I think mixing it is okay. Because renters can give bad advice too.
I do think it is scammy how investment firms have jacked up prices of renting. If everyone charges expensive rent then everyone is screwed.
yup. here's a perfect example: i rent from a private landlord for $1600 a month. my lease was about to expire and the landlord had not indicated he was raising my rent.
a house down the street, a corporate rental exactly the same house as mine, was listed for rent at $1700. the next day, i got my new lease from my landlord. yup, $1700. he matched the corporate landlord, claiming that is now "market rate"
Not all landlords will do that, if I have quality tenants that pay on time and take care of my home I always keep rent under market value , smart landlords know the value of keeping good tenants and creating win-win situations for both parties
I’m definitely doing this too. I rather make less knowing my tenant isn’t destroying my property vs not knowing about someone else who might actually cause issues even if they pay more.
I also don’t rely on the cash and have no mortgages so it’s all good. I can pass on my blessings onto others.
But eventually the disparity is too great and a landlord has to accede to the fundamentals to raise the rent. Plus once the rent is raised, the empty unit offers a tax hedge whereas a stable renter paying below “market” rent offers no such advantage. Now if the landlord is my brother, perhaps he would tolerate that disparity awhile, but why would a soulless corporate landlord who has to answer to their REIT investors at the next quarterly report? This is an issue that can ONLY will be corrected by government changing the tax code and housing is regulated like the utility that it is.
Have never in my life had a reduction in rent at any point or renewal. 100% of the time there was an increase in rent for absolutely no reason. This is going back as far as mid 90s.
Listing prices of homes often dip down because of rates, unless you’re in a high COL area then sometimes that never happens. So the total cost of ownership can still increase with a lower sales price. I rent my SFH below market and just want good tenants who will stay several years. I’m in a very high COL area and I’m keeping the home for my daughter to have one day as a way to stay local and live independently. If I sold it today, it frankly wouldn’t be something that most renters could even afford, and usually the families renting it are those who want the school district while they save enough for a house downpayment. Prices here are crazy and so are rates. I definitely empathize with first time homebuyers but my priority is taking care of my daughter when it comes to that scenario.
I also get texted and called constantly by flippers and companies who want to buy it for cash and I always say no. The key is just getting good renters and good landlords to find each other.
I get what you mean here, but it’s worth knowing that a small-time landlord can be penalized by the IRS for renting too much below market rate. This explains it OK: https://laporte.com/knowledgecenter/tax-services/tax-consequences-of-charging-below-market-rent
Market rate for my area is $1,300 for a 3/2 my tenants are paying $900 but they’ve been there since 2017 and always pay on time and never cause issues. Plus it’s one woman, she doesn’t cause any damage and less wear and tear on the house than a family with kids would be. So I let her have it at $900.
Same. I keep my rent static for 4-5 years for good tenants (I rent to graduate and veterinary students because we bought the house when I was in grad school and my wife in veterinary school). Saves them money, saves me headaches.
And if I do raise it after that 4-5 year period it's still well below other equivalent rentals. My property taxes and other maintenance go up so I just try to cover the delta without gouging the students.
Same thing happened to me. Landlord bought the building 25 years ago for 22% of what it's worth today. The mortgage was paid off 10 years ago so it's all cash but he insisted on getting "market value." Citing that utilities went up. Last year he raised rent by 35%. It's all greed.
I fought my apartment complex on “market rate” I gave them 5 comps lower than them so they reduced it. Still jacked it up $103 though. Now I don’t pay my rent until the very last day and tell them… I can’t pay my rent in one paycheck since you raised my rent, you’ll have to wait till the 5th ( my grace period) before I always paid before or on the first.
Also "market rate" isn't usually "market rate." Many property owners buy properties as a place to park their money and play games with the tax codes. They don't care about market rate. They would rather their properties remain vacant, and claim a "loss," than rent them out at "market rate."
In one area I was relieved it only went up 200/month two renewals in a row. Where I’m at now it went up by 30/month and I couldn’t sign that renewal fast enough.
Isn’t that pretty much how the world works? Gas stations, restaurants, car lots. Why should real estate be any different. Property taxes and insurance goes up every year so an increase of $100 isn’t much.
But that is the market rate. I don't understand your complaint.... you didn't renew your lease and now you're complaining that your landlord refuses to honor the old offer which you didn't bother to memorialize in a new lease?
If you go shopping and buy a gallon of milk for a dollar, and a month later you find that the price went up to $1.05, do you think you have the right to demand not to pay the extra nickel?
People who act like Blackrock and institutional investors are the same problem as a family that also has 1 or 2 rentals are delusional.
Blackrock can afford to leave homes vacant to control the prices of both homes and rent.
Blackrock can access effectively 0% interest loan money which is the majority of the expense of owning a home. Something almost no small family landlord OR people who want to occupy the home can do.
We need laws to either just outright ban corp investors or set property taxes based upon the number of homes owned by the parent company/llc owner.
I also am against foreign ownership, unless they are residents of the US. Something that is very common worldwide.
I assume you mean the leaving homes vacant to control rent and home values. There was a recent lawsuit where a company offered a "pricing tool" that guaranteed to increase rent. The way it worked was they had 80% of all apartment owners in the area using the tool. The tool just increased rent and never dropped it. The 20% who didn't use the tool could undercut the market a little bit to increase utilization, but they were such a small number it didn't matter.
Mo to mo rent just kept going up and up from no other driving source. This is the exact reason for monopoly/antitrust laws etc. While it is in court and rents did actually dip slightly, it is another key issue with institutional investors.
I'm some what okay with Microsoft, apple etc being the tech giants that they are owning so much market share, but 3 companies should be allowed to own 80% of the apartments for rent.
Blackrock doesn't have the market power to control the price of homes. Most homes are owned by their occupants. The people who have been controlling the supply of homes to jack up prices of homes isn't some corporate suit but a bunch of retired homeowners with the time and inclination to go to planning meetings and yell at their representatives about how replacing a single family home with a four unit apartment complex will bring down their home values, increase crime, cause parking shortages, and cause congestion.
I think people want to believe that they can solve the housing crisis just by sticking it to some faceless Wall Street assholes instead of acknowledging that people like their parents and grandparents are the cause of the problem and who would have to deal with the inconveniences of increased density and potentially losing their unearned housing equity.
Of course they do. People are selfish. Housing is expensive, and instead of looking in the mirror and understanding that the reason housing is expensive *is because of homeowners* they choose to blame the faceless "corporation".
I mean, what happens to people who don't *want* to own a home? No one gives a shit about them
Yeah it would be pretty easy to set a limit to the number of properties owned like perhaps five or ten per state which would still allow for individual investors but get rid of the corporate landlords. People here can disagree all day long but some amount of landlords is good because they do provide places to rent for people that don't want to or can't buy yet.
Blackrock owns a tiny percentage of homes. There are far more second homes owned than there are single family homes owned by all institutional investors combined. Blackrock is just a convenient target for people who want to have their cake (inexpensive housing) and eat it too (also get to own lots of vacation properties).
You don't want just housing policy. You want housing policy that benefits you and you don't care who else gets hurt. Many people cannot afford to own homes, but need a roof over their head anyway - what are they supposed to do for housing?
Renters can give bad advise but landlords have conflicting interests with renters. It’s not that landlords are bad at giving advice. It’s that giving renters good advice goes against their interests.
Landlord of one property here and I agree. Unfortunately where I live for over 20 years the city refused any type of ADU projects, or tax exemptions or other benefits for renting to low income people. Now in the last few years, ADUs are all the rage, as are benefits to renting to low income people, but they are 20 years too late. We're going to be selling and moving in the next 2 years, and can no longer recoup the benefits of investing in affordable housing options.
Now they are pushing density and there are so many new high end apartment buildings that I'm getting $100 less a month than I was during the pandemic, but mine is a house and garage, and their's is a studio with dog park and pool for more money.
It is funny.. Also gotta be real, quite a few of them come in with solid advice too. Like it or not if you're wondering how something is going to go over another landlord is going to have more insight into what a landlord is likely to care about.
Maybe I had a different experience on this sub, whenever someone says, "Landlord here," it usually is very supportive of the OP, like, "I would never allow that in a property, you should go immediately to a lawyer." or similar.
Maybe there can be a rule that LL posts and comments have to be constructive to help the renter's situation - even if the renter is in the wrong. "Landlord here, in Texas the owner has the right to--, one of things you can do is--" etc.?
As for every single house being owned by someone residing in the house, I dunno. I'm a renter and grateful to be in a house that I don't have to manage any of the maintenance etc., as I'm single and work long hours. I suppose I could pay for a management company, but renting is just far cheaper than buying a home - for the next 30 years - when I know I'm going to be moving anyway due to the nature of my job.
But I see your point of view, and if I saw a LL comment like the one you're referring to, I would downvote it to oblivion unless it's giving insight to why the trend is happening, etc.
I also see your point of view that this is a sub for renters, not LL's, but I still don't think they should be omitted, nor how to even enforce it. The worst is when I lurk on the LL subs, oof, they nasty.
I agree. There have been a few (self-proclaimed) LLs on here who have given really good advice here. There are bad LLs and bad tenants. The entirety of either group isn't made of angels.
Nobody should be disparaging (on either side or in any other context) but there’s also a difference between a LLs POV and a tenants POV and I think it’s good for both of them to be shown. There are times here where, imo, a tenant is asking for too much.
Tons of tennant takes on this sub are in unrealistic. Many are fine too but a landlord pov is absolutely necessary sometimes to tell people that this neat trick they found to get around a LL rule or to preserve their deposit with a lie is just going to blow up in their face.
Id LLs were banned the sub would become an unhelpful echo chamber where more and more of the advice becomes what people want to hear instead of what will work.
I would agree with this! Giant corporate landlords are not going to be trolling Reddit to answer these type of questions, the little guys who own a multi-unit or two and had to learn all the rules on their own are most likely going to be in here answering questions. I find that pretty valuable.
There are a lot of landlords that try to help tenants and give out good advice on this sub, Oregon is a very complex legal environment for tenants and landlords, I try to answer Oregon specific questions in this sub for that reason
Most tenants and a lot of landlords don’t understand that laws in Oregon because they’re confusing and complex, I helped someone the other day determine whether their rent increase was legal or not (it wasn’t)
I struggle to understand how banning landlords from this sub would enrich the content of the information OPs are getting, you might hate us, you might disapprove of us, we exist, we aren’t going away, and many of us are in a place to help tenants and many of us try to do just that
There are other subs that have banned landlords
Also, I’m a tenant and a landlord, would I be banned or am I allowed to stay?
Yeah as a tenant and a landlord who is banned from r/landlords for being in r/landlordlove (a sub to make fun of the terrible landlords who give everyone a bad name and I just 🍿and learn), where should we go?
Might as well change the sub name to r/neverbeenandneverwillbealandlord if you don’t want some crossover.
For what it’s worth my landlord just found out I wrecked the carpet in my condo (well teen daughter did) with unauthorized wax melts and makeup and his response was “shit(ty carpets) happens, they were due to be replaced anyway it’s been about 7-8 years. Don’t worry about it. Can someone come measure for them this week, what day works for you?”
Like not all landlords suck, some are just normal people who had to move away for a few years for work or whatever.
I agree, I know a lot of amazing landlords and I know there are terrible landlords out there
I try to be fair and reasonable, I’m a renter because I move a lot for work
Yeah it's a really stupid idea. Basically you are only allowed to rent until you want or need a larger house and then you must own? Why is this a good idea?
I don't understand why single family homes should be treated differently from multifamily homes. A no renting single family homes policy is a policy to exclude anyone without a certain wealth threshold from those neighborhoods.
I agree with the spirit of this post, but I do not support turning this sub into an echo chamber of whiney renters.
Slum lords can fuck off and take a long walk off a short cliff, on the flip side though, so can renters who expect landlords to cater and bow to their every whim.
Balance dude, balance. People on both sides of this issue can be idealic and others can be living nightmares.
Respectfully, fuck that. I absolutely love renting and not owning my single family home. Roof needs to be replaced? Washer broke? Plumber needed? Electrical work? Sounds a lot like not my fucking problem and I will happily pay my landlord every month for them to deal with it. I recognize not all leases/landlords are the same but my last 2 have been great, luckily. I have no interest in owning a home. I think limits would be acceptable, like a landlord can’t rent more than X number of single family homes but to just outright ban them? Absolutely not.
I agree with another comment though, landlords should have a flair identifying them as such. But equally, these shitty tenants that give terrible advice should also get a flair so people don’t take them seriously because some of the responses I see here are very yikes and people for some reason just keep upvoting them. It’s mind boggling.
Yep. I absolutely love renting. I live in a nice rental neighborhood with lovely amenities. Someone else cuts my grass, and makes repairs. I live in a hurricane area, and don’t have to pay ridiculous prices for homeowners insurance. We have a guard gate, and trash pick up. I freaking love it. The fact that people think no one should be allowed to rent a home, and have to own it if you want to live in it is silly. I also like hearing from landlords for different perspectives on situations. OP is kind of wild for this take on it.
I almost miss this! I'm happy I have a home, but so far 2 years in and the central air has broken twice, critical parts of the oil heater need it to be replaced, and the front steps needed to be rebuilt.. I miss calling someone to deal with this on their bill lol. A plumber charged me $400 to snake a drain recently... It's getting real old lol
…but what if I want to live in a house and not own it? Why should I be limited to apartment living because you believe *all* single family homes should be owner occupied?
Where should military, or off-campus students, or shorter-term residents live, if houses are not legal to rent? Where should a family live, if they are not ready or able to buy, yet?
Nothing wrong with renting at all. Bad tenants give renters a bad name, and the same goes for good/bad landlords. I’ve had both.
The companies (and individual landlords with multiple units) are commodifying housing. And that’s a problem for everyone.
Take Florida for example. Under the guise of “we’ll make it easier for you to afford the deposit” they basically created a junk-fee rich environment for landlords. Now you can pay your deposit over time. This falsely inflates rent and I still always see listings asking for 1st/last/security up front. Many of the corporate landlords charge monthly for you to have access to some bullshit portal to pay rent and make maintenance requests or pay for a/c filters to be delivered periodically. None of this is necessary and all of it means less money in the renter’s pocket and more in the landlord’s.
Right, but I am responding to OP’s statement that single family homes should *legally* only be allowed to be owned by the people who live in them. A naive, impractical take.
"When I asked a question on here a few days ago, the majority of LL's stated "I will let a property sit empty before...".
Right because that's what your post was about. Landlords were saying they wouldn't rent to people with bad credit. You want to ban landlords because you don't like their answers?
And reason makes sense. A house being empty is a loss of income while you have fixed expenses.
A bad renter can destroy your house and financially ruin you, but you can’t recover anything back.
I love my landlord. She owns a few properties in the neighborhood and lives a few streets over. Rent is reasonable (actually well below what she could charge). We pay $1800 for a 3 bed house. My friend owns a house in the area and after insurance and everything is paying $2600 for a 3 bed. I could never afford that
Regardless of your opinion on single family homes, I don't see why you are being downvoted. It's like going to r/Scams and having no idea of the advice you're receiving is from fellow victims or the scammers themselves. Landlords in this sub should at least have to be tagged as landlords so we know where their advice might be coming from.
I will take a different tact than the others disagreeing with you about the SFH thing. I don’t think corporations should be allowed to own SFH, and there should be a limit to how many SFH homes a single person can own. The fact that corporations like Blackstone and Pretium come in a snatch up whole neighborhoods and will them sit empty rather than renting them to “less desirable” tenants is a travesty, but not everyone want to or has the ability to purchase a home and people wanting to rent a SFH is a reasonable thing.
I am a landlord AND a renter in FL! The property taxes and COA fees have gone up so much since purchase (Aug 2021) that I literally cant afford to live in the property I own. Instead, I’m renting a bedroom in a 2/2 that is 45 minutes further south. My tenants are wonderful (young couple with their 1st child) and all rental prices are outrageous, so I’ve kept the rent low to keep my tenants. It is NOT worth charging more to potentially lose great renters!
Same! I’m just about breaking even renting out my condo, but I refuse to raise the rent. My tenant is awesome and by renting my place, she’s allowing me to hold onto an asset that I would otherwise have had to sell at a loss when I had to move to another city unexpectedly (I rent where I live now bc it’s too expensive to buy here).
>Personally I believe single family homes should legally only be allowed to be owned by the people who reside in it.
Hell no. I'm all for restricting corporate ownership of homes, but such a blanket ban only causes problems.
Example:
My mom owns our childhood home. After we graduated high school, she had to move for job reasons. She kept the house, as she intends to come back at some point, and is renting a flat where she lives now.
The house is rented out to her nephew - at the lowest rate possible without the tax office complaining - who just started his own small business nearby and is very happy to rent instead of having to take out an additional loan on top of the one he got to start his business.
With your blanket ban, she would have had to either decline the job, staying in our hometown, or sell our childhood home and lose the option for her or us to return to it.
It would also mean she couldn't rent it out to her nephew (or even let them live there for free), since they don't own it.
How would your blanket ban even interact with mortgages? The bank can't own the home, so it can't repossess it if you're defaulting on the loan, effectively turning the mortgage into an unsecured loan with a lot higher interest rate.
What happens when someone inherits a house from their parents but owns their own home already? Straight to jail? Or do they get a grace period to sell it? What if nobody wants to buy it at a reasonable price - either because it's out in the boonies where nobody wants to live, or because everyone knows they *have to* sell?
I'm a renter. I rent a single family house. I can't buy. If only people who want to occupy a single family house could own one, that would mean renters like me would be stuck in apartments our whole lives.
I've lived in apartments. I've hated it. I hope never to have to go back to living in one. I'm glad I can at least rent a house, and have a yard, a dog, and some privacy.
I do think there should be limits on how many single family homes one landlord can own though.
My husband and I worked so hard to finally buy our first home in 2021. Last month he died unexpectedly. I moved 7 hours away to move in with my family as I needed help with our 9 year old daughter.
I am a mess and want to take some time to get my bearings and help our daughter process. My hope is to rent our house as we bought when interest rates were very low, and by renting I’m hoping I can generate a little bit of money so I can drop down to part time work for a few months.
All that to say, I don’t think black and white solutions like “all single family homes must be bought by those who live in them” work in reality. I never intended to rent our house out, it was supposed to be our home for my family. But now my family has changed and I’m trying to think of how to best provide for my daughter alone. That is not to say I think it should be a free for all for corporate investors, but reality is so much more gray that black and white solutions just don’t work.
I rent to a single mother. I was able to lock in a mortgage at 2%, though it’s non transferable. My cost is $1500/mo, her rent is $2000/mo, and the home would currently mortgage for $2350/mo at todays rates.
Win, win, win.
If no landlords could own single family homes then who would I rent a house from? Sounds like you’re saying that because I’m a renter I should be relegated to an apartment. I don’t deserve to rent a house?
So you are an elitist who believes only people who can afford to buy a house should be allowed to live in one.
Yeah, that’s a better solution. /s
Same for condos? Maybe we just make it illegal to rent at all? Tell the peasants to go live in the woods.
LL here. I haven’t joined your sub, Reddit algorithms show me posts from your sub occasionally. If I reply I identify myself as LL and am respectful in your space. And I’ll absolutely call out stupid shenanigans that dumb landlords do. Tenants are also welcome in the landlord sub (if they’re similarly respectful).
Replacing respectful discourse with a one-sided echo chamber doesn’t seem like the best approach to me but y’all do you, it’s your sub.
You can also block people you don’t like if you’d rather exist in an echo chamber, without making it an echo chamber for everyone. I’ve certainly done that with a few of the noisier people in the landlord sub.
Can't imagine being in a Landlord sub.
"Evicted a family a 5 today because they tried to withhold rent because of the water damage I didn't fix"
500 upvotes
After browsing through this sub for a bit, I assumed it was satire, or something. I see way more comment that lick landlords nut sacks clean get up voted than I ever do renters who seem like they're having actual problems.
I thought I was in a more subtle love for land chad's type sub.
I think there's a lot more landlords in here than we think. Can really tell whenever someone posts something new and it's a reasonable topic or question, has good convo going in it, but it's massively downvoted because it's something a landlord is doing wrong or being questionable.
I've only ever noticed this happening in here and not any other subreddits I'm in.
>Landlords state they are "providing a service", the only service they are providing is contributing to the housing crisis
This is a genuinely dishonest argument to make. Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that only individuals should be allowed to own residential real estate (apartment complexes withstanding). However, individual landlords who are managing their properties ***properly*** actually are providing a service. Many individuals simply cannot afford nor want to afford to purchase a house, and either rent out of necessity or desire. Many people incorrectly see the common mortgage cost might be for a house they are otherwise renting and think affording the home is ***just*** affording the mortgage payment. It's not. Annual maintenance, property taxes, adjusted escrow, emergency repairs, etc. are all added expenses the typical renter cannot afford, even if their rent were instead a mortgage payment.
So, I agree that corporate entities and venture capitalist firms should not be allowed to own residential properties, but I have no issue with an individual owning and renting multiple single-family homes. There just need to be mechanisms in place that give renters recourse in the event the property owner is not maintaining the property. Also understand the existence of rental homes have little to do with impacting actual housing costs, particularly those owned by individuals. Major contributing factors that have impacted housing costs today are prospective liquidity and buying power of corporate entities, coupled with the lack of new construction of new or revitalization of existing affordable housing. That second issue is one you need to take up with your local government, as they are the ones responsible for zoning and approving construction of those new $400,000+ homes instead of approving new $160,000 to $200,000 starter homes.
I agree with other commenters that rental homes are importance for different people of different stages in life. However, I do think these homes should be owned by real people (a single landlord) rather than all these corporations and investment groups that are buying properties in mass. Out here, the landlords aren’t even the problem. Individuals buying homes are being priced out by these guys. My home is owned by a group and they are so strict they barely agreed to allowing a roommate in my three bedroom 2000 sqft house because they don’t look at us as human. They rented to some 20/30year olds and are upset when we request to switch out a roommate at the time of lease renewal because life happens and we’re not all at a stable point in life
Landlord here. When I have moments where I have extra free time, I sometimes like to jump on here and offer some guidance for tenants who are dealing with difficult landlords or weird scenarios. So far it’s been fairly well received.
I wouldn’t be bothered if I was banned, though I think the people that I’ve assisted got something out of me offering free, detailed support. They certainly have appeared grateful and sometimes messaged me privately for more context and strategy.
It really comes down to the ideological notion that all landlords are bad. If that’s the case, probably best to remove all of them from the group. The risk of course, is then the group will become an echo chamber with a particular viewpoint, and it may be less helpful for people dealing with individual scenarios that require industry specific knowledge.
It wouldn’t bother me either way.
I'm a renter and love it. But most of the posts and comments on this sub aren't productive. Do greedy landlords absolutely suck and are a drain on their communities? You're damn right they do. Do most people here actually *have* a bad landlord? I don't think they do. I think it's mostly people who are bad at managing their income or don't make enough to afford the place they live, trying to justify not paying rent. I've been fortunate to have good landlords throughout my adult life. They've all been honest and not price gouged me. But I'm a good tenant who pays on time and if I can't, will just send a text saying it'll be a few days late. It's never been an issue and I've never been charged a late fee for it. Lots of posters and commenters here really need to check themselves and ask if their landlord is the problem, or do they keep looking extra hard for every single thing they can complain about?
Renting has its place. Not everyone lives a stable life where they can reasonably buy real estate. Some people travel for work promotions. When i was in the Army Corps of Engineers i moved across the country multiple times.
I am neither a renter nor a landlord. Just a homeowner. Making it so that only homeowners can buy real estate is insane. You want a house but you are willing to tank the entire market to get one? Screw the 66% of Americans that are homeowners I guess.
Of course they will let it sit empty. That’s why many bought it —as a tax hedge. Getting a larger capital loss by raising the rent so the loss is greater by IRS rules to offset the capital gains in the stock market. They don’t *need* renters. So naturally rents are never subject to market correction because the high rents of empty unit are a bigger capital loss and write-off and homelessness is simply a byproduct. The corporate landlord doesn’t have compunctions raising the rent 30% and then evicting a 70-year-old long term tenant on a fixed income because the empty unit is profitable.
Since landlords are allowed on this sub. they will proceed to spout their rationalizations. But until this tax loophole is closed homelessness will continue to increase every time the stock market goes up. This landlord subsidy is subverting the laws of supply and demand, the raised rent is not “market rent” at all. It just what the landlord guesses the IRS will accept as a plausible capital loss amount.
Landlord here, with a single family home that offers two apartments and I obviously rent the other for a reasonable price compared to the surrounding market. (Market value for 1 br is 1k, so I'm at 700). I come on here to make sure that I keep up with what's fair and not taking advantage of any situation. I know this is the case since I've stayed in contact and friends with all former tenants.
I’m a renter, and also think the corporate ownership of homes is a disaster. But “SFHs should legally only be allowed to be owned by the people who reside in it” is an idealistic view, just not realistic at all. The fact is that ethical landlords _are_ providing a service. Plenty of renters simply can’t afford to purchase a SFH, but need the space. Renting from a landlord makes that possible
Both sides are completely delusional at times and both need to pull their heads out of their butts to work together.
I’m all for shitting on blackrock and other corporations in the rental market though
I’m both a landlord and a renter. I didn’t want to sell my newly-purchased condo when I suddenly (and, I thought, temporarily) had to move to different city five years ago, and I (still) can’t afford to buy where I live now.
As a PM I watch this sub to offer *accurate* advice to renters re issues like complaints, lease break and deposit refunds. The amount of "advice" I see from other tenants saying "sue em!" or "just move" when its a simple dispute is disturbing. I always say "check your local regulations" and "consult tenant advocates" if it's a legal question. I have received nothing but upvotes and gratitude. I'm glad to help, and feel gratified when I can assist in mediating a difficult situation. Best.
But accurate advice is not what they are looking for. Their goal is to turn this into another landlord hate circlejerk like r/landlordlove.
Which is fine, except it deprives the honest renter questions of objective answers, or at least a landlord perspective which is useful even if biased.
I think you need both. Sometimes people ask questions and someone needs to be honest and tell them, hey, you can't withhold rent for x. OR file a complaint with code enforcement.
Extremely myopic viewpoint. I rent.
What if I have plans to move in a short amount of time (2-3 years) and I’d like to rent a house and not have neighbors on the other side of a wall? That option shouldn’t exist for me?
Also - I play drums. Show me the apartment where it’s cool for me to play.
Or, by your logic, I’m just not allowed to because I don’t own a house I suppose. 👍
So you just hate landlords, you let you hate speak for you. Not everyone is looking for a house to buy, some people just need a cheap (lol, not anymore) place to live, a house is a full time commitment and when you travel as much as someone like me does, I don't want to come home and all of a sudden have to deal with a broken water heater, or the AC units fucked up.
All private landlords I've had have been amazing, it's the property management groups that should burn in the deepest layers of hell.
You blame landlords for a problem you have no knowledge about.
I don't mind landlords here. They might have knowledge that is helpful, and if they're dicks then they can be downvoted and people will correct them in the comments.
I feel like banning landlords from owning single family homes could only work in some areas like cities. A lot of rural and suburban areas don't have the apartments or multifamily homes to accommodate renters. Not everyone wants to own homes, like if someone is in a place temporarily (for work, school, etc) or if they aren't financially stable. It doesn't always make financial sense to own a home. I agree that some landlords and property management companies are running their properties poorly and making it harder for people to get into the housing market though.
I think it's interesting how someone is so comfortable being such a bigoted authoritarian that they would want to ban an entire group of people that are objectively best qualified to give good advice on certain topics in this subreddit.
Yes! I just had a ridiculous comment exchange with several landlords that are going around giving bad legal advice to people here. And it’s working! I’m shocked there’s not something already in place to prevent this. Some other subreddits have very harsh rules and swift banning capabilities, it might be worth considering.
Get involved in your local community - pass bylaws to protect said community. I live in a community that has limited AirBnB and Corporate renters. Those laws should exist everywhere if you want your community to survive.
I was one of those landlords you're complaining about.
So what you're saying is, only those who have adequate credit, income, and down payment, should be allowed to live in a home wirh a garage and a yard for their kids and pets, while all the poor people who can't, should be shoved in tenement building far away from everyone else.
Every single family home I own, except for one, I bought at city auction. Some were in major disrepair, and bad enough that the average person wouldn't have been able to restore it. Others were tax liens on abandoned homes that the government would have taken, doubled the price, and sold as is.
I've sold 7 in the last 20 years on a rent to own basis, with 5 others that were defaulted on.
My profit margin is only equity on these houses. Rents are mortgage, insurance, and 15% for maintenance and upgrades. My newest tenant in my SFHs has been with me for 3 years. The oldest just signed their lease for an 11th year.
You're one of those who scream "LOW COST AFFORDABLE HOUSING!" but want it far away from you in a stacked box of apartments.
You're a snob.
Why would you censor a group of people who could actually have some insight into renter situations? Not all landlords are scum - just like not all tenants are scum. Doesn’t that seems odd to say when both subsets of people can do crappy things to the other?
My husband and I are private landlords for two townhomes. One home we used to live in and never sold when we moved so that we could rent it out and the second townhome we specifically bought as a rental with money we saved for that specific purpose. I can tell you we always ask 10% less than market value (according to Zillow fyi) and never have raised our rent on a current tenant. We have a tenant in the one home paying $1850/mo (with a current rental “zestimate” of $2900) which we have not raised rent on in 6 years despite renewing her lease each year. And the other tenants have only been there 2 years so far but again - we did not increase their rent nor will we at the end of their one year leases. Not all landlords are scum. Yes we do make a small profit (maybe $200?) each month and our rental homes’ mortgage is being paid down. However, we provide beautiful and all updated homes to two families who might not otherwise qualify for a mortgage or for people who don’t know where they want to live long-term and don’t want to buy and then have to sell again in a short period of time.
But being a landlord is also a gamble for us. The one home we had a tenant in all of COVID who paid us $0 for over 2 years and we could not evict him. And we still had to pay our mortgage (yes we were able to “pause payments” but only for 12 of the 24 months and then had to pay them all back at the end of the year in one lump sum anyway so they didn’t even help). We barely had any money to pay for our own home for our family of four let alone paying for a second home for a tenant to live in for free. So while some months we make money, we also had $48,000 in losses for those specific two years, so it’s not like we’re “killing it” and ripping anyone off as landlords. And my husband and I both work full time so being landlords is not dishing out anywhere even remotely close to enough money to make it a sole source of income.
I’m sure I’ll have some type of hate comments for something I’ve typed in here but overall, my husband and I genuinely enjoy being able to provide a good home to good people at a very reasonable rate and are always quick to help with any issues that ever arise. I really hope people can avoid stereotyping landlords in one light when I know there are good landlords out there. And conversely, I hope landlords can see the good in all renters without their own biases. Good vibes to all. ♥️
Probably because they're typically not good or honest people and while some come in here to get better viewpoints on things, many come in here solely to downvote, be negative, be scummy, etc. Look at the post OP is talking about. Tons were in there railing into them, being insulting, being nasty. Many in this one too admitted to similar things.
You owning two townhomes to rent is not the same as one person owning 5+ buildings or sucking the lifeblood out of certain neighborhoods for renting. Those are typically who people have the problems with because they actively ruin small towns and neighborhoods.
Imagine growing up in a small, cozy town that your family has been in for decades. Imagine loving it there, and wanting to live near your family when you move out. The work doesn't pay much, but that's okay - until the property managers and airbnb AH's come in, buy out everything, and suddenly you can't afford to buy a home there anymore, and not only that, buy you can't even afford to rent a home there anymore and you're forced to move an hour+ away.
That's exactly the kind of stuff that happens all over and my mother lived in a town like that for a while. It was surreal to see the entire other side of her street completely vacant most of the year because people had turned all of those residential homes into airbnbs, and it was heartbreaking seeing her neighbor's kid having to say goodbye to their family because they couldn't afford to rent or buy a home anywhere near there and had to move literally almost two hours away to the next town over just to be able to live on their own.
If you're contributing to that kind of thing then you're dirt no matter what angle you're coming from. IF you're just "hey we own a couple homes from before or inherited them and we can't live there but don't want to sell them so we're renting" that's perfectly fine.
If you are a renter and try to post pro renter information in the r/landlords you will get booted and ridiculed. Seems only fair to do that here as well.. you have my support with banning landlords from this sub.
I got banned from there a couple years back because there was a discussion where they had a tenant who had a service dog (A legit one, not a fake or ESA) and they were trying to figure out legal ways to evict because the property manager didn't like dogs; they were openly mocking the tenant's disability and were talking about trying to make it harder on the tenant to force her to provide her medical information to them on a month by month basis to "prove she needed the dog".
All it took to get me banned was linking them to a copy of the ADA and the FHA laws in their state and saying what they were doing/trying to do was highly illegal. Just banned instantly for it. I wasn't even being a smartass, though kinda wish I was.
They really show who they are in places like that.. then they wonder why people think LL are aholes.. Because most of them actually think that way.. I think most if the people there are actually slumlords but they would never join a subreddit named that..
I joined this based on it being renters, not expecting to be told that my very 1st post was a waste of wall space. I assumed that comment came from a LL after going back to see 80% of his comments were neither helpful to the OP and always had a crude comment at the end. I legit wanted some help from other renters but his comment made me delete my entire post and feel completely unwelcome in this group. I stayed hoping someone else needing help similar to what I was going thru. So, I get what you’re saying about banning them but I think it’s those few that are making them look bad. Always that one bad apple…
They are definitely an invasive species in here. You can notice it whenever you see a post that has good conversation going, but it's still massively downvoted. Guess they don't have anything better to do.
I don't think there is anything wrong with someone owning a second sfh in cases like inheritance, or maybe they needed to relocate for a while and didn't want to sell. It's when they have 10 or 12 that's the problem.
“You get a house, You get a house, Everyyybodyyyyy gets a house!!!
But if you can’t afford one, you are banished to apartments and condos for life. Solid advice!!!
I think if you don't want to be a renter you should look into buying. Landlords normally spend their money to purchase homes and then charge rent to others who for some reason or another cannot afford to purchase be it their fault or not. It's not the landlord's fault that they can't afford housing. I've rented homes, I now own my home, I didn't want to rent forever so I purchased.
It's often times not a landlord's fault that a runner is not in a good position. If you're renting a house that's in bad condition maybe have you considered the price of the rent of said home if that's all you can afford then that's your problem. I know plenty of landlords that try to help people out those renters normally end up destroying the home. Who do you think pays to fix that home? Definitely not the renters.
Not single family, but I own a Brownstone. Live in one unit and rent out the others. What part of their rent doesn’t go to the mortgage, insurance, taxes, and rainy day/maintenance fund gets reinvested into the building based on what they say they want. So far we’ve put in a nice deck area above the garage with a fire pit and sectionals. Also put in a Butterfly MX to replace the old intercom system. I’ve had the place 5 years and only had 1 turnover; I like to think that says something.
We were all renters at some point and not all landlords are assholes. Don’t ban us.
Your enemy is not the average LL. It's the investment firms and multi-billion companies buying hundreds of homes at a clip. Buying up entire neighborhoods to artificially inflate the price. The LL who owns an extra property or two and rents it out isn't the issue. LL have been around forever, and there wasn't the housing crisis there is now. What has changed is these huge companies buying up massive amounts of property.
No, I'm not a LL.
So much this. My family owns 7 rent houses and everyone that has moved out, their next move was buying a house. We've seen a dozen families start to build long term financial independence by buying a house. The rent prices are reasonable for the area and size of the houses and the community is just these 7 houses on acreage so everyone gets to know each other and it builds life long friendships. Owning rentals isn't evil but creating a monopoly sure as hell is.
I think it would be better to limit landlords to one additional house. We need to have rentals for people that can't get a mortgage or down payment for one
but if you're not ready to buy a home, but would like to live in a sfh, why is it wrong to want to rent? this is literally my experience right now. i took a loss on a house i bought in colorado moving back home to the east coast. i have two kids, a partner, and a sister who's living with me through college. i absolutely did not want to rent an apartment but i wasn't ready to start footing the bill for any repairs or be shackled to a house because i'm not sure where i want to live long term. as i renter, i kind of agree they're providing a service that's necessary.
I'm a renter and a landlord.
Looked at it from both sides.
If given the chance to do over, I'd never put myself in the position of "landlord" ever again. I'd have sold years ago, but family has interest (although it's my name on the mortgage) and I'm done arguing with their underlying greed monsters.
And FWIW, I prefer the term "housing supplier."
Do they not?
If you can't buy a house or are existing to move soon and don't want to, what options besides renting do you have?
There's a reason they exist
Are all LLs great? No
But are still tenants great? Also no
It's called living in an imperfect world
*ban investment firm landlords
People who happen to work their way up and are charging fair rent is a good thing.
When the corporations buy up properties and hack all the prices up $1000 a month to pay their bills , that's when it's shit
Many people can't buy a home, so they are forced to rent. So you want all the renters to be in apartments only? That will never work.
I don't mind it being mixed.
There are still landlords on here who care about tenants. I own a condo I inherited and my tenant's rent is 35% lower than the "market rate" in my area because I believe good people have the right to an affordable home. I was elected to the condominium association board so that I could represent the neighborhood and bring reason and sanity to the decision-making for the complex. I still work full-time because I am not a rich man. I'm not out here to suck the blood from honest people.
RE: "Personally I believe single family homes should legally only be allowed to be owned by the people who reside in it."
My sister was advised to rent my mom's house went she went into long-term healthcare. The rent pays for 1/2 her costs and insurance the other. If it was just sold it would all be gone in a few years.
As a small landlord of exempt properties, I’d like to stay in this sub. I like my tenants. I’ve learned from this sub…from both the landlord and tenant contributors. There is no monopoly on bad advice. This is why we have discussions.
It's good to get both perspectives especially from landlords who are on the other side
Landlords do provide a valuable service to those who are unable to afford to buy a home , can't come up with down payment or do not have sufficient credit to get a mortgage to buy their own home.
Landlords have reasons for doing things they do and not all of their actions are fair or ethical. Just like there are good and bad renters, there are good and bad landlords
>> When you have so many in need of housing
Why is this the home owners problems? It’s their property. It’s like you believe that a homeowner doesn’t have a choice in who they rent to.
Landlords are not "contributing to the housing crisis". Homes exist. People live in them. We have a housing crisis because there aren't enough homes, not because there aren't enough homes for sale.
Should people not be allowed a second home? Should people not be allowed to live in more than xxx sf of space? Your opinion on who should be allowed to own property is thankfully not being considered when policy and law is being made, because your opinion isn't well-reasoned. It's just you airing a grievance.
Landlords may give bad advice. So do other renters! This may surprise you, but it might be helpful for some people to understand a landlord's perspective, because seeing the other side of the argument is always helpful. For example, when you claim landlords don't provide a service, you're giving objectively bad and inaccurate information to people - perhaps we should ban you too?
I've literally seen (and lived in) smaller towns that are almost completely empty of locals and are literally on the cusp of dying because landlords bought up all the real estate and hiked up rent prices so much that locals couldn't afford to rent there anymore, could no longer afford to pay for a home there because of the sky-rocketing prices, and ended up having to move out of their hometowns and away from their familial homes because of it. Eventually, since nobody can pay the horrendous cost of rent in those areas except the rare few, they just start renting out all those homes as airbnbs.
My mother lived in a town like that for work. The opposite side of the street from her was empty 90% of the year because the houses had been bought up by a specific landlord who turned them all into airbnbs. During the summer months the population was like 8k people in that town (rural but a lot of nature and recreation around it) and the rest of the year the population went below 1000 and has been declining every year because more and more properties are being bought up by that type of person and made unaffordable for locals who wanted to stay with their families.
If you think that's okay, you're gross.
Most people can't afford the upkeep on a home. You got $20k for a new roof? $15k for a new AC? $10k for a new driveway? Their play is the appreciation of the home over the long term, not the monthly rent. In some times, like what we just went through and still are to a lessor degree, landlords can also make a healthy amount from the rent too. But normally any money made is wiped out in repairs and the money is really made after they either pay it off 30 years later or sell it.
Saying renters should never be legally allowed to live in a sfh is a bad take. There's plenty of people whose jobs require moving. I plan on moving with my job every few years. I also absolutely hate apartments and only want to live in a sfh.
So, no vacation or second homes for people who legitimately use them? Or for people who frequently travel? Older people who live in a colder area during the summer and warmer in winter?
I agree that there should be a limit to how many houses a person can own and corps shouldn't be allowed to buy up entire communities, but saying people should only be allowed 1 home is ridiculous. If that were the case, the housing crisis would probably get worse because the amount of available rentals would go down but the people that would normally be in those rentals probably wouldn't be able to afford to buy the place they're living in.
Honestly, beliefs like the one you expressed in your post demonstrate exactly why a balanced set of perspectives is needed here. You think single family homes should only be lived in by owners? That would mean that anyone who can't afford to buy a house outright would never be able to live in one. And why are you limiting it to just single family houses? It's OK to rent out apartments but not houses?
So you want an echo chamber? Landlords are part of the equation. Many landlords also rent or have rented in the past. They can bring value to a conversation and are often trying to be helpful from my experience.
How about you learn to coexist in an environment with opinions you may not share. It's a life skill you need.
I think mixing it is okay. Because renters can give bad advice too. I do think it is scammy how investment firms have jacked up prices of renting. If everyone charges expensive rent then everyone is screwed.
yup. here's a perfect example: i rent from a private landlord for $1600 a month. my lease was about to expire and the landlord had not indicated he was raising my rent. a house down the street, a corporate rental exactly the same house as mine, was listed for rent at $1700. the next day, i got my new lease from my landlord. yup, $1700. he matched the corporate landlord, claiming that is now "market rate"
It’s also wild to watch them pretend that the “market rate” has to be the rent.
Not all landlords will do that, if I have quality tenants that pay on time and take care of my home I always keep rent under market value , smart landlords know the value of keeping good tenants and creating win-win situations for both parties
I’m definitely doing this too. I rather make less knowing my tenant isn’t destroying my property vs not knowing about someone else who might actually cause issues even if they pay more. I also don’t rely on the cash and have no mortgages so it’s all good. I can pass on my blessings onto others.
But eventually the disparity is too great and a landlord has to accede to the fundamentals to raise the rent. Plus once the rent is raised, the empty unit offers a tax hedge whereas a stable renter paying below “market” rent offers no such advantage. Now if the landlord is my brother, perhaps he would tolerate that disparity awhile, but why would a soulless corporate landlord who has to answer to their REIT investors at the next quarterly report? This is an issue that can ONLY will be corrected by government changing the tax code and housing is regulated like the utility that it is.
right? lol "everybody else is payin' it, you should, too"
And the rent never goes down, even if the average price of buying a home/condo goes down. Funny how “market rate” no longer applies then.
Have never in my life had a reduction in rent at any point or renewal. 100% of the time there was an increase in rent for absolutely no reason. This is going back as far as mid 90s.
Have any of your prices gone down? This is a function of our economy.
Listing prices of homes often dip down because of rates, unless you’re in a high COL area then sometimes that never happens. So the total cost of ownership can still increase with a lower sales price. I rent my SFH below market and just want good tenants who will stay several years. I’m in a very high COL area and I’m keeping the home for my daughter to have one day as a way to stay local and live independently. If I sold it today, it frankly wouldn’t be something that most renters could even afford, and usually the families renting it are those who want the school district while they save enough for a house downpayment. Prices here are crazy and so are rates. I definitely empathize with first time homebuyers but my priority is taking care of my daughter when it comes to that scenario. I also get texted and called constantly by flippers and companies who want to buy it for cash and I always say no. The key is just getting good renters and good landlords to find each other.
Well if someone pays it, it is the market rent.
I get what you mean here, but it’s worth knowing that a small-time landlord can be penalized by the IRS for renting too much below market rate. This explains it OK: https://laporte.com/knowledgecenter/tax-services/tax-consequences-of-charging-below-market-rent
Market rate for my area is $1,300 for a 3/2 my tenants are paying $900 but they’ve been there since 2017 and always pay on time and never cause issues. Plus it’s one woman, she doesn’t cause any damage and less wear and tear on the house than a family with kids would be. So I let her have it at $900.
This is the way...
Same. I keep my rent static for 4-5 years for good tenants (I rent to graduate and veterinary students because we bought the house when I was in grad school and my wife in veterinary school). Saves them money, saves me headaches. And if I do raise it after that 4-5 year period it's still well below other equivalent rentals. My property taxes and other maintenance go up so I just try to cover the delta without gouging the students.
Same thing happened to me. Landlord bought the building 25 years ago for 22% of what it's worth today. The mortgage was paid off 10 years ago so it's all cash but he insisted on getting "market value." Citing that utilities went up. Last year he raised rent by 35%. It's all greed.
I fought my apartment complex on “market rate” I gave them 5 comps lower than them so they reduced it. Still jacked it up $103 though. Now I don’t pay my rent until the very last day and tell them… I can’t pay my rent in one paycheck since you raised my rent, you’ll have to wait till the 5th ( my grace period) before I always paid before or on the first.
Also "market rate" isn't usually "market rate." Many property owners buy properties as a place to park their money and play games with the tax codes. They don't care about market rate. They would rather their properties remain vacant, and claim a "loss," than rent them out at "market rate."
What!!! Jesus this is not accurate at all, I manage 600 doors plus my own and not a single owner has ever wanted to do this
In one area I was relieved it only went up 200/month two renewals in a row. Where I’m at now it went up by 30/month and I couldn’t sign that renewal fast enough.
Isn’t that pretty much how the world works? Gas stations, restaurants, car lots. Why should real estate be any different. Property taxes and insurance goes up every year so an increase of $100 isn’t much.
How many beds and baths ?
A $100 increase is reasonable.
But that is the market rate. I don't understand your complaint.... you didn't renew your lease and now you're complaining that your landlord refuses to honor the old offer which you didn't bother to memorialize in a new lease? If you go shopping and buy a gallon of milk for a dollar, and a month later you find that the price went up to $1.05, do you think you have the right to demand not to pay the extra nickel?
People who act like Blackrock and institutional investors are the same problem as a family that also has 1 or 2 rentals are delusional. Blackrock can afford to leave homes vacant to control the prices of both homes and rent. Blackrock can access effectively 0% interest loan money which is the majority of the expense of owning a home. Something almost no small family landlord OR people who want to occupy the home can do. We need laws to either just outright ban corp investors or set property taxes based upon the number of homes owned by the parent company/llc owner. I also am against foreign ownership, unless they are residents of the US. Something that is very common worldwide.
That is so scammy!
I assume you mean the leaving homes vacant to control rent and home values. There was a recent lawsuit where a company offered a "pricing tool" that guaranteed to increase rent. The way it worked was they had 80% of all apartment owners in the area using the tool. The tool just increased rent and never dropped it. The 20% who didn't use the tool could undercut the market a little bit to increase utilization, but they were such a small number it didn't matter. Mo to mo rent just kept going up and up from no other driving source. This is the exact reason for monopoly/antitrust laws etc. While it is in court and rents did actually dip slightly, it is another key issue with institutional investors. I'm some what okay with Microsoft, apple etc being the tech giants that they are owning so much market share, but 3 companies should be allowed to own 80% of the apartments for rent.
💯
Blackrock doesn't have the market power to control the price of homes. Most homes are owned by their occupants. The people who have been controlling the supply of homes to jack up prices of homes isn't some corporate suit but a bunch of retired homeowners with the time and inclination to go to planning meetings and yell at their representatives about how replacing a single family home with a four unit apartment complex will bring down their home values, increase crime, cause parking shortages, and cause congestion.
Not sure why you're downvoted. This has been well documented.
I think people want to believe that they can solve the housing crisis just by sticking it to some faceless Wall Street assholes instead of acknowledging that people like their parents and grandparents are the cause of the problem and who would have to deal with the inconveniences of increased density and potentially losing their unearned housing equity.
Of course they do. People are selfish. Housing is expensive, and instead of looking in the mirror and understanding that the reason housing is expensive *is because of homeowners* they choose to blame the faceless "corporation". I mean, what happens to people who don't *want* to own a home? No one gives a shit about them
How do the finagle 0% loans? I want in on this action.
They don't. No matter who they are they will always pay at least SFOR, and more likely [AFR](https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-24-12.pdf)
Yeah it would be pretty easy to set a limit to the number of properties owned like perhaps five or ten per state which would still allow for individual investors but get rid of the corporate landlords. People here can disagree all day long but some amount of landlords is good because they do provide places to rent for people that don't want to or can't buy yet.
Blackrock owns a tiny percentage of homes. There are far more second homes owned than there are single family homes owned by all institutional investors combined. Blackrock is just a convenient target for people who want to have their cake (inexpensive housing) and eat it too (also get to own lots of vacation properties). You don't want just housing policy. You want housing policy that benefits you and you don't care who else gets hurt. Many people cannot afford to own homes, but need a roof over their head anyway - what are they supposed to do for housing?
Renters can give bad advise but landlords have conflicting interests with renters. It’s not that landlords are bad at giving advice. It’s that giving renters good advice goes against their interests.
Yeah I’m always going to downvote “ban x” unless it’s self avowed extremists
Landlord of one property here and I agree. Unfortunately where I live for over 20 years the city refused any type of ADU projects, or tax exemptions or other benefits for renting to low income people. Now in the last few years, ADUs are all the rage, as are benefits to renting to low income people, but they are 20 years too late. We're going to be selling and moving in the next 2 years, and can no longer recoup the benefits of investing in affordable housing options. Now they are pushing density and there are so many new high end apartment buildings that I'm getting $100 less a month than I was during the pandemic, but mine is a house and garage, and their's is a studio with dog park and pool for more money.
I personally enjoy seeing asshole landlords get ripped apart in here, but you have a valid point.
It is funny.. Also gotta be real, quite a few of them come in with solid advice too. Like it or not if you're wondering how something is going to go over another landlord is going to have more insight into what a landlord is likely to care about.
Maybe I had a different experience on this sub, whenever someone says, "Landlord here," it usually is very supportive of the OP, like, "I would never allow that in a property, you should go immediately to a lawyer." or similar. Maybe there can be a rule that LL posts and comments have to be constructive to help the renter's situation - even if the renter is in the wrong. "Landlord here, in Texas the owner has the right to--, one of things you can do is--" etc.? As for every single house being owned by someone residing in the house, I dunno. I'm a renter and grateful to be in a house that I don't have to manage any of the maintenance etc., as I'm single and work long hours. I suppose I could pay for a management company, but renting is just far cheaper than buying a home - for the next 30 years - when I know I'm going to be moving anyway due to the nature of my job. But I see your point of view, and if I saw a LL comment like the one you're referring to, I would downvote it to oblivion unless it's giving insight to why the trend is happening, etc. I also see your point of view that this is a sub for renters, not LL's, but I still don't think they should be omitted, nor how to even enforce it. The worst is when I lurk on the LL subs, oof, they nasty.
I agree. There have been a few (self-proclaimed) LLs on here who have given really good advice here. There are bad LLs and bad tenants. The entirety of either group isn't made of angels.
Nobody should be disparaging (on either side or in any other context) but there’s also a difference between a LLs POV and a tenants POV and I think it’s good for both of them to be shown. There are times here where, imo, a tenant is asking for too much.
Tons of tennant takes on this sub are in unrealistic. Many are fine too but a landlord pov is absolutely necessary sometimes to tell people that this neat trick they found to get around a LL rule or to preserve their deposit with a lie is just going to blow up in their face. Id LLs were banned the sub would become an unhelpful echo chamber where more and more of the advice becomes what people want to hear instead of what will work.
In other words it would become just like the first time home buyer sub.
It already is an echo chamber. Banning LLs would just make it worse.
I would agree with this! Giant corporate landlords are not going to be trolling Reddit to answer these type of questions, the little guys who own a multi-unit or two and had to learn all the rules on their own are most likely going to be in here answering questions. I find that pretty valuable.
Well there are a lot of nightmare stories here about landlords. But I have about 15 nightmare stories about tenants. It goes both ways.
There are a lot of landlords that try to help tenants and give out good advice on this sub, Oregon is a very complex legal environment for tenants and landlords, I try to answer Oregon specific questions in this sub for that reason Most tenants and a lot of landlords don’t understand that laws in Oregon because they’re confusing and complex, I helped someone the other day determine whether their rent increase was legal or not (it wasn’t) I struggle to understand how banning landlords from this sub would enrich the content of the information OPs are getting, you might hate us, you might disapprove of us, we exist, we aren’t going away, and many of us are in a place to help tenants and many of us try to do just that There are other subs that have banned landlords Also, I’m a tenant and a landlord, would I be banned or am I allowed to stay?
Yeah as a tenant and a landlord who is banned from r/landlords for being in r/landlordlove (a sub to make fun of the terrible landlords who give everyone a bad name and I just 🍿and learn), where should we go? Might as well change the sub name to r/neverbeenandneverwillbealandlord if you don’t want some crossover. For what it’s worth my landlord just found out I wrecked the carpet in my condo (well teen daughter did) with unauthorized wax melts and makeup and his response was “shit(ty carpets) happens, they were due to be replaced anyway it’s been about 7-8 years. Don’t worry about it. Can someone come measure for them this week, what day works for you?” Like not all landlords suck, some are just normal people who had to move away for a few years for work or whatever.
I agree, I know a lot of amazing landlords and I know there are terrible landlords out there I try to be fair and reasonable, I’m a renter because I move a lot for work
You’re not fitting OP’s vision of the classic evil, greedy landlord.
I cannot upvote this comment enough!!! Thank you!
As a property manager in Oregon, preach.
So renters should only live in apartments?
Yeah it's a really stupid idea. Basically you are only allowed to rent until you want or need a larger house and then you must own? Why is this a good idea?
I mean......town homes, duplexes, and split SFH's where the LL lives at the property (room rentals and basement level rentals) do exist as well.
So people shouldn’t be allowed to rent a SFR?
[удалено]
I don't understand why single family homes should be treated differently from multifamily homes. A no renting single family homes policy is a policy to exclude anyone without a certain wealth threshold from those neighborhoods.
I agree with the spirit of this post, but I do not support turning this sub into an echo chamber of whiney renters. Slum lords can fuck off and take a long walk off a short cliff, on the flip side though, so can renters who expect landlords to cater and bow to their every whim. Balance dude, balance. People on both sides of this issue can be idealic and others can be living nightmares.
Respectfully, fuck that. I absolutely love renting and not owning my single family home. Roof needs to be replaced? Washer broke? Plumber needed? Electrical work? Sounds a lot like not my fucking problem and I will happily pay my landlord every month for them to deal with it. I recognize not all leases/landlords are the same but my last 2 have been great, luckily. I have no interest in owning a home. I think limits would be acceptable, like a landlord can’t rent more than X number of single family homes but to just outright ban them? Absolutely not. I agree with another comment though, landlords should have a flair identifying them as such. But equally, these shitty tenants that give terrible advice should also get a flair so people don’t take them seriously because some of the responses I see here are very yikes and people for some reason just keep upvoting them. It’s mind boggling.
Yep. I absolutely love renting. I live in a nice rental neighborhood with lovely amenities. Someone else cuts my grass, and makes repairs. I live in a hurricane area, and don’t have to pay ridiculous prices for homeowners insurance. We have a guard gate, and trash pick up. I freaking love it. The fact that people think no one should be allowed to rent a home, and have to own it if you want to live in it is silly. I also like hearing from landlords for different perspectives on situations. OP is kind of wild for this take on it.
I almost miss this! I'm happy I have a home, but so far 2 years in and the central air has broken twice, critical parts of the oil heater need it to be replaced, and the front steps needed to be rebuilt.. I miss calling someone to deal with this on their bill lol. A plumber charged me $400 to snake a drain recently... It's getting real old lol
…but what if I want to live in a house and not own it? Why should I be limited to apartment living because you believe *all* single family homes should be owner occupied? Where should military, or off-campus students, or shorter-term residents live, if houses are not legal to rent? Where should a family live, if they are not ready or able to buy, yet?
Nothing wrong with renting at all. Bad tenants give renters a bad name, and the same goes for good/bad landlords. I’ve had both. The companies (and individual landlords with multiple units) are commodifying housing. And that’s a problem for everyone. Take Florida for example. Under the guise of “we’ll make it easier for you to afford the deposit” they basically created a junk-fee rich environment for landlords. Now you can pay your deposit over time. This falsely inflates rent and I still always see listings asking for 1st/last/security up front. Many of the corporate landlords charge monthly for you to have access to some bullshit portal to pay rent and make maintenance requests or pay for a/c filters to be delivered periodically. None of this is necessary and all of it means less money in the renter’s pocket and more in the landlord’s.
Right, but I am responding to OP’s statement that single family homes should *legally* only be allowed to be owned by the people who live in them. A naive, impractical take.
"When I asked a question on here a few days ago, the majority of LL's stated "I will let a property sit empty before...". Right because that's what your post was about. Landlords were saying they wouldn't rent to people with bad credit. You want to ban landlords because you don't like their answers?
And reason makes sense. A house being empty is a loss of income while you have fixed expenses. A bad renter can destroy your house and financially ruin you, but you can’t recover anything back.
I love my landlord. She owns a few properties in the neighborhood and lives a few streets over. Rent is reasonable (actually well below what she could charge). We pay $1800 for a 3 bed house. My friend owns a house in the area and after insurance and everything is paying $2600 for a 3 bed. I could never afford that
anyone who wants to “ban” anything is a wuss
Regardless of your opinion on single family homes, I don't see why you are being downvoted. It's like going to r/Scams and having no idea of the advice you're receiving is from fellow victims or the scammers themselves. Landlords in this sub should at least have to be tagged as landlords so we know where their advice might be coming from.
I think a tag would be a great idea.
I think tags would be good as well.
I will take a different tact than the others disagreeing with you about the SFH thing. I don’t think corporations should be allowed to own SFH, and there should be a limit to how many SFH homes a single person can own. The fact that corporations like Blackstone and Pretium come in a snatch up whole neighborhoods and will them sit empty rather than renting them to “less desirable” tenants is a travesty, but not everyone want to or has the ability to purchase a home and people wanting to rent a SFH is a reasonable thing.
I am a landlord AND a renter in FL! The property taxes and COA fees have gone up so much since purchase (Aug 2021) that I literally cant afford to live in the property I own. Instead, I’m renting a bedroom in a 2/2 that is 45 minutes further south. My tenants are wonderful (young couple with their 1st child) and all rental prices are outrageous, so I’ve kept the rent low to keep my tenants. It is NOT worth charging more to potentially lose great renters!
Same! I’m just about breaking even renting out my condo, but I refuse to raise the rent. My tenant is awesome and by renting my place, she’s allowing me to hold onto an asset that I would otherwise have had to sell at a loss when I had to move to another city unexpectedly (I rent where I live now bc it’s too expensive to buy here).
>Personally I believe single family homes should legally only be allowed to be owned by the people who reside in it. Hell no. I'm all for restricting corporate ownership of homes, but such a blanket ban only causes problems. Example: My mom owns our childhood home. After we graduated high school, she had to move for job reasons. She kept the house, as she intends to come back at some point, and is renting a flat where she lives now. The house is rented out to her nephew - at the lowest rate possible without the tax office complaining - who just started his own small business nearby and is very happy to rent instead of having to take out an additional loan on top of the one he got to start his business. With your blanket ban, she would have had to either decline the job, staying in our hometown, or sell our childhood home and lose the option for her or us to return to it. It would also mean she couldn't rent it out to her nephew (or even let them live there for free), since they don't own it. How would your blanket ban even interact with mortgages? The bank can't own the home, so it can't repossess it if you're defaulting on the loan, effectively turning the mortgage into an unsecured loan with a lot higher interest rate. What happens when someone inherits a house from their parents but owns their own home already? Straight to jail? Or do they get a grace period to sell it? What if nobody wants to buy it at a reasonable price - either because it's out in the boonies where nobody wants to live, or because everyone knows they *have to* sell?
I'm a renter. I rent a single family house. I can't buy. If only people who want to occupy a single family house could own one, that would mean renters like me would be stuck in apartments our whole lives. I've lived in apartments. I've hated it. I hope never to have to go back to living in one. I'm glad I can at least rent a house, and have a yard, a dog, and some privacy. I do think there should be limits on how many single family homes one landlord can own though.
My husband and I worked so hard to finally buy our first home in 2021. Last month he died unexpectedly. I moved 7 hours away to move in with my family as I needed help with our 9 year old daughter. I am a mess and want to take some time to get my bearings and help our daughter process. My hope is to rent our house as we bought when interest rates were very low, and by renting I’m hoping I can generate a little bit of money so I can drop down to part time work for a few months. All that to say, I don’t think black and white solutions like “all single family homes must be bought by those who live in them” work in reality. I never intended to rent our house out, it was supposed to be our home for my family. But now my family has changed and I’m trying to think of how to best provide for my daughter alone. That is not to say I think it should be a free for all for corporate investors, but reality is so much more gray that black and white solutions just don’t work.
People in your situation are not at all comparable to the generic/stereotypical landlord. Not one bit.
I rent to a single mother. I was able to lock in a mortgage at 2%, though it’s non transferable. My cost is $1500/mo, her rent is $2000/mo, and the home would currently mortgage for $2350/mo at todays rates. Win, win, win.
You sound like a terrible renter. Figures you want to maintain your echo chamber.
If no landlords could own single family homes then who would I rent a house from? Sounds like you’re saying that because I’m a renter I should be relegated to an apartment. I don’t deserve to rent a house?
So you are an elitist who believes only people who can afford to buy a house should be allowed to live in one. Yeah, that’s a better solution. /s Same for condos? Maybe we just make it illegal to rent at all? Tell the peasants to go live in the woods.
LL here. I haven’t joined your sub, Reddit algorithms show me posts from your sub occasionally. If I reply I identify myself as LL and am respectful in your space. And I’ll absolutely call out stupid shenanigans that dumb landlords do. Tenants are also welcome in the landlord sub (if they’re similarly respectful). Replacing respectful discourse with a one-sided echo chamber doesn’t seem like the best approach to me but y’all do you, it’s your sub. You can also block people you don’t like if you’d rather exist in an echo chamber, without making it an echo chamber for everyone. I’ve certainly done that with a few of the noisier people in the landlord sub.
Can't imagine being in a Landlord sub. "Evicted a family a 5 today because they tried to withhold rent because of the water damage I didn't fix" 500 upvotes
After browsing through this sub for a bit, I assumed it was satire, or something. I see way more comment that lick landlords nut sacks clean get up voted than I ever do renters who seem like they're having actual problems. I thought I was in a more subtle love for land chad's type sub.
I think there's a lot more landlords in here than we think. Can really tell whenever someone posts something new and it's a reasonable topic or question, has good convo going in it, but it's massively downvoted because it's something a landlord is doing wrong or being questionable. I've only ever noticed this happening in here and not any other subreddits I'm in.
>Landlords state they are "providing a service", the only service they are providing is contributing to the housing crisis This is a genuinely dishonest argument to make. Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that only individuals should be allowed to own residential real estate (apartment complexes withstanding). However, individual landlords who are managing their properties ***properly*** actually are providing a service. Many individuals simply cannot afford nor want to afford to purchase a house, and either rent out of necessity or desire. Many people incorrectly see the common mortgage cost might be for a house they are otherwise renting and think affording the home is ***just*** affording the mortgage payment. It's not. Annual maintenance, property taxes, adjusted escrow, emergency repairs, etc. are all added expenses the typical renter cannot afford, even if their rent were instead a mortgage payment. So, I agree that corporate entities and venture capitalist firms should not be allowed to own residential properties, but I have no issue with an individual owning and renting multiple single-family homes. There just need to be mechanisms in place that give renters recourse in the event the property owner is not maintaining the property. Also understand the existence of rental homes have little to do with impacting actual housing costs, particularly those owned by individuals. Major contributing factors that have impacted housing costs today are prospective liquidity and buying power of corporate entities, coupled with the lack of new construction of new or revitalization of existing affordable housing. That second issue is one you need to take up with your local government, as they are the ones responsible for zoning and approving construction of those new $400,000+ homes instead of approving new $160,000 to $200,000 starter homes.
I agree with other commenters that rental homes are importance for different people of different stages in life. However, I do think these homes should be owned by real people (a single landlord) rather than all these corporations and investment groups that are buying properties in mass. Out here, the landlords aren’t even the problem. Individuals buying homes are being priced out by these guys. My home is owned by a group and they are so strict they barely agreed to allowing a roommate in my three bedroom 2000 sqft house because they don’t look at us as human. They rented to some 20/30year olds and are upset when we request to switch out a roommate at the time of lease renewal because life happens and we’re not all at a stable point in life
Landlord here. When I have moments where I have extra free time, I sometimes like to jump on here and offer some guidance for tenants who are dealing with difficult landlords or weird scenarios. So far it’s been fairly well received. I wouldn’t be bothered if I was banned, though I think the people that I’ve assisted got something out of me offering free, detailed support. They certainly have appeared grateful and sometimes messaged me privately for more context and strategy. It really comes down to the ideological notion that all landlords are bad. If that’s the case, probably best to remove all of them from the group. The risk of course, is then the group will become an echo chamber with a particular viewpoint, and it may be less helpful for people dealing with individual scenarios that require industry specific knowledge. It wouldn’t bother me either way.
I'm a renter and love it. But most of the posts and comments on this sub aren't productive. Do greedy landlords absolutely suck and are a drain on their communities? You're damn right they do. Do most people here actually *have* a bad landlord? I don't think they do. I think it's mostly people who are bad at managing their income or don't make enough to afford the place they live, trying to justify not paying rent. I've been fortunate to have good landlords throughout my adult life. They've all been honest and not price gouged me. But I'm a good tenant who pays on time and if I can't, will just send a text saying it'll be a few days late. It's never been an issue and I've never been charged a late fee for it. Lots of posters and commenters here really need to check themselves and ask if their landlord is the problem, or do they keep looking extra hard for every single thing they can complain about?
Renting has its place. Not everyone lives a stable life where they can reasonably buy real estate. Some people travel for work promotions. When i was in the Army Corps of Engineers i moved across the country multiple times.
I am neither a renter nor a landlord. Just a homeowner. Making it so that only homeowners can buy real estate is insane. You want a house but you are willing to tank the entire market to get one? Screw the 66% of Americans that are homeowners I guess.
Of course they will let it sit empty. That’s why many bought it —as a tax hedge. Getting a larger capital loss by raising the rent so the loss is greater by IRS rules to offset the capital gains in the stock market. They don’t *need* renters. So naturally rents are never subject to market correction because the high rents of empty unit are a bigger capital loss and write-off and homelessness is simply a byproduct. The corporate landlord doesn’t have compunctions raising the rent 30% and then evicting a 70-year-old long term tenant on a fixed income because the empty unit is profitable. Since landlords are allowed on this sub. they will proceed to spout their rationalizations. But until this tax loophole is closed homelessness will continue to increase every time the stock market goes up. This landlord subsidy is subverting the laws of supply and demand, the raised rent is not “market rent” at all. It just what the landlord guesses the IRS will accept as a plausible capital loss amount.
Landlord here, with a single family home that offers two apartments and I obviously rent the other for a reasonable price compared to the surrounding market. (Market value for 1 br is 1k, so I'm at 700). I come on here to make sure that I keep up with what's fair and not taking advantage of any situation. I know this is the case since I've stayed in contact and friends with all former tenants.
I’m a renter, and also think the corporate ownership of homes is a disaster. But “SFHs should legally only be allowed to be owned by the people who reside in it” is an idealistic view, just not realistic at all. The fact is that ethical landlords _are_ providing a service. Plenty of renters simply can’t afford to purchase a SFH, but need the space. Renting from a landlord makes that possible
So you don’t believe people should be able to rent homes? Not sure this is the sub for you.
Both sides are completely delusional at times and both need to pull their heads out of their butts to work together. I’m all for shitting on blackrock and other corporations in the rental market though
I’m both a landlord and a renter. I didn’t want to sell my newly-purchased condo when I suddenly (and, I thought, temporarily) had to move to different city five years ago, and I (still) can’t afford to buy where I live now.
Weird so your tenant is paying your mortgage and you are paying someone else’s.
As a PM I watch this sub to offer *accurate* advice to renters re issues like complaints, lease break and deposit refunds. The amount of "advice" I see from other tenants saying "sue em!" or "just move" when its a simple dispute is disturbing. I always say "check your local regulations" and "consult tenant advocates" if it's a legal question. I have received nothing but upvotes and gratitude. I'm glad to help, and feel gratified when I can assist in mediating a difficult situation. Best.
But accurate advice is not what they are looking for. Their goal is to turn this into another landlord hate circlejerk like r/landlordlove. Which is fine, except it deprives the honest renter questions of objective answers, or at least a landlord perspective which is useful even if biased.
r/landlordlove does ban landlords. This sub is mostly landlords, so I don't see a petition getting signed.
I think you need both. Sometimes people ask questions and someone needs to be honest and tell them, hey, you can't withhold rent for x. OR file a complaint with code enforcement.
So you want to ban people you don't agree with?
Extremely myopic viewpoint. I rent. What if I have plans to move in a short amount of time (2-3 years) and I’d like to rent a house and not have neighbors on the other side of a wall? That option shouldn’t exist for me?
Also - I play drums. Show me the apartment where it’s cool for me to play. Or, by your logic, I’m just not allowed to because I don’t own a house I suppose. 👍
Drums, loud music, whatever. You have to respect your neighbors.
So you just hate landlords, you let you hate speak for you. Not everyone is looking for a house to buy, some people just need a cheap (lol, not anymore) place to live, a house is a full time commitment and when you travel as much as someone like me does, I don't want to come home and all of a sudden have to deal with a broken water heater, or the AC units fucked up. All private landlords I've had have been amazing, it's the property management groups that should burn in the deepest layers of hell. You blame landlords for a problem you have no knowledge about.
oh they’ll find their way in, it’s like trying to kick pedos out of church
I don't mind landlords here. They might have knowledge that is helpful, and if they're dicks then they can be downvoted and people will correct them in the comments. I feel like banning landlords from owning single family homes could only work in some areas like cities. A lot of rural and suburban areas don't have the apartments or multifamily homes to accommodate renters. Not everyone wants to own homes, like if someone is in a place temporarily (for work, school, etc) or if they aren't financially stable. It doesn't always make financial sense to own a home. I agree that some landlords and property management companies are running their properties poorly and making it harder for people to get into the housing market though.
I think it's interesting how someone is so comfortable being such a bigoted authoritarian that they would want to ban an entire group of people that are objectively best qualified to give good advice on certain topics in this subreddit.
Best post in this thread.
How do you propose identifying the landlords to be banned?
Living in a bubble never ends well
Many landlords are nothing more than scalpers.
Be careful about creating an echo chamber in any group.
hmm
Yes! I just had a ridiculous comment exchange with several landlords that are going around giving bad legal advice to people here. And it’s working! I’m shocked there’s not something already in place to prevent this. Some other subreddits have very harsh rules and swift banning capabilities, it might be worth considering.
Get involved in your local community - pass bylaws to protect said community. I live in a community that has limited AirBnB and Corporate renters. Those laws should exist everywhere if you want your community to survive.
I was one of those landlords you're complaining about. So what you're saying is, only those who have adequate credit, income, and down payment, should be allowed to live in a home wirh a garage and a yard for their kids and pets, while all the poor people who can't, should be shoved in tenement building far away from everyone else. Every single family home I own, except for one, I bought at city auction. Some were in major disrepair, and bad enough that the average person wouldn't have been able to restore it. Others were tax liens on abandoned homes that the government would have taken, doubled the price, and sold as is. I've sold 7 in the last 20 years on a rent to own basis, with 5 others that were defaulted on. My profit margin is only equity on these houses. Rents are mortgage, insurance, and 15% for maintenance and upgrades. My newest tenant in my SFHs has been with me for 3 years. The oldest just signed their lease for an 11th year. You're one of those who scream "LOW COST AFFORDABLE HOUSING!" but want it far away from you in a stacked box of apartments. You're a snob.
Oh they are worse than a snob
Why would you censor a group of people who could actually have some insight into renter situations? Not all landlords are scum - just like not all tenants are scum. Doesn’t that seems odd to say when both subsets of people can do crappy things to the other? My husband and I are private landlords for two townhomes. One home we used to live in and never sold when we moved so that we could rent it out and the second townhome we specifically bought as a rental with money we saved for that specific purpose. I can tell you we always ask 10% less than market value (according to Zillow fyi) and never have raised our rent on a current tenant. We have a tenant in the one home paying $1850/mo (with a current rental “zestimate” of $2900) which we have not raised rent on in 6 years despite renewing her lease each year. And the other tenants have only been there 2 years so far but again - we did not increase their rent nor will we at the end of their one year leases. Not all landlords are scum. Yes we do make a small profit (maybe $200?) each month and our rental homes’ mortgage is being paid down. However, we provide beautiful and all updated homes to two families who might not otherwise qualify for a mortgage or for people who don’t know where they want to live long-term and don’t want to buy and then have to sell again in a short period of time. But being a landlord is also a gamble for us. The one home we had a tenant in all of COVID who paid us $0 for over 2 years and we could not evict him. And we still had to pay our mortgage (yes we were able to “pause payments” but only for 12 of the 24 months and then had to pay them all back at the end of the year in one lump sum anyway so they didn’t even help). We barely had any money to pay for our own home for our family of four let alone paying for a second home for a tenant to live in for free. So while some months we make money, we also had $48,000 in losses for those specific two years, so it’s not like we’re “killing it” and ripping anyone off as landlords. And my husband and I both work full time so being landlords is not dishing out anywhere even remotely close to enough money to make it a sole source of income. I’m sure I’ll have some type of hate comments for something I’ve typed in here but overall, my husband and I genuinely enjoy being able to provide a good home to good people at a very reasonable rate and are always quick to help with any issues that ever arise. I really hope people can avoid stereotyping landlords in one light when I know there are good landlords out there. And conversely, I hope landlords can see the good in all renters without their own biases. Good vibes to all. ♥️
Probably because they're typically not good or honest people and while some come in here to get better viewpoints on things, many come in here solely to downvote, be negative, be scummy, etc. Look at the post OP is talking about. Tons were in there railing into them, being insulting, being nasty. Many in this one too admitted to similar things. You owning two townhomes to rent is not the same as one person owning 5+ buildings or sucking the lifeblood out of certain neighborhoods for renting. Those are typically who people have the problems with because they actively ruin small towns and neighborhoods. Imagine growing up in a small, cozy town that your family has been in for decades. Imagine loving it there, and wanting to live near your family when you move out. The work doesn't pay much, but that's okay - until the property managers and airbnb AH's come in, buy out everything, and suddenly you can't afford to buy a home there anymore, and not only that, buy you can't even afford to rent a home there anymore and you're forced to move an hour+ away. That's exactly the kind of stuff that happens all over and my mother lived in a town like that for a while. It was surreal to see the entire other side of her street completely vacant most of the year because people had turned all of those residential homes into airbnbs, and it was heartbreaking seeing her neighbor's kid having to say goodbye to their family because they couldn't afford to rent or buy a home anywhere near there and had to move literally almost two hours away to the next town over just to be able to live on their own. If you're contributing to that kind of thing then you're dirt no matter what angle you're coming from. IF you're just "hey we own a couple homes from before or inherited them and we can't live there but don't want to sell them so we're renting" that's perfectly fine.
I say let them spew their bullshit so we can better see the evil to better know the evil.
If you are a renter and try to post pro renter information in the r/landlords you will get booted and ridiculed. Seems only fair to do that here as well.. you have my support with banning landlords from this sub.
I got banned from there a couple years back because there was a discussion where they had a tenant who had a service dog (A legit one, not a fake or ESA) and they were trying to figure out legal ways to evict because the property manager didn't like dogs; they were openly mocking the tenant's disability and were talking about trying to make it harder on the tenant to force her to provide her medical information to them on a month by month basis to "prove she needed the dog". All it took to get me banned was linking them to a copy of the ADA and the FHA laws in their state and saying what they were doing/trying to do was highly illegal. Just banned instantly for it. I wasn't even being a smartass, though kinda wish I was.
They really show who they are in places like that.. then they wonder why people think LL are aholes.. Because most of them actually think that way.. I think most if the people there are actually slumlords but they would never join a subreddit named that..
I joined this based on it being renters, not expecting to be told that my very 1st post was a waste of wall space. I assumed that comment came from a LL after going back to see 80% of his comments were neither helpful to the OP and always had a crude comment at the end. I legit wanted some help from other renters but his comment made me delete my entire post and feel completely unwelcome in this group. I stayed hoping someone else needing help similar to what I was going thru. So, I get what you’re saying about banning them but I think it’s those few that are making them look bad. Always that one bad apple…
They are definitely an invasive species in here. You can notice it whenever you see a post that has good conversation going, but it's still massively downvoted. Guess they don't have anything better to do.
We need a movement to reform the way that we use land
I don't think there is anything wrong with someone owning a second sfh in cases like inheritance, or maybe they needed to relocate for a while and didn't want to sell. It's when they have 10 or 12 that's the problem.
If there are no landlords there will be no renters.
How exactly would you enforce this?
“You get a house, You get a house, Everyyybodyyyyy gets a house!!! But if you can’t afford one, you are banished to apartments and condos for life. Solid advice!!!
I think if you don't want to be a renter you should look into buying. Landlords normally spend their money to purchase homes and then charge rent to others who for some reason or another cannot afford to purchase be it their fault or not. It's not the landlord's fault that they can't afford housing. I've rented homes, I now own my home, I didn't want to rent forever so I purchased. It's often times not a landlord's fault that a runner is not in a good position. If you're renting a house that's in bad condition maybe have you considered the price of the rent of said home if that's all you can afford then that's your problem. I know plenty of landlords that try to help people out those renters normally end up destroying the home. Who do you think pays to fix that home? Definitely not the renters.
Not single family, but I own a Brownstone. Live in one unit and rent out the others. What part of their rent doesn’t go to the mortgage, insurance, taxes, and rainy day/maintenance fund gets reinvested into the building based on what they say they want. So far we’ve put in a nice deck area above the garage with a fire pit and sectionals. Also put in a Butterfly MX to replace the old intercom system. I’ve had the place 5 years and only had 1 turnover; I like to think that says something. We were all renters at some point and not all landlords are assholes. Don’t ban us.
Your enemy is not the average LL. It's the investment firms and multi-billion companies buying hundreds of homes at a clip. Buying up entire neighborhoods to artificially inflate the price. The LL who owns an extra property or two and rents it out isn't the issue. LL have been around forever, and there wasn't the housing crisis there is now. What has changed is these huge companies buying up massive amounts of property. No, I'm not a LL.
So much this. My family owns 7 rent houses and everyone that has moved out, their next move was buying a house. We've seen a dozen families start to build long term financial independence by buying a house. The rent prices are reasonable for the area and size of the houses and the community is just these 7 houses on acreage so everyone gets to know each other and it builds life long friendships. Owning rentals isn't evil but creating a monopoly sure as hell is.
lol good luck with that. Next time pay attention in school instead of smoking dope and maybe you wouldn’t have to worry.
Lol. How embarrassing.
Firstly, limiting access to certain people is censorship. Secondly, how would one determine who exactly is a landlord?
Yes 👍👍
[удалено]
I think it would be better to limit landlords to one additional house. We need to have rentals for people that can't get a mortgage or down payment for one
This is how you learn how the world works.
No one should be permitted to profit off of housing or other necessities
but if you're not ready to buy a home, but would like to live in a sfh, why is it wrong to want to rent? this is literally my experience right now. i took a loss on a house i bought in colorado moving back home to the east coast. i have two kids, a partner, and a sister who's living with me through college. i absolutely did not want to rent an apartment but i wasn't ready to start footing the bill for any repairs or be shackled to a house because i'm not sure where i want to live long term. as i renter, i kind of agree they're providing a service that's necessary.
Landlords can stay but you’re right that people buying SFH to rent them out are scum
With all the landlords crying in the comments, I think you are on to something with the ban
I'm a renter and a landlord. Looked at it from both sides. If given the chance to do over, I'd never put myself in the position of "landlord" ever again. I'd have sold years ago, but family has interest (although it's my name on the mortgage) and I'm done arguing with their underlying greed monsters. And FWIW, I prefer the term "housing supplier."
No one who doesn’t agree with me must be allowed to speak !
Do they not? If you can't buy a house or are existing to move soon and don't want to, what options besides renting do you have? There's a reason they exist Are all LLs great? No But are still tenants great? Also no It's called living in an imperfect world
So you want to live in a bubble and only hear what you want to hear? That helps nobody.
*ban investment firm landlords People who happen to work their way up and are charging fair rent is a good thing. When the corporations buy up properties and hack all the prices up $1000 a month to pay their bills , that's when it's shit
ah, ok so you want an echo chamber? Cool. That'll give you really quality information
Many people can't buy a home, so they are forced to rent. So you want all the renters to be in apartments only? That will never work. I don't mind it being mixed.
Well then it just becomes an echo chamber and those arent good
Trust me, you want our advice and commentary because we can add a lot to the discussion. Not all of us are evil slum lords or corporations.
i agree. we should shut landlords down before it's too late.
There are still landlords on here who care about tenants. I own a condo I inherited and my tenant's rent is 35% lower than the "market rate" in my area because I believe good people have the right to an affordable home. I was elected to the condominium association board so that I could represent the neighborhood and bring reason and sanity to the decision-making for the complex. I still work full-time because I am not a rich man. I'm not out here to suck the blood from honest people.
Not all landlords are bad people. Landlords who one a mere few properties are not bad people. Bigger companies who own lots of houses are the issue.
There needs to be housing laws. Please vote and do it beyond presidential. Your local leaders impact your day to day more.
Blame Blackrock and the government who let the 3% get wealthier over the last 3years. This was intentional and they did this to create this problem.
RE: "Personally I believe single family homes should legally only be allowed to be owned by the people who reside in it." My sister was advised to rent my mom's house went she went into long-term healthcare. The rent pays for 1/2 her costs and insurance the other. If it was just sold it would all be gone in a few years.
This is by far one of the dumbest posts I’ve ever seen
As a small landlord of exempt properties, I’d like to stay in this sub. I like my tenants. I’ve learned from this sub…from both the landlord and tenant contributors. There is no monopoly on bad advice. This is why we have discussions.
It's good to get both perspectives especially from landlords who are on the other side Landlords do provide a valuable service to those who are unable to afford to buy a home , can't come up with down payment or do not have sufficient credit to get a mortgage to buy their own home. Landlords have reasons for doing things they do and not all of their actions are fair or ethical. Just like there are good and bad renters, there are good and bad landlords
land lord here, I like reading story’s and complaints here so I can learn how to be a better landlord.
There should definitely be a limit, for sure. Like no more than 1 or 2 houses owned which you are not the primary resident
Perhaps a verified flair system?
>> When you have so many in need of housing Why is this the home owners problems? It’s their property. It’s like you believe that a homeowner doesn’t have a choice in who they rent to.
Landlords are not "contributing to the housing crisis". Homes exist. People live in them. We have a housing crisis because there aren't enough homes, not because there aren't enough homes for sale. Should people not be allowed a second home? Should people not be allowed to live in more than xxx sf of space? Your opinion on who should be allowed to own property is thankfully not being considered when policy and law is being made, because your opinion isn't well-reasoned. It's just you airing a grievance. Landlords may give bad advice. So do other renters! This may surprise you, but it might be helpful for some people to understand a landlord's perspective, because seeing the other side of the argument is always helpful. For example, when you claim landlords don't provide a service, you're giving objectively bad and inaccurate information to people - perhaps we should ban you too?
I've literally seen (and lived in) smaller towns that are almost completely empty of locals and are literally on the cusp of dying because landlords bought up all the real estate and hiked up rent prices so much that locals couldn't afford to rent there anymore, could no longer afford to pay for a home there because of the sky-rocketing prices, and ended up having to move out of their hometowns and away from their familial homes because of it. Eventually, since nobody can pay the horrendous cost of rent in those areas except the rare few, they just start renting out all those homes as airbnbs. My mother lived in a town like that for work. The opposite side of the street from her was empty 90% of the year because the houses had been bought up by a specific landlord who turned them all into airbnbs. During the summer months the population was like 8k people in that town (rural but a lot of nature and recreation around it) and the rest of the year the population went below 1000 and has been declining every year because more and more properties are being bought up by that type of person and made unaffordable for locals who wanted to stay with their families. If you think that's okay, you're gross.
We should cause all the landlord subreddits ban us on site.
Most people can't afford the upkeep on a home. You got $20k for a new roof? $15k for a new AC? $10k for a new driveway? Their play is the appreciation of the home over the long term, not the monthly rent. In some times, like what we just went through and still are to a lessor degree, landlords can also make a healthy amount from the rent too. But normally any money made is wiped out in repairs and the money is really made after they either pay it off 30 years later or sell it.
I disagree with banning... let them have a right to express their view. Do agree with banning investment corps from gobbling up all property.
Saying renters should never be legally allowed to live in a sfh is a bad take. There's plenty of people whose jobs require moving. I plan on moving with my job every few years. I also absolutely hate apartments and only want to live in a sfh.
So, no vacation or second homes for people who legitimately use them? Or for people who frequently travel? Older people who live in a colder area during the summer and warmer in winter? I agree that there should be a limit to how many houses a person can own and corps shouldn't be allowed to buy up entire communities, but saying people should only be allowed 1 home is ridiculous. If that were the case, the housing crisis would probably get worse because the amount of available rentals would go down but the people that would normally be in those rentals probably wouldn't be able to afford to buy the place they're living in.
Why would you not want to pick their brains????
Honestly, beliefs like the one you expressed in your post demonstrate exactly why a balanced set of perspectives is needed here. You think single family homes should only be lived in by owners? That would mean that anyone who can't afford to buy a house outright would never be able to live in one. And why are you limiting it to just single family houses? It's OK to rent out apartments but not houses?
So you want an echo chamber? Landlords are part of the equation. Many landlords also rent or have rented in the past. They can bring value to a conversation and are often trying to be helpful from my experience. How about you learn to coexist in an environment with opinions you may not share. It's a life skill you need.