It seems like it was a situation where everyone felt like they got a good deal and nobody felt taken advantage of. He gave them a better deal than they were going to find anywhere else.
To me, it doesn’t sound like he was exploiting his friends.
Did those friends run the risk of having to pay for a new roof or anything else that can go wrong with a house? Tell me you’ve never owned a house without telling me you’ve never owned a house
Did the landlord have to risk losing his own home when the person who owns it decides they are done being a decent human and kicks them out for a higher paying tenant, or sells the property to another landlord who will do the same? Do they have to beg someone to come fix their shit in a timely manner or do they just call a repair man who doesn’t charge them $250/mo for the privilege of paying off someone else’s mortgage so they can call the repair man for you?
I rent two apartments in a state where all of that is not possible. Evictions take months and if repairs are not made quickly the tenant is legally entitled to withhold rent. But while on the topic I am most certainly on the hook for inflationary swings in:
any and all repairs
gas and electric
insurance
property taxes
landscaping and snow removal
There is no free lunch, no one side is correct. Stop pretending this topic is black and white. There are some good landlords, many bad. Same goes for tenants.
Except the only reason they do any of the shit you just mentioned is because of government regulation. And it varies wildly by state.
There is a reason that those laws exist. Because they need to exist.
So no, this is not a “both sides” thing.
That’s also completely ignoring the completely off-balanced power mechanic that exists between landlord and tenant, equating them as you did is super disingenuous.
One reason it’s obvious you don’t have experience with home ownership is that you’re acting like the repair man is free and not easily an aggregate of 250/month when expensive repairs are needed. That is $3000 my dude, which is easily a single plumbing problem that the landlord, not the tenant, has to pay for out of pocket.
It’s clear you’ve never had to rent a property from a shitty landlord before or you’d know they would just evict you, condemn the property and sell the land to recoup their “investment” rather than pay $3000 of their hard earned money fixing the damage some ungrateful shit did to THEIR property. You keep coming up with convoluted hypotheticals that assume the landlord will always act in the best faith to justify a practice that fundamentally should not exist. One or two “good” landlords don’t redeem all of them.
The people here arguing against this live in states that have literally legislated protections for tenants against predatory landlords. The only reason they even think they have an argument, is because people fought very hard in their state, for minimal tenant protections.
Most of the same people would be doing every single one of those predatory things if they were legally allowed to.
The funny thing is they’re arguing with someone who has been illegally evicted several times. What exactly do they expect poor people to do about it, hire a lawyer and sue? For the chance of what, getting back into a rental run by a now (more) hostile landlord? Get monetary damages? How much? Enough to buy a house? No? Then the problem just repeats.
That is $3000 my dude, which is easily a single plumbing problem
If you mean busted water and all the repairs, sure, but that’s on the landlord for not ever checking on their property (unless the tenant did something very stupid, which is possible)
I own my home and just had some plumbing work done in California (king of expensive) and 3k is about 10x what it cost me for a couple hours of plumber work
Using my “friends” to pay off a personal debt while making $250/mo in profit off them. See, it’s possible to be a good landlord, everyone!
Did you share any of what you made from the sale with your “friends” who helped you pay for it and kept it in good condition for you?
It seems like it was a situation where everyone felt like they got a good deal and nobody felt taken advantage of. He gave them a better deal than they were going to find anywhere else.
To me, it doesn’t sound like he was exploiting his friends.
Did those friends run the risk of having to pay for a new roof or anything else that can go wrong with a house? Tell me you’ve never owned a house without telling me you’ve never owned a house
Don’t try to talk sense into the senseless.
Did the landlord have to risk losing his own home when the person who owns it decides they are done being a decent human and kicks them out for a higher paying tenant, or sells the property to another landlord who will do the same? Do they have to beg someone to come fix their shit in a timely manner or do they just call a repair man who doesn’t charge them $250/mo for the privilege of paying off someone else’s mortgage so they can call the repair man for you?
I rent two apartments in a state where all of that is not possible. Evictions take months and if repairs are not made quickly the tenant is legally entitled to withhold rent. But while on the topic I am most certainly on the hook for inflationary swings in:
There is no free lunch, no one side is correct. Stop pretending this topic is black and white. There are some good landlords, many bad. Same goes for tenants.
Except the only reason they do any of the shit you just mentioned is because of government regulation. And it varies wildly by state.
There is a reason that those laws exist. Because they need to exist.
So no, this is not a “both sides” thing.
That’s also completely ignoring the completely off-balanced power mechanic that exists between landlord and tenant, equating them as you did is super disingenuous.
One reason it’s obvious you don’t have experience with home ownership is that you’re acting like the repair man is free and not easily an aggregate of 250/month when expensive repairs are needed. That is $3000 my dude, which is easily a single plumbing problem that the landlord, not the tenant, has to pay for out of pocket.
It’s clear you’ve never had to rent a property from a shitty landlord before or you’d know they would just evict you, condemn the property and sell the land to recoup their “investment” rather than pay $3000 of their hard earned money fixing the damage some ungrateful shit did to THEIR property. You keep coming up with convoluted hypotheticals that assume the landlord will always act in the best faith to justify a practice that fundamentally should not exist. One or two “good” landlords don’t redeem all of them.
The people here arguing against this live in states that have literally legislated protections for tenants against predatory landlords. The only reason they even think they have an argument, is because people fought very hard in their state, for minimal tenant protections.
Most of the same people would be doing every single one of those predatory things if they were legally allowed to.
The funny thing is they’re arguing with someone who has been illegally evicted several times. What exactly do they expect poor people to do about it, hire a lawyer and sue? For the chance of what, getting back into a rental run by a now (more) hostile landlord? Get monetary damages? How much? Enough to buy a house? No? Then the problem just repeats.
And how do they even pay the lawyer?
He received over a million dollars for the house in the end, plus the 5-10K in profit.
If you mean busted water and all the repairs, sure, but that’s on the landlord for not ever checking on their property (unless the tenant did something very stupid, which is possible)
I own my home and just had some plumbing work done in California (king of expensive) and 3k is about 10x what it cost me for a couple hours of plumber work