Semi-on-topic: Obviously the solution is that corporations shouldn't be allowed to own residential properties.
(Is there a text color that indicates sarcasm?)
Semi-on-topic: Obviously the solution is that corporations shouldn't be allowed to own residential properties.
(Is there a text color that indicates sarcasm?)
Duke said:In reply to Mr_Asa :
No, your premise is flawed.
How? It's literally the same argument against numerous other debt issues.
If you cant pay your bills, dont go into debt.
jmabarone said:Semi-on-topic: Obviously the solution is that corporations shouldn't be allowed to own residential properties.
(Is there a text color that indicates sarcasm?)
Is the sarcasm that corporations actually shouldnt, or that ~3/4 of rental properties are individuals and not corporations?
In reply to Mr_Asa :
Business debt and personal debt are completely different.
SV reX said:In reply to Mr_Asa :
Business debt and personal debt are completely different.
Gonna have to explain that one in depth.
Debt is debt.
In reply to Mr_Asa :
I got the Starbucks/Toast sarcasm, I can't believe people thought it was serious.
Not many businesses can plan for 6-9 months of no payment and the customer using the goods, which is what the "eviction freeze" was.
In reply to Mr_Asa :
Business debt is paid for as an operating expense of the business. It's a pre-tax expenditure. Deductible.
Personal debt is almost always paid for with post-tax dollars. It's part of the budget that you have to manage to live on. Not deductible.
Almost no businesses survive without debt. Many personal budgets have no debt.
Mismanagement of debt is still a problem for both businesses and personal.
Very, very, very few landlords have no debt. They have mortgages.
Any property that has changed hands in the last 5 years or so is paying 8% or more in mortgage interest. For more than a decade prior to that the rate was 2-3%. Mortgage interest is front loaded- that means most of the payment for the first years is interest.
A 500,000 mortgage at 3% pays $519 per month in interest. The same mortgage at 8% pays $1,388 per month in interest. So if a property changes hands, the cost to the landlord increases by $869 per month. Rents go up.
(Plus the old owner may have had a mortgage for only $200K instead of $500K)
Oh, look!!
Another E36 M3ty thread with the same instigators who have no clue about what they are speaking and won't listen when you attempt to explain it.
Y'all have fun with this one. I'm not beating my head against these walls again.
In reply to Steve_Jones :
Appreciate you
I'm pretty pro consumer, but this sounds thin to me.
Companies list their rental rates visibly for potential tenants. Then tenants decide if those rates are within their budgets, then view the property, and then submit applications. Potential tenants have already determined for themselves that rents are manageable for their income before the rental agency asks for proof.
I'm not going to say that rental agencies never gouge consumers, but this doesn't seem like one of them.
Steve_Jones said:In reply to Mr_Asa :
I got the Starbucks/Toast sarcasm, I can't believe people thought it was serious.
Not many businesses can plan for 6-9 months of no payment and the customer using the goods, which is what the "eviction freeze" was.
I have no dog in this fight, but I've seen this concept of landlords having no recourse but to take it on the chin several times over the last few years and I don't understand. Wasn't there widely available mortgage forebearance at the same time as most of the eviction moratoriums? Seems like a landlord that was experiencing hardship would qualify just as a tenant might. Of course there would still be some costs associated with maintenance/repair, etc but my understanding is that the bank payments could've gone away when the rent stopped for anybody with a mortgage on their rental.
In reply to STM317 :
Yes. There was mortgage forbearance.
The problem with it was that TENANTS had to apply for it (not landlords). Basically out of the goodness of their hearts and their love for their landlord. Almost none applied.
The eviction freeze should have included a requirement that the tenants make application. It didn't.
Something seems awfully familiar in here but I can't quite put my finger on it
In reply to Mr_Asa :
Yeah, I missed the sarcasm and took it as hyperbole.
I'm still out almost $3k from my former tenant not being able to pay rent during covid.
We drew up the required government paperwork showing that she would pay when she got back on her feet.
Covid mess stopped, she went back to work, crickets...
Always enough cash for weed and wine for some reason.
I sold the house and the new owner renovicted her.
Now she rents an apartment from a large property management company. I'm sure they're going to be way more understanding than I was.
STM317 said:Steve_Jones said:In reply to Mr_Asa :
I got the Starbucks/Toast sarcasm, I can't believe people thought it was serious.
Not many businesses can plan for 6-9 months of no payment and the customer using the goods, which is what the "eviction freeze" was.I have no dog in this fight, but I've seen this concept of landlords having no recourse but to take it on the chin several times over the last few years and I don't understand. Wasn't there widely available mortgage forebearance at the same time as most of the eviction moratoriums? Seems like a landlord that was experiencing hardship would qualify just as a tenant might. Of course there would still be some costs associated with maintenance/repair, etc but my understanding is that the bank payments could've gone away when the rent stopped for anybody with a mortgage on their rental.
The only way to get any relief from the mortgage was to let it go into foreclosure, because there were no foreclosures allowed either. Would you ruin your credit for some deadbeat? I wouldn't.
In reply to STM317 :
The payments could be put on pause but the banks were allowed to move them to the end of the term.
This means you're paying interest on those missed payments for the whole length of the mortgage which can add up to a huge amount of extra money you have to fork out.
It wasn't giving anyone any help, it was just kicking the can down the road.
Mr_Asa said:jmabarone said:Semi-on-topic: Obviously the solution is that corporations shouldn't be allowed to own residential properties.
(Is there a text color that indicates sarcasm?)
Is the sarcasm that corporations actually shouldnt, or that ~3/4 of rental properties are individuals and not corporations?
Wrong topic to bring up that stupid argument within. Sorry, carry on.
I was a landlord for a duplex from 2011 to 2023. Purchase price 45k, sale price 245k, netted about 100k of profit from rent in between after backing out all expenses. I never raised rents and the neighborhood was blue collar at best.
-Early on I asked to call their employer (or parents if they were college students) to verify ability to pay. I never charged application fees.
-In the last few years I would also accept a reference from the existing landlord, even if they couldn't prove income. I did this because I felt it was discriminatory against low income people who relied on off the books income or support from family members.
-Covid was fine. We canceled rent for the first month, then the government subsidies kicked in for the renters and they never missed a payment. I can't emphasize this enough-There was no berkeleying way I was going to evict somebody during a pandemic.
=======================================================
Many landlords (people and companies) aren't wealthy enough to afford the property they "own." When the wolf is at the landlord's door they act unethically-trying to skirt on maintenance, evict during a pandemic (Again, wtf?), adding BS like application fees, etc.
======================================
I don't think removing income verification would lower rents. We need to build a lot of housing to drive the prices down to a reasonable level.
CrustyRedXpress said:We need to build a lot of housing to drive the prices down to a reasonable level.
Except we can't, because thousands of greedy speculators are sitting on vast swathes of ideal property and refusing to build on it, because nefarious reasons, or something.
Sorry / not sorry, I said I wasn't going to post anything in this thread.
Duke said:CrustyRedXpress said:We need to build a lot of housing to drive the prices down to a reasonable level.
Except we can't, because thousands of greedy speculators are sitting on vast swathes of ideal property and refusing to build on it, because nefarious reasons, or something.
Sorry / not sorry, I said I wasn't going to post anything in this thread.
Except that we are. Homebuilding has been growing quite linearly since the recession. Just hit a million new single-family homes last year, which hasn't been done since before the recession. If you're looking for reasons why cost of housing has gone up, overlay this graph with population. It really is just supply and demand. Homebuilders can't build seem to build them fast enough to keep up, but they sure are trying.
In fact, if you want to solve personal economic problems complained about in other threads, like how hard it is to get a job or start a business...maybe look into construction. SVreX will tell you how hard it is to find good people in that industry.
https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/historical_data/index.html
CrustyRedXpress said:I was a landlord for a duplex from 2011 to 2023. Purchase price 45k, sale price 245k, netted about 100k of profit from rent in between after backing out all expenses. I never raised rents and the neighborhood was blue collar at best.
-Early on I asked to call their employer (or parents if they were college students) to verify ability to pay. I never charged application fees.
-In the last few years I would also accept a reference from the existing landlord, even if they couldn't prove income. I did this because I felt it was discriminatory against low income people who relied on off the books income or support from family members.
-Covid was fine. We canceled rent for the first month, then the government subsidies kicked in for the renters and they never missed a payment. I can't emphasize this enough-There was no berkeleying way I was going to evict somebody during a pandemic.
=======================================================
Many landlords (people and companies) aren't wealthy enough to afford the property they "own." When the wolf is at the landlord's door they act unethically-trying to skirt on maintenance, evict during a pandemic (Again, wtf?), adding BS like application fees, etc.
======================================
I don't think removing income verification would lower rents. We need to build a lot of housing to drive the prices down to a reasonable level.
Bolded part... that is interesting. I've never really thought of that directly, though I did have trouble getting an apartment in Chicago because I didn't have any credit history.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
