Hello, I'm a slumlord
Most Popular Reply
Member since 2016 · 13k+ posts · 12k+ votes
9yBeing a "slum lord" has very little to do with cash flow. The lowest class properties generally have the highest cash flow in the industry. The reason they do not waste money on upkeep is because the tenants generally destroy everything nice. Minimum repair to meet code keeps the money flowing and the class of tenants have little grounds to complain... or choice..
112 Replies
- Walnut Creek, CA · Member since 2015 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes9y
Originally posted by @Matthew Olszak:
Originally posted by @Sylvia B.:
@Cody L. I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure you're getting the full picture. It's not just that the houses aren't "nice". There may be holes in the floor, walls, ceilings, and/or roof. Water heater doesn't work. No heat. Broken/missing windows. Doors that won't lock. Etc.
When we were just finishing up the rehab on our second rental property a young couple with a newborn moved into one such not-so-nice house. It was mid-December and very cold. There was no propane in the tank, so no heat. It got so cold in the house overnight that the baby died.
I believe that every landlord has both a legal and moral obligation to provide a safe and secure unit to his tenant. It doesn't have to be fancy, or even "nice" but it does need to be safe.
That's admirable - provide housing that is "safe" within your extended definition. But who is going to pay for that? What if a tenant, who doesn't appreciate or need such a condition, can't pay that rent level? Where do they go?
I'm no advocate of "slums", nor is that my business model, but the reality is that there are people out there who's definition of "safe" and "nice" and "fancy" are way way below what we think of. They've got to stay somewhere, and they are perfectly happy with an apartment that only costs $200/month even though the ceiling is rotted out and they have to flush the toilet with a bucket. Its priorities and standards, and everyone has their own.
Wouldn't we (as a society) accept the minimum level of "safe" is something that meets code? I mean we aren't a third world nation, that's why we have building codes. Anything above and beyond code is on the owner, but there is an established minimum.
- Rental Property Investor · Sioux Falls, SD · Member since 2015 · 9k+ posts · 18k+ votes9y
People are quick to judge slum lords but don't understand they are filling a market need. They are renting to people that the rest of us don't want to rent to. Would you rather see these people homeless?
Or here is another idea, how about you rent your NICE property to a druggie. Do you think they will take good care of all your property improvements? I am sure you would deny them in a heart beat. Are you proud of that?
This landlord is serving a market that you don't want to serve. The ONLY way to make money serving that market is to NOT make any property improvements.
That is not my business model, but I am not going to judge other people for providing housing to people that have drug addiction problems.
- Santa Rosa, CA · Member since 2017 · 325 posts · 701 votes9y
Drug Dealers are also serving a "market need". People who peddle fake health cures are serving a "market need". Loan Sharks are serving a "market need". So what, serving a "market need" does not automatically make your business acceptable.
Lets be very clear
- don't want to judge your tenets profession as long as they pay on time: Super
- don't want to provide any amenities beyond 4 walls: No problem, it is a free country
- don't keep your rental up to building, fire, and safety codes: BBBZZZZZZ, I'm sorry the answer was "Follow the law". Perhaps you can make up ground in the lighting round.
So bringing this back to the original post, the OP was fixing the stairs. The deaths in the recent Oakland Ghost Ship fire was because the people on the improvised makeshift 2nd floor were unable to evacuate because the "stairs" were actually stacked pallets. Want another example, the refrigerator that caused the London fire can not be sold in the US because it does not have a metal back. That safety law exists because it turns out that when they don't have a metal back...they light houses and apartments on fire.
I get that you "hate" government regulation, or at least strongly dislike it. And God knows I agree it can go way to far. But when it comes to building, fire, and safety codes, you can almost always point back to a painful lesson that was paid for in blood. And the code is the learning from that lesson.
So no, it is not ok to meet a "market need" if you are not meeting the basic fire, safety, and building codes. No matter how much "benefit" you think you are providing to society.
- Real Estate Broker · Naples, FL · Member since 2013 · 9k+ posts · 6k+ votes9y
I got labeled a "thug" by a BP troll. I can almost agree, but I don't have the big jewelry and low hanging pants:)
- Investor · Oak Park, IL · Member since 2014 · 307 posts · 150 votes9y
I see that theoretically it can be win-win by providing lesser quality housing to people like druggies. The right person can be really successful at it. However, I see people who would rather use their money for drugs than to pay the landlord. Eviction, vacancies and repairs can be expensive. If a unit is in need of repair rented at a low price rather than looking at it as a bargain, a tenant can use these issues as justification in court as an excuse for not paying rent.
- Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes9y
This is one of those things there's no good answer for. Let's be honest - a lot of these people are pushed into this type of housing because people like me and @Sylvia B. (and probably @Joe Splitrock and @Levi T.won't rent to them. Of course everyone would rather have a Mercedes than a Yugo (you millenials go look that up). I'll be brutally honest - I'm not going to rent to anyone that I think will:
A)Not pay the rent, on time, every time;
B)Damage or destroy my property;
C)Cause trouble for me, the neighbors, or the police.
That's me, and I'd fit fairly well into a "liberal" box. But I get it. Some people are just bums, and are going to stiff you on your money, destroy your house, and have the police break down the door. And I don't want those people in my houses. So then what's the alternative? They either go into someone else's "nice" house, or they go into housing owned by people who understand and are willing to cater to this group, or they go into government or other subsidized housing, or they can be homeless. If they go into the other "nice" house, I guarantee that person won't be renting to them for long, and won't be renting to this group again. So they are going to ultimately end up in dumpy housing and trailer parks. The owners of these places have no financial incentive to do anything more than what's absolutely necessary to put an *** in the bed. If you do anything else, you're just throwing money out the window, money that can't be recovered renting to this subset.
I'd also say that by virtue of the fact that some crappy housing exists, and there's a market for it, it helps support my market which is clean, safe housing designed for honest, working, middle-class people.
So I don't think anyone can answer this. I get where you are coming from but there's no point in these people fixing up their homes if that's the demographic they are going to serve.
Skyline Properties - Investor · Front Royal, VA · Member since 2013 · 586 posts · 418 votes9y
Originally posted by @Matt K.:
Originally posted by @Matthew Olszak:
Originally posted by @Sylvia B.:
@Cody L. I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure you're getting the full picture. It's not just that the houses aren't "nice". There may be holes in the floor, walls, ceilings, and/or roof. Water heater doesn't work. No heat. Broken/missing windows. Doors that won't lock. Etc.
When we were just finishing up the rehab on our second rental property a young couple with a newborn moved into one such not-so-nice house. It was mid-December and very cold. There was no propane in the tank, so no heat. It got so cold in the house overnight that the baby died.
I believe that every landlord has both a legal and moral obligation to provide a safe and secure unit to his tenant. It doesn't have to be fancy, or even "nice" but it does need to be safe.
That's admirable - provide housing that is "safe" within your extended definition. But who is going to pay for that? What if a tenant, who doesn't appreciate or need such a condition, can't pay that rent level? Where do they go?
I'm no advocate of "slums", nor is that my business model, but the reality is that there are people out there who's definition of "safe" and "nice" and "fancy" are way way below what we think of. They've got to stay somewhere, and they are perfectly happy with an apartment that only costs $200/month even though the ceiling is rotted out and they have to flush the toilet with a bucket. Its priorities and standards, and everyone has their own.
Wouldn't we (as a society) accept the minimum level of "safe" is something that meets code? I mean we aren't a third world nation, that's why we have building codes. Anything above and beyond code is on the owner, but there is an established minimum.
I deal with building codes (as well as fire, electrical and energy codes) on a daily basis. Going in naive, I believed this as well. A bunch of really smart engineers got together and came up with reasonable expectations of how things should be build. Perhaps that's how it used to be (I'm not that old), but that sure as hell isn't how it is today.
If anyone thinks that politics doesn't play a massive role in these proceedings, then you are sorely misinformed. The people with the most say at these "International Code Hearings" are usually vendors who have a vested interest in seeing new, more restrictive codes put in place. Hell, i'm a lobbyist and i'm paid to ensure most of these things don't go through. Where there is a chance for regulators to generate revenue, there will always be pressure and codes are no different.
I'm not a slum lord, but If I made my houses "up to code" it would cost me thousands of dollars that I would never recuperate.
This is not an open, or even democratic, process. With fire codes, the fire department stacks the committee with their people and jambs things through without the slightest deference to building owners. If there is the slightest risk of life-safety issues for the FD, they will fight you saying they are saving lives. The same goes for building codes.
It's true, there are a lot of smart people that decide these rules, but I have yet to find anyone proposing these changes that has actually owned a rental property.
- Real Estate Agent · Denver, CO · Member since 2014 · 151 posts · 101 votes9y
Originally posted by @JD Martin:
So then what's the alternative? They either go into someone else's "nice" house, or they go into housing owned by people who understand and are willing to cater to this group, or they go into government or other subsidized housing, or they can be homeless. If they go into the other "nice" house, I guarantee that person won't be renting to them for long, and won't be renting to this group again. So they are going to ultimately end up in dumpy housing and trailer parks. The owners of these places have no financial incentive to do anything more than what's absolutely necessary to put an *** in the bed. If you do anything else, you're just throwing money out the window, money that can't be recovered renting to this subset.
It would be interesting to do some research on who can provide housing to this group of people for less: the government or private landlords.
Question of code and habitable housing aside of course. Also, was it determined that the OP's new friend's properties weren't up to code? I think that was just assumed...he may have been talking about not fixing holes in the walls or mowing the lawn or something...
- Investor · Front Royal, VA · Member since 2013 · 586 posts · 418 votes9y
I can guarantee that everyone in this thread is living in housing that isn't "up to code".
- Walnut Creek, CA · Member since 2015 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes9y
Originally posted by @Luke Miller:
Originally posted by @Matt K.:
Originally posted by @Matthew Olszak:
Originally posted by @Sylvia B.:
@Cody L. I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure you're getting the full picture. It's not just that the houses aren't "nice". There may be holes in the floor, walls, ceilings, and/or roof. Water heater doesn't work. No heat. Broken/missing windows. Doors that won't lock. Etc.
When we were just finishing up the rehab on our second rental property a young couple with a newborn moved into one such not-so-nice house. It was mid-December and very cold. There was no propane in the tank, so no heat. It got so cold in the house overnight that the baby died.
I believe that every landlord has both a legal and moral obligation to provide a safe and secure unit to his tenant. It doesn't have to be fancy, or even "nice" but it does need to be safe.
That's admirable - provide housing that is "safe" within your extended definition. But who is going to pay for that? What if a tenant, who doesn't appreciate or need such a condition, can't pay that rent level? Where do they go?
I'm no advocate of "slums", nor is that my business model, but the reality is that there are people out there who's definition of "safe" and "nice" and "fancy" are way way below what we think of. They've got to stay somewhere, and they are perfectly happy with an apartment that only costs $200/month even though the ceiling is rotted out and they have to flush the toilet with a bucket. Its priorities and standards, and everyone has their own.
Wouldn't we (as a society) accept the minimum level of "safe" is something that meets code? I mean we aren't a third world nation, that's why we have building codes. Anything above and beyond code is on the owner, but there is an established minimum.
I deal with building codes (as well as fire, electrical and energy codes) on a daily basis. Going in naive, I believed this as well. A bunch of really smart engineers got together and came up with reasonable expectations of how things should be build. Perhaps that's how it used to be (I'm not that old), but that sure as hell isn't how it is today.
If anyone thinks that politics doesn't play a massive role in these proceedings, then you are sorely misinformed. The people with the most say at these "International Code Hearings" are usually vendors who have a vested interest in seeing new, more restrictive codes put in place. Hell, i'm a lobbyist and i'm paid to ensure most of these things don't go through. Where there is a chance for regulators to generate revenue, there will always be pressure and codes are no different.
I'm not a slum lord, but If I made my houses "up to code" it would cost me thousands of dollars that I would never recuperate.
This is not an open, or even democratic, process. With fire codes, the fire department stacks the committee with their people and jambs things through without the slightest deference to building owners. If there is the slightest risk of life-safety issues for the FD, they will fight you saying they are saving lives. The same goes for building codes.
It's true, there are a lot of smart people that decide these rules, but I have yet to find anyone proposing these changes that has actually owned a rental property.
I get that politics play a role in this, I get that there are many external factors that are at work and it's not "just" safety. This isn't my niche nor my career field, but are structures required to be built to code. What I mean by this is that this cheap house that's not getting updates.. will be grandfathered from future codes as they change. I wasn't implying that a landlord go out and ensure his investment meets current codes rather that it was lawful/legal when built.
- Investor · Front Royal, VA · Member since 2013 · 586 posts · 418 votes9y
Originally posted by @John Nachtigall:
I have been GOP my entire life, but there is a real need for building codes, because without them some people will race to the bottom. So,yes, it is for us to judge, there are minimum standards and they should be enforced
Being "GOP" has nothing to do with this. If you truly believed in free markets, you would understand that the government is rarely (if ever) the most efficient mode of accomplishing anything. Building codes are not needed, safe housing is needed. Codes don't stop true slum lords (obviously), it is simply another intrusion into private property rights. Something the "GOP" should probably oppose.
- Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes9y
Originally posted by @Luke Miller:
If anyone thinks that politics doesn't play a massive role in these proceedings, then you are sorely misinformed. The people with the most say at these "International Code Hearings" are usually vendors who have a vested interest in seeing new, more restrictive codes put in place. Hell, i'm a lobbyist and i'm paid to ensure most of these things don't go through. Where there is a chance for regulators to generate revenue, there will always be pressure and codes are no different.
I'm not a slum lord, but If I made my houses "up to code" it would cost me thousands of dollars that I would never recuperate.
This is not an open, or even democratic, process. With fire codes, the fire department stacks the committee with their people and jambs things through without the slightest deference to building owners. If there is the slightest risk of life-safety issues for the FD, they will fight you saying they are saving lives. The same goes for building codes.
It's true, there are a lot of smart people that decide these rules, but I have yet to find anyone proposing these changes that has actually owned a rental property.
I agree with a lot of this. I specifically know of a local city that prohibits using 14 gauge electrical for anything, even a single range hood or 60 watt light fixture; they are the only municipality around like that. Coincidentally, one of the big electrical suppliers helped rewrite that code a few years ago. Also coincidentally, 12-3 is about 70% more expensive. So there's at least one example.
Skyline Properties - Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2013 · 80 posts · 64 votes9ySMH at this whole damn thread.
- Real Estate Agent · Denver, CO · Member since 2014 · 151 posts · 101 votes9y
Originally posted by @JD Martin:
I agree with a lot of this. I specifically know of a local city that prohibits using 14 gauge electrical for anything, even a single range hood or 60 watt light fixture; they are the only municipality around like that. Coincidentally, one of the big electrical suppliers helped rewrite that code a few years ago. Also coincidentally, 12-3 is about 70% more expensive. So there's at least one example.
Bringing this back to the issue of druggies and other less financially fortunate people not being able to afford nice housing: the very codes that are supposed to promote providing everyone with "habitable" housing are driving home prices up. This makes it even harder for lower income (including drug dealers and people most of us don't want to rent to) to find affordable housing, and for landlords to provide these people with a livable house at a cost that makes sense.
Point being, that everyone's definition of "safe" is different. I'm willing to bet that if we only had $200 a month to spend on rent, most of us here would pick a house with galvanized plumbing and 14 gauge electrical over copper piping and 12 gauge electrical...it's a hell of a lot better than no house at all.
- Investor · Riverside, CA · Member since 2011 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes9y
I just bought a few houses off a guy who rented only to illegal aliens. The bedroom in one house had no windows. As in, there are openings where windows were at one time, but now they are just holes covered with whatever the guy could find. The sewer line is clogged so he gave them an electric snake and let them deal with it themselves. All the lights in 2 of the houses have no covers so there are naked bulbs hanging from the ceiling. Lots of cockroaches, broken outlets, etc. One house had no medicine cabinet or mirror in the bathroom. Just a hole in the wall where the cabinet frame is. Another has no tile around the shower valves. It is a hole above the tub and the old galvanized pipes are sticking out. I could go on and on.
I guess he figured if they were illegal aliens they wouldn't complain, and I guess he was/is right because they definitely weren't happy, but they weren't complaining.
- Investor · Hillsboro, TX · Member since 2017 · 358 posts · 245 votes9y
I know several slumlords. I try not judge and realize it is not my business model. One of these is a relative of mine. She is a widow and the property has went down slowly over the last 20 years.
Yes, makes minimal repairs, rents to low income, sometimes undocumented workers. Some renters stayed with her over 30 years, unfortunately some of the second generation renters do not have the pay ethic of their parents.
It is supplemental income, for her and she is not going to make major repairs. I have offered to purchase these properties, (probably at a price to high) but it gives her an outing and she enjoys going an collecting the rent and visiting her tenants.
Sometimes we do not know the reason some folks do not take care of their properties. If it is inability or just a dont care attitude. I know I do not want them to own the house next door to me, but I realize I may own them at some time in the future.
- San Diego, CA · Member since 2015 · 273 posts · 226 votes9y
@Aaron Mazzrillo What are your plans for the properties? Presumably they are not in the best neighborhood, but I'm assuming you don't share the previous owner's business model? Just asking out of curiosity.
- Residential Real Estate Agent · Tampa, FL · Member since 2014 · 177 posts · 122 votes9y
everyone has their own style of doing business and I say "let the market dictate" if his properties are that bad, eventually even the druggies wont want to pay him to live there.
Also, leases have various clauses so perhaps his properties start on in working, liveable condition but the leases stipulate that all repairs to be made by tenant. My leases state that items costing under a certain dollar amount are to be fixed by the tenant. This keeps me from getting calls to change lightbulbs, and toilet flappers.
here in tampa we have a huge drug problem with street prostitution and shady motels and hotels. A friend that is a cop in the area was telling me all about it one day. The sketchy motels rent ROOMS, not apartments but ROOMS for $30 a day and the vast majority of these rooms are utterly disgusting, dirty and gross but these addicts keep on hustling and prostituting themselves for that $30 a day or else they are on the street. it's Florida, it's 90 degrees + for 8 months a year. IF all those motels suddenly shut down, where on earth would all of those people go?
There is no easy answer to these problems.
I own one house in "the hood" i scored it for 25k and decided to put 35k into it to make it a beautiful brand new house. it's got granite, stainless appliances, real wood cabinetry and nicely designed bathrooms and tile flooring throughout. part of that was to make it more durable as a rental but the other part was me believing that if you give someone something nice to begin with, they are more inclined to keep it that way. As a result, i have been getting much higher rents than others in the neighborhood. I do get some prospective tenants that are priced out or shocked when they hear the asking price but then when they see the place they almost always say, "damn, it's worth what your asking, I just can't afford it" I took a big risk in the ghetto on being able to find one person willing to live in the neighborhood and willing to pay the asking price and so far, it has been paying off big time for me. I dont have to rent the house to everyone, I only have to rent it to one family.
- Rental Property Investor · Sioux Falls, SD · Member since 2015 · 9k+ posts · 18k+ votes9y
Originally posted by @John Nachtigall:
Drug Dealers are also serving a "market need". People who peddle fake health cures are serving a "market need". Loan Sharks are serving a "market need". So what, serving a "market need" does not automatically make your business acceptable.
Lets be very clear
- don't want to judge your tenets profession as long as they pay on time: Super
- don't want to provide any amenities beyond 4 walls: No problem, it is a free country
- don't keep your rental up to building, fire, and safety codes: BBBZZZZZZ, I'm sorry the answer was "Follow the law". Perhaps you can make up ground in the lighting round.
So bringing this back to the original post, the OP was fixing the stairs. The deaths in the recent Oakland Ghost Ship fire was because the people on the improvised makeshift 2nd floor were unable to evacuate because the "stairs" were actually stacked pallets. Want another example, the refrigerator that caused the London fire can not be sold in the US because it does not have a metal back. That safety law exists because it turns out that when they don't have a metal back...they light houses and apartments on fire.
I get that you "hate" government regulation, or at least strongly dislike it. And God knows I agree it can go way to far. But when it comes to building, fire, and safety codes, you can almost always point back to a painful lesson that was paid for in blood. And the code is the learning from that lesson.
So no, it is not ok to meet a "market need" if you are not meeting the basic fire, safety, and building codes. No matter how much "benefit" you think you are providing to society.
Reread my post because you are putting words in my mouth - not cool. I didn't say I hate government regulation. I sure never said that a landlord shouldn't meet occupancy, health, safety and building codes. Landlords who violate codes are frequently fined and are held on criminal charges when someone gets injured.
The OP was about drug addicts, not about drug dealers. Believe it or not drug addiction is a serious disease. I hope it never affects your family, because it is horrible.
Sadly, the safety hazards are often caused by the tenants themselves. In my city a rental property fire killed several kids, because their meth addict mom burned the place down. She lived of course. No landlord wrong doing.
When I owned low-income housing I had two fires, both started by tenant negligence. In one case it was a grease fire. I had a fire extinguisher on the wall three feet from the stove top, which they were told how to use. They did not use it. They ran from the house screaming. The neighboring tenant ran in and poured flour on the fire. He said, "I knew it was either baking soda or flour you are supposed to put on a grease fire." The Red Cross shows up and asks me what hotel I am putting the tenants up in while I fix the damage. In another case a drunk tenant fell asleep and his cigarette started the deck on fire. My lease policy states no smoking within 15 feet of any structure. Do you think either paid for the damage?
I have had tenants break every single door in a property, smash several windows, punch multiple holes in the wall, destroy the carpet and the list goes on and on. I fixed all the damage every time, but slowly I started finding myself caring less and less. I knew someone would just destroy it. That is when I knew it was time to sell my C properties and move to only A and B properties.
So, I am not saying this is my business model, but I am also not going to bash others that are filling a market need. They are helping people that everyone else has turned their backs on.
What is your solution? If you force landlords to fix up their properties, then the tenants are forced out.
- Santa Rosa, CA · Member since 2017 · 325 posts · 701 votes9y
This is simply not a free market issue. The democratic society you live in has decided that there is a minimum level of compliance that under which is not acceptable. Those code have been developed over the year specifically in response to things that your democratically elected government has decided are unacceptable.
And you are correct, it is absolutely an intrusion into private property rights. Because no right, from free speech to private property, is absolute. Furthermore, the argument that "it happens anyway" is ridiculous. Most laws continue to be broken, from murder to robbery to rape, but that is no excuse to eliminate the law.
I love the free market, it does a ****** job of enforcing national defense, police, fire, and building codes. For that other systems are needed
- Santa Rosa, CA · Member since 2017 · 325 posts · 701 votes9y
I can't tell what your position is Joe, at first you say landlords should follow codes. Then at the end you imply they are filling a need and this is a reasonable solution, not meeting codes.
This is not complex. Every landlord should comply with building, fire, and safety codes. Even if their tenets are the ones causing the violation, because as the OWNER, this is your ultimate responsibility. And the law backs that up, they fine the owner of the property, not the tenet Call it unfair all you want, that is the deal you make when you own property, it is one of the risks that is rewarded with cash flow. Landlords have no legal responsibility beyond that. So you if you want to keep 30 year old counter tops or stinky carpeting....go for it.
Yes, I think landlords should keep there properties meeting the codes. But my opinion does not matter, the local, state, and in some cases even the federal government also think landlords should meet codes or no tenets. They matter more. And being this is a democracy, if there is a code you feel is an undue burden you are free to lobby for it to be changed.
If you think landlords should meet code then we agree Joe. If you think there is an excuse to run slums that rely on people not reporting violations then you and I most certainly do not agree.
- Rental Property Investor · Sioux Falls, SD · Member since 2015 · 9k+ posts · 18k+ votes9y
Originally posted by @John Nachtigall:
I can't tell what your position is Joe, at first you say landlords should follow codes. Then at the end you imply they are filling a need and this is a reasonable solution, not meeting codes.
This is not complex. Every landlord should comply with building, fire, and safety codes. Even if their tenets are the ones causing the violation, because as the OWNER, this is your ultimate responsibility. And the law backs that up, they fine the owner of the property, not the tenet Call it unfair all you want, that is the deal you make when you own property, it is one of the risks that is rewarded with cash flow. Landlords have no legal responsibility beyond that. So you if you want to keep 30 year old counter tops or stinky carpeting....go for it.
Yes, I think landlords should keep there properties meeting the codes. But my opinion does not matter, the local, state, and in some cases even the federal government also think landlords should meet codes or no tenets. They matter more. And being this is a democracy, if there is a code you feel is an undue burden you are free to lobby for it to be changed.
If you think landlords should meet code then we agree Joe. If you think there is an excuse to run slums that rely on people not reporting violations then you and I most certainly do not agree.
I didn't imply anything of the sort. Renting to lesser privileged people is filling a market need.
- Rental Property Investor · Cincinnati, OH · Member since 2013 · 292 posts · 280 votes9y
Originally posted by @Sylvia B.:
Originally posted by @Thomas S.:
Even druggies need and want a place to live. If a investor can make a buck off druggies, section 8, students, what difference does it make. It's just a different client base.
Well, to me, that's kind of like saying, "I can make more money selling meth. I'm a retailer, and it's just another product, right? They have to buy their drugs somewhere, might as well be me that gets their money."
Meth is just another product. They do have to buy their drugs somewhere. That "somewhere" should be a government ran facility that is exactly like the government ran liquor stores in Ohio. Sell all drugs for exactly the very low cost to manufacture the drug and then add an extremely small tax to pay the store lease and the store labor cost.
I had a front row seat to the taxpayer funded "war on drugs" for twenty eight (28) years. The drug epidemic lives on, the Mexican Cartels continue to thrive and the American Taxpayer weeps.
DL
- Rental Property Investor · Orange County, CA · Member since 2014 · 49 posts · 80 votes9y
My families entire business was centered upon fullfilling the food, housing, and clothing of the less fortunate members of society in the central valley of california. These are the people that do the work that no one else is willing to do, harvesting crops, digging ditches, cleanup and all other forms of outdoor manual labor in the baking dry heat of Central California.
They don't have a lot of money, and if memory serves me correct, they didn't have any ID either, but they all needed the same things everyone needs. A bed to sleep in, food to eat, clothing, running water, electricity, and a toilet, just like you and me. Keep it to code, keep it clean, and keep it fair. Everyone was generally happy with the arrangement.
An acqaintance of mine, makes their living providing housing to drug and alcohol dependent people in half way houses and by no stretch is he a slumlord. He provides clean, up to code housing for these people and he makes very good money doing this...
I have evicted drug addicts from one of my properties one time and one time only. You will never guess who they were?? They were "upstanding" UC students running a drug dealership out of one of my units!! Police set up a sting, and I evicted simultaneously. Needless to say their parents were highly embarrassed and I kept a lot of deposits that day.
Point being, if my tenants follow my lease, I stay out of their business. I try not to label or judge them.
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.