25 points

I was a landlord for a while, only one rental property, but I refused to raise the rent along with market increases because the existing rent was sufficient to cover my property expenses. There was no financial need to raise the rent, except for personal gain, so instead I choose to show gratitude for what I already had and passed on the benefits to the tenant.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

You are very commendable for this. However, this is also the reason why we clearly can’t rely on people’s good will over their greed, because you’re clearly exceptional haha

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I think that’s how it should be and probably used to be. A lot of landlords with very few rentals.

Nowadays, we have literal company optimizing everything to get the most out of their investment. If they can increase, they will.

A landlord that does this as a side business won’t necessarily increase the rent because he will prefer to have a good relationship because he does not want to spend all his time searching for new tenants.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I feel like even a big company should want to have a good relationship with its tenants. If you lose just one month’s rent, you’re out over 8% of your annual revenue and you’re lucky if that’s even your profit margin in the first place.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That’s why they’re so quick to evict. If they keep everyone squeezed for housing, then resistive tennants can be replaced quickly, and prices can inch up even more.

In a working market, there would be a lower cost alternative, but if all options are high-cost then the only real alternative left is homelessness, which is already illegal and being persecuted more and more.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I bought a house last year that I’m going to live in eventually after my elderly parents (who I live with) pass or move into a nursing home. In the meantime I’m renting it out below market to a coworker who needs an affordable place so she can keep her daughter in our school district. I get enough to cover my insurance and property taxes and some additional renovations to the house. I consulted with a property lawyer before buying it and he gave me a copy of his standard lease which he recommends to clients; it included an automatic annual 5% increase in rent. I’ve rented most of my life and I’ve never seen anything that rapacious.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

In fact the 5% increase will roughly keep you even especially if you are charging under market rent. That’s not keeping up with rental market increases, just inflation + the consequences of market increases even if you aren’t tracking with rental rates yourself.

If you charge $1000 this year that’s around $950-$970 next year. Or to flip it around, say you have $1k in expenses for repairs etc that’s around $1030-1050 next year. And that’s with average-ish inflation (it was 7% in 2021!). The 5% covers that plus increases in property taxes (jeebus fuck) and insurance costs (holy shit).

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

Hate both. The game is monstrous, and those who play it perpetuate it.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

We’re all in the game. We don’t have a choice. Everyone needs a place to live.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

This isn’t the only game that can be played.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It’s all one game. Everyone’s in it and there’s no escape.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

They made it a game

permalink
report
reply
10 points

Owner occupancy credit against property taxes. Sometimes called a “homestead exemption”.

Basically, we increase property taxes, but owner-occupants are exempt from the increases. Any year the owner occupancy rate is below 85%, we increase both, which simply increases taxes on landlords.

So they just pass it on to tenants? They will try, but the landlord who converts to a private mortgage or a land contract instead of a traditional rental will be able to undercut traditional landlords and still earn more than them. Meanwhile, his “tenants” will be earning equity, while the traditional tenants will not.

He’s not taking any additional risk lending than he would be renting to the same person. When a tenant stops paying rent, the landlord evicts; when a borrower stops paying the mortgage, a lender forecloses. Either way, the property ends up back in his hands.

permalink
report
reply

Why the baby steps? Just ban the ownership of property you don’t personally live in. You can landlord an apartment building, if you live in one of the units. No corporate ownership of land.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

If you use Medicare, they can take your house after you die. You could sell it to your kids, or a friend, and they could allow you to live in it. But with your rule, they would have to move in with you. They would not be allowed to own their own home and yours simultaneously. Your rule just fucked over the elderly and family inheritance.

It would similarly fuck over parents who want to buy a home and issue a private mortgage to their kids. Your rule just fucked over families.

Your rule just prevented lenders from being able to issue mortgages: as a corporation, they cannot recover the property if the borrower refuses to make payments.

On the other hand, your rule doesn’t go nearly far enough: “landlords” aren’t the problem. “Renting” is the problem. You envisioned apartment complexes remaining as rented properties. I don’t. No more than 4 housing units on a single deeded property would qualify for the owner occupant credit.

Under my plan, apartment complexes don’t qualify unless the units are separately deeded properties. Maybe an occupant buys up four contiguous units and converts them into a quadplex where 3 of the 4 units can be rented, but most apartments complexes will simply become condominiums, and the occupants will be voting members of the condo association.

Adjusting the non-occupant tax rate to target a high owner-occupancy rate achieves the objective without undue inhibition of inoffensive activities.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Who is the face?

permalink
report
reply
14 points

Christopher Luxon the current Prime Minister of New Zealand.

His and his coalition parties in government lean strongly into landlords with recent policies changes making it better for people who already own more than one property.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

So he’s basically a souls-like landlord boss

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

ty

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Thank you for asking. It did not occur to me that it’s an actual picture of a cunt they used.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Landlord

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Nah mate, that’s Christopher Luxon.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Stolen from Facebook

!fbstolencontent@lemmy.ca

Create post

Community stats

  • 1.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 131

    Posts

  • 285

    Comments

Community moderators