4 ms·

This guy is amazing. And JFC, that landlord was really trying to pre-file an eviction. The best part is literally everything the OP is saying is right. I hat

This guy is amazing. And JFC, that landlord was really trying to pre-file an eviction. The best part is literally everything the OP is saying is right. I hate how adversarial small time landlords often are against their tenants (not that big ones are any better, but having a face to face just makes it hurt worse)

koolba 2y ago
If you knew the tenant was not going to pay, wouldn’t you get the paperwork ready to be filed as soon as possible? It’s not a charity. And the net outcome of having to deal with paying $1K to get the tenant to move out means that the next tenant will likely see a higher security deposit to cover that eventuality. If an efficient legal system can’t be relied on to quickly move out non-paying tenants, costs are going to rise to compensate. There’s no free rent.
- kube-system 2y ago
  $1,000 can very easily be cheaper than the loss-of-use and/or damages and/or legal costs incurred by even a very efficient eviction.
yieldcrv 2y ago
having gone through small claims court with my clients before, I wish there was a way or a practice of pre-filing with every invoice. its really shitty to have to wait for an invoice to go unpaid, for a very long time, and then file with the court, and then have your court date pushed out a couple times, and then win the case, and then go to the sheriff to try to collect I would definitely like to remove a few months from that process. I get the sentiment, but its a UX issue that can be improved, not really the parties involved.
- yowlingcat 2y ago
  There's an two potential avenues to fix this, one logistical and one relationship based. The logistical solution is to set up (depending on your services and client appetite) automatic payment through stripe + debit upon invoice at some T settlement period after invoicing, and offer a discount on services to compensate for the improved cashflow. This makes the "easy way" the way that is also best for you (and the client) and you may find that making the path of least resistance one which also results in you getting paid by default to be one that clears out this issue systematically for you with well behaved clients. Of course, that is the caveat -- some clients are pathologically not "well behaved" and if you're in a circumstances where you're often having to go through small claims court with clients on a routine basis, it begs the question of whether you're selecting the right clients or not. Having been in your shoes before, I will say that I've been guilty of selecting clients who showed warning signs of poor behavior that ultimately resulted in my work not getting paid. I began to turn away certain kind of work that made me hesitant of such an outcome, even if it seemed to be lucrative at the outset. Without understand your potential clientele better, it's hard to say whether this would work for your issues, but it may be worth considering.
bpodgursky 2y ago
When bemoaning how landlords are awful, it's worth considering why they ended up that way. I don't think most tenants (who are 95% OK) understand how bad the worst 5%, and how much time and energy landlords have to dedicate to dealing with the worst tenants. It's a class of person you just don't have to deal with in your day-to-day life. It's not the 80/20 rule, it's the 95/5 rule.
- PNWChris 2y ago
  I get the general idea, but in this case I feel that isn't strictly applicable. OP and the parent comment are focused on tenants that don't appear to have done anything wrong or unreasonable, they're just in a bind and the landlords in question are choosing not to be fair.
- iancmceachern 2y ago
  Yeah, but that doesn't make it ok to treat the 95% any different. That's part of the job, part of doing business.
  - anal_reactor 2y ago
    If dealing with bad tenants is "part of doing business" the so should be dealing with bad landlords.
    - iancmceachern 2y ago
      Tenants don't make money from the deal, they aren't running a business. Let me explain: A business, say a Walgreens, sells things. This is like the landlord. A customer buys things, this is the tenant. There are overhead losses incurred in running a business. At walgreens milk will go bad, cheese expires, people steal shampoo. Those things are "the cost of doing business" for the business. In the case if the shampoo theft, the government steps in (except in SF) and helps make it right. The customer is not (necessarily) a business, and is being promised a good or service in exchange for money. If that good or service is not what it was promised to be, that needs to be corrected because anything less is theft. In this case, the government should also step in, as it's theft. These are not the same thing. One is theft, one is the cost of doing business. Put another way - you should never put the health, wealth, and we'll being of a business above the health, wealth, and we'll being of individual(s) The other thing I want to point out in your response is "bad tenant". This term is often used to refer to someone who has had an unfortunate event, or series of events, could be medical, could be not their fault, that has resulted in them not being able to pay their rent, often for a short period of time. These aren't bad people, these aren't "bad tenants". I've been a landlord, I chose to get out of the business because I wanted to do other things with my time. I get it. But you don't get to be abusive to your tenants. In the end, I found ad I believe many will, that you get more Flys with honey. The answer is generally kindness. If a tenant is behind, give them a discount for one month, you will earn an ally for life and instantly turn a "bad tenant" into a good one. It worked for me.
chefandy 2y ago
While many of these groups self-select for people like that, it's still pretty shocking to see the contempt, disgust, and even outright hate directed at tenants on a whole. Edit: Downvotes from spiteful landlords? And no, I'm not referring to the online fake landlord trolls: I'm taking about local associations.
creato 2y ago
> (not that big ones are any better, but having a face to face just makes it hurt worse) In my experience, big landlords really are objectively better. They are inflexible and bureaucratic, but generally fair and follow the law. Some small landlords will outright break the law and force you to deal with them legally. But some small landlords are great and a lot more flexible than a corporate landlord can be. If I ever were to rent again, I'd prefer big corporate landlords. Just my experience of course.
- bluefirebrand 2y ago
  This really depends on if the letter of the law is favorable to tenants or not. And big corporate landlords can easily slide into the same territory any big corporation is in: they break laws because they have enough lawyers and money that individuals basically cannot win a legal battle against them
- NewJazz 2y ago
  I'd say larger/corporate landlords and/or property management companies are generally more predictable, but not necessarily better.
- RHSeeger 2y ago
  My anecdata is exactly the opposite. The only objectively bad landlord I've had was corporate. All the small ones (own only a couple properties, or even just one) have been fantastic. Except for one, that was ... useless, but not actively bad. The corporate one was awful, and I couldn't wait to move.
- Repulsion9513 2y ago
  Definitely the opposite in my experience. Small landlord = much more willing to work with you AND much less likely to screw you over. Lease for a couple years and then 10% raise (while prices in the city go up about 20%). Big landlord = hey the apartment above you is now an Airbnb; we know about it; and we're going to lie to you about it. Oh and pay us 10% more rent every year or 13 months to live below the motel room (while prices in the city go up a few percent).
- 2y ago
wizardforhire 2y ago
No defense for landlords or anyone else for that matter but the trend of landlords being hostile to tenants is part of a larger trend I see all through society and its one of tunnel vision brought on through experience. This is to say that when one is engaged in an activity for a prolonged period of time that experience seems to cloud their judgment ie if all you have is a hammer etc. Anyone who has worked a cash register may sympathize with the observation that all customers are stupid assholes. Police officers only see the worst behavior, teachers who have taught elementary school for decades lose ability to communicate with adults, landlords who only rent to low income start to think everyone is a deadbeat. The list can go on. Are these generalizations absolutely and I’ve experienced them all enough times personally to generalize. The remedy is to change our activities and keep a critical and open mind. The older I get the more value I see in liberal education in the classical sense.
- Noumenon72 2y ago
  Seems more likely to me that the people on the ground see things accurately and the voters are the ones making unrealistic demands based on their lack of experience.

koolba 2y ago

If you knew the tenant was not going to pay, wouldn’t you get the paperwork ready to be filed as soon as possible? It’s not a charity. And the net outcome of having to deal with paying $1K to get the tenant to move out means that the next tenant will likely see a higher security deposit to cover that eventuality. If an efficient legal system can’t be relied on to quickly move out non-paying tenants, costs are going to rise to compensate. There’s no free rent.

kube-system 2y ago
$1,000 can very easily be cheaper than the loss-of-use and/or damages and/or legal costs incurred by even a very efficient eviction.

yieldcrv 2y ago

having gone through small claims court with my clients before, I wish there was a way or a practice of pre-filing with every invoice. its really shitty to have to wait for an invoice to go unpaid, for a very long time, and then file with the court, and then have your court date pushed out a couple times, and then win the case, and then go to the sheriff to try to collect I would definitely like to remove a few months from that process. I get the sentiment, but its a UX issue that can be improved, not really the parties involved.

yowlingcat 2y ago
There's an two potential avenues to fix this, one logistical and one relationship based. The logistical solution is to set up (depending on your services and client appetite) automatic payment through stripe + debit upon invoice at some T settlement period after invoicing, and offer a discount on services to compensate for the improved cashflow. This makes the "easy way" the way that is also best for you (and the client) and you may find that making the path of least resistance one which also results in you getting paid by default to be one that clears out this issue systematically for you with well behaved clients. Of course, that is the caveat -- some clients are pathologically not "well behaved" and if you're in a circumstances where you're often having to go through small claims court with clients on a routine basis, it begs the question of whether you're selecting the right clients or not. Having been in your shoes before, I will say that I've been guilty of selecting clients who showed warning signs of poor behavior that ultimately resulted in my work not getting paid. I began to turn away certain kind of work that made me hesitant of such an outcome, even if it seemed to be lucrative at the outset. Without understand your potential clientele better, it's hard to say whether this would work for your issues, but it may be worth considering.

bpodgursky 2y ago

When bemoaning how landlords are awful, it's worth considering why they ended up that way. I don't think most tenants (who are 95% OK) understand how bad the worst 5%, and how much time and energy landlords have to dedicate to dealing with the worst tenants. It's a class of person you just don't have to deal with in your day-to-day life. It's not the 80/20 rule, it's the 95/5 rule.

PNWChris 2y ago
I get the general idea, but in this case I feel that isn't strictly applicable. OP and the parent comment are focused on tenants that don't appear to have done anything wrong or unreasonable, they're just in a bind and the landlords in question are choosing not to be fair.
iancmceachern 2y ago
Yeah, but that doesn't make it ok to treat the 95% any different. That's part of the job, part of doing business.
- anal_reactor 2y ago
  If dealing with bad tenants is "part of doing business" the so should be dealing with bad landlords.
  - iancmceachern 2y ago
    Tenants don't make money from the deal, they aren't running a business. Let me explain: A business, say a Walgreens, sells things. This is like the landlord. A customer buys things, this is the tenant. There are overhead losses incurred in running a business. At walgreens milk will go bad, cheese expires, people steal shampoo. Those things are "the cost of doing business" for the business. In the case if the shampoo theft, the government steps in (except in SF) and helps make it right. The customer is not (necessarily) a business, and is being promised a good or service in exchange for money. If that good or service is not what it was promised to be, that needs to be corrected because anything less is theft. In this case, the government should also step in, as it's theft. These are not the same thing. One is theft, one is the cost of doing business. Put another way - you should never put the health, wealth, and we'll being of a business above the health, wealth, and we'll being of individual(s) The other thing I want to point out in your response is "bad tenant". This term is often used to refer to someone who has had an unfortunate event, or series of events, could be medical, could be not their fault, that has resulted in them not being able to pay their rent, often for a short period of time. These aren't bad people, these aren't "bad tenants". I've been a landlord, I chose to get out of the business because I wanted to do other things with my time. I get it. But you don't get to be abusive to your tenants. In the end, I found ad I believe many will, that you get more Flys with honey. The answer is generally kindness. If a tenant is behind, give them a discount for one month, you will earn an ally for life and instantly turn a "bad tenant" into a good one. It worked for me.

chefandy 2y ago

While many of these groups self-select for people like that, it's still pretty shocking to see the contempt, disgust, and even outright hate directed at tenants on a whole. Edit: Downvotes from spiteful landlords? And no, I'm not referring to the online fake landlord trolls: I'm taking about local associations.

creato 2y ago

> (not that big ones are any better, but having a face to face just makes it hurt worse) In my experience, big landlords really are objectively better. They are inflexible and bureaucratic, but generally fair and follow the law. Some small landlords will outright break the law and force you to deal with them legally. But some small landlords are great and a lot more flexible than a corporate landlord can be. If I ever were to rent again, I'd prefer big corporate landlords. Just my experience of course.

bluefirebrand 2y ago
This really depends on if the letter of the law is favorable to tenants or not. And big corporate landlords can easily slide into the same territory any big corporation is in: they break laws because they have enough lawyers and money that individuals basically cannot win a legal battle against them
NewJazz 2y ago
I'd say larger/corporate landlords and/or property management companies are generally more predictable, but not necessarily better.
RHSeeger 2y ago
My anecdata is exactly the opposite. The only objectively bad landlord I've had was corporate. All the small ones (own only a couple properties, or even just one) have been fantastic. Except for one, that was ... useless, but not actively bad. The corporate one was awful, and I couldn't wait to move.
Repulsion9513 2y ago
Definitely the opposite in my experience. Small landlord = much more willing to work with you AND much less likely to screw you over. Lease for a couple years and then 10% raise (while prices in the city go up about 20%). Big landlord = hey the apartment above you is now an Airbnb; we know about it; and we're going to lie to you about it. Oh and pay us 10% more rent every year or 13 months to live below the motel room (while prices in the city go up a few percent).
2y ago

wizardforhire 2y ago

No defense for landlords or anyone else for that matter but the trend of landlords being hostile to tenants is part of a larger trend I see all through society and its one of tunnel vision brought on through experience. This is to say that when one is engaged in an activity for a prolonged period of time that experience seems to cloud their judgment ie if all you have is a hammer etc. Anyone who has worked a cash register may sympathize with the observation that all customers are stupid assholes. Police officers only see the worst behavior, teachers who have taught elementary school for decades lose ability to communicate with adults, landlords who only rent to low income start to think everyone is a deadbeat. The list can go on. Are these generalizations absolutely and I’ve experienced them all enough times personally to generalize. The remedy is to change our activities and keep a critical and open mind. The older I get the more value I see in liberal education in the classical sense.

Noumenon72 2y ago
Seems more likely to me that the people on the ground see things accurately and the voters are the ones making unrealistic demands based on their lack of experience.