[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.

[klausa]

Yes, and then what was their last sentence?