General rules:
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
My landlord once didn't call the repairman when the air conditioning went out on a Saturday when it was 110°F outside (and remained that way all weekend). She made the excuse that her AC repairman was at a tournament and didn't have anyone come over til the following Monday. You know. When rates were cheaper.
Nevermind the fact that she made >$20,000 in rent from us. She couldn't spend the extra $150 for the weekend rate.
That was the moment I was radicalized against landlords.
Probably because they're legally required to fix heat immediately but not AC. I agree with your PoV, but that's probably their thinking.
My ceiling leaked water anytime it rained. I woke up next to a puddle more than once. The landlord had his maitnence guy come, he went up into the attic crawl space, and placed a bucket where the leak was. A bucket. My kitchen sink also had a small leak, and I just placed a bucket under it, I had to empty it about once a week. Did that for over a year.
My landlord pulled the same shit. And I told him how much rent are you taking off until you fix this. And believe it or not for 8 months until he fixed the roof I paid half. But I made sure to pay the other half back to me like I was still paying rent.
All landlords are bastards.
ALAB!
Couldn't really rent apartments without having some sort of landlord. And not everyone wants to buy
Some are obviously better landlords than others
Most people would much rather buy, but they can't because landlords own all the property, driving up the rates. Consolidation of property is getting to be a real problem and even the most demented of free marketeers can recognize that real estate is a scare market that is easily cornered by oligopolies.
You don't need a landlord in order to rent 🤦🤦🤦
How would you rent without a landlord?
Who would you be renting from?
A landlord is the owner of property such as a farm, house, apartment, condominium, land, or real estate that is rented or leased to an individual or business, known as a tenant (also called a lessee or renter). The term landlord applies when a juristic person occupies this position.
I think there's a difference between like a landlord and a property management company.
Property management that fixes stuff, cleans up common areas, and such adds value. They do labor that's useful.
A landlord that just gets money because they legally own the place is not adding value. That's what most people hate.
You can, of course, have horrible people assigned to manage the property.
A good landlord do add value.
They do repairs on time (which can be quite costly), takes care of most HOA stuff (and fees), pay quite a lot of taxes (depending on where you live, of course).
Personally I inherited part of my grandmother home (the other part being owned by my father). When she died, I redid most of the isolation, electrical and paints, costing me 75k, and had to do paint again (10k) after the first tenant (they ruined it, it went from white to dark yellow due to how much they smoked).
We had some water damage, which was caused by the town (they refused to pay for the damages, invoking a impossible to follow law), and another one (caused by the neighbor, which refuses to do the repairs), which is still pending (we reduced the rent due to that).
Add to that the taxes, which basically reduce our "earning" by 40% where I live, 6 years after my grandmother passing I just started to see any income from the property.
So yeah, there are bastards amongs us, but abput as much as in any group of people. That's not homeowning that make the bastard, they'd be bastard, home or not.
Sounds like Satyrn to me. Six one way, Hexagon to the peak.
Alternative idea if you want a more vapitalist solution than government owned and distributed housing would be mandated rent to own. End of year, current owner tallies up all expenses, anything over is used to purchase equity at market rate. You either sell the equity when you move, or eventually own the place. No landlords just a delayed title transfer.
Of course this wouldn't solve the fact that housing is a human right that all should have access to but any capitalost solution requires a "loser" to suffer some form of horror
Housing is a human right and should be free.
Ban landlording and put a high fucking tax on vacant homes. I'm talking 100,000 a year. Watch the price crash. People with mortgages will complain because they now have negative equity. I don't care. Housing is a human right.
Can't afford the fine? Don't worry, your debt is forgiven if you give the government your house. Boom. Everyone with a little money gets to own a house, everyone else gets a government house.
Put a 5 year timer on the law so people know it's coming.
I agree for the human right, but who will pay for the house repairs? With what money ?
The residents will take the money they would have spent paying rent, and spend it on repairs instead.
Think about it. If repairs cost more than rent, nobody would want to be a landlord! Landlords exist because repairs are cheaper than rent.
In an ideal world, it would work, if the tenant has enough money ahead to do said repairs. If not, what will you do ? Ask the owner? He doesn't have any money anymore, other than his own salary, which may also not be enough to pay for said repairs.
Rent isn't just money lost, it is money that can be put asside in order to be used in the future to do those repairs.
How much money will be kept for that purpose depends on the landlord, which can be either a greedy cunt, a good guy, or anything in between), but that's another topic.
Another use for rent money is to build new homes. Building new things costs money, be it for the material used or the workers involved, and you can't just ask them to work for free.
So you're saying instead of saving our own money, we should trust a landlord to save our money for us, while skimming off the top?
That's the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals. Maybe ever!
In an ideal world, everyone would be kind enough to do the repairs in time. And give back the house in the same (if not better) shape than it was when you started renting it. But we are not in such world, and people, tenants as well as landlords, will think first about their own benefits before those of others they may never know.
I'd be happy to not ask a rent if my tenant would repair and improve the house with their own money. But who would want to upgrade or repair with his hard earned money a house they may move from some years later?
That's kinda the main problem.
The tenant do not have much insentive to maintain the house in good ahape, other than for it to be good enough to live in. Once they want to move, they will just expect any repairs or improvement to be done by the next tenant.
But if the house is in bad shape (it happened to me after my first tenant who basically wrecked my grandma old house), no tenant would want to live there knowing they will have to pay a lot of money upfront to get an acceptable place to live into.
That why it is logical for the owner/landlord to be the one to take care of all that.
They are the ones who have the most insentives at keeping the place in good shape and improve it.
And to do that, they need to earn enough money, which cannot be done alone by working himself, thus what tenant pays: a participation for future repairs and improvements, in the form of a rent.
Now you'll always find greedy cunts amongs landlords, that considers the rent as their own pocket money. There are way to limit that kind of behaviour (rent limits, among others).
Add I didn't even talk about how to actually build houses. Where would you find that money? The tenant obviously doesn't have enough money, and so will the landowner without rent.
In your plan, no new housing on spec to sell would be built. Great solution.
That's because housing is only ever built so it can be sold to landlords to charge rent.
And the problem with that theory is, it's wrong.
First, plenty of luxury housing is built to sell to rich people. The rich people move into the luxury housing, and sell their posh housing to well-to-do workers. They move into the posh housing and sell their nice housing to working professionals. Who sell their run-down housing to poor workers. Who will, under this system, either sell their crap housing to the destitute or just give it to the government to avoid the new taxes.
And second, housing is the government's job to provide. Private capital should not be responsible for building the housing. Housing is a human right, so the govenment should be building it. We shouldn't trust markets to distribute resources people need to live. Markets are okay for, like, video games and shit... but we shouldn't trust markets with human rights.
Would be nice but I doubt it's going to happen
Regulate landlords!
Absolutely!
Meh, just regurgitate them to heavin' and don't call 'em back. Shrug Whatever.
I didn't stutter, fuck land lords.
What about people who don't want to buy homes?
We figured out alternative solutions to private transportation ownership in many parts of the world.
What sort of solutions from that would fit the case of housing?
Publicly funded and managed housing for those that need it instead of privately funded and managed (landlords). Also, even though it wasnt what I was alluding to, tenant unions.
Wow he even cut him a deal on the blood clean up rate? Do you know how much money he could make if he charged market rates for hiring a hit man and bio cleanup crew?
Here is my petition to remove the word lord from the title and henceforth refer to the as land managers. To be a lord one must be noble and to be noble one must oblige and for certain they do not oblige aka noblesse oblige
Landleech
Nobles are always cunts, so landlord fits.
Landscalpers
I move to make an amendment. The amendment being to change the wording of land managers to housing parasites.
I'm curious, what's your ideal circumstance? People don't technically have to rent if they don't want to but typically that means giving up a lot.
That is correct, Lord just doesn't fit in within modern times. Also like stated, it only refers to the person who manages the land.
Glad im finally out of renting
happy for you. shits expensive af
Money isn't real but you are accurate no less for all the Talismanic scribbles over the not-paper trickery thievery conjure. Daemons are not as difficult as the spooky stew. They are also not bad...or good...because, like Mani-Mani, will never be real more than these emulating shared imagination boxes...
Now you understand why they're so attached to the thought of throwing "up."