[nikkwong]

It's not rare. I repeat. It's not rare. I am a landlord in Seattle with ~55 active tenants/leases. Let's just say that I know of many landlords in the circles I run in that have absolutely stopped renting to leftie types because they've had so many issues over the last few years with many of them over litigating everything; and deciding not to pay rent over the smallest non-issues, or just not paying rent at all. I could cite case after case; and this topic is especially salient to me in the present moment because I am in fact dealing with one of these tenants right now and its a total nightmare. I will spare you the gruesome details of trying to work with this particular tenant but just trust me—I have an incredibly high tolerance to stress and this individual is doing their best to get as far under my skin as possible.

When the political class or the cultural zeitgeist tells you over and over that landlords are leeches and that "any attempt to profit off of housing is unethical"—people are going to take that to heart and have a hatred for even well-meaning small landlords. If you don't believe this is the attitude, go visit r/Seattle. The inflammatory language of politicians and cultural leaders sets the tone which plays out as legal battles and fights in properties across the city.

This obviously creates an adverse selection problem where small landlords illegally apply their own prejudices and biases in tenant selection. Honestly—could you expect them not to—when the repercussions of picking a bad tenant are so great? And when there are other demographic groups—like immigrants—who are absolutely, verifiably and consistently reliable as tenants. It used to be that it was the section 8 or low income type that were a huge problem but now there's an educated leftish fringe that landlords are also avoiding. Honestly with good reason, IMO.

Some homeowners just decide to not list extra rooms in their house outright. I remember hearing something like that Seattle has the highest number of unrented empty rooms in the country (though someone should fact check that). With the political climate the way it is here, it's obvious as to why this is the case.

[teachrdan]

With all due respect, do you consider yourself, with ~55 active tenants/leases, to be a "small landlord"?

[nikkwong]

Its spread across about ~ 6 houses. I'm definitely a small landlord. I deal with all tenant issues myself, handle all repairs, leases, and most importantly for me—maintain a healthy relationship (which has grown to many friendships). I use this term in contrast to a faceless, corporate landlord who owns larger apartment buildings. Small landlords and corporate landlords are nothing alike

[lovich]

Being generous with your ~6 number to be either 5 or 7 houses you have either 7.8-11 people per unit?

That's slumlord territory and not any morally better than corporate landlords unless your average unit size is a 4 bed/2 bath.

Also there is zero world where you have 6 houses, 50+ people and can call yourself a small time landlord. That's being able to live entirely off of your rental income and a full time landlord. You could maybe, _maybe_ get away with describing yourself as a medium time landlord.

Small time is living in a 3 floor house and renting the other 2 floors, or owning 1 other home to rent.

[halfxing]

I'm sure OP meant 6 houses with several units in it each, not 7-11 people per house. Otherwise the distinction between house and unit doesn't make sense.

This is a small time landlord. Large landlords have easily over 10000 units, and he is one half of a percent of that.

I hope he is able to live off the rental income. It's a big job to manage 55 units and keep everything in shape and administratively going, deal with turnover and so on.

[lovich]

nah, having 6 buildings(not houses, if were being precise with terminology here) with multiple units in each, is not a small time landlord. If you can live entirely off the rental income then you are a full time landlord and can at best claim that you aren't a large corporate landlord, but you don't get to invoke the idea that you are some sort of mom and pop situation renting out a spare unit, which is what people assume when you say "small time landlord"

[nikkwong]

I'm the OP—just chiming in, I can just hardly live off the rental income I make, but its a lot less than my salary as a senior SDE. Yes what I am is not analogous to someone renting out a few extra rooms. I just think my experience is analogous to that of a small time landlord in that I know each tenant very well and we have good relationships—and I manually handle each part of their tenant experience. To add more detail, I share a bedroom in a 25 bedroom house that I own, which accounts for a bit more than half of my tenants.

[halfxing]

I didn't invoke a "mon and pop situation renting out a spare unit" idea, that's your own that you're projecting on my comment.

I did say that they are a small landlord, and I stand by it given that a large landlord is several orders of magnitude larger than them. If in your world that's only a label you want to give someone renting out a single spare unit, then so be it. I disagree.

[hdgvhicv]

So a slumlord

[digitaltrees]

55 isn’t small by definition and under the law. You may feel small because it’s just you, and you don’t realize how much you’ve accomplished or the asymmetric bargaining position that affords you but your perspective isn’t corresponding with reality.

That being said, I do think a system that tenant rights to be as abusive of legal process as we have in some states ends up hurting tenants themselves. I think our courts should move much faster so nonpayment is resolved faster. But I also think all landlords should be required to pay 20% of rent to a home building fund so that new housing actually gets built.

[Ekaros]

Wouldn't 20% tax on rent just lead to 25% general increase on rents? I don't think there are that much margin around in leveraged landlords.

Really better would be just to bump something like income tax and use money from there for same purpose.

[hdgvhicv]

If a landlord can charge 1200 instead of 1000 why wouldn’t they? They’ll charge the maximum they can get away with, costs are irrelevant

Two landlords, one with a mortgage, one without, will charge the same amount for the same property.

[Ekaros]

Yes. And the other one is forced to charge 1200. So the other one can charge for example 1190. And the renters will choose the 1190. And then the next renter has to pay 1200.

Or the one without mortgage goes like I only get 800. Maybe instead I just throw this money in government bonds for better gains and save money...

Other option for same outcome could be just to charge any renter 20% on top of their rent. Which they directly pay to this fund. That would push rents down as they are able to pay less. Achieving exactly same effect.

[digitaltrees]

If leads to building that floods the system with supply then rent won’t increase. Landlords and lenders would have to adjust purchase prices and cap rates so valuations would come down. So this would need be gradually phased in until normal. The government would need to support home builders, buyers and landlords. But eventually the housing stock supply increase would match and be tied to new household formation.

At the end of the day most economic activity is really an exercise in ratios. Some states don’t charge sales taxes. Some change double digits. Yet retailers are able to function in both environments.

What is clear is that rental and purchase housing is increasing beyond inflation since 2008 and COVID and that’s not good for tenants or landlords.

[bombcar]

I read their story as "I'm not small, but I know a lot of smalls who tell me things they won't even tell their confessor."

[jandrewrogers]

The net effect is most of the people I know with a rental or two in Seattle will only rent via direct referrals from people they know, which also allows them to rent at a lower rate. Their properties are no longer available to the general public. The demand is high enough that this works. Sucks if you are new to Seattle though.

This kind of non-payment of rent abuse exploded during COVID.

[ecshafer]

> And when there are other demographic groups—like immigrants—who are absolutely, verifiably and consistently reliable as tenants.

I know someone with something like 120 units. Unassuming nice old lady that makes over a million a year. She tries to rent to immigrants as much as possible since they don't cause issues.

[hdgvhicv]

The best people to rent to are illegal immigrants, you don’t have to do things like ensure they have livable accommodation as they first sign of complaint you just phone up the authorities and they get kicked out.

[baby]

Lefty tenant here. I def. stopped paying my rent a few times until my landlord fixed their shit or agreed to stop scamming me.

Last time I did it I signed a lease for a year, with 2 months of advance notice if I decided to leave (in the UK). I told them 2 months before the end of my lease, and they told me I had to wait for the end of my lease, then wait 2 months, and then I could be out.

I just stopped paying rent, and left them a horrible one star review on gmaps.

One day he showed up at my place (with soup who was coming to fix something) and tried to enter. I told him to stay out. And then he started crying and telling me how I could not just stop paying rent. I could tell how hard it was to be a small landlord.

I told him that I would resume paying if they signed smthg to agree to let me break the lease at the year end AND reimburse me the fees that appeared at the least minute, a year ago, right as I was signing the lease in front of them.

They agreed, reimbursed me my caution/deposit at the end, easy.

Would recommend just stop paying your rent if anything ever happens. I would do it again.

[dh2022]

Honest question - how do you know a potential tenant is “leftie type”?

[ReptileMan]

You know the horseshoe on the door that will stop the fae? He has just put instead of it maga hat with a tesla badge on it.

[ecshafer]

Honestly? not op but that seems easy.

[dh2022]

It was an honest question.

[eli_gottlieb]

Don't worry: they'll tell you.

[mothballed]

The lefty landlords are an even bigger problem for housing affordability than the lefty tenants. They want the anti-property rights boot up the ass of anyone trying to build new homes or dwellings, under the auspices of endangered owls or environmental review or "character of the community" or the wetlands or whatever the current scam is. It's all the same commie shit but only for themselves and at the expense of everyone else, of course dressed up that the dumber and younger end of the tenants actually believe it's in their interest.

[jquery]

>stopped renting to leftie types

I’m curious how they’re managing to do this. I don’t give any outward signals of being a “leftie type” but I absolutely am. Conversely, I know lots of people who have a very punk look but are super conservative.

[chirau]

What exactly do you mean by "well meaning small landlord"?

[nikkwong]

I just try to be the landlord that I would want to have. I respond to my tenants quickly, always give them concessions, let them pay late, or at a discount when they’re struggling, referred them to work at my companies, etc, etc. it’s not all about the money, it’s also being a good member of the community, for me. This is in contrast to a corporate landlord where your $1500 disappears into a void every month.

[digitaltrees]

That’s awesome. When I was growing up my parents were denied housing because they had too many kids and were almost homeless one time until a nice landlord of the same religion agreed to rent to us. Please take your responsibility seriously as it seems you do.

That being said there are “professional” tenants that try to scam the system to the detriment of landlords and other tenants. I would fully applaud resistance to their efforts to take advantage of the system.

[klausa]

Look, I'm sure you're a nice person and a better landlord than many corporate landlords; and trying to do well.

I'm genuinely glad you're trying, and helping your tenants when you can; but I think you've drunk a bit too much of your own kool-aid.

From perspective of your tenants, that money still goes into a void, no matter how nice you are.

[leoedin]

> From perspective of your tenants, that money still goes into a void, no matter how nice you are.

Surely that's the case for all sorts of services we pay for. Renting a house is paying for a service. The money disappears and in return you get the service. A nice landlord (and by nice I mean - responsive to problems, following laws, empathetic to the tenant, trusting of the tenant etc) provides a better service than a bad one. Unfortunately you rarely know which kind of landlord you have until you move in.

I think it's fair to say that there are bad landlords, and that there are circumstances where landlords are exploitative. But that doesn't change the fact there are also circumstances where landlords provide a useful service to people. Buying a house isn't always practical - landlords should exist to provide a service to people who don't want long term financial commitments.

[jandrewrogers]

I literally want to have a landlord. They provide a valuable service. I could afford to buy the places where I rent but actively avoid it.

The idea that landlords don’t provide a valuable service is a kind of willful denial of reality.

[mothballed]

Much of the land in New England / northeastern USA was apportioned to proprietors without any service rendered, plus squatting on grandfathered regulations that no one else can take advantage of. The actual improvement is a service, but commonly it's something like a shithole house where the physical manifestation of the improvement is like 10% of the real estate value.

In someplaces like Kansas where people actually mixed their labor with the land (homesteading) to claim it and then improved it and the title transferred in capitalistic exchange, landlords are basically 100% providing a service. But in New York very little of the "value" provided has anything to do with services and labor mixed with the land as someone like Adam Smith envisioned as value generation. It's largely just some proprietor being handed land in the 1600s with the wand of a King, taking the shit by violence, then making regulations out the ass with violence (to make their shithole house pretend to provide a more valuable 'service') and then exempting themselves via grandfathering and then people exchanging title for same. Their service is a legacy of beating the shit out of Indians with weapons and then the populace with government and then allocating the value to themselves.

[digitaltrees]

Maybe. But I had a landlord triple my rent in NYC because he wanted to sell the unit. I didn’t want to move but had no option.

[ReptileMan]

>he wanted to sell the unit

You had an option if it was for sale.

[tyre]

What exactly are you asking for? They clearly are expressing empathy for others’ situations.

I live in a managed building that is completely soulless. I needed to extend my lease by one month before moving out. They wanted me to sign a new 12 month lease at a higher rate, break it, and pay a two month penalty for terminating early. This took over a month to get to something remotely human.

There is absolutely a difference between someone treating people like people and bad landlords.

Also, they aren’t throwing their money into a void. They’re literally getting housing.

[klausa]

“Money into a void” is the exact phrase that the _person I’m replying to_ used when comparing themselves to a corporate landlord.

[halfxing]

What are you basing your judgment of OP on? He is listing various ways he goes above and beyond for his tenants even though he certainly doesn't have to. Your credit card company doesn't waive your late fees, yet he does when he knows tenants experience hardships. That's pretty awesome.

Also, the money doesn't go into a void: Tenants receive housing in return.

[klausa]

What judgment? I literally wrote that they’re a nice person!

“Money into a void” is the phrasing _they_ used!

[halfxing]

> but I think you've drunk a bit too much of your own kool-aid

That (rather judge-y) part negates the "nice" part your started out with. I don't think OP "drank too much of his own kool-aid", he simply listed all the nice things he does for his tenants, which are great and well beyond what you could expect from an unrelated party in a contract for a service.

[eli_gottlieb]

I'd like to try and give you some sympathy, but my last landlord was a well-regarded property management firm who left me with no heat from the end of October to the weekend of Martin Luther King Day in New England, effectively only fixing it once I withheld rent, got on the local news, and was threatening a lawsuit. So, uh... yeah plenty of landlords have done a lot to earn that reputation for the class as a whole.

[nikkwong]

That's true, but I think when you pick a place to live in, you're not only really only interviewing the living establishment itself, but also the landlord/property management associated with it. I make an effort to do all of the tours of the units myself and establish good repoire with the tenants from the get-go. It's certainly inexcusable if a landlord doesn't fix things that impair living conditions—in Seattle we have a law that things of this nature must be fixed within 48 hours which I think is a reasonable law.

[alexashka]

> have a hatred for even well-meaning small landlords

In what way are you well meaning? You're only doing it for money.

The people not paying you rent are also only doing it for money.

Sucks when people behave like you, huh.

[nikkwong]

Yes I’m doing it for the money, I have to be compensated for my time and the financial investment obviously. People who decide to deceive me break not only a social contract but also a legal contract and a commitment they made at the time of signing a lease. If everyone acted like them, there would be no stable housing available for anyone. Talk about a bad take…

[alexashka]

> Yes I’m doing it for the money

Right, so not well meaning. You said well meaning. You're taking that back. Correct?

You're upset at someone maximizing money at your expense. You like it when you maximize money at someone else's expense just fine. Correct?

The world's smallest violin is playing.

Please no 'I'm providing a valuable service' argument. We've already established your only interest is money.

[nikkwong]

I never said my only interest is money. At your job, is your only interest money? Do you not feel a social obligation to your coworkers; want to do good for your teammate and your company? Again, talk about a stupid take, as if humans are one dimensional like that. Corporate landlords and hedge funds that own apartment sky rises are probably only in it for the money. You can't say the same thing about every small landlord just because they make a profit.

[alexashka]

'You're only doing it for money'

'Yes I’m doing it for the money'

---

'We've already established your only interest is money'

'I never said my only interest is money'

---

Bad take, stupid take, he said.

Let me help you - the act of being a landlord, big or small, presupposes interest is money first, everything else a distant second, third and so on.

We're now at the level of a 7 year old, down from about a 10 year old that I started off with. Feel free to engage with what I've said as a whole instead of pedantry over the use of a single word anytime you wish.

[kelnos]

Wow, way to not actually read what a person said, and then quote things and say they mean something that they don't.

I get that you don't like the concept of people owning property and renting it to others, but maybe stop arguing in bad faith?

Here's a hint: it's possible to be doing something for the money, but not only do it for the money. It's possible to operate a business, but also be a well-meaning person who treats customers of that business with empathy and compassion.

I don't know the landlord in this subthread, so I can't say if he's telling the truth about how he treats his tenants, but if he is telling the truth, he sounds better than the vast majority of landlords out there. Not just better, actually good.

[eli_gottlieb]

Society isn't supposed to run on philanthropy.

[alexashka]

Dialogue isn't supposed to run on flippant remarks.

Also, you're not qualified to have an opinion on the matter. Dunning-Kruger effect is extra strong when it comes to the holy matter of sociopaths making money in places like these.