4 ms·
I'm a landlord for a property in Berkeley. I've rented exclusively to students for the last 25 years. If I weren't there to do that, where would the students
by jedberg 3y ago
I'm a landlord for a property in Berkeley. I've rented exclusively to students for the last 25 years. If I weren't there to do that, where would the students stay? They certainly can't afford to buy the house.
Landlords manage liquidity in the market, and maintain the property. Good landlords do serve a purpose. I teach my tenants, who are often renting for the first time in their life, how to not get screwed by other landlords. I point out to them all the places that they could get screwed. I tell them to take pictures of everything when they move in and have me sign it. I tell them that in Berkeley, they get interest on their deposit every year.
And when it comes time to raise the rent, I don't gouge them. I usually let them keep the rent from the year before if they choose to stay a second year. On the third year I only raise it slightly. I've found that undercharging from market rates gets me better tenants who take good care of the property.
And I know that there is no such thing as a rental unit that can't be filled, only one that is too expensive. When the market goes down, I lower the rent, because I'm smart enough to know that it will take me multiple years at the higher rent to make up for just one lost month of rent.
I'm curious what your solution to housing liquidity would be without landlords. How would people who have no need or desire to stay in one place more than year find a place to sleep?
- nemothekid 3y agoI’m sorry - this is pretty bizarre; especially considering this is a public school like Berkeley. Wouldn’t the school just expand their housing and own the homes - like many other schools globally? One could even argue your presence is a net negative for students. Had the housing near Berkeley not become a speculative asset, the school would likely own it and rent it at a much cheaper rate.
- aidenn0 3y agoI went to Purdue, a land-grant University in Indiana. When I was there the school had over 30,000 students and housing for about 1/3 of that. They can most certainly afford the land to build more housing, but the demand is not there[1]. Other schools have to require underclassmen to live on campus to fill their housing -- which is often more expensive than living off campus. 1: Housing was provided based on seniority; older students got first pick, yet the housing was overwhelmingly occupied by freshmen.
- jedberg 3y agoThe most expensive housing in Berkeley is the housing owned by the University. Private owners provide cheaper alternatives.
- RHSeeger 3y agoA lot of students prefer to live off campus. Also, this would just make the school the landlord. And a landlord that is renting to a "company man" as it were... because if you cause a problem, you can lose both your job (school) and housing at the same time.
- jeffbee 3y agoLast year the California supreme court ordered them to stop construction of 1100 dormitory rooms because they insufficiently studied in their environmental impact report whether a human makes sounds. So no, in California the universities will not simply build housing.
- asdefghyk 3y agoRE ".....Wouldn’t the school just expand their housing and own the homes ..." No because they may not want the risk and the expense. These factors are not well understood in my belief and experience.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoI went to a public school and on campus housing was much, much more expensive than off campus.
- noobermin 3y agoIt's nice that you as a person exist and do what you do but know that you are an exception. I'm sure some slaveowners were more decent to their slaves relative to other slaveowners. I'd say a large number if not the majority of landlords really are parasitic, they do very little upkeep especially in cities or municipalities with poor tenancy laws, but reap the benefits especially when there is high demand.
- jedberg 3y agoYou're right, most of them are awful, including the ones in Berkeley. But they still arguably provide a service, which is liquidity in the housing market. The provide housing for people who can't or won't buy it for themselves.
- jeffbee 3y agoThis housing provider myth is pretty bad. I also live in Berkeley, where I pay so much rent that my landlady covers all her expenses in 6 weeks and spend all of her time on vacation. Who is doing the providing in this scenario?
- asdefghyk 3y agoRE ".....I pay so much rent that my landlady covers all her expenses in 6 weeks ...." Exactly what are your landladies expenses ? My experience is most tenants are unaware of lots expenses and tax's and usually underestimate by at least 50%.
- jeffbee 3y agoThe building was purchased in 1978 for $19k and the taxes are $2100, less than 2 weeks of rent.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoYou have to consider the time value of money. 19K invested in stock market in 1978 would be over 1 million dollars today, maybe 2 million if you include the taxes paid since purchase.
- bugglebeetle 3y agoGoogle Vienna. Much nicer and affordable than Berkeley and far less landlords. Also, people can’t afford to buy houses in Berkeley or find cheaper rentals because people use housing as an investment vehicle, rent seek off them, prevent more housing from being built to their asset values from declining etc.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoPeople cant afford to buy houses in Berkely because of NIMBYs.