[dijonman2]

It’s very difficult to evict folks in Colorado, according to someone I know who buys and rents homes for a living.

I think most landlords are pro tenant until they find someone who knows how to work the system. It costs them so much that they are skiddish to all renters.

[giraffe_lady]

Landlords have chosen to enter an inherently adversarial relationship with the goal of profiting from the other party. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to their personal pains here, but I don't believe "pro tenant" has a useful meaning except in a context where you need to support them in opposition to some force or entity. And that entity is landlords.

[jjav]

> Landlords have chosen to enter an inherently adversarial relationship with the goal of profiting from the other party.

There isn't any reason for it to be adversarial, it's certainly not inherently so. Only if one or both sides want to make it adversarial.

It is supposed to be a win-win scenario. Some people prefer to rent instead of buying, so they need a supply of rentals and the owner needs someone to live there so it doesn't sit empty costing them money.

Fortunately I've never had one of the adversarial landlords. I paid them on time and took good care of the property and in exchange they have been super flexible and let me do whatever I want. That's a win-win.

[sobkas]

> > Landlords have chosen to enter an inherently adversarial relationship with the goal of profiting from the other party.

> There isn't any reason for it to be adversarial, it's certainly not inherently so. Only if one or both sides want to make it adversarial.

Landlords compete with their potential tenants for houses to buy. When landlord driven price increase, it prices out people from buying a home/flat, but they still need a roof over their heads. So they rent. This gives landlords cash needed to buy more houses/flats. This also keep rents up as landlords pay more for buildings. So tenants are less likely to accumulate cash for loans/something else. From small owners to big corporations it is a vicious cycle.

[bawolff]

So you're saying that in a capitalistic society, people with capital do better? Colour me shocked.

The landlord also takes on risk and responsibility here. Like any business, if they do a shitty job they go broke. If they do a good job, they make bank and expand their business.

[sobkas]

They will go broke if they do bad job at extracting money from their renters, not bad job at providing value to them. Also: https://www.wsj.com/articles/landlords-were-never-meant-to-g... , privatization of profits and socializing losses.

[bawolff]

Yes, same as any business. If you provide it for free you go bankrupt, if you charge too much you also go bankrupt.

[giraffe_lady]

No because you can't really decline to have a home if none of the options are good for you. If there are only shitty landlords then you'll be forced to choose a shitty landlord.

[bawolff]

I can't decline to eat. Food still costs money.

[anchpop]

As a widget maker, I'm pro widget-users even though I technically have an adversarial relationship with them. In particular, I'm pro widget-users because without them I would be without money and without me they would be without widgets, so we're both supporting each other against the harsh forces of nature that would leave us all destitute if we didn't work together.

[Firmwarrior]

> without me they would be without widgets

It seems like it'd be obvious, but landlords don't actually produce land or provide housing. They roll in and take housing using their superior resources, then charge rent to access it.

In an ideal market, every renter would have the option of being a landlord just like every car lessor has the option of being a car owner. We just need enough housing supply to make investing in housing a risky venture instead of a government-guaranteed winner

https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-e...

[chii]

> landlords don't actually produce land or provide housing

of course they do - they provide it by being part of the capital flow, which starts at construction. It might not be the same person, but it's a chain of financing that lead to the landlord purchasing the property.

Superior resources is just another name for capital. And you need capital to fund the construction. The landlord is just the last chain on this funding, and without them, the builders would not build (for who would be buying?).

Shelter is a cost. Everybody pays it, whether you own your own building or renting.

> every renter would have the option of being a landlord

they do if they had the capital. No one is stopping anyone from making a bid for a property - unlike back in the old days where people who were slaves were not entitled to own property as a right. The fact that some people have more capital and is willing to bid higher is how the current free market system works to allocate capital.

[Firmwarrior]

Man, I'm not saying you're completely wrong, but that's such a ridiculous stretch

I bought a few shares of Pfizer, does that make me a healthcare provider?

[chii]

no but it makes you a capital provider for healthcare.

I'm just trying to correct the mistaken view that providing capital is tantamount to doing nothing.

[giraffe_lady]

only comparable if the widget you make is a necessity for life, really straining the meaning of the word "widget" imo.

[endisneigh]

How exactly is it inherently adversarial? Isn’t what you’re saying also true to literally any for profit transaction?

[giraffe_lady]

Only things that are absolute needs. You can walk away from a profitable transaction, you can't walk away from one you'll die without.

People are willing to take much more extreme action around housing (and food, medicine, ) than they are most other goods. They're also less likely to agree there is moral justification in profiting from these things. So even when entering these transactions (they must, after all), they may not respect the other party's profit goals.

[endisneigh]

Should doctors work for free? Should farmers?

[giraffe_lady]

Do landlords labor?

[quesera]

> Do landlords labor?

Yes they absolutely do. Sometimes quite a lot, and often invisibly to tenants.

But other landlords suck, yes definitely. Just like some business owners neglect their customers, and some parents neglect their children.

The problem is that the RE market is so distorted right now that it's difficult to select a new equivalent housing provider at a reasonable price. This is also what enables the bad landlords in the first place.

The blame for that situation is very well-distributed. The best response as a buyer might be to seek out other markets.

[tomp]

Do business owners labor?

As someone who's moved around a lot (to London, then to Zürich) I definitely appreciate being able to rent, and hence landowners. Without them, I'd have to live 2-3 year homeless until I saved enough for a downpayment, then be saddled with 30 year monthly commitment (i.e. mortgage) and unable to move anywhere else.

[Ekaros]

No, but they certainly have provided or paid for previously paid capital that allowed housing to be build.

Ofc, it might be better if everyone build their own houses like some slums around the world.

[endisneigh]

Yes? Do you think the house magically takes care of itself?

[baq]

If there’s return, there’s risk. All markets are adversarial.

[giraffe_lady]

Yeah I don't really disagree with that. I don't believe housing should be a "market" in the sense I think is meant here. But if it is to be, I agree that landlords need to accept the risk of their tenants not paying and not leaving either.

[Ekaros]

Not paying sure. Not leaving no. That never should be the case. They own the property the should be able to get it vacated in reasonable time let's say 3 to 6 month. For any reason. There could also be a fixed time contract binding both sides.