6 ms·

I've been a renter since I was born, and I have rented from both mom and pop landlords and bigger corporations, and I can tell you that whether or not the "smal

I've been a renter since I was born, and I have rented from both mom and pop landlords and bigger corporations, and I can tell you that whether or not the "small landlords" were good people or not, our financial interests were diametrically opposed. If I did not live in cities with good tenant protections, there would be no incentive whatsoever for the people who owned the place where I lived from providing basic services such as repairs and advance notice of rent increases. Many did not anyway. What is often forgotten in these cases is that being a landlord is not an identity, but a choice. It's hard not to feel like the housing market is basically a cartel run by small homeowners across the country conspiring to make home ownership as inaccessible as possible in order to make the value of their property as high as possible. I would love to purchase a home, but even 10 years of a software engineering salary are not enough for that in NYC. And so I will continue to rent, and I will continue to advocate for expanded tenants rights.

phil21 2y ago
I have total opposite experiences from renting most of my life. I can't think of a mom and pop landlord I had a poor experience with. Financial incentives generally aligned fairly well for me. I was an extremely low-maintenance tenant, only calling for major repairs like mechanicals or outright dead appliances. I handled all basic maintenance and minor wear and tear myself at every property I rented from a small time landlord. This resulted in pretty much zero rent increases across the 15 or so total years renting from such individuals. I had exactly one rent increase during that time due to a large property tax increase which I found to be reasonable. Sometimes the small time landlords were a bit rough around the edges, but were good people trying their best. All emergencies were handled quite rapidly, and the non-emergency stuff I was quite capable of mitigating myself. I appreciated not having to do basic home maintenance due to my lifestyle at the time. I traded money for time. I did not live in a city with good tenant protections whatsoever. If you stopped paying rent, you were evicted within 45 days or less. Corporate landlords were the direct opposite experience. I avoided them like the plague until I bought my own home. Tenant protection laws in some states have gone far too far in the tenants direction. I think societal incentives need to be reset to make rental units much less subsidized and lucrative, but I can't really fault individuals engaging in the practice. We setup the tax code on purpose to incentivize such behavior. Roll that back and you will see incentives re-align. Tenants rights should not include the right to basically be a nuisance and a leech upon society. Professional tenant grifting should not be the profession it actually is today in many localities. It harms the rental market and society itself. A single bad tenant should not have the ability to ruin a small time landlord no matter how you feel about the ethical position landlords happen to be in.
- baskinator 2y ago
  I'd love to rent out my current home but I hear horror stories of how hard it is to evict non paying tenants in my town. The big players are diversified and can eat the cost but an owner landlord with one property can be bankrupted by a bad tenant. It's a regulatory moat as much as it is tenant protections.
  - worik 2y ago
    > I'd love to rent out my current home Sell it
    - baskinator 2y ago
      It would be nice to have some cash flow positive investment income. The mortgage payment is low compared to the rent it would bring in. I'll probably end up selling it. Then it will get torn down and replaced with 4-6 units at US $800k+ each. It's hard to walk away from $4.8 million in development potential. I would be lucky to clear $900k selling it.
    - obscurette 2y ago
      In place where I live I'm afraid to sell any real estate. We have a law that a seller is responsible for any hidden defects buyer will discover up to three years after the deal. We have seen bankruptcies etc because of that.
- simoncion 2y ago
  > I can't think of a mom and pop landlord I had a poor experience with. Financial incentives generally aligned fairly well for me. I can think of a couple who were absolute nightmares. I can think of a couple others who were an absolute dream. The worst small-time landlord was WAY worse than the worst big property management firm, but the best small-time landlord was far better than the best big property management firm I've been a tenant of. And yeah, I'm also a low-maintenance tenant. Unless something's broken, I never want to talk to you, nor do I want you in the space that I'm renting. EZ money for them. > Tenants rights should not include the right to basically be a nuisance and a leech upon society. The thing about strong tenants' rights laws is they're not protection against reasonable landlords; they are a shield against scumbag landlords who would treat their tenants very poorly. For example, in San Francisco, someone who stays in a place for thirty days without a lease becomes a month-to-month tenant that requires an eviction to remove. Why? Because scumbag landlords would refuse to provide leases to tenants and toss them out into the streets on a moment's notice. Similarly, I recall regulation preventing hotels from requiring tenants to check out and then check back in during extended stays. [0] Why? So that scumbag hotel operators can't prevent the long-term rental regulations from taking effect for renters who are -in fact- long-term renters. To point at an analogous situation: the same rules and regulations that generally prevent cops from putting very, very careful wrongdoers who should be imprisoned (but haven't left enough evidence to prove their wrongdoing) behind bars generally also prevent cops from imprisoning folks who have done nothing wrong just on those cops' say-so. [0] Though, I'm unable to muster the effort required to locate this regulation.
throwaway2037 2y ago
> I would love to purchase a home, but even 10 years of a software engineering salary are not enough for that in NYC. Imagine a 1M USD studio apartment. Is 10% (100K USD) down payment feasible? Usually, banks are happy to lend 90% to people with good jobs and a good credit score.
- Telemakhos 2y ago
  If you’re paying a million dollars to own a studio apartment (essentially a hotel room), something has gone horribly wrong. That could be any number of things (inflation, insane property valuations, unreasonable demand for city life), but that same money could be spent very differently and go much further in a different location.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    In Manhattan, in a good building, good neighborhood, 1M USD for a 25sqm studio sounds fine.
    - nyc_data_geek1 2y ago
      New York City consists of more than Manhattan. There are plenty of other places on subway lines where a million dollars buys a lot more.
  - Workaccount2 2y ago
    You pay the million dollars, rent it at $3.5k/mo, get a 3.5% return from rent, and then let the market drive up the value of the place 6-7% a year. You now have an investment returning a fairly steady ~10% annually, which matches the returns on some pretty bad junk bonds, however on paper your risk is much less. Or you could live in it and just get the 6-7% annual return, with even lower risk. That's why the apartment costs $1M.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Another factor is the apartment maintenance fees can be steep.
BenFranklin100 2y ago
Restricted property rights limit the amount of housing and thus give current landlords power over renters. If there were plentiful housing landlords would be forced to provide attractive housing, otherwise tenants would vote with their feet and leave.
mapt 2y ago
Financial incentives stop aligning because of two things: * Rent control means that tenants are paying less than market rate. * Extremely low property tax rates combined with anti-development policy mean that asset price appreciation exceeds rents by a significant amount. Stop controlling rents, tax the hell out of these people, and one way or another spend it on residents, and you are exacting a redistribution of wealth that doesn't distort the market in a way that leads to slumlords.
- pixelatedindex 2y ago
  Yes, but without rent control landlords will charge as much as they want to charge. The price of what the market will bear just goes up because everyone will raise prices. Software like RealPage will become even more prevalent. It really only helps the landlord, who is already well off to begin with. Additionally, I can’t think of any homeowner who will vote to increase their property tax, especially if it’s already based on a $1M house.
  - htss2013 2y ago
    Landlords require a certain multiple of rent in proven income. So the rent is automatically capped by local wages. It's pretty black and white - either the landlord asked a price in line with local wages or they didn't. If they go too far,the landlord gets punished with expensive vacancies, or they loosen rent/income requirements and get punished with even more expensive evictions. Point is, landlords aren't gangsters who can demand whatever number they pull out of their arses. They have to keep rent a reasonable ratio of local wages or they feel the pain.
    - mapt 2y ago
      They aren't individually gangsters. But collectively, it is equivalent to a form of extortion.
worik 2y ago
This. In New Zealand the only accessible way for the moderately wealthy to save is property (a failed financial system) So there is a proliferation of "mum and dad" landlords who have huge political power, two "investment" properties, and they make life hell and insecure for renters I rented until I was in my forties, and that is what it was like. They are not all bad, but many cannot believe that their tennents own their home, if not the property it is in. A landlord can not "drop by" for any reason, legally, but most importantly, morally Being a landlord should be a business. Nobody should have tenants in an "investment" property. It is a conflict of interest and a power imbalance that immiserates the tenants On top of that the poorest 60% are handing over the lion's share of their income to the richest 15% So much needs to change....

phil21 2y ago

I have total opposite experiences from renting most of my life. I can't think of a mom and pop landlord I had a poor experience with. Financial incentives generally aligned fairly well for me. I was an extremely low-maintenance tenant, only calling for major repairs like mechanicals or outright dead appliances. I handled all basic maintenance and minor wear and tear myself at every property I rented from a small time landlord. This resulted in pretty much zero rent increases across the 15 or so total years renting from such individuals. I had exactly one rent increase during that time due to a large property tax increase which I found to be reasonable. Sometimes the small time landlords were a bit rough around the edges, but were good people trying their best. All emergencies were handled quite rapidly, and the non-emergency stuff I was quite capable of mitigating myself. I appreciated not having to do basic home maintenance due to my lifestyle at the time. I traded money for time. I did not live in a city with good tenant protections whatsoever. If you stopped paying rent, you were evicted within 45 days or less. Corporate landlords were the direct opposite experience. I avoided them like the plague until I bought my own home. Tenant protection laws in some states have gone far too far in the tenants direction. I think societal incentives need to be reset to make rental units much less subsidized and lucrative, but I can't really fault individuals engaging in the practice. We setup the tax code on purpose to incentivize such behavior. Roll that back and you will see incentives re-align. Tenants rights should not include the right to basically be a nuisance and a leech upon society. Professional tenant grifting should not be the profession it actually is today in many localities. It harms the rental market and society itself. A single bad tenant should not have the ability to ruin a small time landlord no matter how you feel about the ethical position landlords happen to be in.

baskinator 2y ago
I'd love to rent out my current home but I hear horror stories of how hard it is to evict non paying tenants in my town. The big players are diversified and can eat the cost but an owner landlord with one property can be bankrupted by a bad tenant. It's a regulatory moat as much as it is tenant protections.
- worik 2y ago
  > I'd love to rent out my current home Sell it
  - baskinator 2y ago
    It would be nice to have some cash flow positive investment income. The mortgage payment is low compared to the rent it would bring in. I'll probably end up selling it. Then it will get torn down and replaced with 4-6 units at US $800k+ each. It's hard to walk away from $4.8 million in development potential. I would be lucky to clear $900k selling it.
  - obscurette 2y ago
    In place where I live I'm afraid to sell any real estate. We have a law that a seller is responsible for any hidden defects buyer will discover up to three years after the deal. We have seen bankruptcies etc because of that.
simoncion 2y ago
> I can't think of a mom and pop landlord I had a poor experience with. Financial incentives generally aligned fairly well for me. I can think of a couple who were absolute nightmares. I can think of a couple others who were an absolute dream. The worst small-time landlord was WAY worse than the worst big property management firm, but the best small-time landlord was far better than the best big property management firm I've been a tenant of. And yeah, I'm also a low-maintenance tenant. Unless something's broken, I never want to talk to you, nor do I want you in the space that I'm renting. EZ money for them. > Tenants rights should not include the right to basically be a nuisance and a leech upon society. The thing about strong tenants' rights laws is they're not protection against reasonable landlords; they are a shield against scumbag landlords who would treat their tenants very poorly. For example, in San Francisco, someone who stays in a place for thirty days without a lease becomes a month-to-month tenant that requires an eviction to remove. Why? Because scumbag landlords would refuse to provide leases to tenants and toss them out into the streets on a moment's notice. Similarly, I recall regulation preventing hotels from requiring tenants to check out and then check back in during extended stays. [0] Why? So that scumbag hotel operators can't prevent the long-term rental regulations from taking effect for renters who are -in fact- long-term renters. To point at an analogous situation: the same rules and regulations that generally prevent cops from putting very, very careful wrongdoers who should be imprisoned (but haven't left enough evidence to prove their wrongdoing) behind bars generally also prevent cops from imprisoning folks who have done nothing wrong just on those cops' say-so. [0] Though, I'm unable to muster the effort required to locate this regulation.

throwaway2037 2y ago

> I would love to purchase a home, but even 10 years of a software engineering salary are not enough for that in NYC. Imagine a 1M USD studio apartment. Is 10% (100K USD) down payment feasible? Usually, banks are happy to lend 90% to people with good jobs and a good credit score.

Telemakhos 2y ago
If you’re paying a million dollars to own a studio apartment (essentially a hotel room), something has gone horribly wrong. That could be any number of things (inflation, insane property valuations, unreasonable demand for city life), but that same money could be spent very differently and go much further in a different location.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  In Manhattan, in a good building, good neighborhood, 1M USD for a 25sqm studio sounds fine.
  - nyc_data_geek1 2y ago
    New York City consists of more than Manhattan. There are plenty of other places on subway lines where a million dollars buys a lot more.
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  You pay the million dollars, rent it at $3.5k/mo, get a 3.5% return from rent, and then let the market drive up the value of the place 6-7% a year. You now have an investment returning a fairly steady ~10% annually, which matches the returns on some pretty bad junk bonds, however on paper your risk is much less. Or you could live in it and just get the 6-7% annual return, with even lower risk. That's why the apartment costs $1M.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Another factor is the apartment maintenance fees can be steep.

BenFranklin100 2y ago

Restricted property rights limit the amount of housing and thus give current landlords power over renters. If there were plentiful housing landlords would be forced to provide attractive housing, otherwise tenants would vote with their feet and leave.

mapt 2y ago

Financial incentives stop aligning because of two things: * Rent control means that tenants are paying less than market rate. * Extremely low property tax rates combined with anti-development policy mean that asset price appreciation exceeds rents by a significant amount. Stop controlling rents, tax the hell out of these people, and one way or another spend it on residents, and you are exacting a redistribution of wealth that doesn't distort the market in a way that leads to slumlords.

pixelatedindex 2y ago
Yes, but without rent control landlords will charge as much as they want to charge. The price of what the market will bear just goes up because everyone will raise prices. Software like RealPage will become even more prevalent. It really only helps the landlord, who is already well off to begin with. Additionally, I can’t think of any homeowner who will vote to increase their property tax, especially if it’s already based on a $1M house.
- htss2013 2y ago
  Landlords require a certain multiple of rent in proven income. So the rent is automatically capped by local wages. It's pretty black and white - either the landlord asked a price in line with local wages or they didn't. If they go too far,the landlord gets punished with expensive vacancies, or they loosen rent/income requirements and get punished with even more expensive evictions. Point is, landlords aren't gangsters who can demand whatever number they pull out of their arses. They have to keep rent a reasonable ratio of local wages or they feel the pain.
  - mapt 2y ago
    They aren't individually gangsters. But collectively, it is equivalent to a form of extortion.

worik 2y ago

This. In New Zealand the only accessible way for the moderately wealthy to save is property (a failed financial system) So there is a proliferation of "mum and dad" landlords who have huge political power, two "investment" properties, and they make life hell and insecure for renters I rented until I was in my forties, and that is what it was like. They are not all bad, but many cannot believe that their tennents own their home, if not the property it is in. A landlord can not "drop by" for any reason, legally, but most importantly, morally Being a landlord should be a business. Nobody should have tenants in an "investment" property. It is a conflict of interest and a power imbalance that immiserates the tenants On top of that the poorest 60% are handing over the lion's share of their income to the richest 15% So much needs to change....