4 ms·

>your logic I didn't write any other comment here :) But, anyways: >It has not been my experience that individual owner landlords have been better than insti

• tptacek 10mo ago
  Must be. In particular: the only landlord I ever got a security deposit back from automatically was a corporate landlord. More broadly: if your concern is that the landlord isn't going to fix the furnace or whatever, you can address that without distorting the market just by creating causes of action, penalties, and fix-and-deduct ordinances to shift incentives. Banning corporate landlords reduces the supply of housing (larger institutional investors are the primary builders of dense multifamily), and privileges individual owner/landlords who do not have a better track record or better incentives or better resources.
  • jfindper 10mo ago
    Right. I'm not advocating for a banning of corporate landlords. I just wanted to look at the regulations/ordinances/etc. of a "carefully-regulated market of institutional single-family-home lenders" to take some inspiration from, and perhaps advocate for some of the sensible rules in my area. I know you participate in your local politics, and have a different viewpoint than mine, so I thought I'd ask.
    • tptacek 10mo ago
      Fair enough! Hard for me to answer, because my priors are that non-corporate landlords are generally worse than institutional landlords, if only because the structural incentives favor scale.