Skip Navigation
358 comments

  • Paranormal story here..

    I have the first good landlords I've had in my entire life. We have a clean, decent townhouse - two stories w/ unfinished basement. It's in a safe residential/school zone, right behind my work, and he's renting it to us for several hundred less than he could be getting based on other similar rentals. I guess he grew up here and has sentimental attachment, and just wants it taken care of. He purchased the connecting unit and is renting it equally low to other great tenants who take care of it. Guy is a defense lawyer and doesn't need to squeeze every drop out of it I guess.

    Him and his wife are super considerate of our time and our needs, get us nursery/greenhouse gift cards in the spring and Christmas baskets every year. They're fucking anomaly and it's absolutely perplexing after two decades of shitty landlords.

  • Pretty much. I will say, although it’s extremely rare to find, but does exist (I know a landlord like this): some landlords get into landlording to try to make places affordable for others, meaning they barely take a cut for themselves. These are not the people you see raising rent at every opportunity. I’m also not refering to any landlord who decides to take “section 8” housing, as some of them are also predatory. To that end, her struggle is the same struggle as her renters, trying to make ends meet, herself. She owns her own “place” but her “place” is on wheels, making her technically a homeless landlord. I doubt that she is the only landlord like this in the US but as a long-time renter, I’m well aware she’s in the minority of landlords. Most landlords do so to earn a profit, the worst offenders being for-profit corporations who own many properties. Some landlords do try to help others, and I really wish there were more like them. I think the majority of landlords simply try to “price what the market will bear” which is usually “increase rent as much as we can by law” with the excuse that “we, the landlords take on all the risk so we need all the profit”.

    I would love to see more “worker co-op” style landlording, although I don’t know how that would work techncially.

    • meaning they barely take a cut for themselves.

      Meaning if they just sold the place to the people renting it out would be even more affordable?

      • Usually the issue would be that these places cost large sums up front to acquire, and there is inherent risk in lending money or selling something for payment over time.

        The most equitable solution under those circumstances IMO would be a pay-towards-ownership rental model with an agreed stewardship rate for routine maintenance and if they terminate lease early, the accrued funds towards the ownership are disbursed. This allows the "renter" (future owner) the ability to eventually accrue the value of the home without risk of loss of investment, while also allowing the "owner" (steward) to ensure that maintenance can be performed. Would have to work out how to pay for incidental maintenance like a failed water heater or storm damage, but splitting cost across owned percentage may be fair, or based on fault, etc.

        It's a lot of hassle for something that we should instead fix at the systemic level, but so long as we're looking at the current system then this ought to do well by both parties and would be accessible for those fortunate/lucky enough to be pulling significant salaries to help those less fortunate.

        Cooperatives are also a good option long-term but I'm thinking in terms of folks that are living hand-to-mouth being able to earn towards a permanent home right away rather than a group of people with enough surplus money to pool for shared home(s). A well-established coop would be a better support network and may be able to grow faster (help more folks) than the alternatives.

      • I don’t know the details of her situation, but it’s something like in a market that averages over $1000 for housing, she rents out at below $1000. I mean to say for her properties she could choose to rent at the market rate but this would mean the people who wants to rent to, people who aren’t able to afford >$1000 for housing, would you know.. be unable to afford it.

        As for barely making a cut for themselves, I’ve only known a few landlords but none who owned the house and title (without a loan with the bank). the landlords I do know, herself included most likely got 30 year fixed mortages on their properties, meaning their interest rate stays the same for 30 years.

        Each month those landlords need to pay the mortage and will need to pay for repairs or repair the properties themselves. Say the mortage, due to the landlord’s credit rating is pretty good, and comes in around $800 a month. Say that on average the landlord has to pay $50 a month on maintenance. The landlord needs to charge $850 to make no money, to afford no food for themselves, or otherwise “break even”. What I’m saying here is that in this market, a property just like hers (x beds, y baths) rents out for $1200 a month. I’m saying that she’s more likely to rent her property out at $900 or $850. Although when people fall on tough times, she’ll also just waive the rent or work with them with what they can pay.

        Meaning if they just sold the place to the people renting it out would be even more affordable?

        Probably not. You’re assuming that the renters have good enough credit to get a loan from the bank at the same interest rate that the landlord can, that the renters can afford a down payment (sometimes that’s $10k+ right there). Keep in mind these are the renters that could not afford a $1200 a month place themselves. You’re assuming that the bank would give them the loan in the first place. You’re assuming that the current interest rates are reasonable (at time of writing, in the US, they are not - the difference between a 3% and 6% interest over 30 years is enormous and would make their rent far greater than $1200 a month).

        You’re right that there are some renters who can afford to buy her properties if she put them on the market. Those renters hypthetically live in the property next to hers with x beds and y baths and they’re looking for a place to live. She could sell the property to them, but she’d then need to evict her current tenants, and since there’s a lack of landlords like her, they will probably need to move to another town or be homeless.

        There’s not a clear right or wrong answer here.

    • We had a pair of those in my area. They were famous for "affordable housing".

      End up the pair was worth 12 mil from cashing in on all their "goodwill."

      • I’m a little confused by this.

        They were famous for “affordable housing”

        If by this you mean they were one of the cheapest places to rent in the area, then good on them. Ultimately this is what tenants need is affordability.

        End up the pair was worth 12 mil from cashing in on all their “goodwill.”

        This is where you lose me. If you’re saying they rented some of the cheapest properties in your area and they profited $12,000,000 off their tenants, then holy shit man where do you live? That must mean that every other landlord is profiting multiple times this 12mil amount, maybe in excess of $50mil per landlord.

        If you’re telling me that they weren’t actually the cheapest, they just called themselves the cheapest and somehow were the most expensive, this justifies the profit more but at $12,000,000 I have to ask how many properties did they own?!

        If instead you didn’t mean to say “from cashing in on all their ‘goodwill’”, just that the pair had 12million saved up and were able to make housing affordable then indeed this is amazing! Ultimately the only individuals who are going to be able to do this are people who already come from wealth, or are at least people who can afford to make a loss on their rental properties.

        So, somehow I’m not sure any of those are what you meant. Can you explain? Is there a news story about these people?

  • So I don't think you did anything wrong, and I'd even go so far as to say selling to anyone but the renters would be tantamount to leaving them to the wolves, but let's lay out some points

    They've lived there for over a decade - by all rights except property rights, the house is theirs. At the same time, you played by the rules and built up the slight amount of generational wealth it'll take to give your children a free pass into the rapidly shrinking middle class

    From what you've said, your position is not unethical or exploitative - if anything, owning a few properties and renting them at below market value does more good than harm

    It's entirely unfair that you get to essentially tax them for the right to survive, but that's the only offer on the table. Ideally, you charge a rate near or below your costs over the long term and only make a profit through equity - they are already paying for the mortgage and you take care of sudden large expenses like appliances and repairs... Double dipping and also squeezing them for an ongoing profit is where it goes from potentially fair to profiteering. You get long term wealth, they get stability

    Now where it gets dicey is with the pressures of the situation - management companies are getting real cozy with corporate property investors. When they inevitably ratchet up the prices or drop you to focus on bigger fish, will you pass the costs on to them or look at other options? If someone offers you something way over market value, will they have a seat at the table? When you pass it on to your children, will they end up left to the wolves then?

    I think you should put thought into these questions, maybe attempt to get to know your tenants enough to feel emotionally connected to them (if they're amenable to the idea obviously).

    And personally, I think you should just do right by them and hold out. Our system is untenable, we've reached the limits of easy growth and our economic systems are cannibalizing themselves - if you provide stability at fair rates until we reach the point of transition, I think at that point you can look back and say you did right by them

  • Haha, can you imagine landlords playing the victim like this xD classic. Cracked me up, thanks mate!

358 comments