has worked so well in the US and condo associations that are owner managed have such a good history.
  - easytiger 4y ago
    This will cause a crash in supply and a follow on rental cost increase.
    - was_a_dev 4y ago
      The solution is to build more housing A simple supply/demand model is useful but limited when the demand is everyone.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        And who is going to foot the bill for building more houses without a profit incentive? Builders of individual homes are building larger houses that are unaffordable to the people who need them the most. The answer is multi unit housing - like those being built by the evil profit seeking capitalists.
        easytiger 4y ago
        His answer will be an all benevolent all generous and arbitrarily infinitely funded government. Infinite housing, for infinite people - the motto of the true altruist - all paid for by persons TBD. The same position held widely in this thread
      - easytiger 4y ago
        If it were that simple would not the mass exodus of landlord owners have reduced prices? There are massive amounts of new supply being built. Single person occupancy growth in the last 20 years has pushed up pressure on stock as has the addition of many millions of persons beyond the national fertility rate. Incredible levels of regulation of which I wager you know nothing make building nearly impossible. I've built many properties, managed many, sold many, bought many. These flippant simplifications don't make sense. Costs to building quality housing to a modern standard are considerable. This the explosion in generic poor quality housing with aesthetics that are vile. If there were real cost pressures we'd see trailer parks everywhere in the UK. But we don't.
- rcpt 4y ago
  How long can you not pay property taxes before the state comes after you? In California owners have a minimum of 5 years for example.

jonahrd 4y ago

Genuinely curious, are you pointing this out as a case of "very protected"? To me this seems absurdly low. Losing a dwelling is much more difficult than losing a job. It can be absolutely traumatic, and set people back financially, or worse for people who are already on the brink. In Quebec, where I live, thankfully it's one year. But it should be longer unless you can demonstrate some sort of valid legal reason like your tenant is damaging the building. Just cause you can extract a higher rent shouldn't mean you upend where someone lives.

scarface74 4y ago
So who should foot the bill when a tenant isn’t paying rent? Isn’t fulfilling their lease requirements like not paying for utilities?
- rcpt 4y ago
  The landlord. If you're not ok with that risk then you should sell to someone who is.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Yes because decreasing profit potential is going to do an amazing job at increasing capital inflows, increasing supply and affordability. If I know that there is more risk involved in being a landlord, why wouldn’t I increase the rent to compensate?
    - rcpt 4y ago
      Higher profit risk means you won't bid as high for investment property. Sounds good to me. If you could increase the rent and still find tenants you'd do it right now. No reason to wait for any legislation
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - 4y ago

UncleMeat 4y ago

Does this meaningfully tip the balance? Even if you don't get evicted (let's be clear - made homeless), your credit is still in shambles at this point. I've rented from several different single-person landlords. None of them have ever done any preventative maintenance on the property and every single one dragged their feet terribly when it came to urgent and necessary maintenance. Two summers ago my AC broke and my landlord was uncontactable (I tried for days). I arranged for a HVAC company to come and repair it on my own and my landlord refused to pay for the bill because I didn't use their normal company (I was never informed of their normal company). Even though in my state it is a legal requirement that rented homes have working air conditioning, it was a huge fucking ordeal to get my landlord to take the cost off my rent. Now imagine I'm a non-native english speaker who didn't have spare time to dig through state regulations and this happens to me. I'd just get fucked. That's what happens to a huge number of tenants.

scarface74 4y ago
Why shouldn’t it affect your credit if you don’t pay your bills? According to the law in GA, you have the right to put your rent toward necessary repairs. But, all of your anecdotes argue for professionally managed properties - like ones being built by JPM.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  I am not saying that refusing to pay rent shouldn't affect your credit. I am saying that the "renter rights leads to people just deciding to not pay rent" claim is BS. My experience with corporate landlords has also been shitty, but in different ways. They've done fun things like have terribly sealed granite countertops with stains that they charge each tenant for "ruining" but then don't actually change out between tenants. I was dinged for $2,100 for stains that were present when I moved in (I foolishly didn't have photos). The new tenant was in a few days later without new countertops.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    It’s part of every walk through that I’ve ever done to note any pre-existing damage. But I do always take pictures. But we have plenty of evidence from especially around 2008-2011 that people were both not worried about squatting and not paying their rent and owners doing “strategic defaults” credit be damned.

standardUser 4y ago

90 days should be the absolute minimum any human being should be expected to vacate their home (or receive a rent increase).

scarface74 4y ago
Sure in that case, an efficient market would raise the rent to compensate.