4 ms·
That's not what the parent comment was saying. They were saying that there is a reasonable explanation to not develop properties that cater to families - e.g. 4
by mbesto 4y ago
That's not what the parent comment was saying. They were saying that there is a reasonable explanation to not develop properties that cater to families - e.g. 4 bedrooms. The alternative is that the 4-bedroom that you conceivably might construct would rent out to 4 individuals who would split the bill...which also introduces a whole bunch of other challenges.
Overall point still seems valid - which is there is little financial advantage to renting out a 4-bedroom property and thus a limited supply.
- medler 4y agoThey said “they have a rule that they’ll never buy large apartments *and they’ll never rent to families*.” The second part is the illegal discrimination.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- chongli 4y agoPeople get around this by never putting themselves in the position of having to refuse. If, as a landlord, you only ever buy single bedroom apartments and studios, you aren’t going to run into families that need 4 bedrooms. It’s not illegal for the landlord to discriminate as to what sort of properties they buy.
- medler 4y agoI mean, gp recounted a story about someone who has a policy against renting to families, so so it sounds like they do refuse sometimes. Also, where I live, lots of families live in one or two bedroom apartments.