Assuming this comment isn’t ironic: there is no such thing as a good landlord. Landlords are parasitic middlemen who live by leeching off the value created by workers. They contribute no value whatsoever.
This is admitted even in mainstream economics, its termed rent-seeking.
Okay, I’ll bite. I just bought a 4-bed/3-bath (actually 4 bathrooms, but bathroom math made it “3-bath”) because we are a family of four in an expensive tourist spot and wanted a guest bedroom for family and visitors. It just so happened one bed and a 3/4 bathroom is in an attached 1-bedroom apartment with its own kitchen and living room.
So when I retire, and my oldest is out of the house to college, we are thinking we could rent that particular part (at a very reasonable rate to people we know). It is part of the house, so I can’t sell it separately. So the choice is be a landlord, or don’t offer housing (I suppose I could make it an AirBnB and make even more money, but this area is already fucked for housing for that reason).
So if there is no such thing as a good landlord, what would you recommend in a situation like this? Let someone live there for free? Then they’d be costing me money. Don’t rent it out? AirBnB?
So when I retire, and my oldest is out of the house to college, we are thinking we could rent that particular part (at a very reasonable rate to people we know). It is part of the house, so I can’t sell it separately.
If you don’t need that space, then you might as well sell it and let another family make use of it instead.
Yours is not a unique situation; a lot of older people downsize when their kids move out, and they have a lot of extra rooms and space they no longer need. Its the right decision anyway, as you’re now free to be more mobile, and get rid of all the years of accumulated junk.
Sure you can argue they dont need that space, but a lot of kids return after college. If I had kids I’d only downsize once they are well established. It’s about ensuring the security of your family and ensuring they have a place to come back to.
Is it better to let that sit space vacant for 4+ years though?
Is there a third option? It’s an unused room in a house that’s being used.
They can rent it out, leave it out, or sell their house and downsize but then what if their oldest is out of work and can’t find a new job and has to come home, but now because they downsized there’s no room for them. How does that help? It seems like there are only two valid options unless I’m missing something.
In this case I understand not downsizing until your kids are established with a job/place to live.
Depending on equity and their mortgage payment it may not even be possible to downsize without paying more per month. That’s the insanity of the current market.
Remember this is an occupied family home with an unoccupied room. Not a whole property.
a lot of older people downsize when their kids move out,
And we plan to, when both kids move out. But just one kid, with one five years behind the other? But anyway, isn’t moving the guest space to the main house section and renting out the apartment essentially “downsizing” to a three-bedroom anyway? Either way, the house remains a two-unit house. If somebody wants a temporary living situation by themselves or with one partner, what is wrong with them renting an apartment from me?
Look, I get it, the system is set up to screw people over to get big corpos big money. If somebody is living in apartment for a decade, that is a fucked up situation. But where I live there are military single young’uns wanting to get out of barracks for a year or two before their tour is done and they transfer, or regularly traveling nurses or others who come seasonally for work who aren’t in a position to buy a house and wouldn’t want to.
This whole “no good landlords” reeks of the same mentality as “no good lawyers.” Yes, there are a lot of greedy, unscrupulous (or overly adversarial) lawyers, but there are situations where having a lawyer is really important and there are plenty of good ones for those situations. The problem is a system that allows and encourages the profession to be abused.
This whole “no good landlords” reeks of the same mentality as “no good lawyers.”
Not the same at all, as lawyers do work to get paid.
Landlords rent-seek by charging access to important and scarce property that they themselves don’t use. They extract value through ownership alone, and add no labor value of their own to the process, that the tenants as owners couldn’t do for themselves.
If somebody wants a temporary living situation by themselves or with one partner, what is wrong with them renting an apartment from me?
What gives you the right to these people’s paychecks? If you’re not using it, then sell it, and don’t rent-seek.
There is nothing defensible about being a landlord. Its not exactly the same as owning slaves or owning capital, but all three are based on absentee ownership and extracting value from working people.
Huh? Do you think it’s not labor when they fix broken doors, outlets, change locks, upgrade toilets, fridges, etc.? Some landlords even do it themselves without hiring subcontractors.
The tenants can do upkeep themselves, or pay people to do that. Rent-seeking can still exist even if the rent-seekers promise to do maintenance (which in reality they don’t have much interest in doing, especially if it doesn’t add value to the property). Tenants often have to live for months with broken ACs, appliances, because their landlords have no desire to upkeep temporary items. The yearly lease is signed, and they’re getting their money.
My first landlord sucked, my second landlord was ok, but I suspect most wouldn’t be. They repaired everything in a timely fashion, and waived my rent for three months when I got laid off to let me get back on my feet. Still only made sense because I was in college and wasn’t sticking around that area long enough to justify buying then selling a property, but for the context acceptable landlords can exist.
So you’re saying that person should sell their house because one of the rooms is unoccupied? What if their oldest loses their job and can’t find a new one, but has to move back, and then can’t because they downsized to a smaller house?
What if their oldest loses their job and can’t find a new one, but has to move back, and then can’t because they downsized to a smaller house?
What if their oldest loses their job and now for no fault of their own the renter is suddenly forced to find a new place to live to accommodate the landlords son? But they’ve been spending their money on rent so they don’t have enough savings to find a decent place?
I will admit that’s a good point, although hopefully there would be laws preventing an eviction without notice, but you’re right it would be a bad situation, it would definitely be disruptive.
However, there are people who prefer to rent because they prefer the freedom from place to place, I think that’s worth acknowledging too.
This has nothing to do with being a “good” person.
That said.
They could create a housing cooperative where all the tenants are owner-members and share the property collectively. If they live in the building too they can also be an equal owner-member. If they live somewhere else, they have to give up ownership.
Not an apartment complex, but a building makes sense.
I’m not saying it’s just, but there are some loans that allow you to buy a quadplex but you have to live there. You are free to rent out the remaining units.
Assuming this comment isn’t ironic: there is no such thing as a good landlord. Landlords are parasitic middlemen who live by leeching off the value created by workers. They contribute no value whatsoever.
This is admitted even in mainstream economics, its termed rent-seeking.
Okay, I’ll bite. I just bought a 4-bed/3-bath (actually 4 bathrooms, but bathroom math made it “3-bath”) because we are a family of four in an expensive tourist spot and wanted a guest bedroom for family and visitors. It just so happened one bed and a 3/4 bathroom is in an attached 1-bedroom apartment with its own kitchen and living room.
So when I retire, and my oldest is out of the house to college, we are thinking we could rent that particular part (at a very reasonable rate to people we know). It is part of the house, so I can’t sell it separately. So the choice is be a landlord, or don’t offer housing (I suppose I could make it an AirBnB and make even more money, but this area is already fucked for housing for that reason).
So if there is no such thing as a good landlord, what would you recommend in a situation like this? Let someone live there for free? Then they’d be costing me money. Don’t rent it out? AirBnB?
If you don’t need that space, then you might as well sell it and let another family make use of it instead.
Yours is not a unique situation; a lot of older people downsize when their kids move out, and they have a lot of extra rooms and space they no longer need. Its the right decision anyway, as you’re now free to be more mobile, and get rid of all the years of accumulated junk.
Sure you can argue they dont need that space, but a lot of kids return after college. If I had kids I’d only downsize once they are well established. It’s about ensuring the security of your family and ensuring they have a place to come back to.
Is it better to let that sit space vacant for 4+ years though?
There are two options? Rent it for profit or leave it empty?
Is there a third option? It’s an unused room in a house that’s being used.
They can rent it out, leave it out, or sell their house and downsize but then what if their oldest is out of work and can’t find a new job and has to come home, but now because they downsized there’s no room for them. How does that help? It seems like there are only two valid options unless I’m missing something.
In this case I understand not downsizing until your kids are established with a job/place to live.
Depending on equity and their mortgage payment it may not even be possible to downsize without paying more per month. That’s the insanity of the current market.
Remember this is an occupied family home with an unoccupied room. Not a whole property.
What would you suggest?
And we plan to, when both kids move out. But just one kid, with one five years behind the other? But anyway, isn’t moving the guest space to the main house section and renting out the apartment essentially “downsizing” to a three-bedroom anyway? Either way, the house remains a two-unit house. If somebody wants a temporary living situation by themselves or with one partner, what is wrong with them renting an apartment from me?
Look, I get it, the system is set up to screw people over to get big corpos big money. If somebody is living in apartment for a decade, that is a fucked up situation. But where I live there are military single young’uns wanting to get out of barracks for a year or two before their tour is done and they transfer, or regularly traveling nurses or others who come seasonally for work who aren’t in a position to buy a house and wouldn’t want to.
This whole “no good landlords” reeks of the same mentality as “no good lawyers.” Yes, there are a lot of greedy, unscrupulous (or overly adversarial) lawyers, but there are situations where having a lawyer is really important and there are plenty of good ones for those situations. The problem is a system that allows and encourages the profession to be abused.
Not the same at all, as lawyers do work to get paid.
Landlords rent-seek by charging access to important and scarce property that they themselves don’t use. They extract value through ownership alone, and add no labor value of their own to the process, that the tenants as owners couldn’t do for themselves.
What gives you the right to these people’s paychecks? If you’re not using it, then sell it, and don’t rent-seek.
There is nothing defensible about being a landlord. Its not exactly the same as owning slaves or owning capital, but all three are based on absentee ownership and extracting value from working people.
Huh? Do you think it’s not labor when they fix broken doors, outlets, change locks, upgrade toilets, fridges, etc.? Some landlords even do it themselves without hiring subcontractors.
What about landlords that do repairs themselves though? Is that not by definition labor or am I missing something here?
The tenants can do upkeep themselves, or pay people to do that. Rent-seeking can still exist even if the rent-seekers promise to do maintenance (which in reality they don’t have much interest in doing, especially if it doesn’t add value to the property). Tenants often have to live for months with broken ACs, appliances, because their landlords have no desire to upkeep temporary items. The yearly lease is signed, and they’re getting their money.
My first landlord sucked, my second landlord was ok, but I suspect most wouldn’t be. They repaired everything in a timely fashion, and waived my rent for three months when I got laid off to let me get back on my feet. Still only made sense because I was in college and wasn’t sticking around that area long enough to justify buying then selling a property, but for the context acceptable landlords can exist.
So you’re saying that person should sell their house because one of the rooms is unoccupied? What if their oldest loses their job and can’t find a new one, but has to move back, and then can’t because they downsized to a smaller house?
I’m not so sure that is a great solution.
What if their oldest loses their job and now for no fault of their own the renter is suddenly forced to find a new place to live to accommodate the landlords son? But they’ve been spending their money on rent so they don’t have enough savings to find a decent place?
I will admit that’s a good point, although hopefully there would be laws preventing an eviction without notice, but you’re right it would be a bad situation, it would definitely be disruptive.
However, there are people who prefer to rent because they prefer the freedom from place to place, I think that’s worth acknowledging too.
Although I think you’re right.
deleted by creator
Suppose a person owns an apartment building. What’s the process they should follow to behave as a good person should?
This has nothing to do with being a “good” person.
That said.
They could create a housing cooperative where all the tenants are owner-members and share the property collectively. If they live in the building too they can also be an equal owner-member. If they live somewhere else, they have to give up ownership.
No ones acquires an entire apartment building in the first place with the purpose of living in it. They do it to become rent-seeking parasites.
But to your hypothetical, they could create a co-op as @queermunist@lemmy.ml mentioned.
Not an apartment complex, but a building makes sense.
I’m not saying it’s just, but there are some loans that allow you to buy a quadplex but you have to live there. You are free to rent out the remaining units.
wrong, run down apartments occasionally are cheaper than bulk climate controlled storage units while being completely usable for that purpose
Sell it to the tenants.