• Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    132
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    2 years ago

    “All I want to do is exploit struggling people for far more than my property is worth. Is that so wrong?!”

    • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Even more ironic is that the “professional” landlords/property holding companies hire property managers who do literally all the work, including both the upkeep for the house and interaction with the tenants. Like, what exactly do you contribute at that point? What would change practically if I hired the property manager directly with the money I would be paying you? Especially when the most common pro-landlord argument (used by landlords themselves) is that they fix things around the house and maintain it.

      • KIM_JONG_JUICEBOX@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        For individuals who own like a single rental property as an investment property, you could blame the banks. Maybe the tenants don’t have the 20% the bank would require for a mortgage. But they can afford the monthly rent for the larger house rather than a smaller apartment. Also the landlord takes on the risk here. (Market value, no Rent payment, property damage, maintenance…)

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        “You expect me to unclog a toilet?!”

        Yes. That’s exactly what I expect a landlord to do. And if you don’t live in the same city as your rental property, maybe that shouldn’t be allowed.

        • Bread@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 years ago

          I am against landlords like everyone else, but I draw the line at unclogging the toilet. It isn’t worth the effort to report that and I don’t need people unnecessarily seeing my shit in the literal sense. Provided that it is a standard clog and not something wrong with the toilet.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            I’m not talking standard clog. I don’t mind using a plunger. But sometimes you need more than that and they should either do it or spend their own money on a plumber ASAP.

            • Bread@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Ah, I see. The Super Poo, the Toilet Destroyer, HAZMAT. Things that only a professional can do. Sometimes the rabbit doesn’t come out of the hat and you need an extra hand.

        • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          I had a landlord who wrote into the original version of the lease that I (as the tenant) would be responsible for any needed repairs to the sewer system. This was a much more extreme version of being unwilling to unclog a toilet lol. I said fuck that noise and he took the clause out. He turned out to be a good landlord and he didn’t raise my rent once in seven years, but his tendency to just try and get away with whatever he could in the lease had me a bit worried at the start.

      • Delphia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        In Australia its way more common for landlords to use propert management companies.

        They charge about 5%, the tenant rings them and says “The hot water is out” they ring me and say “You need to authorise us to send a plumber” I say “Ok” they ring one of their go-to plumbers who attends super fast because they dont want to lose the repeat business of a property manager who has 100 properties to look after and they fix it at a fair rate because if they dont the property manager will find a new plumber.

        When I was renting out my first house (had to move for work for a few years) I couldnt get an electrician for my own house as fast and as cheap as my property manager could get one for my tenants.

      • sheogorath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I know a guy at college who basically uses this as a pick-up line to get girls. He said if you’re with him you’re basically set because he’ll inherit a lot of house from his landlord parents so you won’t need to work anymore.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      The joke falls kinda flat for me because I hear this too much already, but not as a joke…

    • PatFusty@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      I rent out homes and I dont get any of these because I only rent out to hispanic working families. Fight me

  • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    “Fix my AC!”

    Particularly ironic that this is being framed as “unreasonable” because landlords themselves directly argue that their upkeep of the house justifies the significant upcharge they take from tenants. Like, even if we argued that landlord as a career is 100% acceptable and valid, that would literally be your job, would be like a professional chef complaining about people saying “make me food!”

    • Hyperi0n@lemmy.film
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      2 years ago

      I had a rentoid that would call me for the most insane shit all the time. Changing light bulbs, fixing their own personal AC unit and stopping a neibourhood dog from barking.

      When they were evicted I held the damage deposit because the hardwood floors and internal doors were damaged to fuck by their dog which they tried to claim as being normal wear and tear.

      • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yup, people here are generally young and have only had experience being on the tenant side of the equation. Someday they may find out what it is like being on the other side and that tenants can be pigs.

        • Hyperi0n@lemmy.film
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          They may be good tenants and assume that most tenants are good tenants. Not realizing how rare that is.

          Then you also have the ones who say every landlord is bad, which is clearly them just being a bad tenant.

          I put my rent fairly low to help people out but the low income people are generally disasters to rent to.

      • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Bad renters exist, but for every story like yours I have five places I’ve lived in where it took months to fix the A/C in summertime and the landlord just let it fucking go meanwhile holding out their greedy mitts demanding $2000 a month.

        2 grand! To live in 90° heat, if I wanted to do that I’d just live on the street.

        Fucking landloids.

        • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          demanding $2000 a month.

          Could be very reasonable or even cheap depending on location.

          • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Does cheap mean they’re allowed to not fulfill their maintenance requirements meanwhile showing up on the dot collection day to take rent?

              • Delphia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                This will vary greatly from area to area but in most places for a tenant to withhold payment legally the property generally has to have a problem that would make the property “unliveable”. Like the front door falling off the hinges, no water or no functioning toilets or the landlord has to ignore the problem for an unreasonable length of time.

                The A.C breaking in the beginning of summer and it taking a week to get an A.C company to look at it probably doesnt count. Them leaving the A.C broken for the whole three months probably does.

  • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    Your know, I guess experiences vary widely, but the landlords I know don’t fit all the hate. For instance, one of my employees decided to rent her house instead of selling it when her family needed a bigger one. They’ve been renting to the same family for a decade or more without ever raising the rent. The family could not afford to buy any house, let alone the one they’re in, so renting allows them to live in a kind of place they couldn’t afford otherwise. My employee has let them skip rent a few times when times were hard.

    I know a few similar stories. Maybe it’s different with people who own apartment buildings or whatever, but I just don’t see being a landlord as inherently bad. Like anything else, you can do it ethically or unethically.

      • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah, for sure - I live in southern California, which has about as high a cost of real estate as you’re going to find, but that isn’t caused by landlords. I mean, if you bought a new car and were selling your old one, you’d probably sell it for whatever the market would pay, right? Maybe if you’re really well off you’d just give it to someone, but most of us are going to sell for the going rate. It’s the same with houses. If I can easily get $500k for my house, I’m not going to list it for $400k just to be nice - I could use the money.

        Do people feel like it’s inherently more laudable to sell their house than to rent it? It seems like, as long as they’re not gouging, they’re doing more of a service by renting to people who can’t afford to buy, and also covering all the costs of repairs and risk of damage that renters don’t have to worry about.

        I just don’t get the hate broadly, though the management company who ran my daughter’s apartment complex were assholes.

        • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          I work in a real estate adjacent field, part of the housing issue IS very much because of big companies and people just buying up all the houses to rent them for passive income.

          I don’t care if people have 2 or 3 houses but when they own 8 or 9 or hundreds then yea we have an issue.

          • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Yeah, I agree a hundred percent. In every business, it’s possible to be predatory. Big companies are doing some really shitty things, and we should try to figure out how to stop that.

            But some people are saying that being a landlord is inherently unethical - the moment someone rents a property, they’re a vile leach. I just think that’s wrong.

    • ConfuzedAZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’m a land lord, did exactly what people say we all did. 15 years ago I bought two 200k homes for 30k each… they are an income plan for my kids so they don’t have to necessarily worry about taking a better paying job instead of something they want to do. Probably a little naive now. But I run the houses at a bare minimum profit just so the government won’t come after me due running a loss on my taxes. I have raised rent only enough to do that. I pay for a property management firm to take care of the properties so that the tenants have 24 hour response to issues. I’ve had the same tenants for 12 years in both properties. Every 4 years or so I have one of the rooms that the tenants want renovated. It’s a right off so doesn’t costa fortune ava the house gets slowly updated. Not every landlord is an asshole. Some of us play the long game without screwing people. But I realize that I am part of the problem. I am part of the reason for less supply in the market. But selling my properties will make my children’s lives less secure and I’m not willing to do that. So i do partially deserve some of the blame.

      • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        I don’t see you having any blame. Supply and demand for housing includes everything, including rentals. You would be part of the problem if you bought those places and left them empty as vacation spots or something. You didn’t, you’re supplying them to people who I’m guessing wouldn’t be able to buy them themselves. You’re not driving up the cost of housing. I’d argue that, since you’re charging less than you could, you’re actually lowering it.

        • gmtom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          He literally is driving up the cost of housing. Rental markets are quite seperate to the actual housing market and people who own 3 houses, drive up the cost of buying a house. There is a good chance they can’t afford to rent, yes, but only because of people like him buying housing they dint need to make a profit, they can afford the rent, so they would also He able to afford the mortgage for it if given the chance.

          • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            they can afford the rent, so they would also He able to afford the mortgage for it if given the chance.

            Have you purchased a house? Because this part is simply not true. You have to have a percentage of the cost up front. The more you have, the smaller the payments. Lots of folks who are renting out places put a lot down so the mortgage payments (and what they charge for rent) are much smaller than a first-time buyer can afford. Then you have the cost of property tax, maintenance, and repairs that the renter isn’t liable for.

            • ConfuzedAZ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              This is very much the problem with the Canadian real estate bubble. People are paying rental prices now that absolutely could have paid for a house 5 years ago. But now they are paying a dangerously high portion of their income. The problem is that their rental prices that they pay now wouldn’t make the payments on the house today.

            • gmtom@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Not for myself, but yes, I have. And that’s kind of my point. You have these arbitrary barriers to entry on home ownership that are designed to keep poor people out, since the can’t afford these costs upfront, and can’t save for them because they are either paying their landlords mortgage instead, or are paying money directly to the bank/asset manager/ whoever owns their rental. So it’s in the banks best interest to not give them a mortgage.

              And a mortgage plus maintainable and tax and everything else will be cheaper than renting, because if it wasn’t landlords wouldn’t be making money, so would raise rent

              • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                I think “designed to keep poor people out” is way off. People selling a product want nothing more than for other people to buy their product. The sellers of the house aren’t the ones setting the mortgage details - they have nothing to do with it, they just want to sell the house.

                But few people can afford to buy a house outright, so they have to borrow money. The bigger the percentage of the purchase price you have to borrow, the more the payments are going to be. That’s not to punish poor people, it’s because they’re putting up their money so you can buy something, in return for them making a profit on their money.

                And a mortgage plus maintainable and tax and everything else will be cheaper than renting, because if it wasn’t landlords wouldn’t be making money, so would raise rent

                You’re still not getting it. Let’s say I want to live in a house that costs $600k, but I don’t have it. If I were to find a lender who would finance the whole thing (doubtful), the mortgage payments would probably be around $3k a month, and I can’t afford that either. But let’s say you have $300k to put down, so only have to finance another $300k, and your payments are more like $1500 a month, which I can afford. I pay you the amount that covers your mortgage, you end up paying property tax and other costs, but my rent is going into your property. If I live there for three years, you’ve gotten $54k in equity, even if the house’s value itself didn’t go up any, for just the cost of taxes and maintenance. Meanwhile, I got to live in a house that I flat out couldn’t afford.

                • gmtom@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  I was not blaming the people selling the house, I was blaming the banks for putting an arbitrary down payment on getting a mortgage to keep poor people out of home ownership, which benefits the banks as they are all heavily involved in property investment so benefit from more people renting either by directly being the landlords or simply from the increased housing demand from landlords wanting to buy as many properties as possible, thus driving up housing prices, which drives up mortgages and makes them more money.

                  Like you say, the banks male their money from interest on the loan, so the 20k down-payment they require is an arbitrary barrier to entry.

                  No, I get it, you’re just making up a scenario that doesn’t really happen. Like sure a landlord could in theory pay half the price of a house just to reduce mortgage costs so they can rent it out at half the market rate AND pay property tax and maintenance out of pocket, out of thr kindness of their golden hearts. They could also just buy the house outright and let you live in it for free and just make their profit off of the increase in house value. But obviously they won’t. The landlord is going to charge you market rate for that 600k house which will almost certainly be more than 3k, because why wouldnt they? And even if they did, are the going to rent directly to you? Or are they going to advertise it and get a slew of offers of people wanting to live in a house for half price and so someone a little bit richer than you will offer them, say 1,750 for the house, because of supply and demand. And the vast majority of people aren’t trying to live in houses they can’t afford, they are just trying to live.

                  And even then, it’s still not ethical, you’re still exploring people for profit for their basic needs without adding any value to the system.

      • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        How the heck did you find not one but two 200k houses for 30k? Or are you saying you bought them for 30k and now they’re worth 200k? Either way holy balls I wish I could do either of those lol

        • greendakota99@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          I assumed they meant they were just worth $30k when they bought them. That is a pipe dream that probably won’t happen again in any of our lifetimes.

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        This shows one of the most common things landlords tell themselves to justify it.

        But I run the houses at a bare minimum profit

        You tell yourself this, to make you feel better, but you don’t acknowledge that almost all the money your tenants pay you is profit, since they are paying for the mortgage. Even if you rented at 0 immediate profit, for the entire time until you paid off the houses, you would have actually made 1.2million in profit, since you now own 2 houses at 600k each.

        And those families, instead of paying a mortgage and ending with hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity, that they could refinance, or use to buy a better house or leave as inheritance for their kids, now have nothing, as all that money has gone to you.

        There is no such thing as an ethical landlord. Even the “”“good”“” ones are still exploring people’s basic need for shelter to make them rich.

        If you really wanted to be a “good” landlord offer those families the chance to buy the house with the 15 years of down payments they already made to you to start it off. But as you said they’re an “income plan” for your kids I don’t think you would do that.

        • ConfuzedAZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          I mean, I get what you’re saying. And perhaps if my financial situation was better I could consider the option to offer the houses to the tenants. But as you suspect I will not trade my children’s financial security just to be charitable. The rent I charge is 30%-40% below market value. I suspect if you were in my position you wouldn’t be so inclined to give away your wealth either.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            I was in your position, when my grandparents died I inherited a house, that people encouraged me to rent out. Instead I sold it and invested the money (specifically into a green energy fund.) As that way I still have my financial security, without being a landlord.

                • ConfuzedAZ@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Because to start with, I invested and risked my own money a much less bubbled deal estate market with a significant amount of my available capital. You invested someone else’s money. I took all the risk, and you want me to give away all the profits from that risk. Even your “green” investments take advantage of workers, buy off shore parts, cost people their jobs. Why don’t you donate all your profits to those people. Your entire argument is so steeped in hypocrisy that it’s hard to even know if you’re not just a troll.

    • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      My last land lord raised rent by 2.5x after the first year. When we moved out he kept the full security deposit because “the inside of the oven was dirty”

      Your mileage may vary

      • Lyricism6055@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        4 beautiful words that worked wonders with my shitty landlord who tried to keep my deposit “normal wear and tear”.

        As soon as I stated that, the lady changed her tune completely.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      This is the whole “not all cops are bad a guy I know is a cop and he’s nice” argument just for landlords.

      Or you could phrase it about slave owners “my freind owns slaves, but he just owns the one and he treats them really well!”

      Landlording is inherently immoral and explotative, not matter hoe “”“ethical”“” the landlord is.

      • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Landlording is inherently immoral and explotative, not matter hoe “”“ethical”“” the landlord is.

        That’s what I’m not seeing. Can you explain what makes it inherently immortal?

        • gmtom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          The explanation depends on how deep or philosophical you want to go on this conversation, but basically you are exploiting someone’s basic need for shelter for massive profit, keeping trapped in the poverty cycle as they are having to pay rent to the landlord to pay their mortgage for them and so is much harder to save for their own house. As well as reducing supply of housing on the market, thus increasing prices and making it more innacessible.

          Like imagine a group of a few wealthy people buying a town’s supply of food then selling it back to the hungry residents at a 300% markup. They don’t grow it, they don’t transport it, cook it or chsnge it, they don’t do anything that ads value, just buy it and sell it at a higher price, to the people that would have otherwise bought it for themselves. Do you consider that ethical?

          • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            Like imagine a group of a few wealthy people buying a town’s supply of food then selling it back to the hungry residents at a 300% markup.

            Okay, that’s clearly exploitative and unethical, but that’s not inherently what landlords do. Anyone who sells products or services can do it in a way that’s fair or is unfair. The mere act of selling something itself isn’t unethical. Look at the conversations we have about drug companies. I don’t think anyone argues that drug companies shouldn’t be able to sell medication, or even make some profit for their research investments. The problem is when they price their drugs way above what’s reasonable just because they know people are going to have to pay it.

            Renting out a house isn’t different from renting out anything else. You go on vacation and you need a car while there, but you don’t want to buy one for a short time, so you rent one. The rental agency used their money to buy the car, then they rent it to you for something you’re willing to pay for a week, and they make a profit from all the people who rent the car over its life. You both win. Why is it any different with a house?

            • gmtom@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Drug companies produce the actual drugs though. They are creating value by making the drug and the money they make from selling it is their reward for creating value. Landlords do not build the house, so they do not create value.

              And renting a car is different because its not something you need to simply survive and less importantly we don’t have a car shortage. And also you typically don’t rent a house just for a week most people rent houses for years and years until they can afford to buy a house, at which point their landlord has made 10s or maybe even hundreds of thousands off of them, while doing little work and adding no value. Like I’m not arguing against hotels or even renting in general, I’m against landlording for private homes, because its inherently unethical, just like buying all the food in a supermarket and selling it to the same supermarket customers at a markup to make profit for no work.

              • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                I guess we just disagree. I’ve said why I think they can be providing a useful service and create a win/win situation, but you don’t see it that way. Good discussing with you.

    • borscht@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Idk I feel like there’s also something to be said to have the freedom to just buy another house after saving a bit. It sounds so easy, but most families would have to sell their house in order to upsize.

      Never moved but my mom was in credit unions and the trade in of the house was pretty common. In all fairness, there were many “multiple apartment complex owners” at that same CU, they were notably colder and exclusively about numbers (i.e. throwing a fit and sending another appraiser to their barely functional building to get a dozen k).

      • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah, there are honestly a lot of reasons to rent instead of buy. One of the main ones is uncertainty about the market. Lots of times people think that the prices in an area are inflated and likely to come down. If you buy, you risk taking a big loss. The landlord, in that case, is the one with the risk. Similarly, if you don’t plan to stay in an area for several years, it can be more trouble (and even cost) than it’s worth. I’ve also known people who simply don’t want to be bothered with the upkeep, even if they can afford to buy. There’s a real freedom in being able to just pick up the phone when anything isn’t working, there’s a leak, or whatever.

  • jaschen@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    I’m a landlord. I’m priced WELL below the market because my tenant is state patrol and is a great guy and a good family. I haven’t raised his rent ever. I will raise it when my HOA goes up next year, but that’s only to help cover my fees. If keep the rent so I can pick the right renters that is compatible with me. I rather have a good renter than a few bucks more a month.

    • Fraeco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      This is the way!

      My previous landlord was like this. Lived there 4 years, rent never went up. We left the place like we found it (which was pristine).

    • pwalshj@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      2 years ago

      You’re a bum. How dare you. You take money for nothing. You should let him live there for free. No one should own anything. I hate tipping. Fuck cars. I think that about covers it. :)

  • wisefoolkp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    2 years ago

    Even if you try being a good landlord, dealing with some tenants can really darken your soul…

    • skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s also not as lucrative as most would think. I have a few rentals and it’s certainly not enough to quit my day job in IT. It’s maybe an extra $15-20k in my pocket at the end of the year after expenses and taxes and such, and I spend at least 10-20 hours a week doing accounting, maintenance tasks, coordinating contractors, legal stuff, etc. Sure, the equity is nice too, but it doesn’t do a whole lot for me until retirement age.

      As far as whether landlords can be “good”, I see myself as providing a valuable service to those who cannot or don’t want to become homeowners. In a perfect world, those who cannot but want to become homeowners should, but the cost of housing has little to do with rentals and almost everything to do with zoning, development restrictions, and tax structure. Until that world exists, someone has to offer rental properties to these people, otherwise where would they live?

      • glibg10b@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        My mom rented out 3 apartments and earned barely enough to take care of the two of us. A significant portion of her expenses go toward treating her type 1 diabetes

    • dangblingus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      35
      ·
      2 years ago

      What’s a “good” landlord? Someone that upholds all of their obligations that the law says they have to do in order to make money off of the actual work of others? Still a parasite.

      • Captain Borracho@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        That’s not true at all.

        I move around a lot and have rented from some great landlords in the past who kept the price low, property in great condition and couldn’t be more helpful when I’ve had problems. Granted I’ve had some awful ones too, usually big companies, but it’s definitely not fair to say there aren’t good ones out there.

        I get that the world likes things in absolutes, and it’s easy to say that landlords are parasites and shouldn’t exist … but that neglects that not everyone wants to put down roots or go through the property of buying and selling a property every time they move. I’m definitely not defending the big investment companies who are just there to monopolise the market and squeeze every penny they can out of it, but it’s the same with every industry, there will always be bad actors who will exploit the system if they’re allowed to.

  • Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I run a small senior living complex in a rural town. We have the cheapest rent in town. We scrape by, trying to make improvements here and there. They are maintained though. We seriously charge hundreds of dollars less than the next closest complex in the area. We refused to raise our rent in the past 4 years dispite rising taxes and utility bills. Most our tenants are widows/widowers living off a fixed income. We are either too nice or bad business owners because that “fix my AC” One always stings and reaches into my personal budget. And by “personal budget” I mean I eat ramen for a couple weeks.

    Anyway, I actually feel like this meme. Other than my tenants are usually happy. Occasionally we get someone who is just never happy no matter what you do. I know all the other complexes are owned by one company essentially creating a monopoly and they have exploited this town. We get calls from people crying because they will be homeless.

    • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s the model of housing as a business that is the problem, no matter how benevolent an operator may try to be. The market is designed to eliminate you as competition and reward the exploitative monopolistic company.

      More importantly is whether or not you are or would ever act as a firewall against competing (or at this point any) housing development.

      Like if a subsidized public housing for seniors opened up next door to your complex offering rates at or below your own: would you support it given this persistent at risk population?

      • Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        We would support it. We only have 24 units, we field at least 50 calls a day. We would be fine. We have turned down an offer from the company that owns the other complexes. The offer was 3 times what we paid 10 years ago and had a few more zeros on the end of what we still owe. But these tenants have become family. Also from a business owner perspective I would rather have this steady income than the BS of a quick payday then having to reinvest somewhere else and work are butts off to get that sustainable without turning into a scumbag landlord. Landlording is easy if you charge exorbitant prices and pay people to do everything. We do all the work ourselves to keep the cost down. Meanwhile I work another full time job. So does my wife and we have two kids. I don’t have time to get another property to this point of sustainability.

  • Selmafudd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Ours put our rent up 25% so just because I was upset I paid this month’s rent a week late and they were complaining they needed the money to pay their montgage… Bitch please I don’t wanna hear about your financial problems

  • Dynamo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    ah, the typical landlord. A good example of a useless “jobs” that litter the world

  • Transcriptionist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 years ago

    Image Transcription:

    A drawn picture of a woman with shoulder-length blue hair and purple suit jacket over a darker purple long-sleeve button-down shirt, hanging her head dejectedly while a semicircle of fingers ring her head, accompanied by the words: “Parasite!”, “Fix my AC!”, “Tenants have rights!”, “Leech!”, “Hope you get Mao’d!”, “Let me live here for free!”, “Rent control!”, and “Rich Scum!”. Below the picture is a caption reading: No one understands the landlord struggle…

    [I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]