• RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    180
    arrow-down
    63
    ·
    1 year ago

    One thing I’ve learned on reddit is that you never tell people on platforms like that or even this one that you’re a landlord. You could be the best landlord, never raise a reasonable rent, keep a well and promptly maintained property, and LanDlOrDs aRe The ScUm of ThE Earth!!1! is all you hear.

    • BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      114
      arrow-down
      60
      ·
      1 year ago

      The very idea of being a landlord is pretty evil though? Like in a housing shortage you’re hoarding property and profiting off it.

      • TheSambassador@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        70
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        So while I generally agree with your sentiment, there are some obvious ways that sometime could be an ethical landlord.

        What if you have a house that’s too big, so you convert a floor into an apartment? You’re adding to the number of housing units available. Should you be forced to sell a portion of your house/building to whoever wants to live there? Or should you be able to rent it out to someone at a reasonable rate? Do we want rules that discourage people from potentially adding units to the market?

        I feel like the “all landlords are evil” narrative is way too simplistic, and that simplistic view turns off people who would otherwise support reasonable limits on landlords and housing ownership. Like, it’s obvious that we need limits and taxes on people who own multiple properties, and it’s obvious that there are companies that exploit renters and drive up prices, but it’s all more complicated than just “landlords evil lol”.

        • Mawks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          28
          ·
          1 year ago

          I rent my property because it’s the only way I could’ve bought it at my age and I use that money to pay for the mortgage of it while I live somewhere I don’t want to (under parent’s wing in a crappy city) but angry people rarely if ever consider all scenarios

          • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            46
            arrow-down
            20
            ·
            1 year ago

            Someone else is litteraly paying your mortgage for you because you cannot afford it otherwise. How out of touch do you have to be to say that with a straight face?

            • Mawks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              26
              ·
              1 year ago

              Thanks for the insult and making my point, I can afford it but in my country you have to make a downpayment of 20% of the value and that ate into my savings, I want to recover some of my savings before moving to another city and eating into those savings more, plus I have to wait a year for my wife’s job, is it wrong to rent it for that year before I move?

              • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                23
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                How am I making your point? You litteraly said that you could not afford the place, so you rented it out instead.

                Someone is paying your mortgage for you because you cannot afford it, and then you will kick that person out when you want to. That person will then have to move again in a market that gets worse by the month.

                I’d say that is pretty bad all around.

                • Mawks@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  19
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  How can I not afford the place? This is just to make my life easier I would not artificially make it harder on me if I can rent it to some europeans that will stay on a sabatical in my country.

                  What is my other choice? Leave the place abandoned for a year until I move? Prices get worse every year and I found a great opportunity to buy now instead of wait until I could buy it without a bank loan. Prices doubled because I waited so this time I don’t want to wait. My mortgage is 25% of my salary that’s not bad is it?

                  • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    22
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You said that you rent the property you bought because that is the only way you could do it. That is litteraly your first sentence.

                    Someone else is paying your mortgage right now so that you can move in later.

                    I am not sure what else can be said.

          • TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            25
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            So you’re keeping home ownership away from someone who can afford to pay your mortgage is what you’re really saying.

            • aikixd@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              1 year ago

              How did you come to this conclusion? If someone is renting it means they they can’t pay for mortgage. Otherwise they would’ve done so. He said, that he needed to make a 20% payment to even get the mortgage. Idk how much money that was for him, but where I live that would be around 130k$. Clearly not everyone has that kind of cash.

              And what’s your solution? Disallow renting properties for which mortgage wasn’t posted in full?

              • TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                If you buy it, live in it. Stop contributing to the housing crisis. Greed got us here, it certainly won’t get us out.

                • aikixd@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So disallowing renting. So you don’t control your property, which means you don’t own it but lease it.

                  This is problematic, since not being able to open your house is worse than having difficulties with obtaining it. I agree that generally having some people own a lot of housing units is bad, but not being able to own a house means communism. And not as a scare, but quite literally, as in definition.

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

                    If you buy it, live in it. That’s not communism, that’s taking control of a crisis. Feel free to rent out part of the house while you live in it, in fact some places are incentivizing exactly that. But owning multiple homes for profit is the problem, whether it’s by corporations or “mom and pop” landlords. It’s a problem we can and should fix.

      • Catsrules@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Your assuming everyone wants to own property over renting.

        House and property ownership has a lot of responsibility and expenses involved. Your water heater breaks well there is $1000+ your roof needs replacing there is 30K. All of that goes away when you rent as it isn’t your responsibility.

        If you own property it can be harder and more risky to relocate. I know a few people that bought in 2007 and then were stuck as they couldn’t afford to move because they were upsidedown on their house.

        Not saying renting is all sunshine and roses. I personally would rather own then rent but home ownership isn’t for everyone.

        But I do think it is a major problem when you have a few companies buying up all property so no one else can afford it. But I don’t think being a Landlord is inherently evil.

        • papertowels@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Threw down over 20k in fixes so far in our first year of homeownership, and due to interest rates and closing costs, we don’t really have the opportunity to move anywhere else without taking a significant financial hit.

          You bet it’s not for everyone.

          • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah but you know what, you always have a home. It is very unlikely the bank will ever foreclose on you, they rarely do that, even in 2008 almost nobody lost their homes.

            But me, I lose my home on my landlords whim. At any given time I may have just 30 days to pack my life up and fuck off, and there’s nothing I can do about it.

            You have stable permanent shelter. Don’t undervalue that just because you have to maintain it.

              • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Rights that allow me just 30 days to pack up and leave.

                Right now the news in my area is rife with “renovictions” and landlords kicking people to “move family in” but they never have to give any proof of those things. There is regulation, but there is no enforcement.

            • papertowels@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Definitely not undervaluing it, however it’s worth pointing out that 20k is over a years worth of rent for a similar property where I’m at.

              Are you renting month to month? Typically where I’m from you sign 1 year long rental agreements, so that is surprising to hear. Additionally, in some states, if the tenant has been living in a location for over a year, the owner has to give two months notice.

              At the end of the day, being financially locked down to a location vs having a “permanent” home, as well as having the opportunity to move wherever you want vs having no permanent home are two sides of the same coins.

              • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You don’t have the opportunity to move where you want when you’re paying 50% or more of your takehome on rent. As an owner you have way more opportunity because you have equity you can leverage if you want to move. Renters have no equity.

                It is the furthest thing from two sides of the same coin.

                • papertowels@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  That sounds like an income vs cost of living issue to me. It wouldn’t really be feasible to move until many, many years in if you were making mortgage payments of 50% or more of your takehome.

                  Ngl in this imagined scenario where shelter is taking up 50% of your income, you’re kinda fucked regardless of renting or owning. There’s no way you’d be able to save enough money to replace the roof (25k?) Replace aging sewer pipes (9k to reline, maybe 15k to replace?) Or replace the windows (haven’t gotten quotes for this yet, but I’m dreading it). You’ll have to get financing for those fixes, so that’s even more interest.

                  However if you get a better job elsewhere, it is far easier to take advantage of that opportunity if you rent.

                  You have no equity when renting, but you also haven’t spent a cent on maintenance, and you don’t have to deal with closing costs, taxes, and whatnot.

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

                    Ngl in this imagined scenario where shelter is taking up 50% of your income

                    Imagined? Man, fuck you

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

              Correct, but only one mountain can be climbed at a time. We have more reliable food sources than housing sources right now.

          • papertowels@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I actually recently learned about housing co-ops. Basically an apartment complex led by a committee of residents. It’s non profit high density housing, so you can buy a share (meaning rent an apartment) at much lower rates. As an example, in my area the co-ops are at 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of traditional rentals. The downside is, from what I hear, the folks managing the apartment complex can be even worse than an HOA if you’re unlucky.

            IMO this is the sustainable way forward for housing.

          • Catsrules@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            In a perfect world sure, government is fully funded and runs smoothly people care about the everyone etc… etc…

            But in reality I really would be very hesitant to want to live in that world. It is very scary to have a single organization control all your housing. At least with the way it currently is if you don’t like your landlord you can go somewhere else. If the government owns everything your kind of stuck dealing with the same organization no matter where you go. Governments are not immune to corruption and can screw you over even worse in some cases then an organization.

            In my opinion the best solution is many private citizens and small rental companies combined with government enforcing laws protecting both parties. However one big issues I am seeing is huge companies buy up everything in a small area and build a monopolies on rentals. That isn’t good either.

            • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Governments are not immune to corruptions, but in the democracy there are ways to influence the government. Private companies that buy all the property are doing the corruption by design, in this case it’s not even called corruption, it’s normal profit-driven business, it’s supposed to be like that. And you can’t do shit about that, there is no ways to influence them

              • Catsrules@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                And you can’t do shit about that, there is no ways to influence them

                You influence them via your business and local laws. That is why I specifically mentioned that the best solution is having multiple small companies. If you have problems with one you go to another one. Just like what you do with any other company. Yeah it stuck to have to move but it is better move and get a better situation then be stuck in a bad situation.

          • Pixel@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are basically insuring yourself against those expenses, which has a premium. If you are good with money and have a savings, you can afford not to pay that premium. Not everyone is in that position or smart enough with money. So many people are bad with money, that stuff really should be taught in school.

          • steltek@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            But you’re not researching, hiring, and scheduling a contractor to fix it. You don’t need to become an expert in long term planning and anticipate problems. You’re not mentally cataloging basic maintenance tasks like when you last painted the siding or mowed the lawn.

            Home ownership vs renting goes beyond equity and I know a lot of people who were happy renting because it gave them a huge chunk of free time back for trips, hobbies, etc.

      • grue@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Like in a housing shortage you’re hoarding property and profiting off it.

        Housing shortages are caused by bad government policy: namely, low-density zoning. Direct your anger towards the entity that deserves it, and make them fix their fuck-up.

        (Note: I’m not making some kind of Libertarian “all government is bad” argument here. I’m saying that in this specific case, the laws need to be changed.)

        • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is enough empty property to house every homeless person 30 times. Some of those empty property are summer houses and shit, but even then the problem isn’t the lack of housing, it’s treating homes as a mean to make money out of people’s basic needs. You can build the best walkable city in the world, but if it will be bought by professional landlords immediately it will not solve shit.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not everyone is able or willing to own their property, what would they do if landlords didn’t exist?

          • KarmaTrainCaboose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            What if I build a house on a piece of land I own and want to rent it out?

            The second construction is completed I’m all of a sudden a scumbag for privatizing someone else’s right to shelter? Even though it’s a house I built on my land? Doesn’t make much sense to me.

              • KarmaTrainCaboose@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                As I stated in the very first sentence: to rent it out.

                I suppose your response will be “but renting it out is bad! We should make that illegal because you’re extracting wealth from the tenant!”

                Then I will say to you “fine, I suppose I will not build that house at all”

                This is how you get a take a housing shortage in the US and make it far, far worse.

            • Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re moving the goal posts here. Did you buy the land for the purpose of building property? Bad. Did you convert arable land into housing? Bad. Was it a rocky bad piece of land that you invested in to build something more out of it? Good. Housing policy isn’t binary but in most cases the current personal private multiownership model doesn’t help anyone. My perspective is no one should be allowed to own more than one house, and if so anything beyond the first house should be heavily taxed.

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

                Buying land for the purpose of building property is bad? I think any policy that discourages development of additional housing is probably not going to be great for house prices. Or if you’re handing out houses in a lottery system, it won’t be great for housing supply at least.

                • Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ll give you an example; my country has food insecurity, rich people take arable farmland and build suburbs on that land instead of infilling the city downtown which has single detached homes less than a kilometre from the centre of the city. Do you think that this is a good thing they’re buying this farmland for suburbs, or a bad thing?

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            So they would still have a landlord it would be the government instead and people would be pissed when the government increases rent or throws people out because they’re destroying the place or not paying their rent…

            • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’d much prefer to have social housing than slumlords that want to make a profit on the rented space while also keeping the value of the building.

              • kbotc@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                So, how does the government decide who gets beachfront property and who lives behind the power plant?

                • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The same way that it works now? The unit is for rent, you take an appointment and the first person that qualifies get it.

                  This is not the gotcha you think it is. What so different than the current system?

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Make it illegal to rent out property you don’t live on.

          If you want to rent out your basement, or build a seperate dwelling on your property then you are adding to the available housing and can rent that. Most people would rather build their own equity given the chance, and this would provide rentals for temporary living situations.

          • krolden@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Lol so many people here hate landlords but state ownership is just a step too far apparently

      • Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        What’s the alternative here? Only letting big companies without any ethical regards rent housing?

        Sure, there’s a good argument to be made that housing is essential to survive and as such should be provided by the government, but that’s not the world we live in. In this society, it’s likely someone is going to have to rent it out and I’d rather it be a person who actually gives a shit and can be held responsible rather than some faceless corporation.

        • willeypete23@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Simple. Only individuals can buy single family homes. No renting of single family homes. And remove zoning restrictions to allow for more multifamily units.

          • WoodenBleachers@lemmy.basedcount.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh hoo hoo, when you talk about removing zoning restrictions things get hairy fast. The city of Houston has no zoning restrictions and from what I can tell (I’m not from there) some people love it and some people hate it. Apartments bring with it noise and generally clutter an area. You need nee infrastructure to manage an apartment, the tall place blocks the sun. Now if you’re in a city then you still have to think about where those apartments may be built. If they’re cheap and in a nice neighborhood then they’ll be snagged up so quickly. If they’re in a bad neighborhood then no one is going to want them. So what zoning restrictions would you recommend removing?

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Actually in my experience faceless corporations tend to follow the rules much more stringently.

      • SomeRandomWords@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think everyone in your replies is conflating being a full time landlord and a part time landlord. One of them is definitely more evil than the other.

          • brick@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            My previous landlord was amazing. Dealt with every issue that arose in a timely fashion, never raised my rent (which was already very fair based on the location), and even installed central AC after my first kid was born since the house was old and could get pretty hot in the summers.

            And she wasn’t the only good landlord I’ve had.

            Sorry your experience has been bad with renting, and I agree that most landlords are terrible (I’ve had plenty of those as well), but just because you haven’t ever had a good landlord doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

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

        The vast majority of landlords are normal people renting out a portion of the home they live in as well.

        What you are asking is that they should close those doors or have the rental be free? Either of those situations is bunk.

      • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, certain corporate landlords, like Blackrock, is even. Most small-scale landlords are not inherently evil because they rent out their properties. Having a few is not “hoarding.”

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

              I said achieve wealth. These people aren’t generating large amounts of personal wealth by withholding a basic human right from someone

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Best case scenario, rent is low and only covers taxes and building upkeep. Then you’re essentially getting a zero interest loan since property is valuable and it’s being loaned for free.

        • BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Rent is obscene virtually everywhere. Rent should not preclude someone from saving money towards owning their own home, and it really does.

          • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Also, the available, functionally livable land is going to quickly get smaller with climate change. So the more viable land is hoarded, the more people are pushed into desperate and bad living situations. (For example, who are the people with homes on coastlines affected by rising sea levels going to actually sell their soon-to-be-underwater property to? Won’t it effectively be valueless under water?)

            https://www.semafor.com/article/11/02/2022/climate-change-alters-way-of-life-in-michigans-upper-peninsula

            Michigan’s Upper Peninsula is being gentrified because it’s an area least likely to be affected by climate change. A lot of the mega-rich are buying property around that area.

          • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I don’t disagree. Obscenely high rent is common and bad. That means the interest on the loan that you are getting is extremely high. The solutions would be subsiding it by government owned housing, allowing new housing (especially high density) to be built, and discouraging people from living in cities. I think we should do both the first two.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If the rent is covering the taxes and upkeep then the renter is paying it anyway through a middle man.

          If the rent isn’t covering costs then the landlord is bad at this and won’t be a landlord for long.

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        Where would people live then? Those don’t want to buy. Under the bridge?

      • mke_geek@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        No it’s absolutely not. Your comment displays a complete ignorance of the business.

          • mke_geek@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not a scam. Not taking advantage of people. You’re just wrong on all accounts.

            • cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              what do you do as a landlord? Like when you come into work during your weird landlord schedule they always seem to have - what do you actually do?

              • mke_geek@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                Being a landlord means being self-employed. There’s no set 8-5 M-F schedule like there is when working in an office.

                It could mean meeting a contractor at 7:30am on a weekday or it could mean working on the weekend. Or staying at a property until 11pm painting to get it ready for a tenant.

                • cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  There’s no set 8-5 M-F schedule like there is when working in an office.

                  that’s why I mentioned the weird schedule they always have. My current one has some shit like Saturday 1 pm to 4 pm and then they don’t reopen until Tuesday at noon then are closed again on Wednesday. Like what the fuck.

                  I never see my landlord doing shit like that. Just show people to new apartments usually.

                  I work from home and look outside. I see people move in and move out all the time. I rarely see the guy in charge doing anything other than handing over some keys.

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

                  or it could mean owning cheap apartment complex and having a building manager take care of almost everything.

        • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Wrong.

          I’d make a point, but you didn’t bother. Typical landlord unwilling to put in the work.

          • mke_geek@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            1 year ago

            Another person who doesn’t know what they’re talking about who is anti-business.

            • jaackf@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m sure they’re not anti business, just anti exploitation

              • mke_geek@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                Well then it doesn’t make sense because being a landlord has nothing to do with exploitation.

                • jaackf@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I mean, even the dictionary spells it out pretty clearly.

                  “Explotation: The act of using someone unfairly for your own advantage”

                • nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  it has everything to do with maximizing rents and minimizing costs at the expensive of the people living in those properties. There is a reason why there are rules about increasing rents and protests / laws against demovicitions.

            • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              What’s more pro-business than wanting the people doing all the work to get paid without the leech shareholders that contribute nothing taking all the incentive for that work?

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Purchasing something that there is a limited amount of in order to profit off someone else wanting it. Sure sounds the same to me…

              No, wait, they are different. Concert tickets are necessary for survival.

              • mke_geek@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                This is a textbook case of “I don’t understand that thing, so I’m going to irrationally fear and hate that thing”. Making a comparison of two things that are completely different displays that lack of understanding.

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This is a textbook example of “I can’t defend a thing, so I’m just going to say you’re wrong for disliking without offering any actual arguments for it.” Making no statements other than “No, your wrong!” Displays your lack of justification.

    • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve had shitty landlords and good ones. My current one hasn’t changed the rent price in 4 years, comes out same day or next day to deal with issues… to be honest I wish I could copy and paste my current landlord to my next place too 😭

      One of my old landlords tried to charge me for damage I didn’t cause… but guess who recorded every nook and cranny in 4K after accepting the keys, and used that footage to dispute and get my full deposit back 🤪🤪

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        My last landlord didn’t raise my rent for seven years. I was thankful until I moved out and he still hasn’t been able to re-rent the place after two years despite dropping the rent by $100. He just didn’t want to risk losing his prize schmuck lol.

        What I most hate is landlords who put an automatic 5% (or whatever) increase into an auto-renewing lease. It’s bullshit because their mortgage generally isn’t increasing like that.

    • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Small-scale landlords also usually have full time jobs and use rent to supplement their income. Not every landlord is just rolling in cash.

      • CafecitoHippo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I work at a credit union where we deal with a lot of smaller investors and many of them have properties where they aren’t breaking even on a cash flow basis. But they are using the losses to lower their taxable income while building equity elsewhere. They are (from tenants I’ve heard from) good landlords. Lately we’ve been dealing with a lot of realtors that are buying up properties and that just doesn’t sit well with me so I’m looking to change careers and get more into C&I and CRE rather than SFR investments. Being able to cash out 7.25 weeks of accrued vacation time I haven’t been able to take too is a big plus.

      • nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        In a lot of places if you own any land you are a millionaire, it’s coming to the point that if you own a condo you are a millionaire.

        • SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          So? Anybody who works their entire life and can save a few hundred bucks per month can be a milliionaire. You make it sound like those working people are you enemies.

          • nte@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s true that “few hundred bucks” is enough to reach one million. But it is not for anybody. Let’s take 999 bucks, which is the maximum of “few hundred.”

            If you were to save 999 bucks and didn’t consider any interest or investments, it would take you approximately 84 years to accumulate one million dollars.

            However, it’s important to consider interest when planning for financial growth. Let’s assume an interest rate of 2%. Even with this interest, it would still take around 49 years to reach one million, and you’d also need to account for the impact of inflation, which can erode the value of your money over time.

            To achieve your financial goals more efficiently, you might need a higher interest rate or explore investment opportunities where your money can work for you, such as becoming a landlord…

          • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            A few hundred per month. Let’s do some math. Let’s say you work and earn some form of income for 35 years, or 420 months. If you save 500 every month, you’ll have a grand total of 210.000. That’s 790k off of a million. Even at 1k per month, you’re still less than halfway into being a millionaire.

            You need to have a consistent salary of over 2.380/month (28.5k/year) to accrue a total of 1 million during those 35 years. So, supposing you earn 5k a month (60k/year), and can put half of that into savings, yes, you can “become a millionaire” by the time you’re retiring.

              • nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Your comment what so intellectual and full of information I was about to save up 10 million+ dollars and own a cheap 3 story apartment complex. I now drain the legal maximum amount of money out of my tenants. Thanks! I can now buy that 2 million dollar house I was eyeing

              • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Please explain how to turn $210k into $1m with interest alone. I’ll even be generous and say you can take an additional 35 years of time to grow said interest.

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

                    Can you link to the actual calculator you’re using for that? That page you linked is just their homepage. I’ve never seen a calculator that accounts for a DRIP.

                  • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    No, you have 35 years to earn interest, because the first 35 years was spent saving the principal, remember? And remember how I said with interest alone? So no more $500/month contributions either.

                    So with that calculator, $210k at 4% interest for 35 years puts you at $849,611.66 with monthly compounding.

                    So not a million.

              • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ah yes, tell me more about how everyone has an extra 2.500 lying around every month which they don’t need to spend at all, which they could just leave in a savings account and never ever have to deal with unexpected, unpleasant, expensive surprises.

          • nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah I’m going to slave a large part of my entire life so I can own a house, so I can then rent it it in 50+ years. I’m sure by the time you save a million dollars the houses will be worth 3 million. They are already pushing 1.5 million in major cities.

            • SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’d rather slave to own a house than to survive, but I don’t because I’m self employed and work for myself. Each their own. However, it’s good that you’re aware of inflation, maybe you can use the fruits of your slavery to do something against it.

              • nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes because everyone wants to finally own a house when they pushing their late 60’s that was always the dream. Okay cool story it’s funny how you manage to twist everything everyone says but actually contribute almost nothing intellectually to the conversation. You would think someone so knowledgeable and moral like you would share their strats instead of being dismissive and ant intellectual. But hey maybe you have inherited wealth and your “job” is checking in on your building managers once a week. Each their own.

                • SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Lol, you’re the one twisting everything I say. I say “people can do X” you answer with “I don’t wanna do X”. You don’t have to do what other people can do, I’m not suggesting you do what others can do. I get it, you sound angry and bitter, probably because you see no perspective for yourself. As somebody who has been sober for more than six years I’ve seen a lot of people who feel attacked when simply shown that different lives exist. I feel you.

                  • nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    No you don’t say people can do X you make passive aggressive remarks on how people don’t know how to invest (you never really give an intelligent response beyond this). More passive remark, I don’t even know what “no perspective for yourself” means is that supposed to be no future but you realized it was too aggressive even for you so you changed it and now it makes no sense. I have no idea what your sober comment is in the context of. I don’t feel you, you never say anything of substance and feel you can just deflect with passive aggressive insults.

          • Crazypartypony@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think this is the most privileged comment I’ve read since I got to Lemmy. Congratulations on being incredibly sheltered and out of touch. /s

            • SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lol, knowing what some people can do is privilege? That’s some khmer rouge level ideology, you’re delusional. Also I’ve lived long enough in abject poverty that I think you should fuck off.

      • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Being a landlord, making money off of the hard work of other people, and still having enough time to have a full time job “on the side” means you don’t need to be a landlord because it obviously isn’t an important job that you have to dedicate time and attention to.

      • TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        Choosing to use a basic human right as a form of income is scummy. All landlords are scum, whether they are rich or not.

        • huge_clock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          People need a place to stay and not everyone has piles of cash for a down payment. Vote for the change you want, but in this system we need rentals.

          • TheActualDevil@sffa.community
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There should be options for people to rent. Personally, I don’t want to own a house any time soon. That’s a lot more maintenance and repairs I’m responsible for that I don’t want. BUT, the reason it costs so much for people to purchase houses in the first place are because too many people are purchasing multiple properties as an investment, creating an artificial housing shortage. There now aren’t enough houses available for the amount of people who want to buy them, so the price skyrockets. Down payments are typically a percentage of the overall cost. Overall cost goes down, the pile of cash you need to begin is a lot smaller.

    • VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve never really seen a landlord who does all those things, unless they also live in the property and wanted roommates to help with the mortgage.

    • grayman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Anyone with a mediocre amount of business sense or anyone that actually owns / owned (or pretends they own via a mortgage) real estate knows exactly how terribly difficult it is to just keep everything running.

      This alone explains why reddit and such have no damn clue why renting is so expensive.

      • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why is it difficult to keep things running? Keeping the plumbing, electrical, and building amenities in order is part of your legal responsibility. Don’t like it? Get a real job. People HAVE to have a home. You don’t HAVE to make money off it.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not just being a landlord, owning a property at all, no matter how much you paid and when, means you’re rich…

      As a couple we own a condo paid 85k in the early 2010s and a cottage paid 50k in 2020 (that was on the market for months)? I’ve had many users tell me I’ve got no business talking about the housing crisis because I’m privileged… Because the two of us are able to afford the mortgage on 135k in property???

      • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Considering I have a very good credit score and a full time job but the banks wouldn’t lend me that much regardless if I could find a shack for that little, yea, sounds like privilege to a lot of us out here.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can have the best credit score ever, if you’re working minimum wage then you can’t expect to get a loan. I bought the condo with 10k down making about 40k/year to give you an idea…

    • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t be an asshole, don’t be a landlord. It’s not that hard. I’ll tell landlords to go fuck themsleves in real life as well. They are leeches on society

      • ColorcodedResistor@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        its like putting on a nazi uniform and trying to convince everyone you’re a "good nazi’ landlords are the same.

        • cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          seriously, the “ethical” landlord is always some douche nozzle who “found a good investment” and “sorry I just got lucky owning a property”

        • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can go back to watching your fucking Fox News too because you obviously follow their bullshit

        • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Or,….don’t be a fucking landlord asshole. All landleeches can go fuck themsleves and actually work

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why would someone become a landlord in the first place? You’re not born with a title deed in your hand, and if you were given income property by a family member, you’re still profiting off of the hard work of others. The only reason someone would choose to go out of their way to invest in rental properties is because they see an easier way of making money than having to go out and work for it like an honest person. “Mom and Pop landlords” aren’t a thing. If you have the funds to buy an entire second property, you aren’t just a “mom and pop”, youre in the 1%.

      • willeypete23@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m in that boat. I’m a land lord. I built my forever home but after a medical issue I lost my job. Unfortunately my career choice, while lucrative, only has one or two positions per state. So I had to move. I’d like to return to the home I built but that won’t be for another 10 years minimum when I retire. I don’t want to sell my home, so I rented it out. I’m currently renting an apartment myself.

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you only own a single property you’re not the subject here. A lot of people wouldn’t even use the word landlord to describe you, because your income isn’t generated from ownership without production.

          The word landlord is regressing to mean someone who owns multiple properties and just collects rent without having to do any value-generating work.

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

            Sorry no, landlord still means anyone who rents homes, even a single one. Even a single room or a basement suite. Just ask any renter what they call the person who they pay for the space. They call them the landlord. You’re stuck in a dark bubble.

      • UnverifiedAPK@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you have the funds to buy an entire second property, you aren’t just a “mom and pop”, youre in the 1%.

        This just in - every blue collar business owner with a shop is in the 1%

      • Captain_Nipples@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why do anything and sell for a profit then? And owning rental properties is work. A lot of work. And you’re wrong about the 1% thing

        • Stuka@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah but see if you stock the grocery store shelves, you’re profiting off the hard work of the people who actually made the food…so you’re scum!

        • 31337@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is it really a lot of work? I’ve rented for about 10 years of my life, and I’ve only seen maintenance get done maybe 4 times. The work was just hired out (probably the cheapest they could find). I’ve had to do all the rest of the work that needed done myself.

      • GratefullyGodless@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why would someone become a landlord? My uncle took out loans to buy distressed properties sold at auctions, and then he would put in the “sweat equity” to fix them up for renting out, all while working his full time job. So, he would work all day, and afterwards would manage those buildings doing all the maintenance and cleaning himself.

        Why did he do it? He did it to make money…so he could send his son to college, so hopefully his son wouldn’t have to hustle a full time job and a busy part time job as well. My uncle worked his ass off to make a better life for his son, how selfish of him.

      • dobesv@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Everyone is always profiting off the hard work of others, that’s the whole point of civilization. Yes, many landlords are exploitative. But not all, and probably not even most, are.

      • huge_clock@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You either put your money in a savings account at low interest rates or invest in something else.

      • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why would someone become a landlord in the first place?

        As a way out of a job they hate and as an investment opportunity. Maybe they’d rather paint walls and replace toilets than sit in an office.

        “Mom and Pop landlords” aren’t a thing

        Where’d you get this, straight from your ass? Yes they are, I know several.

        You’re so confidently incorrect here I’m not sure why I’m bothering as I’m sure you’ll be a prick about it but virtually nothing you wrote is true of the landlords I know. And before you accuse me of simping for corporations. Nope. I’ve lived several years in corporate owned properties and despise the level of exploitation they standardized on. They’re fucking evil bastards.

        The fact that you don’t know and can’t fathom a landlord that owns a small amount of property and treats their tenants decently lets me know that you have a very limited life experience. I am moving soon to a corporate owned place for a variety of reasons but I wish I didn’t have to. My current landlord owns just this one property to my knowledge and he’s treated me well since day one. There’s a huge difference.

        Maybe if you pulled your head from your ass you’d understand that your lack of experience has no bearing on how reality is.

    • skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a landlord and someone who loves shenanigans, it’s been great. It’s never been easier to piss off dozens of people I don’t like at once.

      Like, sure dude, my owning a few houses is totally the reason your city that I don’t live in won’t build new housing to meet demand, and I totally enjoy spending all of my weekends doing manual labor fixing shit for my tenants.

      • MaxHardwood@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        my owning a few houses is totally the reason your city that I don’t live in won’t build new housing to meet demand

        You’re literally buying the supply and creating a demand by owning more than you can personally use.

        • skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If you want to have an actual debate about housing supply and demand, I’m always down for reasonable discussion.

          Ultimately what matters is that enough supply is built to meet buyer demand, whether it be from owner occupants or landlords. Landlords can buy up or build as much housing as they want, but as long as there’s still more available, the prices will stay reasonable and owner occupants will have no issues getting affordable housing. And buying up too much will crater the rental rates if there are significantly fewer potential tenants than available units. There are plenty of markets where this is the case, the city I am in is one of them. Someone on a $50k salary here would have no issues finding a modestly sized SFH in a reasonably nice working class neighborhood. Cheaper if you’re willing to go for a condo or townhouse.

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s what I have to do on my weekends too, and I don’t own shit.

    • GreenBottles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      never mind the fact that that landlord probably worked hard to buy his first property and subsequent properties to self-employ themselves in the first place

      • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        covid hoarders also worked hard to buy up all the hand sanitizer and toilet paper

        also, pick a monster dictator who committed genocide, they worked hard too

        working hard doesn’t mean you’re doing good things, you can work hard and be evil

        landlords are creating a scarcity of places for people to home and feed their families in order to charge those families money to get rich off, and, regardless of how “nice” they pretend to be in fixing the sink if it clogs, will throw a baby into the street to be homeless if their demands for money aren’t met.

      • zovits@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m sorry for your negative experiences, but please be mindful that not only your subjective world exists. I might have been extremely lucky, but all my previous rental places were maintained by nice folks.

        • young_broccoli@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Its not that the person themselves cant be “good” but the act of hoarding and limiting access to a basic human need, like shelter, to use it as leverage in order to extort profit from others is wrong.
          Landlord-ing is inherently bad it doesnt matter if the person doing it is the nicest person on earth.

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

            Sure he did, but he provided me with a place to live at, which otherwise I couldn’t have afforded. Just like any other service or goods provider.

        • nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Nice folks” doesn’t mean shit if they are paying the absolute minimum to upkeep a building and never missing a chance to raise the rent. The overwhelming amount of landlords are the above.

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

            None of these points have applied to them. I get the feeling it might be a case of culture differences, maybe the toxic landlording mentioned in the meme is more prevalent in the US?

            • cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              You can click on the “Show context” button to see who I responded to in order to gauge the proper context of ethical landlord in this case.

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

            My previous one hasn’t raised rent for five years, and even then he asked if it would be okay with us. Which it was, for even the raised rent was significantly below the market rate and he always responded quickly to any issues we have raised. He was a blue-collar worker who inherited a flat he didn’t want to sell, so rented it out to those who couldn’t afford to buy a property on their own.