Flipper/Rehabber · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2014 · 54 posts · 144 votes
Our team in Indiana has hired a lobbyist to represent the interests of housing providers and investors. One of our first objectives is to replace the word "landlord" with "housing provider" in ALL pieces of legislation. The "lords of the land" in history refers to landowners that essentially provided housing and oversaw most aspects of tenants lives. We are housing providers that provide a product/service in exchange for money. That is it. However, we need to find a term that replaces "landlord' for commercial providers as well - any ideas?
Investor · Milwaukee, WI · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
5y
The entire point of language is to communicate. When the language we employ fails to create an understanding between people and further creates a misunderstanding between people, the language is a failed one. The use of ambiguous terms is never helpful for the purpose of clarity, and can be disastrous when used in legislation. Politicians love ambiguous terms and employ them endlessly.
The term "housing provider" does not well describe the property owner within the business of residential rental property. It is ambiguous and suggests a role that is false. I own property and I rent it to people for them to use however, they have provided the housing for themselves, not the other way around. I provide housing for myself and my dependents; my employer does not do that for me, my bank does not do that for me, and the builder who constructed my house does not do that for me - we are not all housing providers, only I am. The term "housing provider" suggests a dependent is involved.
I am a property owner. I provide a leasing opportunity to people who are in need of housing. If anything, we are lease providers and not housing providers. As it turns out, more specific terms for landlord and tenant already exist in the legal world, they are lessor and lessee. Look at that, the terms are specific to exactly what it is we all are doing, in no uncertain terms. Perhaps what's really needed is a lesson in vocabulary.
With all due respect, I think this endeavor is dumb. There is nothing that needs to be solved and further, the suggestion of using the term "housing provider" creates unnecessary ambiguity when the entire rationale for the change according to the OP is to eliminate ambiguity. This is an incredible waste of time and money that in my opinion makes things worse, not better for landlords or tenants or anyone. Frankly, using a term like 'housing provider' in this situation is downright thoughtless and lazy. If it's all that bothersome and persons are bent on making a change, use lessor and lessee. People can Google what those terms mean if they don't already know. Even then though, what about all the legislation that already uses the terms landlord and tenant??? LOL. Is someone going to go back and get all those pieces of legislation changed too? How about the ambiguity of having one term used in the past and another used now and into the future? Will the term "housing provider" be deemed inappropriate in the future and then someone will go back and change everything again? Will we have three different terms for the same thing depending on when the legislation was written? Good grief. Leave well enough alone.
Our team in Indiana has hired a lobbyist to represent the interests of housing providers and investors. One of our first objectives is to replace the word "landlord" with "housing provider" in ALL pieces of legislation. The "lords of the land" in history refers to landowners that essentially provided housing and oversaw most aspects of tenants lives. We are housing providers that provide a product/service in exchange for money. That is it. However, we need to find a term that replaces "landlord' for commercial providers as well - any ideas?
Somehow, you need to make a distinction between the property manager and the property owner.
The distinction may be further blurred when discussing STR which is a "branch" of the hospitality industry.
Consider the idea of property arbitrage where, for example, you lease a property with the understanding that you will be renting it out for long- or short-term (sub)leases. Who, then, is the "housing provider"?
Seems like it might cause more problems than it's intended to "solve" ...
What are you all DOING (besides getting on Bigger Pockets behind the safety of your computer screens) to protect and promote our businesses? Because at this point in time myself and my lobbyist are drafting legislation to protect Hoosiers from any further moratoriums as well as trying to create a marketing campaign to enhance and EDUCATE the public of HOUSING PROVIDERS and the reality of the nature of our businesses. And I'm about $10,000 out of pocket and hundreds of hours of my personal time out. Your attacks are frankly a complete waste of time, poorly constructed, and attention seeking.
I applaud what you're doing Laura. Getting caught up in title nuance should not detract from your mission and purpose.
As far as commercial owners go, I might stick with owner/tenant. Simple. Lessor/lessee sounds kind of corporate and faceless. Owner rights are being infringed upon. We can all flinch to that.
Our #1 goal in Indiana is to tackle moratoriums. We have hired lobbyist Evan McMahon, also chairman of Libertarian party in Indiana, to draft legislation to lobby during sessions.
I appreciate your point on changing phrases. However, I also think that we have take a lesson out of their book stop taking the defensive and start taking the offensive. I realize it's an uphill battle for the people in our industry, but I think it's one worth fighting. How would you suggest fighting the false narrative?
Investor · Narragansett, RI · Member since 2013 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
5y
@Jay Hinrichs I do get that you sometimes have to explain terms to people but she is talking about legislation so I thought those terms would fit the purpose. Its funny looking at my leases I see they use both landlord/tenant and leasor/leasee.
@Laura Guy I don't think it is the root of the word that is the issue. The past year has super charged or added negative connotations to some words and I get why people try to change the dialogue. Simple words like landlord and a few others are like curses now. Much like the anti-student vibe I see locally it may not be about wording but re-casting the discussion around behavior and expectations. In the end the energy may best be spent on the highlighting the impact of the moratorium on housing and housing consumers (leasors, tenants, owners)?
My position is that the government - in OR especially - rent controls, having to pay moving expenses, having to give tenants the right to buy properties... in CA being unable to screen tenants, run credit reports, or check for previous evictions - is a huge threat to our businesses.
In Indiana, our primary objective is to pass legislation barring the state or governor from being allowed to enforce a moratorium of any kind.
The things you mention are not threats to our business. A threat to my business is XYZ corporation building a massive apartment complex with all the amenities and lower rent than my nearby units. What you have listed are minor operational issues. The government "helps the renter" by creating bumps that increase the cost of rent. For everything you mention, landlords just adjust their screening criteria and raise the rent. That's not a threat to our business. It can actually be beneficial.
As for your legislation barring the governor or state from enforcing a moratorium, good luck with that. Last time I checked, federal law overruled state law.
Rental Property Investor · Dallas, TX · Member since 2020 · 50 posts · 41 votes
5y
@Laura Guy, A rose by any other name is still a rose. It’s just Semantics , word games. be proud of being a landlord. Don’t be ashamed and let others cause you to deny your true self. By cowering to liberal thinking you are in fact empowering them to control your behavior. Giving them the power to create have v have nots.
Flipper/Rehabber · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2014 · 54 posts · 144 votes
5y
@Greg M.yes federal law does trump state law- but, thus far, the Supreme Court’s practice has denied hearing civil matters that state courts have ruled on. If you have evidence to indicate otherwise, I’d love to know so we can consider it in our strategy.
Flipper/Rehabber · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2014 · 54 posts · 144 votes
5y
@Matt Bishop I agree completely on “a rose by any other name.” And there is nothing I’m more proud of than starting my business and the product I supply to my residents and buyers. However, I do believe in accurate terminology. The history of “landlord” means just that- the lord of the land. Their “residents” also worked their land and lived under their rule. This is not true today. We provide a product service on exchange for a fee. It’s that simple. Like many others have said here, we arguably only provide a lease- not even a house, much less rule their land. I think it’s time we update the term. I also think “defending” ourselves isn’t working. I think I’m this day and age, the most marketing and the loudest voices win. And as a group, we don’t organize and we certainly don’t go on the attack. It’s time we start 1. Naming ourselves correctly and 2. Calling these ridiculous communists out for exactly what they are. I assure you, “cowering” is not an option for me. I would imagine most of us don’t use the word “colored” or “negro” anymore….. we don’t call a motorcycle a bike or a car a buggy. It’s antiquated and inaccurate.
Flipper/Rehabber · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2014 · 54 posts · 144 votes
5y
@Greg M. I would argue that the more regulation the government implements, the more likely our businesses will suffer, and the more likely government is to be true “lords of the land.” They will become the monopoly on housing and WILL price us out of the market. And my position is that is exactly what they intend to do. The more true competition that exists, the better for both owner and resident.
@Greg M. I would argue that the more regulation the government implements, the more likely our businesses will suffer, and the more likely government is to be true “lords of the land.” They will become the monopoly on housing and WILL price us out of the market. And my position is that is exactly what they intend to do. The more true competition that exists, the better for both owner and resident.
If the government became the provider of housing, then they would have an obligation to provide enough housing for all that need it. In CA, we need something like 3.5 MILLION new homes to meet demand. Average cost of a new home is $600,000. So the state is now on the hook for $2.1 TRILLION to build new homes. Now keep in mind that these homes would not cash flow positive because, for one they never do here for the first many years, and secondly, according to you the government would undercut the marketplace so they are collecting even less. Do you think there is any desire for the state to enter into this business model?
As for more regulation, many will suffer. These are the weak that are getting pushed out of the marketplace so the strong can survive. Those that adapt will do well. Every time the government comes around with more regulation or more fees/taxes, you adjust by refining your screening criteria and adjusting rents. Permit price doubles, no problem, +$X/month rent. Limit security deposits, no problem, adjust screening to include positive review from last 5 years of landlord. Can't exclude ex-cons, no problem, just need proof of the last 5 years of continuous employment records. Now under rent control, no problem, instead of a rate pass, tenants get rate increase just in case. And on and on and on. No matter what the government throws at landlords, they need us and tenants need us and ultimately tenants will end up paying the cost of government interference.
Contractor/Investor/Consultant · San Diego / Phoenix · Member since 2021 · 12k+ posts · 15k+ votes
5y
Laura - First...thank you for taking your time and money to do something, since most people just sit and talk. I appreciate your efforts to protect us landlords. However, I am one of the growing number of people that cannot stand this changing words and the meaning of words. Enough already, you are just tilting at windmills.....
I doubt this word change you're proposing is necessary or will do any good at all. And even if it did I would be against it. To you and your generation of do-gooders: stop changing s**t. It will do no good except to further divide a society that is on the brink of falling apart as we speak. Stop.
Maybe find another way to portray people that rent their properties to other people as the (generally) good people that they are. Maybe celebrate landlords for having the guts and tenacity to operate one of the most difficult businesses that exists. But stop messing with words. Next you'll be tearing down statues of old landlords.....
New to Real Estate · Manitowoc, WI · Member since 2021 · 22 posts · 6 votes
5y
@Laura Guy ...but also, give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Changing the meanings of words to agree with people's feelings is the name of game today it seems. But here, the issue is not the term, but a lack of clarity on the issue. If people simply don't like the term... then f*** 'em. But if there is an actual need for a new term to differentiate two new products (and there is not), then go for it.
I HATE HATE Hate the term “housing provider” for changing any kind of law. This could cause unforeseen problems. Does this mean the law only applies to a house and not an apartment or duplex. What if you rent a unit and also rent a separate storage unit that is not a house.
Yessir! There ya go. It has historical significance and is a strong term...i.e. Lord of the Land. A grand sounding term!
Let's make people proud to be a landlord and make the public aware that landlords are and have been providers of housing for centuries....what is a more noble practice?
Rental Property Investor · Chicago, IL · Member since 2017 · 268 posts · 189 votes
5y
@Jay Hinrichs I agree with the negative bias's that some professions will have no mater what. Whatever term we end up using, this will never change. I was called a slumlord for not having on site laundry, even though that is very common for my market. There's absolutely nothing wrong with my units. So while annoying, I accept it as part the role I'm in.
The problems start however when these negative perceptions feed into legislation. Whether it's eviction moratoriums or limits on tenant screening, legislators have the political leeway to get away with it. We as "landlords" are outnumbered by tenants and people sympathetic towards tenants. So politicians don't really have to worry about offending their voter base. COVID was the prefect storm for some of this resentment to turn into legislation. I understand where Laura is going with this and the frustrations I'm sure many of us have had for more than a year now. While I don't think we will ever get rid of the negative perceptions, I do think we can lessen some of the fallout and make some laws more balanced.
But ultimately this can be risky business, and it comes with the territory.
Contractor · Lexington SC · Member since 2019 · 36 posts · 46 votes
5y
Looks like more of people telling other people how they should think and act. Maybe you should call them "housing providers" and the people that want to call it "landlord" will do that. Everyone will be happy.
This whole telling others how to act and how to talk doesn't work.
Investor · Clearfield, PA · Member since 2016 · 31 posts · 13 votes
5y
Very well said @Account Closed I do appreciate your efforts to provide dignity to tenants, and while I think the origin of words matters, culture has a way of redeeming those terms and even changing their meaning. That is clear across other English-speaking countries and even states across the US that have different definitions for terms. I'm not sure the origin of the word landlord is what is meant by anyone using the term today. I'm not a fan of "housing provider" and prefer many of the terms already stated above: "Owner/tenant", "Lessor/lessee", "proprietor/rentor".