Small Landlords are choosing to sell
Real Estate Broker · Cody, WY · Member since 2010 · 28k+ posts · 41k+ votes
The DIY Landlord Book4.7244 Reviews
Small Landlords are choosing to sell
Most Popular Reply
Rental Property Investor · Sioux Falls, SD · Member since 2015 · 9k+ posts · 18k+ votes
5yOriginally posted by @Nathan Gesner:
Originally posted by @Aj Parikh:
“So if you happen to be in a jurisdiction that allows you as the property owner to work on behalf of your resident, to be an advocate, to get those funds into their hands as quickly as possible, then you’re going to be much more successful,” said Robert Pinnegar, president and CEO of the National Apartment Association. “If you’re in jurisdictions that have taken an approach that is not so customer service friendly, then it’s going to take longer.”
I am in Fairfax County, VA and we have a landlord assistance program but the requirement is that the tenant has to sign a form and submit pay stubs. I don't know how any tenant who has not been paying rent would help out a landlord to get funds. For example, my tenant has not paid rent in the past 3 months and has refused to answer calls, texts or emails and has not followed any of the notices we have posted on her front door.
That's exactly it. The current system requires the Tenant to participate. Since a large percentage of them are capable of paying rent but simply refusing to do so, this doesn't help the Landlord.
Simple fix: Create a government affidavit that must be filled out by the Tenant to show they are suffering a hardship due to COVID. They attach any supporting documentation and authorize the Landlord to use the information to apply for assistance. Landlord uses the form to apply for assistance. Any renter failing to pay rent and failing to fill out an affidavit is still subject to eviction.
Problem solved.
Slow down, we can't actually solve problems. We sure can't solve a problem with one paragraph. Here is the better approach:
1. Have politicians debate it for months.
2. Pay people to study the issue.
3. Have politicians debate the issue more.
4. Draft a gigantic bill to address the issue and include a thousand unrelated things in the bill. (Mostly payoff for political supporters).
5. Allocate billions to the solve the problem.
6. Repeat steps 3-5.
7. Have the media write articles about how the problem is evil business owners. Make people argue with each other, so they don't see the real problem. This prevents the naïve masses from realizing the politicians are the problem.
8. Politicians run for re-election and offer to solve the problem. They blame the other party for not solving it and offer to fix all your problems.
9. Go to step 1 and repeat the cycle.
132 Replies
- Investor · West Monroe, LA · Member since 2015 · 196 posts · 70 votes5y
In my market, landlords are selling, but mostly just to capitalize on the shortage of properties and obtaining top dollar for their rentals. I don't know of anyone who has had to sell out of desperation yet.
Originally posted by @Joanne Tsai:
I wonder in the situation where owners are selling their properties with tenants in place, would they be honest about the tenants not paying rent? If the lease is still in effect, how can the new owner be sure that these are not non-paying tenants? Estoppel really doesn't mean much, correct?
I have seen some LL paying their tenants to move out, and when the next LL call for reference, the existing LLs would give these tenants fabulous review just so they can reclaim their properties. So in a sense, the current LL is screwing the next one.....
Any decent landlord buying a place would require proof of rent payment. The current owner should be able to show bank deposits from the current tenant. Also, if the current owner lied about it, they could be liable for losses the new owner incurs.
The issue now is that the buyers are not looking to be landlords, they are looking to live in the unit. Therefore, they don't care if the current tenant is paying or not. They are going to be removing them. Even with the eviction moratorium, in many places if a person buys a property with the intent to live in it, they can get the current tenant out.
New landlords should ask for the contact info for the current and prior landlords. Never trust the current one. However, I once called a current landlord and mentioned that the prospective tenant said you agreed to let him out of his lease as soon as he found a new place. The landlord replied, he can leave any time, he hasn't paid rent in months, I'm in the process of evicting him. I wouldn't rent to him if I were you. 😂
I think, at the end of the day, we're in a housing shortage that isn't going away any time soon. If there's no rentals on the market and no inventory for home buyers, where exactly are we going to be in a year or three?
I do think the CDC made a huge error when they enacted eviction moratoriums with no payment guarantees. The mom and pop (owners) and the average tenant will all end up losing in the long run when the huge number of mom and pop owners exit the market due to legislation, income loss, hassle and demoralization. Couple these hassles/losses with record shattering year over year (over year over year) equity appreciation, and why shouldn't they sell and simplify their life? This could be a retirement fund or huge financial boost for many, and I think we can all agree that the future has seemed uncertain at best. If the equation is- Keep Deadbeat tenants/watch your bills mount/face hardships vs. Sell now ( they can legally terminate tenancies) and dance all the way to the bank-- many will bail. One by one, the landlord demographic is changing. I think it's worse in places like LA or Portland, where the rent control laws were restrictive under the best of times. One of the landlords in the article is selling 9 houses in Portland that she's had for over 20 years.
When REITs and large mega-management companies control the rents, rents will rise. When they control a larger percentage of the market, it will be like the airlines... fare wars disappeared when the competition dwindled.
I add a human element to my tenant/landlord interactions. In tough times, I work with them, like most mom and pops do. Yet... I'm taking risks, I saved my butt off to get here, I keep the bills paid and the water on. My insurance, utilities and taxes haven't gone down. My rewards have accumulated over decades of growth, focus and effort, it's a business, and I built it. I really can't afford to house people for free.
- Specialist · Chicago · Member since 2021 · 45 posts · 22 votes5y
Know this conversation has a couple different contentious points being debated. One additional point to raise though:
I am CEO of a transaction coordination company and see a ton of deal flow. It's right to say that there are more rentals being put on the market right now.
However, there is also a TON of buyers for those properties right now. In fact, I'd argue that the rentals I'm seeing are selling faster than ever. This is especially true for multi-families, 5+ units, typically A/B class.
My hypothesis is that there are a lot of wealthy individuals (doctors, lawyers) who typically invest in the stock market but are hesitant to do so now. It could be COVID, cyclicality, Game Stop, etc. However, a lot of those stock investors are looking to stay away from the markets right now and are quickly buying the real estate that landlords are selling
- Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 17k+ votes5y
Originally posted by @Aaron F.:
@JD Martin except the purpose of the moratorium (at least originally) wasn’t to help tenants avoid paying rent, the purpose was to prevent evictions at a time when increased mobility would potentially accelerate COVID’s spread, not to provide blanket tenant relief.
Sure, I understand that. They wanted people to be able to stay put. It doesn't matter. There are consequences to actions. Instead of blanket moratoriums or stimulus programs, how about issuing tenants vouchers good only for rent, utilities and the like? Or allowing landlords to file for reimbursement providing the tenant's information which could then be added to the tenant's taxes the same way charge offs are?
There are certainly alternatives to just blanket edicts that allow tenants to free ride without consequences, because there are going to be real consequences and they're not going to be good for tenants.
Skyline Properties - Investor · Millburn, NJ · Member since 2018 · 141 posts · 100 votes5y
I wonder in the situation where owners are selling their properties with tenants in place, would they be honest about the tenants not paying rent? If the lease is still in effect, how can the new owner be sure that these are not non-paying tenants? Estoppel really doesn't mean much, correct?
I have seen some LL paying their tenants to move out, and when the next LL call for reference, the existing LLs would give these tenants fabulous review just so they can reclaim their properties. So in a sense, the current LL is screwing the next one.....
- 5yColleen F.Pro MemberInvestor · Narragansett, RI · Member since 2013 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
The CDC's mission has nothing to do with housing. They aren't looking at housing and they don't care about housing. They simply think that people will move if they allow evictions and people moving means Covid will spread. They do not seem to have worked with HUD on this moratorium or looked at impact long term when they started it. They are in a spot now where until they can declare Covid gone they aren't lifting this moratorium because if they lift it and there is a COVID uptick it is on them. And now Walensky (CDC director) sees "impending doom" from Covid so no way is she lifting this moratorium.
I do appreciate the issue that the CDC wants to decrease covid spread. Although so much is open now that I really don't see the point and we do have vaccines. We are at a point where people could move if they were vaccinated.
One of the big issues with the moratorium is there isn't any real accountability/burden on the tenant. It should be as onerous as applying for other benefits not as simple as signing a form. Courts are open, those who can pay rent and don't should be able to be taken to court because it is basically theft. If there are benefits and a tenant doesn't pay and doesn't apply then they should also be able to be taken to court. The sad thing is long term this will negatively impact the people it is supposed to help the most. - 5yMatthew Irish-JonesBusiness MemberReal Estate Agent · Buffalo, NY · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
@Colleen F. You are spot on.
I have also wondered why land lords have been targeted. Why didn’t the target plow trucks, fuel companies, cable companies, lawn care, national Grid, plumbers, and the rest.
If anything it would make more sense to pay your rent than your cable or electric. You can still live without the other two. Why don’t they make all of these vendors perform services for free?
If tenants get free gas, electric, cable, and every other service they will have money for rent.
Irish Jones Realty4.948 Reviews - Rental Property Investor · Red Bank, NJ · Member since 2017 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes5y
@Carl Mathis I am very sorry for what you and others are going through.
But thorough vetting is a huge piece of this problem. And it is not said to be smug, but to be accurate.Claiming that your not a professional investor does not negate your responsibilities to your business.
You need to run your business like a business.
I am very sorry you are going through trying times right now, I am hopeful you will make it to the other side and this will just be another learning experience, expensive though it may have been.
- Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 17k+ votes5y
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
Originally posted by @JD Martin:
Originally posted by @Aaron F.:
@JD Martin except the purpose of the moratorium (at least originally) wasn’t to help tenants avoid paying rent, the purpose was to prevent evictions at a time when increased mobility would potentially accelerate COVID’s spread, not to provide blanket tenant relief.
Sure, I understand that. They wanted people to be able to stay put. It doesn't matter. There are consequences to actions. Instead of blanket moratoriums or stimulus programs, how about issuing tenants vouchers good only for rent, utilities and the like? Or allowing landlords to file for reimbursement providing the tenant's information which could then be added to the tenant's taxes the same way charge offs are?
There are certainly alternatives to just blanket edicts that allow tenants to free ride without consequences, because there are going to be real consequences and they're not going to be good for tenants.
Vouchers to be used only for rent or direct payments to landlords would be the absolute best option. But there shouldn’t be any penalties for renters who have to use them. You say put it on their taxes—why burden them with that if they’re already having financial difficulties from the pandemic. Why not an eviction ban and direct payments to landlords. Or even better just completely waive all rent, mortgage, and property tax payments for the duration of the pandemic. No deferments or forbearance. Completely forgive all of that until it’s over. The fed can pump money into local coffers to make up the tax shortfall.
Your last idea doesn't work because rental property income *is* the job of a lot of small landlords. Many of them don't have mortgages, so not paying them rent is akin to laying them off completely.
Anyway, the point is there are better alternatives besides "no-strings" stimulus payments and eviction bans. Tenants - and it should be clear this is a small percentage, as most renters are still paying their rent - that aren't paying their rent may be celebrating now but mark my words, all renters are going to suffer long-term from this action. Unless the US is going to abandon free markets altogether and go towards a Soviet model - and let's hope this doesn't happen for the good of the world - you cannot press on one lever of a market and not have consequences somewhere else.
Skyline Properties - Investor · New York City, NY · Member since 2015 · 388 posts · 563 votes5y
Proper vetting wouldn't have solved this- the world changed, and the laws as well. Tenants who were able to pay became unable to pay, then tenants found out they didn't have to pay, so why would they? If you own in B/C neighborhoods, no amount of vetting would get you tenants who can resist free rent.
The media makes this noise about millions being at risk of eviction, so the politicians decide to stop evictions. Guess what? All those people who are behind are only gonna fall further behind. The band-aid should be ripped off. Those tenants who have been mooching off their landlord(and saving their dough or splurging on big screen TVs) should at least be inconvenienced and forced to find another place to live.
My tenants are currently stiffing me for about $100k - annually - due to the moratorium. When evictions start rolling, I'm gonna toss all that deadweight, and anyone looking for a place will have tons of dough in their pocket from not paying for over a year. I'm going to jack up rents SUBSTANTIALLY for all new tenants and I will TAKE the money back that was taken from me, and the best part? It'll be taken from those who took advantage of other landlords. Landlords will have their revenge for having their property taken and being taken advantage of. Most landlords will feel like I do- I will reprice my apartments to account for the future risk that government will steal my primary source of income when government feels it's convenient, and since many other landlords may feel the same way... buh-bye affordable housing!
TENANTS WHO ARE MOVING WHEN THIS IS OVER - YOU ARE ON NOTICE. Karma - it's a bit$h.
To Matthew's comment, part of why small landlords like myself are selling isnt just the moratorium, thats just the big *** straw that broke the camel's back but the constant push against landlords vs other providers of goods and services has been unrelenting. Hows your screening process gonna work out for ya when states like NJ block evictions from being public record, or prevent you from using criminal history, etc.
One of the worst parts to me is the sheer lie of putting this massive burden on landlords to "stop the spread of covid" meanwhile every tenant is getting their coffee and lottery tickets every morning (have you been to a wawa in NJ lately? Huge lines but apparently no covid? I guess only evictions spread it?) , shopping at the grocery store, target, costco etc. The whole thing is a scam based on false pretext....gaslighting the american people. Its an unbearable injustice and no one is fixing it, its too much to bear.
- Realtor · Oakland, CA and a Real Estate Investor with Multi-Family Units and a Self Storage Facility · Member since 2016 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes5y
"Yawn"......(This is me getting ready to sound like a broken record....here it goes.)
That is exactly why I love to have PROPERLY SCREENED Section 8 tenants in my properties.
All my tenants in the Bay Area are people who have Section 8 Vouchers that I personally screened.
Half my tenants in Cleveland are on Section 8.
Do they still come with problems? Of course....but I have a LOT LESS problems with my Section 8 tenants back there than I do the cash tenants.
Did I mention the money is guaranteed?
Did I mention there is a free inspection by the housing authorities every other year?
Did I mention I was able to screen the tenants so that nobody has any pit bulls, or rottweilers, nobody smokes....anything. This sellers market we are in right now is EXACTLY what it's like all the time when it comes to prospective tenants with housing choice vouchers. I've been able to be very, very selective in who to rent to because there is ALWAYS a demand.
Some of y'all now are thinking "Yeah, but I don't want my tax dollars going to some freeloader who will simply move in a bunch of relatives and friends." Well....if you have a 3 bed 1 bath house for rent and you get a person with ONE child and their voucher will cover the amount you are asking for in rent....and then you get someone else that also has a voucher and that has 2 or 3 or 4 kids and the obligatory animal(s) and pets applying for that same 3 bedroom 1 bath house to rent then what do you think most landlords will do? They will STILL rent to a person with a voucher, the one less likely to create more wear and tear.
Did I mention the rent money is guaranteed?
- Investor · Singapore · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 3k+ votes5y
Isn't it ironic that all your proposed alternatives (and they are not bad ones) also depend on the government? Which you say shouldn't intervene in the first place or else we are suddenly all communists? The economy and society have never been a "free" market. Everyone wants the government to intervene in their favor but not charge them anything. There was a story of a guy on welfare who suddenly got a million dollar windfall and immediately starts whining about how California is taxing him to death! I hear much of this landlord whining in the same vein. We are happy to take low interest Fannie Mae loans (all government backed), deduct depreciation which is not even a real cost on an appreciating asset, do tax free 1031 exchanges etc etc but think we should have a free market.
And full disclosure, I have non paying tenant also so I am personally affected by these laws as well. But I just think you have to see the whole picture in balance. I have made orders of magnitude more money due to government polices towards housing than I have lost due to some misguided things like this blanket eviction moratorium.
Folks, this eviction ban is unethical, unfair, biased, unjustifiable, groundless, disrespectful to hard working people, bad for tenants that accumulate debt, rough for landlords that lose their bread, non detailed to ban all evictions across the board, MOSTLY and again MOSTLY non covid related...
It all boils down to 1 thing, a lot of politicians just hate the landlords! and they got an excuse to hit them really bad!
I will say this again, I made a lot of research, the VAST MAJORITY of back rent is non covid related, it's just taking advantage of the situation and its not A secret at all..
The solution in my opinion is, to unite together and start lobbying... we gotta get the word out, the media should speak about what landlords go through, the politicians should understand that they are just building an economic crash with their own hands.
Real estate is currently lacking; lobbyists, sympathy, good media coverage, awareness, unity...
How much would the politicians think before banning airlines, why? because they have all of the above.
- Deland, FL · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes5y
Originally posted by @Brian Garlington:
"Yawn"......(This is me getting ready to sound like a broken record....here it goes.)
That is exactly why I love to have PROPERLY SCREENED Section 8 tenants in my properties.
All my tenants in the Bay Area are people who have Section 8 Vouchers that I personally screened.
Half my tenants in Cleveland are on Section 8.
Do they still come with problems? Of course....but I have a LOT LESS problems with my Section 8 tenants back there than I do the cash tenants.
Did I mention the money is guaranteed?
Did I mention there is a free inspection by the housing authorities every other year?
Did I mention I was able to screen the tenants so that nobody has any pit bulls, or rottweilers, nobody smokes....anything. This sellers market we are in right now is EXACTLY what it's like all the time when it comes to prospective tenants with housing choice vouchers. I've been able to be very, very selective in who to rent to because there is ALWAYS a demand.
Some of y'all now are thinking "Yeah, but I don't want my tax dollars going to some freeloader who will simply move in a bunch of relatives and friends." Well....if you have a 3 bed 1 bath house for rent and you get a person with ONE child and their voucher will cover the amount you are asking for in rent....and then you get someone else that also has a voucher and that has 2 or 3 or 4 kids and the obligatory animal(s) and pets applying for that same 3 bedroom 1 bath house to rent then what do you think most landlords will do? They will STILL rent to a person with a voucher, the one less likely to create more wear and tear.
Did I mention the rent money is guaranteed?
I thought section 8 paid some of the rent themselves.
Or is this not the case?
- Member since 2014 · 7 posts · 4 votes5y
@Michael Plante Not if they're unemployed. It's income-based. A long time ago I was on section 8. I paid $125/mo for a $750/mo apartment. So they were getting $650/mo guaranteed.
- 5yJohn MorganPro MemberRental Property Investor · Grand Prairie, TX · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
@Mike Baxter
We had an eviction moratorium in Texas from Feb or March until early June. I won my eviction case in court right before all this happened. Then everything including the courts shut down 5 days later. Just a couple days before I could get my writ of possession. I wish TX was like AZ by not shutting down! Cost me 24k in no rent and damages to my house.
On the flip side of this...I picked up a duplex back in December due to this situation. The owner was trying to manage the place from seven states away and one of his tenants stopped paying him, so he sold the place to me. With the right encouragement, the tenant started paying.
I am scheduled to close on a vacant 2/1 SFR in April now. I am paying full asking price for it in a cash-and-no-contingencies offer. $5K earnest money on a property that cost $70K. We called for a showing on the first day the place was listened and we were in there on the second day, made the offer immediately after. The owner got four offers and accepted ours.Even at full asking price, this place will easily beat the 1% rule, and it's built like a tank. In today's uncertain financing environment for many retail homebuyers, C-class like our new place is going to straight into hands that can show proof of funds immediately.
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
What about insurance? utilities? what if a pipe bursts, do I have to pay the plumber or is that payment deferred too? How does the plumber get money to buy his family food? Should I pay my property manager or can I tell him to go F himself along with my plumber???
Its like people don't understand the basics of how the world works
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
To add to my post above, you realize that there are plenty of people better off now than they were pre-pandemic, right? So when they have a year with no expenses what do you think the result will be? Those that are well off now will be even more well off relative to those that are not. This would only broaden the wealth gap which I'm told is a major crisis already
- Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 17k+ votes5y
Originally posted by @Account Closed:
Isn't it ironic that all your proposed alternatives (and they are not bad ones) also depend on the government? Which you say shouldn't intervene in the first place or else we are suddenly all communists? The economy and society have never been a "free" market. Everyone wants the government to intervene in their favor but not charge them anything. There was a story of a guy on welfare who suddenly got a million dollar windfall and immediately starts whining about how California is taxing him to death! I hear much of this landlord whining in the same vein. We are happy to take low interest Fannie Mae loans (all government backed), deduct depreciation which is not even a real cost on an appreciating asset, do tax free 1031 exchanges etc etc but think we should have a free market.
And full disclosure, I have non paying tenant also so I am personally affected by these laws as well. But I just think you have to see the whole picture in balance. I have made orders of magnitude more money due to government polices towards housing than I have lost due to some misguided things like this blanket eviction moratorium.
I never said any such thing; hell, I worked in local government most of my life. I don't disagree with you that there is certainly a hypocrisy in looking for government support on one hand and eschewing it in the other. That doesn't mean that government can't screw it up - it does, and often, and often because of blanket, low-thought policies. Unless you have complete control of the economy like a Soviet-type system (and this isn't really true either, since a black market will always crop up in such situations), any lever you push with the force of government is going to cause a reaction. That reaction can be "good" or "bad" in the broad sense of the word but it's going to happen. The bigger the government handle on the lever, the greater the reaction is going to be.
So I'm not saying at all that the government shouldn't have become involved. It should have been more thoughtful, targeted, and strategized. If the goal was to keep people from being evicted for non-payment, then funds should have been made available specifically and strictly for that purpose. It shows a lack of understanding of basic human nature to think you can just send checks to people out of thin air and that many of those people will use the money responsibly (if you define responsibly as catching up on your obligations and using the funds for necessities). We need to get real here; a lot of people - not everyone - are renters because they do a poor job of handling their finances. They cannot move from renting>owning because they are unable to accumulate any kind of funds and wherewithal to follow the steps required to become a homeowner. To then expect that you can hand people in that situation money without any strings and that it will be used as it should - pay the rent, pay for food, pay the water bill - is laughable. There's a reason that Section 8 pays landlords directly; how much of that money would actually make it to the landlord if they just handed the tenant a fat check every month? Same thing with food stamp cards and a host of other benefits.
We already have the infrastructure in place to have been able to handle direct-to-landlord payments (Section 8). It would have been relatively simple to take 100 or 200 or 500 billion of that money, send it to HUD and allow tenants/landlords to certify loss of income and pay the tenants that way until the pandemic was over.
Skyline Properties - 5yNathan SmithPro MemberRental Property Investor · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2020 · 2 posts · 0 votes
@Nathan G. Advantage for some and detriment to others. A team with a strong team could turn these situations into positives. Hard to work with unresponsive tenants and with laws bx of covid-19 in effect to protect tenants definitely makes it a money pit of an investment when you can't get rent money.
Originally posted by @JD Martin:
We already have the infrastructure in place to have been able to handle direct-to-landlord payments (Section 8). It would have been relatively simple to take 100 or 200 or 500 billion of that money, send it to HUD and allow tenants/landlords to certify loss of income and pay the tenants that way until the pandemic was over.
Very well said. As much as it pains me to admit it, I am ok with providing relief to those that need it, especially with the current situation. Every time I get in an argument about this people just throw their hands up and say that I just want to throw poor people out on the streets to die of COVID. That could not be further from the truth. The issue I have is that the Government has completely misdirected the responsibility of subsidizing rent onto the shoulders of landlords. The focus should have instead been on providing assistance to renters who truly need it.
Unfortunately as others have said, in the medium to long term this is only going to hurt the very renters is was intended to help. Less rental inventory, tighter screening criteria and higher risk will all continue to push rent higher at an accelerated rate.
- Real Estate Broker · Cody, WY · Member since 2010 · 28k+ posts · 41k+ votes5y
Originally posted by @Shawn L.:
Unfortunately as others have said, in the medium to long term this is only going to hurt the very renters is was intended to help. Less rental inventory, tighter screening criteria and higher risk will all continue to push rent higher at an accelerated rate.
I have a couple problems. First, the pandemic was never as bad as they made it out to be and shutting down the entire country was the unnecessary cause of this entire problem. Second, whether you agree with my first point or not, some people were hurt through no fault of their own and someone should step in to help.
My main problem is with the latter. The government is terrible at determining need and they screwed up by giving the money directly to the renter instead of the Landlord. A recent study in Washington showed that over 12% of the renters that stopped paying rent did not experience any reduction in income and were making over $100,000 a year. Those are the numbers based on a voluntary survey! I suspect over half the non-paying renters are fully capable of paying rent but refuse to do so because they see it as free money. This leaves the Landlord to suffer.
In the end, more mom-and-pop Landlords will sell off. Corporations will buy up the properties. Renters will have fewer choices and will be less likely to qualify because of their non-payment history and the fact that larger corporations actually know how to screen risky renters.
Any time government fixes something, it's guaranteed to cost far more than it should and is unlikely to succeed.
The DIY Landlord Book4.7244 Reviews
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.