• wisefoolkp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

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

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

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Until that world exists, someone has to offer rental properties to these people, otherwise where would they live?

        If all the available housing wasn’t bought up by people wanting an extra 20k a year in rent, they’d live there.

        • skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          If not landlords (and it often isn’t), it would be owner occupants buying them at equally obscene prices. Contrary to what the media might lead you to believe, something like 80% of housing units are owner occupant.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            If not landlords (and it often isn’t), it would be owner occupants

            That’s exactly what I’m saying. If it wasn’t for someone purchasing it just to profit off someone else just trying to live, it could be purchased by someone actually living there. You see how that’s better right?

            • skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              It might be better for that one individual who purchased for themselves, but the people who can afford to buy is a much smaller group than those who can afford to rent. A healthy housing market has a good mix of both, because even if everyone who wants to own does, there will still be plenty of people who want to rent too. Whether it’s because they aren’t planning on staying more than a few years, or simply because they don’t want to have to deal with the tribulations of home ownership of which there are many.

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Well, we’re already moving quite the distance from

                In a perfect world, those who cannot but want to become homeowners should

                In regards to

                but the people who can afford to buy is a much smaller group than those who can afford to rent

                You did say you were profiting off the rent. So the person paying the rent could afford to make all the payments you are making with the money they are currently spending on rent.

                there will still be plenty of people who want to rent too.

                I have no problem with people renting out their basement, that is adding to the number of available homes. Single unit dwellings should be illegal to rent out and landlords should have to live on the property they are renting.

                • skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The main point I’m trying to make is that rentals existing is not the reason housing is expensive and difficult to obtain, it’s a supply issue. Remove red tape, build more housing, so there’s enough for all the people who want to own and the people who want to rent. Fix that, then see how it balances out with natural market forces, and then you create policy if things are still wacky.

                  As for profiting off rent, yes, the tenants in any of my rentals could afford a 30yr mortgage payment with the cost of their rent. However, when I start adding in costs like maintenance, property taxes, insurance, and my own time and sweat, most of my tenants are paying similar if not less out of their pocket every month than they would be if they owned the home they lived in, the only difference being that they aren’t building equity. It’s not like they don’t get anything out of the deal either, they never have to worry about finding a plumber for a weekend emergency, or having to dig up $15k when the roof needs replacing, and most importantly, they can move somewhere else with zero risk of going underwater on a mortgage. Now, all that said, there are shitty landlords and property mgmt. companies out there and I would absolutely support reasonable legislation to get them to behave.

                  As for renting SFH, I disagree, although I am of course biased given that most of my portfolio is SFH. Just because someone doesn’t want to be a homeowner doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the opportunity to live in a detached house. I’m not strictly opposed to some limitations on SFH rentals, but I still think we need to fix the supply issue before looking at that further. That said, I do think multi unit housing is much more efficient, and if it were made a lot easier to build, a huge number of landlords would readily switch from SFH to that. Heck, I want to replace some of my SFH rentals with multi units (I think du/triplexes are a good balance without sticking out too much in an otherwise SFH neighborhood), but getting planning approval for it is such a byzantine nightmare that I’ve given up for the most part.

                  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I agree that it is a supply issue. The problem is every landlord further limits the supply.

                    I don’t know how many properties you have, let’s say 4 (it’s how many my parents had). You might not feel like your 4 properties is contributing very much to the supply issue, but if say 10% of the population has enough wealth to be a landlord, and they each own on average 4 properties plus their own home, that is now 50% of the need in the market being taken up by a small % of people. That doesn’t even take into account multi-unit businesses.

                    Remove red tape, build more housing, so there’s enough for all the people who want to own and the people who want to rent.

                    No disagreements here, but without putting laws in place how do you know when we’ve hit the point where “there should be enough housing but things are still wacky”? What’s stopping large companies from just buying up the extra available housing and continuing to charge obscene rent? There are currently 28 vacant homes for each homeless person in the US Does that mean things are wacky and it’s time to put laws in place?

                    However, when I start adding in costs like maintenance, property taxes, insurance, and my own time and sweat, most of my tenants are paying similar if not less out of their pocket every month than they would be if they owned the home they lived in

                    Again, you said yourself that you are profiting off the rent. I’m sure you already factored in maintenance, property taxes, and insurance into that. I’m sure many people would gladly use their own time and sweat in order to be building their own equity.

                    I’m not saying you’re a bad landlord or that you don’t take care of your tenants. What I’m saying is if you just look at the numbers these people would all be better off without a landlord and paying directly for the “services” you provide instead of using you as a middle man. As such, the Landlord does not generate anything of value by inserting themselves in the middle of this situation.

      • glibg10b@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

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

    • dangblingus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      43
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        ThEy PrOvIdE a SeRvIcE!

        Yes, the service of buying property so now property is unaffordable for me and I HAVE to rent if from you for more than my mortgage would have been, but you know, banks…

      • kaesaecracker@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There might not be a good landlord, but there might be landlords that are not bad. My rent is low (too low and the government starts adding taxes to compensate your “non-competition”) and did not get increased in the years I have been living here. Broken things get fixed in a reasonable time, there are no scammy charges and so on.

        • lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So does the person who made your coffee this morning not deserve a place to live? What about the person who delivered your dinner? The person who delivers your mail? The one who picks up your trash? The people who built your house? The person who stocks your groceries?

          wHaT dO yOu Do FoR a LiViNg?

          What does that have to do with your right to a roof over your head?

        • Fr❄stb☃️te@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What do you do for a living?

          I sell drugs to minors and bribe police to allow me to keep doing it.

          No, I’m a construction worker building houses and units.

          • TAG@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, I’m a construction worker building houses and units.

            So you, the mastermind behind the housing crisis, blame the victim?

            Why do people have to rent? Because they cannot buy because construction workers refuse to build enough housing.

            Why do landlords charge so much rent? Well, the biggest contributor to that is mortgage costs, driven up by out of control labor costs for construction.

            The rest of the rent goes into savings by the landlord. The reality is, most renters are not as gentle with their homes as owners are and when something breaks, they demand that the landlord fix it and threaten to withhold rent until it is fixed. Facing financial ruin if they cannot make mortgage payments, the landlords are forced to turn to greedy construction workers preying on people backed into the corner. The construction workers take all of the set aside “excess rent” and more.

            So really, we should stop blaming land lords and start blaming construction workers. They could, literally, build a free house for everyone.

            I am joking, if that was not clear.

          • Gort@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            For a moment there, I thought your second sentence was going to be confessing that you were also a landlord.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          What do you do for a living?

          So you have no idea and just assume they don’t “deserve” to have shelter of their own?

      • Captain Borracho@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not true at all.

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

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

        • lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Landlords aren’t bad because they treat their tenants poorly, they’re bad because they make a living by monetizing a basic human necessity. It’s like saying there are no good billionaires, or all cops are bastards. Of course there are landlords who treat their tenants well, billionaires who donate a lot of money, cops who actually want to serve and protect, but saying they’re all bad is really saying they are perpetuating a broken system. Landlords are bad because you shouldn’t have to pay a monthly bill to have somewhere to sleep. Billionaires are bad because you can’t make that much money without exploiting the working class. Cops are bad because their complicit in abusing power.

            • lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t think privatized water utility companies are any better than landlords. They’re both symptoms of the same broken system. Utilities should really be government services, paid for by taxes. When water treatment is privatized, their business is no longer providing clean water, it’s making money. They just choose to make their money by throttling people’s access to clean water

          • gazter@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The Nazis used torches, so those are out, and have you ever looked into the symbology of the pitchfork? It comes from the three prongs of the trident, of Posiedon fame, and we don’t do religion here.