We had a conversation with a guy today and it went something like this:
"Hey I saw you hauling some lumber the other day. Whatcha building?"
"We bought a rental house and I was fixing a safety hazard." (Concrete step at entry. 6" tread, 9" risers)
"Ah. I don't do repairs at my rentals."
"Really?"
"Yeah, I rent to druggies. Whatever is there is what they live with. They don't complain."
I just can't wrap my head around it. Renting to druggies is his plan. And he's proud of it.
Being 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..
@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.
I got zero interest seller financing on the deal. I thought about selling them to another investor and carrying back the paper on a wrap charging interest only with a hefty prepay penalty. If I sold the properties for what I paid for them and asked for $50K down, then carried the balance at 10% interest only, I'd get a very nice income stream while getting 100% amortization on the underlying seller carry back.
Most likely I'll just fix them up and raise their rents.
How unfortunate that so many people believe that those who are in need of cheaper housing are drug addicts. In my opinion there are many very poor (often elderly) people who will put up with deplorable conditions just to survive. We had an elderly couple here in our town in a small house in a nice area that only escaped a fire because a police officer happened to be driving home from work and saw the smoke/flames. The damage was caused by mice/rats eating through electrical wiring and the tenants had requested help from the landlord as the vermin come from a neighboring field and are hard to control. The landlord ignored them and they nearly died because of it. There is a moral obligation to treat people with grace and respect and that includes provides live-able rentals. Even the very poor deserve a clean safe place to live even if it's not fancy. Unfortunately, not everyone shares my morals.
No LL in the burbs with a 3/2 slab home would have rented to my parents, my brother and I for $275/mo, I can guarantee you that.
Sure the place my parents rented was a, "I'll rent to you for $x but I'm not fixin' ****." kind of deal but it provided us with a centrally cooled 3/1.5 trailer to call home, a place to eat as family and a place full of fond memories (birthdays, Thanksgiving, etc...). Renting B-A+ properties to tenants with 650+ credit scores isn't hard.
'Slumlords' don't get the credit they deserve. Posturing and virtue signalling don't impress me much. Do something or get out of the way.
Being a slumlord absolutely does not work. There is a lot of liability when you have older buildings that need lots of repair and updates. If you don't fix your buildings, things like roof leaks can cause greater damage. You can get cited by the city, people can get hurt on your property. And for those druggie tenants - I seriously doubt that they pay consistently on time. In conclusion, you'll be in eviction court often. You'll be in building court often.
@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.
Seeing this hands on, I still have to disagree. I have an issue renting crappy units because that's just not the business I want to be in. But you have to ask yourself why someone would chose to live in a crappy place, and what their alternative would be if that option were not there.
@Levi T. well said Levi. that is a good perspective and one I agree with. Everone has their niche and this is definitely a touchy subject with polar opposite views depending on what side of the fence your on.
................to each their own
Being a slumlord absolutely does not work. There is a lot of liability when you have older buildings that need lots of repair and updates. If you don't fix your buildings, things like roof leaks can cause greater damage. You can get cited by the city, people can get hurt on your property. And for those druggie tenants - I seriously doubt that they pay consistently on time. In conclusion, you'll be in eviction court often. You'll be in building court often.
It doesn't work? I disagree. Exhibit A: People doing it.
@Cody L. Let me guess. You believe the government should have no role in society except military and police (aka impose violence). Do you want the bridge you drive on to be built to a standard? Do you want planes you fly on held to safety standards? Do you think commercial buildings you work in should be fire safe or earthquake resistant? Get out of Ayn Rand mindset. The world cannot function like that. Well it can but you dont really want to live in such a world. Go see third world countries where there are no standards or rules. You really dont want to live there.
@Cody L. Let me guess. You believe the government should have no role in society except military and police (aka impose violence). Do you want the bridge you drive on to be built to a standard? Do you want planes you fly on held to safety standards? Do you think commercial buildings you work in should be fire safe or earthquake resistant? Get out of Ayn Rand mindset. The world cannot function like that. Well it can but you dont really want to live in such a world. Go see third world countries where there are no standards or rules. You really dont want to live there.
"Let me guess"
Nice guess, but wrong.
Let me guess.... You like to drink the blood of babies and smash kittens? Man, you're a terrible person
@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.
Seeing this hands on, I still have to disagree. I have an issue renting crappy units because that's just not the business I want to be in. But you have to ask yourself why someone would chose to live in a crappy place, and what their alternative would be if that option were not there.
So you think it's acceptable to purposefully target a demographic because you know they won't report to anyone in authority the unsafe housing you provide them?
It's okay to refuse to fix holes in the floor (not the floor covering, something you could fall through) or the front door knob that won't lock or latch, or the heater that doesn't work in below freezing temperatures because you know the tenant is powerless to do anything about it?
Would it be okay for a restaurant to sell hamburgers made from spoiled meat to homeless people for just a quarter because otherwise they'd go hungry?
Maybe it's just me, but renting a property to people you know to be drug users seems like it could be running the risk of getting caught in an asset forfeiture situation.
@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.
Seeing this hands on, I still have to disagree. I have an issue renting crappy units because that's just not the business I want to be in. But you have to ask yourself why someone would chose to live in a crappy place, and what their alternative would be if that option were not there.
So you think it's acceptable to purposefully target a demographic because you know they won't report to anyone in authority the unsafe housing you provide them?
It's okay to refuse to fix holes in the floor (not the floor covering, something you could fall through) or the front door knob that won't lock or latch, or the heater that doesn't work in below freezing temperatures because you know the tenant is powerless to do anything about it?
Would it be okay for a restaurant to sell hamburgers made from spoiled meat to homeless people for just a quarter because otherwise they'd go hungry?
I don't know what you mean by "Demographic" unless you mean lower income people. And yes, I think it's fine to SERVE the needs (you use 'target' and 'demographic' as they're loaded terms. Common, don't play that game) of that group by offering afforadable housing.
Look, I've done very well with MY business plan. You should like it. It involves buying distressed properties where low income people live, fixing up their dumpy houses, and raising the rents (as I couldn't afford to buy the property, fix it up, AND leave rent the same). Guess what % of the original tenants I keep after doing this? Not many. Most leave after their crappy place is fixed as they can't afford the new rent.
So, given they were living at the property OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, and now that option is gone for them, do you think they're going to move to a place that's BETTER (assuming they pay the same amount) or worse? Hint: If you think they're going to move to a BETTER place for the same rent, why wouldn't they have done that before?
Anyway, I'm called the bad guy for going into a property and displacing all these low income people by fixing the property up. Or I could be the bad guy by buying a property, not fixing it up, and leaving the rent as is. So which is worse?
Unless you're doing something for these people that I'm (or other investors) are not, you really should get off your high horse.
Regarding homeless and food? Good point actually. TONS of edible food gets thrown out because the government says it has to. My guess is someone starving on the street would LOVE to eat what you, in your high and mighty opinion, would think is 'garbage'. But congrats on having such high standards. Makes you a wonderful person
@Cody L. Off topic- Food is rarely thrown out because of government regulations; it's up to the stores to set those standards, and it often involves extra cost to them to donate the food so they throw it away. There is a lot of will to now change that; here in San Diego Starbucks is donating their day old foods to food pantries using a fleet of vehicles they purchased, and starting to let other food chains use those vehicles for the same purpose.
Back tot he topic, you hit on a great point. Lot of people here follow/share your business plan because it is a great way to increase your own wealth while also allowing them to make improvements to a neighborhood and enjoy that non-monetary good feeling. You are right that no one has come on here and talked about the standards they have for the homes they rent to drug users, recovering addicts, homeless, etc. As you pointed out that isn't a business plan, that's a charity.
However, I think we can agree that it is horribly sad that people choose to live in unsafe, dirty conditions because they feel they have no other choice. And if you can't agree on that, can you at least agree that it is horrifically sad for the children who grow up that way?
I would guess that at least part of @Sylvia B.'s frustration with the slumlord was that they appeared to be bragging about their real estate methods.
I will take your your challenge and say this from a high horse.
First, I think it is a good thing that your buy houses and fix them up. Call it gentrification or good investing, any addition to decent housing is a net positive.
But, your logic regarding substandard housing is better than no housing is flawed. Lets use a real life example
The cladding used in the low income apartment towers in London was 300,000 pounds less than the fire resistant cladding. There are at least 111 buildings with that cladding, so a crude estimate of money saved is 3.3 million pounds or 4.2 million US. Now here is where I get nice. I am going to grant you that 3.3 million pounds will build 50 low flats. It wont, London is the 2nd highest construction costs in the world, but I am going to grant.
So cheap cladding saved enough money to build 50 flats
In exchange, more than 100 people lost their lives (80 confirmed and still searching) and 156 homes and flats were lost and 250+ people are homeless.
Explain how that tradeoff works? This is a real life example.
Don't like this one. Do the same math with the warehouse fire in Oakland and letting people live in non-residential spaces. It will turn out the same. Substandard housing is not better than no housing.
@Cody L. However, I think we can agree that it is horribly sad that people choose to live in unsafe, dirty conditions because they feel they have no other choice. And if you can't agree on that, can you at least agree that it is horrifically sad for the children who grow up that way?
I would guess that at least part of @Sylvia B.'s frustration with the slumlord was that they appeared to be bragging about their real estate methods.
I couldn't agree more! I've seen so much stuff of lifes distress that it's hard to come to grips that this happens in the world. Kids living in homes where the parents (or 'parent', singular in most cases) simple doesn't give a damn. Heartbreaking stuff :(
And I agree that introducing yourself as "Hi, I'm Bob, I run crappy apartments for people that can't get anything better" isn't the best way to make a positive impression. My only point is there are people that are 'outside the system' that simply can't get a good place because they cost too much or the people that run them will deny their application. Those people exist, and have to go somewhere. As much as I'd love the minimum housing to be much nicer than it is, I don't think that's a reality at least in the free market. You'd have to have the government come in and build some type of government housing with taxpayer money. And I don't think taxpayers are really on-board with that.
So the government can mandate xyz standards but that doesn't make them magically happen. Someone using their own capital, with an expectation of making a return, must make that happen.
There is some poor African country, I can't remember which (and it may not even be in Africa, so if I'm wrong there too forgive me, but that's not the point) has constitutionally mandated housing and healthcare for everyone. But there is still little to no healthcare in the country (or housing). Dispite it being in their constitution. Because at the end of the day, governments don't do it by magical fiat. People do.
I will take your your challenge and say this from a high horse.
First, I think it is a good thing that your buy houses and fix them up. Call it gentrification or good investing, any addition to decent housing is a net positive.
But, your logic regarding substandard housing is better than no housing is flawed. Lets use a real life example
The cladding used in the low income apartment towers in London was 300,000 pounds less than the fire resistant cladding. There are at least 111 buildings with that cladding, so a crude estimate of money saved is 3.3 million pounds or 4.2 million US. Now here is where I get nice. I am going to grant you that 3.3 million pounds will build 50 low flats. It wont, London is the 2nd highest construction costs in the world, but I am going to grant.
So cheap cladding saved enough money to build 50 flats
In exchange, more than 100 people lost their lives (80 confirmed and still searching) and 156 homes and flats were lost and 250+ people are homeless.
Explain how that tradeoff works? This is a real life example.
Don't like this one. Do the same math with the warehouse fire in Oakland and letting people live in non-residential spaces. It will turn out the same. Substandard housing is not better than no housing.
Your whole argument is based on substandard housing being inferior to no housing, yet you only provide evidence supporting your position. Come on man. You're better than that.
Here's another real life example (terribly tragic I might add. I was shocked/appalled to hear of this when it happened). Let's think about the homeless man, outside of Paradise Valley Mall in Phx AZ who was chained to a metal bench and then lit on fire by teenagers.
His death was truly tragic and the kids that did it deserve a special kind of punishment. But the point I want to make from this graphic story is that would this have happened if the homeless man had been living in a home? Even if that home had holes in the floor/exposed wiring/no heat/etc.??
I don't think so. How would you explain this trade off? Or any of the other trades that have to be made when someone is homeless and is the victim of brutal violence or the biting cold and freezing wind?
If you're going to condemn Cody for what he is saying, at least present a fair and balanced post.
@Cody L. Completely agree regarding somewhere is better than nowhere. At least you are statistically safer in a private home than out on the streets. I wish there was a realistic and reasonable solution (for selfish reasons, this makes me so sad).
Unfortunately, what usually comes out of these issues are affordable housing 'solutions' that do everything but increase affordable housing.
@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.
Seeing this hands on, I still have to disagree. I have an issue renting crappy units because that's just not the business I want to be in. But you have to ask yourself why someone would chose to live in a crappy place, and what their alternative would be if that option were not there.
So you think it's acceptable to purposefully target a demographic because you know they won't report to anyone in authority the unsafe housing you provide them?
It's okay to refuse to fix holes in the floor (not the floor covering, something you could fall through) or the front door knob that won't lock or latch, or the heater that doesn't work in below freezing temperatures because you know the tenant is powerless to do anything about it?
Would it be okay for a restaurant to sell hamburgers made from spoiled meat to homeless people for just a quarter because otherwise they'd go hungry?
I don't know what you mean by "Demographic" unless you mean lower income people. And yes, I think it's fine to SERVE the needs (you use 'target' and 'demographic' as they're loaded terms. Common, don't play that game) of that group by offering afforadable housing.
Look, I've done very well with MY business plan. You should like it. It involves buying distressed properties where low income people live, fixing up their dumpy houses, and raising the rents (as I couldn't afford to buy the property, fix it up, AND leave rent the same). Guess what % of the original tenants I keep after doing this? Not many. Most leave after their crappy place is fixed as they can't afford the new rent.
So, given they were living at the property OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, and now that option is gone for them, do you think they're going to move to a place that's BETTER (assuming they pay the same amount) or worse? Hint: If you think they're going to move to a BETTER place for the same rent, why wouldn't they have done that before?
Anyway, I'm called the bad guy for going into a property and displacing all these low income people by fixing the property up. Or I could be the bad guy by buying a property, not fixing it up, and leaving the rent as is. So which is worse?
Unless you're doing something for these people that I'm (or other investors) are not, you really should get off your high horse.
Regarding homeless and food? Good point actually. TONS of edible food gets thrown out because the government says it has to. My guess is someone starving on the street would LOVE to eat what you, in your high and mighty opinion, would think is 'garbage'. But congrats on having such high standards. Makes you a wonderful person
You seem to be purposefully ignoring what I say, but I will try one more time.
The "demographic" we are discussing is drug addicts who won't complain about unsafe housing conditions because they are afraid of attracting attention from the authorities. ("Target" and "Demographic" are not loaded words, they are descriptive. Every one of us has a target demographic for our rentals.)
I am not talking about serving low income people by offering affordable, low quality housing.
I am not talking about fixing up a dumpy house. Dumpy and unsafe are two very different things.
In the hamburger example, I am not talking about edible but undesirable food. I said spoiled, as in rotten, stinking, will make you sick if you eat it.
I am saying that it is wrong to specifically market to (since you dislike "target") a group of people (demographic) because you know that you can get away with providing them with unsafe housing. Not old, run-down, low quality, dumpy, dirty, or ugly, but UNSAFE. If you think that puts me on a high horse then fine.
In case it is still unclear, here are some examples of what I mean by unsafe:
Holes in the floor that a person can fall through.
No working heater in winter.
Electrical system so bad that the city won't restore service. (And they are quite lax in our area)
No windows in the window openings.
Sewage draining into the basement.
Exterior door knobs that do not work (or missing doors), so the house cannot be secured.
Broken stairs that someone could fall through if they step in the wrong place.
I could go on, but these are sufficient.
@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.
Seeing this hands on, I still have to disagree. I have an issue renting crappy units because that's just not the business I want to be in. But you have to ask yourself why someone would chose to live in a crappy place, and what their alternative would be if that option were not there.
So you think it's acceptable to purposefully target a demographic because you know they won't report to anyone in authority the unsafe housing you provide them?
It's okay to refuse to fix holes in the floor (not the floor covering, something you could fall through) or the front door knob that won't lock or latch, or the heater that doesn't work in below freezing temperatures because you know the tenant is powerless to do anything about it?
Would it be okay for a restaurant to sell hamburgers made from spoiled meat to homeless people for just a quarter because otherwise they'd go hungry?
I don't know what you mean by "Demographic" unless you mean lower income people. And yes, I think it's fine to SERVE the needs (you use 'target' and 'demographic' as they're loaded terms. Common, don't play that game) of that group by offering afforadable housing.
Look, I've done very well with MY business plan. You should like it. It involves buying distressed properties where low income people live, fixing up their dumpy houses, and raising the rents (as I couldn't afford to buy the property, fix it up, AND leave rent the same). Guess what % of the original tenants I keep after doing this? Not many. Most leave after their crappy place is fixed as they can't afford the new rent.
So, given they were living at the property OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, and now that option is gone for them, do you think they're going to move to a place that's BETTER (assuming they pay the same amount) or worse? Hint: If you think they're going to move to a BETTER place for the same rent, why wouldn't they have done that before?
Anyway, I'm called the bad guy for going into a property and displacing all these low income people by fixing the property up. Or I could be the bad guy by buying a property, not fixing it up, and leaving the rent as is. So which is worse?
Unless you're doing something for these people that I'm (or other investors) are not, you really should get off your high horse.
Regarding homeless and food? Good point actually. TONS of edible food gets thrown out because the government says it has to. My guess is someone starving on the street would LOVE to eat what you, in your high and mighty opinion, would think is 'garbage'. But congrats on having such high standards. Makes you a wonderful person
You seem to be purposefully ignoring what I say, but I will try one more time.
The "demographic" we are discussing is drug addicts who won't complain about unsafe housing conditions because they are afraid of attracting attention from the authorities. ("Target" and "Demographic" are not loaded words, they are descriptive. Every one of us has a target demographic for our rentals.)
I am not talking about serving low income people by offering affordable, low quality housing.
I am not talking about fixing up a dumpy house. Dumpy and unsafe are two very different things.
In the hamburger example, I am not talking about edible but undesirable food. I said spoiled, as in rotten, stinking, will make you sick if you eat it.
I am saying that it is wrong to specifically market to (since you dislike "target") a group of people (demographic) because you know that you can get away with providing them with unsafe housing. Not old, run-down, low quality, dumpy, dirty, or ugly, but UNSAFE. If you think that puts me on a high horse then fine.
In case it is still unclear, here are some examples of what I mean by unsafe:
Holes in the floor that a person can fall through.
No working heater in winter.
Electrical system so bad that the city won't restore service. (And they are quite lax in our area)
No windows in the window openings.
Sewage draining into the basement.
Exterior door knobs that do not work (or missing doors), so the house cannot be secured.
Broken stairs that someone could fall through if they step in the wrong place.
I could go on, but these are sufficient.
So find these homes that are unsafe and housing druggies. Condem them because they're unsafe. The druggies go where? Again, unless you want to throw them in a river, or provide government paid for / operated housing, you have to accept that whatever they find IS the best option for them as evidenced by the fact they're not seeking a property that doesn't have that very through list of issues you provided.
@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.
Seeing this hands on, I still have to disagree. I have an issue renting crappy units because that's just not the business I want to be in. But you have to ask yourself why someone would chose to live in a crappy place, and what their alternative would be if that option were not there.
So you think it's acceptable to purposefully target a demographic because you know they won't report to anyone in authority the unsafe housing you provide them?
It's okay to refuse to fix holes in the floor (not the floor covering, something you could fall through) or the front door knob that won't lock or latch, or the heater that doesn't work in below freezing temperatures because you know the tenant is powerless to do anything about it?
Would it be okay for a restaurant to sell hamburgers made from spoiled meat to homeless people for just a quarter because otherwise they'd go hungry?
I don't know what you mean by "Demographic" unless you mean lower income people. And yes, I think it's fine to SERVE the needs (you use 'target' and 'demographic' as they're loaded terms. Common, don't play that game) of that group by offering afforadable housing.
Look, I've done very well with MY business plan. You should like it. It involves buying distressed properties where low income people live, fixing up their dumpy houses, and raising the rents (as I couldn't afford to buy the property, fix it up, AND leave rent the same). Guess what % of the original tenants I keep after doing this? Not many. Most leave after their crappy place is fixed as they can't afford the new rent.
So, given they were living at the property OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, and now that option is gone for them, do you think they're going to move to a place that's BETTER (assuming they pay the same amount) or worse? Hint: If you think they're going to move to a BETTER place for the same rent, why wouldn't they have done that before?
Anyway, I'm called the bad guy for going into a property and displacing all these low income people by fixing the property up. Or I could be the bad guy by buying a property, not fixing it up, and leaving the rent as is. So which is worse?
Unless you're doing something for these people that I'm (or other investors) are not, you really should get off your high horse.
Regarding homeless and food? Good point actually. TONS of edible food gets thrown out because the government says it has to. My guess is someone starving on the street would LOVE to eat what you, in your high and mighty opinion, would think is 'garbage'. But congrats on having such high standards. Makes you a wonderful person
You seem to be purposefully ignoring what I say, but I will try one more time.
The "demographic" we are discussing is drug addicts who won't complain about unsafe housing conditions because they are afraid of attracting attention from the authorities. ("Target" and "Demographic" are not loaded words, they are descriptive. Every one of us has a target demographic for our rentals.)
I am not talking about serving low income people by offering affordable, low quality housing.
I am not talking about fixing up a dumpy house. Dumpy and unsafe are two very different things.
In the hamburger example, I am not talking about edible but undesirable food. I said spoiled, as in rotten, stinking, will make you sick if you eat it.
I am saying that it is wrong to specifically market to (since you dislike "target") a group of people (demographic) because you know that you can get away with providing them with unsafe housing. Not old, run-down, low quality, dumpy, dirty, or ugly, but UNSAFE. If you think that puts me on a high horse then fine.
In case it is still unclear, here are some examples of what I mean by unsafe:
Holes in the floor that a person can fall through.
No working heater in winter.
Electrical system so bad that the city won't restore service. (And they are quite lax in our area)
No windows in the window openings.
Sewage draining into the basement.
Exterior door knobs that do not work (or missing doors), so the house cannot be secured.
Broken stairs that someone could fall through if they step in the wrong place.
I could go on, but these are sufficient.
Also keep in mind, buying these low end places and renting junky properties to junky tenants is not what ***I*** do. The bad properties you so want fixed ARE the properties I buy. And I fix them. And then I toss those druggies out (as they're unlikely to be able to afford the rent I'll charge or abide by the lease terms I'd require).
So where do they go?
It might make you feel good that they're no longer living in the unsafe junk box they were living in. But do you really think when I give them the boot they're finding something better?
That cladding was used to meet environmental standards regarding emissions during the energy efficiency renovation (it's main purpose). So is the Grenfell Tower fire a result of not enough codes and standards, or too many? Not to mention the elected bureaucracy in charge of all key aspects of the renovation deciding that retrofitted sprinklers to be of lesser importance.
In the aftermath of the Oakland fire, many people who rely on unconventional living spaces are now being evicted in droves. I'm sure they feel much more safe and better off though.
how much of that comment was macho posturing?
"Renting B-A+ properties to tenants with 650+ credit scores isn't hard."
That cladding was used to meet environmental standards regarding emissions during the energy efficiency renovation (it's main purpose). So is the Grenfell Tower fire a result of not enough codes and standards, or too many? Not to mention the elected bureaucracy in charge of all key aspects of the renovation deciding that retrofitted sprinklers to be of lesser importance.
In the aftermath of the Oakland fire, many people who rely on unconventional living spaces are now being evicted in droves. I'm sure they feel much more safe and better off though.
In Grenfell there is proof going back more than a decade people had been trying to get that cladding outlawed in high buildings. It was allowed specifically to provide an "affordable" solution even though in the US that application was outlawed by code for more than a decade. So it is directly on point to the tradeoff of allowing the building code to be subservient to affordability. And the worst part, it was never a good tradeoff. They saved 300k on a 9.2 million renovation. A whole 3.3%....amazing. If you are going to sell your soul get a good price.they could have met both codes (fire and environmental) easily.
In Oakland the only problem is that they continue to tolerate any "unconventional" spaces. How many people do you want to die? What will it take to learn the lesson? So either enforce the code, or when the next fire hits the headline better be "Acceptable tradeoff of 20 lives in exchange for inexpensive housing happens last night". Is that what you want, because that is exactly the choice. How many deaths a year is an acceptable tradeoff to allowing artists to live in warehouses that are not even close to code? I say 0, but you give me your answer