Rate The Landlord: Anonymously share information with tenants like you(ratethelandlord.org)
ratethelandlord.org
Rate The Landlord: Anonymously share information with tenants like you
https://ratethelandlord.org
473 comments
This is one of the reasons I became a landlord in the first place. One of my tenants recently experienced a terrible water damage issue that caused both bathrooms in their unit to be unavailable while repairs occur. They were shocked when I told them I would cover the cost of their relocation expenses while the repairs occurred.
I got really lucky when the company I work for went public. Going from being nearly homeless as a child to being a well-compensated, and now wealthy, engineer really was motivating to give something back. Buying a few properties, renting them to lower income people, and really working with them when they're struggling might not be efficient/scalable with my little 7 figure windfall, but being able to make and see a direct impact really makes me quite happy.
I got really lucky when the company I work for went public. Going from being nearly homeless as a child to being a well-compensated, and now wealthy, engineer really was motivating to give something back. Buying a few properties, renting them to lower income people, and really working with them when they're struggling might not be efficient/scalable with my little 7 figure windfall, but being able to make and see a direct impact really makes me quite happy.
> They were shocked when I told them I would cover the cost of their relocation expenses while the repairs occurred.
Assuming you’re in the United States you would’ve been legally required to do this anyways.
The bar really is set on the floor.
Assuming you’re in the United States you would’ve been legally required to do this anyways.
The bar really is set on the floor.
That's not uniformly true, and often only applies if it's due to citation after an inspection. Regardless, the tenants are often not aware of these regulations. Besides, my point was mainly that the tenants I have are so used to landlords taking advantage of them that they are shocked when one shows basic human decency to them.
I could barely believe this story when a pretty big youtuber had his upstairs neighbor flood his entire apartment, mold started growing everywhere and all his landlord offered was signing a new long-term lease on a different unit he didn't want.
He ended up somewhat deliberately staying after he got it out of them that they couldn't legally kick him out quickly, and he was trying to finish the purchase of a house at the time. But it seemed nuts that the landlord wouldn't be on the hook to provide him housing through the term of his lease without signing a new contract, or pay some large amount to break the contract that could have helped him cover a temporary mold-free option.
https://youtu.be/2R-KDji7tGE
He ended up somewhat deliberately staying after he got it out of them that they couldn't legally kick him out quickly, and he was trying to finish the purchase of a house at the time. But it seemed nuts that the landlord wouldn't be on the hook to provide him housing through the term of his lease without signing a new contract, or pay some large amount to break the contract that could have helped him cover a temporary mold-free option.
https://youtu.be/2R-KDji7tGE
In many jurisdictions there are habitability requirements that, if not met, make it unlawful for the landlord to collect rent for the period during which they are not remedied, but there I am not aware of any that requires the landlord to supply substitute lodging (the presumption generally being that the withheld rent can instead be used for that purpose, though that’s dubious, in general.)
It’s a simple breach of contract. A rental agreement basically states that the tenant will pay rent and the landlord will provide a habitable apartment. The most common breach occurs when the tenant doesn’t pay their rent. However, when the apartment isn’t habitable, it’s the landlord who is in breach. The damages in such a case are the cost of substitue comparable accommodations, even if that cost is higher than the rental amount. So the landlord may not have to provide substitute accommodations, but he would be liable for damages if he didn’t.
Edit: I may be biased by living in California where there is apparently an implied warranty of habitability.
Edit: I may be biased by living in California where there is apparently an implied warranty of habitability.
[deleted]
Petty landlords are the vast majority, unfortunately. All they care about is extracting rent. They don't see tenants as human beings who can struggle, but rather as a source of income to exploit and ignore as much as they can.
The reverse can also be true, tenants don’t care about landlords.
This isn’t how power, unjust hierarchies, surplus value, or capitalism in general works.
Tenants don't have to be thinking about any of those things to maliciously destroy a property. None of them come into play when you have, for example, a tenant who hasn't paid rent in months, or who runs illegal businesses out of the property, etc.
Nothing you said makes a difference. I’m unsure why it matters what the tenant is thinking? I don’t think it matters.
yeah i lived in one that got in trouble (after i had moved out) for not telling their tenants about the lead paint or asbestos. they also had the elevator out of order for nearly two years during which period they raised the rent three times. have fun moving out of a fifth floor apartment when you have to carry furniture down the narrow stairs with four right angle turns every floor.
Are you sure that wasn't just the backdrop of the Big Bang Theory?
yes quiet. It sucked, especially because we had a baby at the time and trying to carry groceries and a child up those stairs to a unairconditioned apartment mid summer was not something deserving of a laugh track.
I am sorry to have made a comedy reference at your expense.
I hope you are dealing with less stress these days!
I hope you are dealing with less stress these days!
It’s a similar deal in the UK, where not to long ago parliament voted down an attempt to require rented accommodation be fit for human habitation. Apparently that’s too high a demand from landlords.
Just curious, what does it mean "fit for human habitation"?
The backgrounds is a boy's dead from a moldy place he and his family had to live in:
https://propertyindustryeye.com/coroner-describes-toddlers-d....
As an example of this kind of rule from a place that currently has them, the basic coverage of California’s implied warranty of habitability are covered on pp 48-50 of this document:
https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/California-Tenants-Guide...
https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/California-Tenants-Guide...
Being legally required to do something as a landlord, seldom translates into something convenient or even in one's favor, as a renter. Most landlords I've ever had use "legally required to do so" as a way to do the bare minimum and let you initiate contact with a lawyer or court, thus dragging out whatever it is you think they're legally required to do.
I think it depends on the state as well as contractual agreements. It's amazing how many rights you can legally sign away or minimize via contract law, largely to the benefit of those writing the contracts and not those signing contracts.
Simply relabeling or reclassifying the use of something and having agreement to those uses to pass liability of "misuse" when both parties are aware of actual and intended use goes a long way as well.
So many ways to pass liabilities and rights. The more society evolves, the less business is about providing or creating any sort of new value and more about optimizing away risk, costs, and any other potential liabilities while capturing as much actual value from the deal as possible in the process.
In theory, competition "regulates" this away. Some other landlord who provides a better value or service will clearly succeed over less value-add services to the consumer. In practice, the amount of choice, finite limitations of the best service providers, and often sheer complexity anymore of determining which amongst a set of options is actually best to the consumer seems to make this a non-starter. It allows a lot of abuse on the provider side to provide little-to-nothing and a continuous supply of new consumers to abuse should previous consumers become wiser and move on.
Simply relabeling or reclassifying the use of something and having agreement to those uses to pass liability of "misuse" when both parties are aware of actual and intended use goes a long way as well.
So many ways to pass liabilities and rights. The more society evolves, the less business is about providing or creating any sort of new value and more about optimizing away risk, costs, and any other potential liabilities while capturing as much actual value from the deal as possible in the process.
In theory, competition "regulates" this away. Some other landlord who provides a better value or service will clearly succeed over less value-add services to the consumer. In practice, the amount of choice, finite limitations of the best service providers, and often sheer complexity anymore of determining which amongst a set of options is actually best to the consumer seems to make this a non-starter. It allows a lot of abuse on the provider side to provide little-to-nothing and a continuous supply of new consumers to abuse should previous consumers become wiser and move on.
It's like multi-millionaire CEOs congratulating themselves for creating so many jobs for the poors
The case in UK as well.
> Going from being nearly homeless as a child to being a well-compensated, and now wealthy, engineer really was motivating to give something back. Buying a few properties, renting them to lower income people
[insert that adam smith quote here]
[insert that adam smith quote here]
Isn't Adam Smith referring to feudal lords who fed/clothed their subjects and led them into war with their neighboring lords? That's not at all similar to landlords today.
in some sense, landlords are feudal lords
You mean the one where he says that landlords (in the feudal sense, to be fair) are the only class in society which features the combination of the wits to recognize their own interests and interests aligned with the general interests of society, unlike both the mercantile (what we might now call capitalist) class, who knew their interests but whose interests were at odds with the broader society, and the laboring classes whose interests were the general interests, but who were too dull to know them and too easily misled by others?
Or some other Adam Smith quote?
Or some other Adam Smith quote?
Which quote?
referring to the opening lines to marx's "rent of land": https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts...
Unless I’m mistaken, that refers to farmland and not developed housing. The opening words describe harvesting keep, fish, and animal husbandry. It seems to be decrying the fact that rent can be charged for a field of wheat, where nature did the work.
If there’s housing on that property, then that is something that was developed by the (current or previous) landlord for direct use by the tenant.
However, I’m unfamiliar with this work, so if a different conclusion is drawn elsewhere it would be interesting to read.
If there’s housing on that property, then that is something that was developed by the (current or previous) landlord for direct use by the tenant.
However, I’m unfamiliar with this work, so if a different conclusion is drawn elsewhere it would be interesting to read.
don't overlook the first line by smith which i originally intended to highlight: "Landlords' right has its origin in robbery."
in effect, from smith's early draft of "the wealth of nations" (~1763): "In a Civilized Society the poor provide both for themselves and for the enormous luxury of their Superiors. [...] [T]hose who labour most get least."
which calls for that staggering question by spinoza: "Why do men fight for their servitude as stubbornly as though it were their salvation?" deleuze & guattari following: "the astonishing thing is not that some people steal or that others occasionally go out on strike, but rather that all those who are starving do not steal as a regular practice, and all those who are exploited are not continually out on strike"
in effect, from smith's early draft of "the wealth of nations" (~1763): "In a Civilized Society the poor provide both for themselves and for the enormous luxury of their Superiors. [...] [T]hose who labour most get least."
which calls for that staggering question by spinoza: "Why do men fight for their servitude as stubbornly as though it were their salvation?" deleuze & guattari following: "the astonishing thing is not that some people steal or that others occasionally go out on strike, but rather that all those who are starving do not steal as a regular practice, and all those who are exploited are not continually out on strike"
In metro areas of most concern, the cost of the house is almost always a pittance relative to the cost of the land the house sits on. The value of that land rarely having been accrued as the result of the landlord's actions.
Mine has a severe gas leak. Left me and kids with brain damage that took years just for us to get back to somewhat normal baseline again. Got nothing. Lawyers said too hard to prove that massive amounts of gas filling the house caused problems. Took years to just get our security deposit back.
Screw Invitation Homes
If they had renters insurance that could have been a covered loss of use.
As a landlord, I require my tenants to have renter's insurance. Otherwise, they would come after me for the losses.
> As a landlord, I require my tenants to have renter's insurance.
A landlord requiring renters insurance is illegal in the state of Oklahoma. It may be illegal in certain cities or towns as well. That said these are exceptions; this is broadly legal in the United States.
Assuming you live in the US, presumably you have ensured this practice is legal where you live.
A landlord requiring renters insurance is illegal in the state of Oklahoma. It may be illegal in certain cities or towns as well. That said these are exceptions; this is broadly legal in the United States.
Assuming you live in the US, presumably you have ensured this practice is legal where you live.
Thanks for the heads-up. I live in California where requiring tenant insurance is legal.
If you’re making profit from the fact that someone has not enough money or a good enough credit score to buy their own place, whilst you may be the nicest landlord in the world you’re still technically exploiting the situation for your own gain.
I’m not saying you’re a bad person or a parasite, our landlady is lovely, but you have to be frank about the fact that someone else is working to enrich you to some level.
I’m not saying you’re a bad person or a parasite, our landlady is lovely, but you have to be frank about the fact that someone else is working to enrich you to some level.
I always find statements like this to be a strange rhetorical tactic of debate.
They presuppose that a personally held view, and oftentimes fringe one, is universally true and accepted and then make a bold unsupported criticism.
The charitable take is that people making them don't know that their view is controversial and think it is shared fact.
The less charitable take is that they are intentionally misleading, and doing it as a debate tactic to claim ground while avoiding discussing the real disagreement.
They presuppose that a personally held view, and oftentimes fringe one, is universally true and accepted and then make a bold unsupported criticism.
The charitable take is that people making them don't know that their view is controversial and think it is shared fact.
The less charitable take is that they are intentionally misleading, and doing it as a debate tactic to claim ground while avoiding discussing the real disagreement.
All throughout history, it is usually another society who comes in and takes an already occupied land by force and then charges a fee for the previous people to continue using it. Then there are complex laws set up to make it impossible for these previous people's to own their land again, becoming indebted in one way or another. After a while, after this land has been transferred, typically amongst the families of those who first took the land (or their friends), some people forget this history or are ignorant of it, and just go along with what has been done for years. Inevitably, those with the excess monetary value gained from rent is used to expand and establish these kinds of societal institutions so that it is part of the zeitgeist and thus a controversial take to think this kind of institution is an immoral, or bad, or exploitative one.
Source?
I believe you can Google "landlord history" and you'll get a plenty of results with some brief history of the term.
If you want to read further, look at history on colonization or apartheid which sets up these types of infrastructures or variations of it. History w/ Native Americans and what is going on in Israel are two recent/ongoing examples.
As for pre-capitalist history, you can look up "feudal land tenure", and before that is just different concepts of modes of land ownership across different geographies.
If you want to read further, look at history on colonization or apartheid which sets up these types of infrastructures or variations of it. History w/ Native Americans and what is going on in Israel are two recent/ongoing examples.
As for pre-capitalist history, you can look up "feudal land tenure", and before that is just different concepts of modes of land ownership across different geographies.
Is there a source that goes against this? I went to history class and I’ve read Wikipedia and stuff.
Are you saying that Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, and Karl Marx, the father of socialism and communism, both think like the above person, but they are the ones misleading?
Being a landlord is an economic and political matter. To pretend the status quo of current hierarchies is fine to go with because it is the status quo belief is an awful way to live. Imagine if any radicals you admire in history behaved this way.
Being a landlord is an economic and political matter. To pretend the status quo of current hierarchies is fine to go with because it is the status quo belief is an awful way to live. Imagine if any radicals you admire in history behaved this way.
Both Smith and Marx state their priors, and neither assume that their option is commonly held. Both make thoughtful and well articulated arguments.
this is like if Marx's Manifesto was one page saying "everyone knows landords are bad"
On the topic of radicals, there are a lot that I don't admire and were atrocious. being against the status quo is not inherently virtuous. Imagine if X mass murderer just respected the status quo.
you can be for challenging hierarchies, the status quo, and a more dynamic socio-economic structure without making yourself slave to your neighbor. For that matter, you can do it without trying to enslave your neighbor
I know this is an old comment (for HN) but I will check back in 24 hours), or we can take it offsite. I always like a good chat. "S1artibarfastHN" at Gmail
I have informed opinions on property ownership and housing. I was a director for 100-person housing Co-op. I have been a renter. I am currently a landlord squeezing one tenant for market rate and providing another tenant housing and perpetuity for utility costs.
this is like if Marx's Manifesto was one page saying "everyone knows landords are bad"
On the topic of radicals, there are a lot that I don't admire and were atrocious. being against the status quo is not inherently virtuous. Imagine if X mass murderer just respected the status quo.
you can be for challenging hierarchies, the status quo, and a more dynamic socio-economic structure without making yourself slave to your neighbor. For that matter, you can do it without trying to enslave your neighbor
I know this is an old comment (for HN) but I will check back in 24 hours), or we can take it offsite. I always like a good chat. "S1artibarfastHN" at Gmail
I have informed opinions on property ownership and housing. I was a director for 100-person housing Co-op. I have been a renter. I am currently a landlord squeezing one tenant for market rate and providing another tenant housing and perpetuity for utility costs.
I will contact you for sure.
- I’m unhoused and identify as a lumpenprole. - Everything is a spectrum imo. - I was referring to radicals that aren’t radlib or fascist leaning.
I’d be interested in the email I send you and a response on which orthodox left-wing radicals were atrocious. Or if we agree that those specific radicals were not atrocious but many others are.
Awesome being director of a coop! Though IME most housing coops are exclusionary and not remotely democratic*
*I mean real democracy, not what neoliberal countries have.
- I’m unhoused and identify as a lumpenprole. - Everything is a spectrum imo. - I was referring to radicals that aren’t radlib or fascist leaning.
I’d be interested in the email I send you and a response on which orthodox left-wing radicals were atrocious. Or if we agree that those specific radicals were not atrocious but many others are.
Awesome being director of a coop! Though IME most housing coops are exclusionary and not remotely democratic*
*I mean real democracy, not what neoliberal countries have.
You're implying that owning a property is unconditionally more favourable than renting. That's not neccessarily true though.
My wife and I recently decided to buy after renting voluntarily for decades. We did all sorts of calculations. In some scenarios renting comes out on top. In others buying is more favourable.
Ultimately, our decision was based on the uncertainty created by the referencing system, on the recent spell of inflation and on changed personal circumstances rather than any long term financial advantage.
I don't like the sort of relationship that exists between landlords and tenants in the UK, but I'm not convinced that it is necessarily one of financial exploitation.
Small landlords have their money tied up in a badly diversified, inflexible asset that comes with unpredictable maintanance costs. I would never invest my own money like this.
If all goes well for the landlord, they make a profit. If not, only the bank makes a profit (unless interest rates rise too quickly and they have issued too many fixed rate mortgages).
If you buy your own home, the bank makes a profit and if you're lucky it turns out well for you financially. There's no guarantee that it will.
My wife and I recently decided to buy after renting voluntarily for decades. We did all sorts of calculations. In some scenarios renting comes out on top. In others buying is more favourable.
Ultimately, our decision was based on the uncertainty created by the referencing system, on the recent spell of inflation and on changed personal circumstances rather than any long term financial advantage.
I don't like the sort of relationship that exists between landlords and tenants in the UK, but I'm not convinced that it is necessarily one of financial exploitation.
Small landlords have their money tied up in a badly diversified, inflexible asset that comes with unpredictable maintanance costs. I would never invest my own money like this.
If all goes well for the landlord, they make a profit. If not, only the bank makes a profit (unless interest rates rise too quickly and they have issued too many fixed rate mortgages).
If you buy your own home, the bank makes a profit and if you're lucky it turns out well for you financially. There's no guarantee that it will.
My parents are retiring while renting and it's a hellish for them.
This isn't any different than running a business, except that landlords generally feel entitled to make a profit from their investment, no matter the economic situation, and laws generally favor that. Backing that is the army of folks like you who tend to side with the "small landlord", which normally leaves out that the vast majority of small landlords are quite wealthy, and tend to own multiple properties.
Yes, there are a small number of cases of a small landlord, with one property that they're having a hard time breaking even on, but those folks have a bad investment, and if they can't afford their investment, they should sell it to try to minimize their losses. Renters aren't on the hook to make them profitable.
By holding rental properties, they're inflating the value of homes for sale, making it harder for people to buy, and forcing people into renting.
We don't pity people who make stupid business decisions, so why should we pity landlords?
Yes, there are a small number of cases of a small landlord, with one property that they're having a hard time breaking even on, but those folks have a bad investment, and if they can't afford their investment, they should sell it to try to minimize their losses. Renters aren't on the hook to make them profitable.
By holding rental properties, they're inflating the value of homes for sale, making it harder for people to buy, and forcing people into renting.
We don't pity people who make stupid business decisions, so why should we pity landlords?
I never said we should pity them (I certainly don't) or that they are entitled to a profit. You're exactly right that they are running a business. They are running a business that comes with costs and risks. It can go right or wrong like any business. That's fine.
What I'm disputing is that it is necessarily exploitation and that owning your home is always the preferable choice.
I do understand where your sentiment comes from. The name "landlord" basically says it all. It hasn't always been a normal business and there is still quite a lot of that history left in the relationship between landlords and tenants (as well as in the grotesque distribution of land ownership in the UK).
About inflating the value of homes for sale I'm not sure. On one hand the available land is limited and so demand should inflate prices. I'm not even sure private ownership (or at least inheritance) of land should exist at all.
On the other hand, the price of homes as well as the level of rents is mostly determined by how many homes are built. More (private and public) capital flowing into building new homes makes home ownership and rents more affordable. Buy-to-let landlords provide some of that capital.
The other thing that could be done is changing planning rules and the taxation of land ownership so that more affordable homes get built.
I don't think home ownership deserves the status it has. Renting is fine. Affordability is far more important than who owns the place.
What I'm disputing is that it is necessarily exploitation and that owning your home is always the preferable choice.
I do understand where your sentiment comes from. The name "landlord" basically says it all. It hasn't always been a normal business and there is still quite a lot of that history left in the relationship between landlords and tenants (as well as in the grotesque distribution of land ownership in the UK).
About inflating the value of homes for sale I'm not sure. On one hand the available land is limited and so demand should inflate prices. I'm not even sure private ownership (or at least inheritance) of land should exist at all.
On the other hand, the price of homes as well as the level of rents is mostly determined by how many homes are built. More (private and public) capital flowing into building new homes makes home ownership and rents more affordable. Buy-to-let landlords provide some of that capital.
The other thing that could be done is changing planning rules and the taxation of land ownership so that more affordable homes get built.
I don't think home ownership deserves the status it has. Renting is fine. Affordability is far more important than who owns the place.
Renting is fine, but renting through private owners is something that makes the entire housing system more expensive so that a small few can profit.
There's lots of systems in which renting can be done through cooperative systems that doesn't involve leeches.
There's lots of systems in which renting can be done through cooperative systems that doesn't involve leeches.
If you're taking a generalised anticapitalist view then I understand your position. But under the assumption that private capital exists, it is hard to argue that none of it should be used to increase the supply of homes. That doesn't preclude other sources of funding.
Also, it shouldn't be impossible to debate systemic issues without comparing people to pests.
Also, it shouldn't be impossible to debate systemic issues without comparing people to pests.
I actually think your opinion is the damaging one. Do you honestly think a world without being able to rent because we've eliminated landlords is a good one?
There are many scenarios where people would far rather rent than buy. E.g. you are trying to get to know a city to decide where to buy a house. You want to work in a city for a few years. You've just moved to a country and don't want to buy a property until you get a feel for where in the country you want to live, or maybe until you get permanent residence sorted out.
And that's not even covering cases where people don't have the money to buy yet. And no, it's not realistic to expect that people will all always have money to buy. Maybe they are young and just entered the workforce. Maybe they are an immigrant looking for a better life and came with little cash.
There has to be a rental market and thus there have to be landlords. Being a landlord does not make one "evil" or even taking advantage of people. It's needed and frankly shitty job. I'd personally never want to do it.
I'm being frank, your attitude is pretty toxic does not help the people who need the help the most.
There are many scenarios where people would far rather rent than buy. E.g. you are trying to get to know a city to decide where to buy a house. You want to work in a city for a few years. You've just moved to a country and don't want to buy a property until you get a feel for where in the country you want to live, or maybe until you get permanent residence sorted out.
And that's not even covering cases where people don't have the money to buy yet. And no, it's not realistic to expect that people will all always have money to buy. Maybe they are young and just entered the workforce. Maybe they are an immigrant looking for a better life and came with little cash.
There has to be a rental market and thus there have to be landlords. Being a landlord does not make one "evil" or even taking advantage of people. It's needed and frankly shitty job. I'd personally never want to do it.
I'm being frank, your attitude is pretty toxic does not help the people who need the help the most.
You're proposing a false dichotomy where the only two options are private landlords and no rental properties whatsoever. There are so many alternate systems of providing housing to people, including social housing, non-profit rental housing, housing cooperatives, building cooperatives, cohousing, intentional communities, community land trusts, communes, land value taxes, etc.
Also, being a landlord isn't a job. Owning property isn't a job. Property management can be a job, but the typical landlord is barely lifting a finger to do much of that.
Also, being a landlord isn't a job. Owning property isn't a job. Property management can be a job, but the typical landlord is barely lifting a finger to do much of that.
> You're proposing a false dichotomy where the only two options are private landlords and no rental properties whatsoever. There are so many alternate systems of providing housing to people, including social housing, non-profit rental housing, housing cooperatives, building cooperatives, cohousing, intentional communities, community land trusts, communes, land value taxes, etc.
How are most of those things alternatives to housing ownership?
There's really only three possibilities. The occupant owns the place, or some other private party (individual or corporation) owns the place, or the government owns the place (public housing in its many variants).
Everything you list is one of these three (except for LVT which is an unrelated thing).
How are most of those things alternatives to housing ownership?
There's really only three possibilities. The occupant owns the place, or some other private party (individual or corporation) owns the place, or the government owns the place (public housing in its many variants).
Everything you list is one of these three (except for LVT which is an unrelated thing).
I worked as a property manager for years (of around 200 units, across numerous owners) and can vouch for the fact that the vast majority of landlords do absolutely nothing except for receive a monthly statement, and complain if the profits aren't high enough.
They made an investment and want you to maximize the returns. A very, very small percentage are active in their management, and those folks tend to be the worst form of slumlords, because they're so cheap they won't hire people to professionally manage the properties.
They made an investment and want you to maximize the returns. A very, very small percentage are active in their management, and those folks tend to be the worst form of slumlords, because they're so cheap they won't hire people to professionally manage the properties.
What about Venice? They are doing what you pretend is horror. A source is any searching of the unhoused population
> I’m not saying you’re a bad person or a parasite, our landlady is lovely, but you have to be frank about the fact that someone else is working to enrich you to some level.
You can make this argument about literally any purchased good. Everything bought by a worker is the same thing.
You can make this argument about literally any purchased good. Everything bought by a worker is the same thing.
You’re so close to figuring it out
[deleted]
what exactly is the point, then?
Capitalism = exploitation? That seems like the point they are trying to make. And it’s mostly not wrong, although we haven’t found a better way. Perhaps more accurately, human behavior = economic behavior = exploitation, regardless of the economic system.
Expanding it out, I doubt it’s specific to humans, more like a property of known life forms.
Expanding it out, I doubt it’s specific to humans, more like a property of known life forms.
You also have to believe that a willing Exchange that benefits both parties is exploitation.
It also doesn't help that exploitation is so poorly defined in these discussions that it could simply be substituted by "bad" or "something I don't like".
It also doesn't help that exploitation is so poorly defined in these discussions that it could simply be substituted by "bad" or "something I don't like".
The financial asymmetry of having certain baseline costs to sustain our biomechanical meat bags despite wildly divergent means can easily lead to transactions that are mutually beneficial, while still reenforcing the leverage of those who already have plenty.
I’d be interested in your response to the person who replied to you. It’s a compelling argument against exploitation being vague. Which isn’t even true unless you mean conversations between liberals and conservatives.
It is a interesting and workable definition for further discussion once it is provided. In my experience you ask 10 people what exploitation means and you get 10 different answers- everyone has their own.
That said, I like it and would be interested in exploring it more. Exploitations is a transaction that increases leverage for future transactions is one that I havent heard before.
Im also curious about the inverse.e.g. what transactions reduce leverage?
That said, I like it and would be interested in exploring it more. Exploitations is a transaction that increases leverage for future transactions is one that I havent heard before.
Im also curious about the inverse.e.g. what transactions reduce leverage?
There are many reasons why a landlord will either not get rich or get rich at a much slower pace than alternatives. Just to mention a few:
1. Buying in a bad neighborhood and things just get worse. 2. Tenant falling far behind for some reason then moving out. 3. Overpaying or over capitalizing. 4. While looking for a buyer or tenant, squatters or looters move in.
Please don't use terms like 'exploit' without specific details.
I prefer to be a tenant so that I have less worries, more freedom and more capital available for other investments.
1. Buying in a bad neighborhood and things just get worse. 2. Tenant falling far behind for some reason then moving out. 3. Overpaying or over capitalizing. 4. While looking for a buyer or tenant, squatters or looters move in.
Please don't use terms like 'exploit' without specific details.
I prefer to be a tenant so that I have less worries, more freedom and more capital available for other investments.
> Buying in a bad neighborhood and things just get worse.
I can tell you've never done property management, because the most profitable areas are bad neighborhoods. In the US, section 8 housing is effectively guaranteed income, at favorable rates. The tenants don't really have much say in the conditions of the apartment, and all that's needed is to pass the housing authority inspection (which only cares about safety, not quality), so costs are generally low.
Being a slumlord is extremely profitable.
> Tenant falling far behind for some reason then moving out.
For the vast majority of the US, you can evict a person for nearly any reason with 30 days notice, and can evict someone for non-payment with 5 days notice. Holidays can extend that by a few days here and there, but for the most part, you can avoid tenants being months behind in rent, especially if the market is saturated.
Some landlords like to let their tenants fall behind because as long as the tenants eventually pay the rent, they get the late fees, which can increase their rents by 20% or so. Preying on the poor is also very profitable.
> Overpaying or over capitalizing.
You can do the same with any investment. Unlike other investments, though, you can write off most of your expenses, and you can carryover loss for essentially forever. Even bad real estate investments can be beneficial. There's a reason real estate investment is heavily favored by the rich.
Landlords aren't guaranteed to get rich, but it's extremely difficult to actually lose money as a landlord, unless you're a really shitty investor. Nearly everything you spend money on can be used for tax deductions (sometimes for years or forever after the loss), so even losses tend to be beneficial, when you're diversified properly. The law is way too favorable to property investment.
> While looking for a buyer or tenant, squatters or looters move in.
I did property management for a long time and can tell you this simply isn't a real problem. Squatters rights take a long time, and the police will forcibly remove them.
No one loots an empty apartment.
I can tell you've never done property management, because the most profitable areas are bad neighborhoods. In the US, section 8 housing is effectively guaranteed income, at favorable rates. The tenants don't really have much say in the conditions of the apartment, and all that's needed is to pass the housing authority inspection (which only cares about safety, not quality), so costs are generally low.
Being a slumlord is extremely profitable.
> Tenant falling far behind for some reason then moving out.
For the vast majority of the US, you can evict a person for nearly any reason with 30 days notice, and can evict someone for non-payment with 5 days notice. Holidays can extend that by a few days here and there, but for the most part, you can avoid tenants being months behind in rent, especially if the market is saturated.
Some landlords like to let their tenants fall behind because as long as the tenants eventually pay the rent, they get the late fees, which can increase their rents by 20% or so. Preying on the poor is also very profitable.
> Overpaying or over capitalizing.
You can do the same with any investment. Unlike other investments, though, you can write off most of your expenses, and you can carryover loss for essentially forever. Even bad real estate investments can be beneficial. There's a reason real estate investment is heavily favored by the rich.
Landlords aren't guaranteed to get rich, but it's extremely difficult to actually lose money as a landlord, unless you're a really shitty investor. Nearly everything you spend money on can be used for tax deductions (sometimes for years or forever after the loss), so even losses tend to be beneficial, when you're diversified properly. The law is way too favorable to property investment.
> While looking for a buyer or tenant, squatters or looters move in.
I did property management for a long time and can tell you this simply isn't a real problem. Squatters rights take a long time, and the police will forcibly remove them.
No one loots an empty apartment.
This is a short wiki with aspects that go over exploitation in a political science sense. Which is what is being discussed here (landlords and Econ).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_General_Theory_of_Exploitati... by economist and political scientist John Roemer
It goes over exploitation. The wiki summarizes the thesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_General_Theory_of_Exploitati... by economist and political scientist John Roemer
It goes over exploitation. The wiki summarizes the thesis.
Oh no.
Being a landlord should be risky. If it isn't, something is incredibly wrong.
Being a landlord should be risky. If it isn't, something is incredibly wrong.
Nonsense.
I rented for almost ten years before buying my place.
The idea that my landlords were exploitative is complete bollocks. They provided me with a useful service.
I would never want to own an apartment or house in many of the areas that I rented. I didn't want to be there long term.
I rented for almost ten years before buying my place.
The idea that my landlords were exploitative is complete bollocks. They provided me with a useful service.
I would never want to own an apartment or house in many of the areas that I rented. I didn't want to be there long term.
Doesn't one also have to admit that everyone has to be somewhere and for most people it costs money. What does it matter where one's housing money goes? The only concern is that one is satisfied with the housing they are paying for.
I don't get this take at all. Yes, I own my house, but it comes with a significant number of trade-offs: My employment is limited to what the immediate neighborhood can offer[0], I'm on the hook for major repairs[1], and moving is an expensive proposition. When I rent, the premium over what I'd pay for a mortgage is priced into that convenience.
[0] Things were better during the 100% remote environment of the pandemic, but many employers are now doing RTO [1] In the recent past, I've had to replace my AC and my roof. The AC repair bill was equivalent to 6 months of mortgage payments and the roof was equivalent to a year's worth of mortgage payments.
[0] Things were better during the 100% remote environment of the pandemic, but many employers are now doing RTO [1] In the recent past, I've had to replace my AC and my roof. The AC repair bill was equivalent to 6 months of mortgage payments and the roof was equivalent to a year's worth of mortgage payments.
Well, we need to have better system for temporary housing first. Not everyone renting is poor or can't afford buying one either and you can't really expect people to go against their own interest.
It would be nice if most of the renting was city-built and ran, with maybe buyout option if you live there for more than 5-10 or so years. THen city could easily control development, earn a bit of profit, and control the costs
It would be nice if most of the renting was city-built and ran, with maybe buyout option if you live there for more than 5-10 or so years. THen city could easily control development, earn a bit of profit, and control the costs
We need a better solution for housing in general. I don't actually want to be a landlord very much. I have a 7-figure portfolio including two rental properties, and I still rent. I'm not sure I could ever convince myself to buy in the bay area until/unless I had a substantially larger portfolio ($20M+). The numbers just don't add up.
So? Sell it to some shitty landlord? What’s the best option here?
Even if you sell low to low income people, they may be forced to sell at some point, to the highest bidder. I think OP is doing something really great: provide affordable housing on good terms.
Even if you sell low to low income people, they may be forced to sell at some point, to the highest bidder. I think OP is doing something really great: provide affordable housing on good terms.
StockHuman(5)
Stealing deposits is such a scumbag crime. Typically stealing $3000 from someone is considered a serious felony but for landlords it is common practice.
For anyone reading this, I would highly recommend your ex-landlord them to small claims court for this kind of crime. The forms are not that hard, the Judges are sympathetic (the landlord is blatantly committing a crime), and it is very satisfying to know that the law can protect you from the criminal elements of society.
I would also add that in California, deposits must be put in an interest bearing savings account and paid back with the interest. Make sure they pay you the proper amount. Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense and it helps establish criminal intent.
In the UK it was such a routine thing (landlord not giving your deposit back) that I just stopped paying the last months rent before moving out.
The UK does have a supposedly mandatory deposit protection scheme, but a lot of dodgy landlords aren't compliant with it, and the dispute process is a fucking nightmare.
The UK does have a supposedly mandatory deposit protection scheme, but a lot of dodgy landlords aren't compliant with it, and the dispute process is a fucking nightmare.
> The UK does have a supposedly mandatory deposit protection scheme, but a lot of dodgy landlords aren't compliant with it, and the dispute process is a fucking nightmare.
You can claim up to three times the deposit if it isn't protected in 30 days.
The dispute process is pretty good I have found.
You can claim up to three times the deposit if it isn't protected in 30 days.
The dispute process is pretty good I have found.
Penalties are steep for not using it, and fortunately enough, landlords have property that can have a charge attached to it. Good luck getting another BTL mortgage.
Curious about this, does the same hold in Arizona? I had a landlord steal my security deposit plus send me to collections for almost $2K for what they said were scratches on the flooring... which was vinyl... the picture they sent as proof would get absolutely laughed out of court I am sure[1]
[1] https://goo.gl/maps/VRe4zHTAYrzZZz1H7
[1] https://goo.gl/maps/VRe4zHTAYrzZZz1H7
Refusing to return security deposits is absolutely a low income landlord strategy.
It was so endemic in Chicago that it was standard practice to withhold last month’s rent and send the landlord a letter saying to take the security deposit and send you a bill for any repairs.
This is both against the lease and financially equivalent to what an honest landlord would do, except the burden to get paid is now on the landlord.
If they have kept your security deposit in a separate, interest bearing account as the law requires[0] there should be no problem in the transaction.
0. Hahahahaha there was exactly one landlord I had who actually did this (not in Chicago) and returned my full security deposit with interest.
It was so endemic in Chicago that it was standard practice to withhold last month’s rent and send the landlord a letter saying to take the security deposit and send you a bill for any repairs.
This is both against the lease and financially equivalent to what an honest landlord would do, except the burden to get paid is now on the landlord.
If they have kept your security deposit in a separate, interest bearing account as the law requires[0] there should be no problem in the transaction.
0. Hahahahaha there was exactly one landlord I had who actually did this (not in Chicago) and returned my full security deposit with interest.
> Refusing to return security deposits is absolutely a low income landlord strategy.
Oh I've had this happen to me from a "high income landlord" in San Francisco. Penny pincher lady living in a wealthy neighborhood, repairing herself the leaky roof of the SF building she owns with duct tape. Tried to keep my deposit until, like the comment you're replying to, I threatened to bring her to small claims court. I had the deposit in my mailbox the next day.
Oh I've had this happen to me from a "high income landlord" in San Francisco. Penny pincher lady living in a wealthy neighborhood, repairing herself the leaky roof of the SF building she owns with duct tape. Tried to keep my deposit until, like the comment you're replying to, I threatened to bring her to small claims court. I had the deposit in my mailbox the next day.
In Barcelona (and I think all of Spain), your 1-month deposit is kept by the state and is automatically returned to you unless the landlord can prove that you did something that entitles them to it.
Its the same in the UK. But many landlords aren't compliant with this, and enforcement varies
The landlord is supposedly legally enforced to put the money in the chamber of commerce, but ALAS not all of them will (even if it's illegal) and many will also try to scam you out of your deposit if they see they can get away with it.
In Chicago landlords have to send you an annual check paying out the interest, which during the low interest rate years amounted to 10-30¢ a year. The postage stamp cost more.
In response landlords started to require non-refundable move-in fees in lieu of a security deposit. These can range between about 40-60% of a month's rent.
In response landlords started to require non-refundable move-in fees in lieu of a security deposit. These can range between about 40-60% of a month's rent.
This is considerably more fair than charging some tenants 100% of a months rent (if they don’t know their rights) and others 0% (if they do). Also the fact the money is gone is stated upfront and agreed to by both parties.
More fair but more deadweight loss for everyone involved.
I’ve never rented in a low-income area, but I’ve still had this problem with every single landlord I’ve had. Never did have the pleasure of meeting the “honest landlord” though I have always been, by all accounts, a model tenant.
> that they expect you, the tenant, to not understand your rights and the laws that enforce those rights
It could well be that they themselves don't understand your rights. Sure, in the case of the security deposit, they should be smart enough to know what this is.
But many landlords are just normal people with other jobs, where being a landlord is not a job to them, but an opportunity to earn money by renting. While one should be able to expect them to know the relevant laws, I bet that most of them don't care to bother because of the time and effort it takes.
It could well be that they themselves don't understand your rights. Sure, in the case of the security deposit, they should be smart enough to know what this is.
But many landlords are just normal people with other jobs, where being a landlord is not a job to them, but an opportunity to earn money by renting. While one should be able to expect them to know the relevant laws, I bet that most of them don't care to bother because of the time and effort it takes.
Being a landlord is a job. If you aren't aware of the requirements of the job, you shouldn't be allowed to have the job. If you break the law by not adhering to the requirements, you should be punished. If you have a history of breaking said laws, you should be banned from being a landlord.
> But many landlords are just normal people with other jobs, where being a landlord is not a job to them, but an opportunity to earn money by renting.
That's no excuse for not returning a tenant's security deposit though.
That's no excuse for not returning a tenant's security deposit though.
The regulations on security deposit in Massachusetts has led me to not use security deposits. I also don’t use a lease. A tenant can come and go from month to month. I only require first and last months rent.
> first and last months rent.
Just to be sure. Is this a smart name for what others call a 'deposit'?
Just to be sure. Is this a smart name for what others call a 'deposit'?
Seems that way to me.
I looked this up and Massachusetts is actually extremely strange that they count "last months rent" separate from "security deposit." In my state any money required to be collected past the first month's rent is legally considered a security deposit and required to be treated as one and subject to legal limits on security deposits. Which makes sense.
It's logical not to bother with the requirements of an extra security deposit if you can go ahead and collect two months rent up front without calling the extra a deposit. In my state the standard is also to collect two months rent up front - because the standard security deposit is a month's rent.
I looked this up and Massachusetts is actually extremely strange that they count "last months rent" separate from "security deposit." In my state any money required to be collected past the first month's rent is legally considered a security deposit and required to be treated as one and subject to legal limits on security deposits. Which makes sense.
It's logical not to bother with the requirements of an extra security deposit if you can go ahead and collect two months rent up front without calling the extra a deposit. In my state the standard is also to collect two months rent up front - because the standard security deposit is a month's rent.
It seems to me that the semantics are different: you return the security deposit ~at handover time, while last month's rent is counted as rent for the last month of the stay, so the tenant "gets it back" (in the form of not having to pay rent they'd otherwise have to pay) a month before they move out. Do I misunderstand something?
I thought the depsosit is for building damage, not for rent?
The deposit is to cover any costs the tenant cause the landlord. Damage and unpaid rent are both costs.
A tenant who has $1,000 in upaid rent and $0 is damage is no different than a tenant who has $1,000 in damage and no unpaid rent. The security deposit can be used to cover either.
A tenant who has $1,000 in upaid rent and $0 is damage is no different than a tenant who has $1,000 in damage and no unpaid rent. The security deposit can be used to cover either.
I think of it as 2 months rent I now hold. Whatever happens next I have that going for me.
I would never move into a home without a lease. A lease protects a tenant as much as the landlord. What's preventing you from raising the rent arbitrarily or canceling the agreement with little to no notice?
Nothing. What holds a tenant to un-affordable/desirable apartment.
I would offer a lease. So far no tenant has requested a lease. I'm not going to force someone into a contract beyond a handshake.
I will see how this works out.
I will see how this works out.
[deleted]
Are you concerned about squatters rights?
Fundamentally I would like to be able to trust the people I'm dealing with where a contract isn't needed and it all works out. I don't have a lot of faith in a contract really satisfying any of my needs. I feel a contract with its specifics and each sides personal interpretation can distract from disputer resolution.
Squatters are my biggest fear. I feel it is a justified fear. I also am happy to offer anyone a lease that requests one. I don't want to mindlessly use one. Live and learn they say:)
Squatters are my biggest fear. I feel it is a justified fear. I also am happy to offer anyone a lease that requests one. I don't want to mindlessly use one. Live and learn they say:)
I appreciate the sentiment, but your tenants might have rights that you don't know about. These may vary depending on your locale, and may include restrictions on evictions of tenants who don't have written leases.
I give my tenants this as part of the move in documentation.
https://www.mass.gov/guides/the-attorney-generals-guide-to-l...
This was the document I used to shape my thinking and since I have more than 5 units (8 units total) I'm inspected by my town officials every 2 years to assure the livability.
I see the whole relationship as reciprocal and hope to avoid evictions. I do no credit checks and I do my own internet research. I place a lot of value on the personal interactions and so far I have had good fortune.
https://www.mass.gov/guides/the-attorney-generals-guide-to-l...
This was the document I used to shape my thinking and since I have more than 5 units (8 units total) I'm inspected by my town officials every 2 years to assure the livability.
I see the whole relationship as reciprocal and hope to avoid evictions. I do no credit checks and I do my own internet research. I place a lot of value on the personal interactions and so far I have had good fortune.
Sure. No big deal if they don't know about fire safety either, not like it's their real job anyway.
The commenter may or may not feel it's correct, but I didn't see that in their comment.
[deleted]
> But many landlords are just normal people with other jobs, where being a landlord is not a job to them, but an opportunity to earn money by renting. While one should be able to expect them to know the relevant laws, I bet that most of them don't care to bother because of the time and effort it takes.
...so ? They earn money for doing essentially nothing, the least they should do is to know the law.
...so ? They earn money for doing essentially nothing, the least they should do is to know the law.
I fully agree with this.
But I just intended to point out that "they expect you, the tenant, to not understand your rights and the laws that enforce those rights" is not the only reason.
While I am no landlord, I have relatives who are and they don't care about the law. It's something you they will be made aware of when it arises and then dealt with accordingly.
Take the example of GP's post, he kindly did the research for his ex-landlord until he convinced him. His ex-landlord may now see himself confirmed in that his approach to not caring is the right one, until the ex-renter brings up a very valid point.
But I just intended to point out that "they expect you, the tenant, to not understand your rights and the laws that enforce those rights" is not the only reason.
While I am no landlord, I have relatives who are and they don't care about the law. It's something you they will be made aware of when it arises and then dealt with accordingly.
Take the example of GP's post, he kindly did the research for his ex-landlord until he convinced him. His ex-landlord may now see himself confirmed in that his approach to not caring is the right one, until the ex-renter brings up a very valid point.
You are giving very charitable interpretation to someone who was clearly withholding the full security deposit for two months past the due in flagrant violation of the law and common sense. He didn't even fully comply with the law when it was shown to him. At two months past due, he would have been required to pay double for late payment, and the OP was generous in not enforcing the law to its full extent. Given the asymmetry between the number of instances where a renter and a landlord will need to engage in this transaction, it is hard to extend the same leeway to someone who does this transaction for multiple units that we might afford someone doing this for one unit. If anything I would suspect that the landlord in question is a repeat offender.
> Take the example of GP's post, he kindly did the research for his ex-landlord until he convinced him. His ex-landlord may now see himself confirmed in that his approach to not caring is the right one, until the ex-renter brings up a very valid point.
I HIGHLY doubt land-lord didn't knew the meaning of "security deposit" and didn't return it immediately "because he didn't knew the law", especially when he was clearly ignoring the former tenant. He most likely counted on people not bothering to get it back when being ignored
I HIGHLY doubt land-lord didn't knew the meaning of "security deposit" and didn't return it immediately "because he didn't knew the law", especially when he was clearly ignoring the former tenant. He most likely counted on people not bothering to get it back when being ignored
Spoken like somebody who has never rented out property, risked $$$$ on building something, or doing anything with a business. Please read up on how real estate businesses work.
It's really hard to be sympathetic considering how rent and housing prices have exploded over the last 20 years and how difficult that's made life and future prospects for the average person.
I would say the rewards extremely outweigh the risk.
I would say the rewards extremely outweigh the risk.
That is a policy problem: we make it hard to build housing in the areas of high demand. There is nothing inherent in landlording that says a power differential needs to exist. The low-demand areas, renters have way more power.
...where is the risk ?
Only risk really, if you're getting mortgage to get apartment to rent is that prices go up but you can then just increase the rent. Aside from "tenant completely trashed my house", the risks are nonexistent, it's one of safest ways to invest your money.
Only risk really, if you're getting mortgage to get apartment to rent is that prices go up but you can then just increase the rent. Aside from "tenant completely trashed my house", the risks are nonexistent, it's one of safest ways to invest your money.
Tenants trash the place or don't pay IS a real risk. I have family who just lost 300k in damages and unpaid rent with bad tenants.
Similarly, value decline is another real risk. I have lost 200k in value on home I live in. If I needed to sell, I would be SOL, which is a low occurrence but serious risk.
Similarly, value decline is another real risk. I have lost 200k in value on home I live in. If I needed to sell, I would be SOL, which is a low occurrence but serious risk.
> it's one of safest ways to invest your money
Are you a landlord? If not, why not, if you are convinced the risks are nonexistent and it's one of safest ways to invest your money?
Reality is that while risk is moderately low (but far from nonexistent), returns are also very low, so being a landlord isn't a particularly good investment. You're much better off in the stock market, at least up to the point where you have so much money that you start needing to diversify.
Are you a landlord? If not, why not, if you are convinced the risks are nonexistent and it's one of safest ways to invest your money?
Reality is that while risk is moderately low (but far from nonexistent), returns are also very low, so being a landlord isn't a particularly good investment. You're much better off in the stock market, at least up to the point where you have so much money that you start needing to diversify.
Risk? Two words - eviction moratorium
Risks are nonexistent?
Sounds like you should try it out, then.
Sounds like you should try it out, then.
About 0% of landlords risk their own money - it's from the bank.
The vast majority of rental properties in the US are owned by a single person. Mom-and-pop rental homes are exceedingly common in the US.
And they borrow money from the bank to own these rental properties.
>But many landlords are just normal people with other jobs, where being a landlord is not a job to them, but an opportunity to earn money by renting.While one should be able to expect them to know the relevant laws, I bet that most of them don't care to bother because of the time and effort it takes.
And you can't fire them for doing a piss-poor job. Do you see why that's an issue?
I mean, you're literally advocating breaking the law in order for already wealthy people to earn more money.
And you can't fire them for doing a piss-poor job. Do you see why that's an issue?
I mean, you're literally advocating breaking the law in order for already wealthy people to earn more money.
Yes but in that case, they at least answer to you and you can have a human to human discussion.
They have a business, too: being a landlord. How about taking your business serious and not get in legal issues with your customer(s)?
[deleted]
[deleted]
>But many landlords are just normal people with other jobs, where being a landlord is not a job to them, but an opportunity to earn money by renting
Ah yes, the highly valuable-to-society job that is being a leech.
Ah yes, the highly valuable-to-society job that is being a leech.
s/being a leech/providing housing liquidity
Not everyone should have to purchase a home to live.
Not everyone should have to purchase a home to live.
Funnily enough, we do agree on that end result, but definitely not on the methods. Housing should be a right, and housing should be provided to any citizen of a country. Letting a small minority of wealthy land owners become more wealthy and centralizing home ownership is a sign of failing societies.
A landlord does not "provide housing liquidity". Housing is not a good that I can live without. I'll die without a roof over my head. Profiting off of that is the behavior of a leech.
A landlord does not "provide housing liquidity". Housing is not a good that I can live without. I'll die without a roof over my head. Profiting off of that is the behavior of a leech.
> Housing is not a good that I can live without. I'll die without a roof over my head. Profiting off of that is the behavior of a leech.
Is your local supermarket also a leech because they'll sell you tomatoes and make a tiny profit off those? Shouldn't everyone have their own tomato farm instead?
You do need food a lot more than a roof to survive, after all.
Is your local supermarket also a leech because they'll sell you tomatoes and make a tiny profit off those? Shouldn't everyone have their own tomato farm instead?
You do need food a lot more than a roof to survive, after all.
Why should housing be a right, and not food? Food is even more crucial for survival.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines the right to adequate standards of living. It includes housing, food, medical care.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including foods, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
So, yes, they're both part of the same human rights. Note that the US has not ratified the UDHR, because... Well, it's the US.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including foods, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
So, yes, they're both part of the same human rights. Note that the US has not ratified the UDHR, because... Well, it's the US.
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines the right to adequate standards of living. It includes housing, food, medical care.
If I have a right to an adequate standard of living then why should I work? Why should anyone (except those uncommon cases of people who actually enjoy their jobs). I have a right to all the stuff I need already. Now, who do I sue so that it's actually delivered? :)
If I have a right to an adequate standard of living then why should I work? Why should anyone (except those uncommon cases of people who actually enjoy their jobs). I have a right to all the stuff I need already. Now, who do I sue so that it's actually delivered? :)
You ask for this in the snarkiest of ways but... Yes? You actually have a right to all of this, and in many countries, while not ideal, you have such a form of things. You're polish, so you have a right to social security, to a guaranteed amount of money during retirement, a bunch of allowances (zasilek staly/okresowy/celowy and a lot more)
So, why would you work? Aside from the fact that you can legitimately ask that question (productivity has increased a hundredfold in the past years, yet your salary has not. Clearly someone has pocketed that difference, and sadly we can't blame PiS for everything), the right to laziness being an actively debated subject in many circles, from economic to philosophical, note that it says "adequate". If you are content with a basic house, heating and food, sure, stay at home. If you intend to have things like a TV, a PC, books, vacations outside, a social life, you might want to work to pay for them. And with basic needs covered, you can actually work and do something you enjoy, instead of holding a miserable job because you have no choice but to.
>Now, who do I sue so that it's actually delivered? :)
I would recommend Ministerstwo Rodziny, Pracy i Polityki Społecznej as well as Parlament Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Good luck :)
So, why would you work? Aside from the fact that you can legitimately ask that question (productivity has increased a hundredfold in the past years, yet your salary has not. Clearly someone has pocketed that difference, and sadly we can't blame PiS for everything), the right to laziness being an actively debated subject in many circles, from economic to philosophical, note that it says "adequate". If you are content with a basic house, heating and food, sure, stay at home. If you intend to have things like a TV, a PC, books, vacations outside, a social life, you might want to work to pay for them. And with basic needs covered, you can actually work and do something you enjoy, instead of holding a miserable job because you have no choice but to.
>Now, who do I sue so that it's actually delivered? :)
I would recommend Ministerstwo Rodziny, Pracy i Polityki Społecznej as well as Parlament Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Good luck :)
> productivity has increased a hundredfold in the past years, yet your salary has not.
What? For comparison, check out the standard of living of a 1900 century laborer. Or a 1500 peasant for that matter. We live like kings, compared to both of them.
What? For comparison, check out the standard of living of a 1900 century laborer. Or a 1500 peasant for that matter. We live like kings, compared to both of them.
When people say "food is a human right" they typically want the government to provide food to the hungry. They don't want to make it illegal to operate a restaurant.
When people say "housing is a human right", what they really mean is that they want to outlaw renting or even private home ownership. If the government moved every homeless person to Wyoming and gave them a home, that wouldn't be enough.
When people say "housing is a human right", what they really mean is that they want to outlaw renting or even private home ownership. If the government moved every homeless person to Wyoming and gave them a home, that wouldn't be enough.
on one hand: no, nobody wants to outlaw private home ownership aside from tankies, and everybody hates tankies.
On the other, that'd probably make Wyoming a kickass place to live in.
On the other, that'd probably make Wyoming a kickass place to live in.
Who said food shouldn't be a right?
Housing is not a human right. Do you have a right to force me to build you a house? Think about it. Why would we have any nice housing at all in that situation? Why would anyone build it?
These silly things like "x is a human right" miss the point. At some point people have to take responsibility.
These silly things like "x is a human right" miss the point. At some point people have to take responsibility.
> Do you have a right to force me to build you a house?
It's never been about that. Do you have a right to claim ownership of the land, that was created by God? Certainly neither you nor the people you inherited the land from or bought it from created it. It was there 1000 years ago, 100 000 years ago and 1 000 000 years ago. Yet you lay claim to it and demand that others pay you for using it.
That's what it is about.
It's never been about that. Do you have a right to claim ownership of the land, that was created by God? Certainly neither you nor the people you inherited the land from or bought it from created it. It was there 1000 years ago, 100 000 years ago and 1 000 000 years ago. Yet you lay claim to it and demand that others pay you for using it.
That's what it is about.
there's nothing stopping you from taking it. this happens in many countries where there's little rule of law.
There's some things stopping that, like the law you mentioned. But land redistribution by violent means have occurred before, like in China, and the Soviet Union most drastically in modern history. Is that what it takes? Should younger generations do a violent uprising with all the horrible consequences to be able to have a home?
The "ownership" of land is one of the most strong abstract belief among humans. If I tell hacker news that I should not have to pay taxes because I have the right to my own body and work, the people here will react like that is crazy. If I tell hacker news that I have the right to some land that I bought, the people here will heartily agree. Even though that land was not created by anybody and stolen several times during history.
We're in the situation right now when the majority of highly educated people and hard working people in the richest countries of the world has no chance of a future at all. Even something so primitive as Maoist revolution would give them a better shot at owning their own home than continuing to obey Western law and rules. How did things end like this?
The "ownership" of land is one of the most strong abstract belief among humans. If I tell hacker news that I should not have to pay taxes because I have the right to my own body and work, the people here will react like that is crazy. If I tell hacker news that I have the right to some land that I bought, the people here will heartily agree. Even though that land was not created by anybody and stolen several times during history.
We're in the situation right now when the majority of highly educated people and hard working people in the richest countries of the world has no chance of a future at all. Even something so primitive as Maoist revolution would give them a better shot at owning their own home than continuing to obey Western law and rules. How did things end like this?
Then let me build my own house. Oh, I can’t, someone “owns” the land. Then I can at least stay in a tent somewhere. Oh, no, I can’t, the cops stole all my stuff. All of the alternatives have already been closed.
>Do you have a right to force me to build you a house?
Me ? No. Us, as a society, where we decide to ? Abso-fucking-lutely.
>Why would we have any nice housing at all in that situation? Why would anyone build it?
Nothing prevents you from putting in more money to make yourself the fancy house you've dreamed of. You can decide to give 300k to your favorite fancy house builder to have a prettier house than the plebs living in state housing. The US has the ACA, yet as far as I know the US still has private, higher quality hospitals. Turns out, making something a right doesn't mean "everyone has to have access to the best in class", but "has to have access to something which guarantees livable conditions."
>These silly things like "x is a human right" miss the point. At some point people have to take responsibility.
These silly "people have to take responsibility" talking points mostly shows that you have no regard for human life and would rather perpetuate suffering than provide something as basic as housing to people. Then again, since almost 100% of your post history in the past three months is about "oh no being a landlord is hard", it seems that you actively benefit from misery.
Me ? No. Us, as a society, where we decide to ? Abso-fucking-lutely.
>Why would we have any nice housing at all in that situation? Why would anyone build it?
Nothing prevents you from putting in more money to make yourself the fancy house you've dreamed of. You can decide to give 300k to your favorite fancy house builder to have a prettier house than the plebs living in state housing. The US has the ACA, yet as far as I know the US still has private, higher quality hospitals. Turns out, making something a right doesn't mean "everyone has to have access to the best in class", but "has to have access to something which guarantees livable conditions."
>These silly things like "x is a human right" miss the point. At some point people have to take responsibility.
These silly "people have to take responsibility" talking points mostly shows that you have no regard for human life and would rather perpetuate suffering than provide something as basic as housing to people. Then again, since almost 100% of your post history in the past three months is about "oh no being a landlord is hard", it seems that you actively benefit from misery.
The insults are childish and prove that your arguments are completely unserious. Going through my post history just tells me this is more about elevating your own status and opinion than actually having a dialogue.
Please go live in some government-run housing before demanding that the poor do so. And look up "luxury belief". :)
Please go live in some government-run housing before demanding that the poor do so. And look up "luxury belief". :)
>The insults are childish and prove that your arguments are completely unserious. Going through my post history just tells me this is more about elevating your own status and opinion than actually having a dialogue.
There's no dialogue to be had with someone willing to leave people to die in the streets because "hurr durr they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps". Debate happens with reasonable positions, not with the depths of human indecency and Ayn-Randish takes.
>Please go live in some government-run housing before demanding that the poor do so.
I have been poor. I did. As a child, I lived in HLMs, which have been in existence in my country since 1894. As a student, I lived in student housing, that has existence since 1955.
>And look up "luxury belief". :)
Believing that people deserve a roof over their head without paying half of their income to a leech that did nothing be born with money is not a luxury belief.
There's no dialogue to be had with someone willing to leave people to die in the streets because "hurr durr they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps". Debate happens with reasonable positions, not with the depths of human indecency and Ayn-Randish takes.
>Please go live in some government-run housing before demanding that the poor do so.
I have been poor. I did. As a child, I lived in HLMs, which have been in existence in my country since 1894. As a student, I lived in student housing, that has existence since 1955.
>And look up "luxury belief". :)
Believing that people deserve a roof over their head without paying half of their income to a leech that did nothing be born with money is not a luxury belief.
You are misrepresenting my opinion and values because I don't agree with your particular solution to the problem of homelessness. Your ideas are bad, proven time and time again that they don't work. Instead of debating the merits, you paint me as some caricature. Thus proving that you live and operate in a world so insular that you have no idea how the real world actually works. You have no data to back up your claims, only insults. This is why nobody takes arguments like yours seriously.
I could very easily say you lack "human decency" by forcing the poor to live in run-down government housing. And that argument is just as strong as the one you are promoting.
You need to recognize that you are putting in effort here to elevate your own status in some "in group", not actually trying to argue a position with data and facts. Armchair socialism is entertaining, usually promoted by wealthy kids who have very few problems of their own. Honestly, this is me trying to help you.
Please talk to somebody (a real person) who has built a business. Broaden your perspective.
I could very easily say you lack "human decency" by forcing the poor to live in run-down government housing. And that argument is just as strong as the one you are promoting.
You need to recognize that you are putting in effort here to elevate your own status in some "in group", not actually trying to argue a position with data and facts. Armchair socialism is entertaining, usually promoted by wealthy kids who have very few problems of their own. Honestly, this is me trying to help you.
Please talk to somebody (a real person) who has built a business. Broaden your perspective.
Do you realize that every single one of your arguments so far has been a straw man ?
- First you pretend I'm trying to force you to build houses, which I'm not, I'm telling you it's the state's job to provide housing should none be available at reasonable prices. If you built a fancy house, sure, rent it for higher costs, if you can find a renter. If you built a house that barely matches a government built one... match government built rents.
- Then you go on and pretend I'm trying to force the poor to live in government run units, which I'm not. Both because _many of them already do anyways_, and because I'm not saying to ban owning property. Merely that there should be a force preventing you from raising your rent for what happens to be a basic life necessity.
- Then you go on and pretend that it is a luxury belief to have my positions, when I have been in the exact situations that are a problem, and even as of today, despite my situation being much better, a bit over 50% of my salary goes either to my landlord or to electricity/heating my home. Paying my landlord's loan isn't exactly my goal in life, sorry.
- Then you go on and pretend that every government housing is run-down which... no ? I can't even find an answer to that because it's both not an argument _and_ a lie.
- Then you go on and pretend that I'm doing this to elevate my own status in some "in group", without even considering for a single second that the reality of things is that I actively care for people and would rather see them in (basic) housing than cutting off a meal a day to pay off a landlord, or being out in the streets.
> Please talk to somebody (a real person) who has built a business.
Cool! I do on the daily. Also, being a landlord is not a business. A business has the added benefit of producing value. A landlord merely hoards housing.
To finish up on that: "Your ideas are bad, proven time and time again that they don't work". Despite all the evil that stalinist policies and maoist policies have caused, their involvement in insuring that everyone has basic housing affordable and available to them meant amazing development from farmer focused countries to absolute powerhouses of manufacturing and knowledge. You can debate various 'communist' and 'socialist' policies all you want (not real communists state capitalism yadda yadda yadda), you can be very aware of the damage they caused, while still recognising that the one thing we're talking about is probably the one that actually fucking worked.
This is me trying to help you: every single one of your arguments has been projection of what _you_ would do if you were in a situation like that. It is not healthy, and I recommend you take a deep look within at your own morality.
- First you pretend I'm trying to force you to build houses, which I'm not, I'm telling you it's the state's job to provide housing should none be available at reasonable prices. If you built a fancy house, sure, rent it for higher costs, if you can find a renter. If you built a house that barely matches a government built one... match government built rents.
- Then you go on and pretend I'm trying to force the poor to live in government run units, which I'm not. Both because _many of them already do anyways_, and because I'm not saying to ban owning property. Merely that there should be a force preventing you from raising your rent for what happens to be a basic life necessity.
- Then you go on and pretend that it is a luxury belief to have my positions, when I have been in the exact situations that are a problem, and even as of today, despite my situation being much better, a bit over 50% of my salary goes either to my landlord or to electricity/heating my home. Paying my landlord's loan isn't exactly my goal in life, sorry.
- Then you go on and pretend that every government housing is run-down which... no ? I can't even find an answer to that because it's both not an argument _and_ a lie.
- Then you go on and pretend that I'm doing this to elevate my own status in some "in group", without even considering for a single second that the reality of things is that I actively care for people and would rather see them in (basic) housing than cutting off a meal a day to pay off a landlord, or being out in the streets.
> Please talk to somebody (a real person) who has built a business.
Cool! I do on the daily. Also, being a landlord is not a business. A business has the added benefit of producing value. A landlord merely hoards housing.
To finish up on that: "Your ideas are bad, proven time and time again that they don't work". Despite all the evil that stalinist policies and maoist policies have caused, their involvement in insuring that everyone has basic housing affordable and available to them meant amazing development from farmer focused countries to absolute powerhouses of manufacturing and knowledge. You can debate various 'communist' and 'socialist' policies all you want (not real communists state capitalism yadda yadda yadda), you can be very aware of the damage they caused, while still recognising that the one thing we're talking about is probably the one that actually fucking worked.
This is me trying to help you: every single one of your arguments has been projection of what _you_ would do if you were in a situation like that. It is not healthy, and I recommend you take a deep look within at your own morality.
You are advocating for government control of housing, which has been a failure in this country and in other places. Nobody wants government housing and there is no evidence that they can do a good job. All you have is "evil landlords!". Your glorious idea of rent control is a failure - do know of the cheap city that is called San Francisco? They have the most strict rent control in the country. Do your research.
Again, look up the term "luxury belief". It's not what you think it is.
Again, you clearly have never built anything or risked anything. Building and operating housing isn't some easy job that requires no risk, investment, or effort. To suggest such exposes how little you understand about businesses. Yet, you keep asserting that you know everything about what a business is. Odd. The massive profits being generated in the housing market are mostly owners of gentrified houses, not those evil developers. This takes 5 minutes of research to confirm. The rest are due to government policies that limit housing production. Again, do your research.
And... holding up Stalin as an example. I... just can't. You must be a parody account, right? Right? Please be so, because otherwise.... jesus christ.
Ending this one, as it's clear you have major gaps in business knowledge, basic economic theory... and Stalin? lol.
Again, look up the term "luxury belief". It's not what you think it is.
Again, you clearly have never built anything or risked anything. Building and operating housing isn't some easy job that requires no risk, investment, or effort. To suggest such exposes how little you understand about businesses. Yet, you keep asserting that you know everything about what a business is. Odd. The massive profits being generated in the housing market are mostly owners of gentrified houses, not those evil developers. This takes 5 minutes of research to confirm. The rest are due to government policies that limit housing production. Again, do your research.
And... holding up Stalin as an example. I... just can't. You must be a parody account, right? Right? Please be so, because otherwise.... jesus christ.
Ending this one, as it's clear you have major gaps in business knowledge, basic economic theory... and Stalin? lol.
>I've had to deal with difficult landlords a handful of times and I'd say the common thread is that they expect you, the tenant, to not understand your rights and the laws that enforce those rights
Low interest rates and AirBnB has created a whole class of landlords that have no clue of their obligations to tenants. They think that owning the property is enough, and that they're doing you a favour.
Being a landlord is as old a business as there is. In any efficient market it is not easy or lucrative.
Low interest rates and AirBnB has created a whole class of landlords that have no clue of their obligations to tenants. They think that owning the property is enough, and that they're doing you a favour.
Being a landlord is as old a business as there is. In any efficient market it is not easy or lucrative.
State and local laws matter a lot. I moved to a tenant-friendly state (NY) from a tenant-unfriendly state (Texas). NY has much stronger protections for renters. Better eviction laws, access to housing court, and actual enforcement of housing laws.
You'd hope that business owners would care about running ethical businesses and meeting their clients' needs instead of holding them in outright contempt and disdain.
Why?
Genuinely, why would you hope/expect this? There is no incentive for most of them to do so in relatively inelastic markets such as housing.
Genuinely, why would you hope/expect this? There is no incentive for most of them to do so in relatively inelastic markets such as housing.
I get questioning why someone would expect this given the world we live in, but why would we hope for it? How about because the world would just be a nicer place to live if every transaction around the place people live weren’t undertaken on the basis that both parties are trying to screw each other?
I don't hope or expect it, but I'm tempering my response so it doesn't trigger the typical HN crowd.
renting from the perception of landlords is more fiefdom than a business. they literally consider themself "landlords" ...
Do landlors consider themselves business owners? The few I know seem to treat it differently. It might be because they rent one or two houses/apparemments at most.
Most small-time landlords do NOT treat it as a business; they have a general idea that "total proceeds" > "mortgage expenses" + appreciation and consider themselves to be doing well. Often (especially in CA) they're doing arbitrage on property taxes (if they sold the house, it's tax would rise, so they can rent it close to the "sell it now mortgage + taxes" price).
They never stop to consider why their accountant keeps saying that they made $0 on the rental after depreciation ... must be a gift from the IRS!
Once you actually start trying to work it as a business you realize why most companies don't want to be in the business of renting single family homes, and stick to larger apartments.
They never stop to consider why their accountant keeps saying that they made $0 on the rental after depreciation ... must be a gift from the IRS!
Once you actually start trying to work it as a business you realize why most companies don't want to be in the business of renting single family homes, and stick to larger apartments.
> Once you actually start trying to work it as a business you realize why most companies don't want to be in the business of renting single family homes, and stick to larger apartments.
Can you elaborate on this? Is it due to the larger numbers in multifamily
Can you elaborate on this? Is it due to the larger numbers in multifamily
Just because some landlords run their businesses poorly, or don't/barely break even, doesn't mean that they aren't running businesses.
"landlords have 30 days to return the security deposit with any deductions listed. Failure to do so results in the landlord owing the tenant double the original amount with no deductions." I printed that out, highlighted the relevant section,... "
Young jedi. You mail this AFTER 30 days and get the money.
Young jedi. You mail this AFTER 30 days and get the money.
I'd rather have $1000 without going to court than $2000 and the hassle of suing someone.
What about $2000 without going to court? They will most likely pay immediately to avoid court [landlords don't like being in court with a 'failure to repay security deposit' type case].
Another way of looking at it is whether you should punish the landlord for attempting to steal your money, with the extra $1000 being an incentive/payment for your time. I don't think there's a moral obligation to do so, but it definitely improves the world if landlords are afraid to try this tactic on others.
Yeah I just wanted my money back and to move on, not get involved with the courts.
> I called him, messaged him, left notes in his mailbox. No reply. One month, two months went by.
Renting is a huge issue on Prince Edward Island, so much that a local legal group put out simple language information about provincially-legislated obligations for tenants and landlords.
(1) https://legalinfopei.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Renting-P...
(2) https://legalinfopei.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Renting-P...
(1) https://legalinfopei.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Renting-P...
(2) https://legalinfopei.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Renting-P...
Ha! I'm on PEI but nice to see info about it.
There is also https://myoldapartment.org/ to see what the last tenant paid for their rent.
PEI seems to be a terrible place to live now. A small population with 50% of the population in one small area. Surge of newcomers. The scourge Airbnb STRs. Buildings going up daily but nowhere to live. Lots of slum landlords in slum buildings. Historical properties as apartment buildings but renovating has to be done historically accurately so no landlord does anything. Rent jumping by 10% or even 95% for one place (a rush beofre the new regs). Controls and new regulations only now implemented after the party in power dragged its feet.
There is also https://myoldapartment.org/ to see what the last tenant paid for their rent.
PEI seems to be a terrible place to live now. A small population with 50% of the population in one small area. Surge of newcomers. The scourge Airbnb STRs. Buildings going up daily but nowhere to live. Lots of slum landlords in slum buildings. Historical properties as apartment buildings but renovating has to be done historically accurately so no landlord does anything. Rent jumping by 10% or even 95% for one place (a rush beofre the new regs). Controls and new regulations only now implemented after the party in power dragged its feet.
So I'm confused, why didn't you just file and inform them that you had filed and they now owed you double? From my reading you were 2 months in. They have no disincentive from your situation to improve.
I mean if you were concerned about the hassle it seems you could have equally said, 45 days have passed, at this point you are legally obliged to give me 2x the deposit, citing the law as you did. Pay me 1.5x the deposit now or 2x when I file at the local court.
At least then in the future they may respond to the first message to future tenants.
I mean if you were concerned about the hassle it seems you could have equally said, 45 days have passed, at this point you are legally obliged to give me 2x the deposit, citing the law as you did. Pay me 1.5x the deposit now or 2x when I file at the local court.
At least then in the future they may respond to the first message to future tenants.
Well, because I was a college kid that just wanted my $350 dollars back. I didn’t really want to get involved with filing a claim.
Lucky you to have encountered a scummy landlord smart enough not to want to waste his time in small claims court. Mine showed up there with a lawyer, of all things, and tried to argue that the ceiling fan falling out of the ceiling onto us while we were sleeping, the 15-year-old dishwasher flooding the kitchen, and a microwave button being broken were all worth $1000 or so in deductions.
> I'd say the common thread is that they expect you, the tenant, to not understand your rights and the laws that enforce those rights.
I think there's also a cost-benefit evaluation when it comes to deciding where to make use of those laws. I've heard that there are tenant screening services that will report whether you have previously sued a landlord. Is it even worth it to sue if it's going to make it more difficult to find a better place later?
I think there's also a cost-benefit evaluation when it comes to deciding where to make use of those laws. I've heard that there are tenant screening services that will report whether you have previously sued a landlord. Is it even worth it to sue if it's going to make it more difficult to find a better place later?
But now imagine you lived in place without such strong renter protections. Most of America doesn’t have rules like that.
I had a colleague who once pointed out to their landlord that something was not according to the law. The next day they come home from work and all their furniture was removed and the locks replaced.
Sure, you can take them to court, but most likely they'll let you know how they feel about that by sending some thugs.
Landlords can be the lowest scum of the earth. Many cooperations are great though, we never had any issues with them, they'd send someone quickly when asking for repairs, and were often very reasonable about things, etc.
Sure, you can take them to court, but most likely they'll let you know how they feel about that by sending some thugs.
Landlords can be the lowest scum of the earth. Many cooperations are great though, we never had any issues with them, they'd send someone quickly when asking for repairs, and were often very reasonable about things, etc.
> Landlords can be the lowest scum of the earth.
The same can be said for tenants.
The same can be said for tenants.
There's significant overlap between organised - or semi-organised - crime and property rentals. It's not unusual for some landlords to also make money from prostitution, drug dealing, and sometimes extortion.
This doesn't mean all landlords are criminals. But if you have a greed-driven sociopathic mindset all of the above are very attractive, and it's not hard to make them work together.
This doesn't mean all landlords are criminals. But if you have a greed-driven sociopathic mindset all of the above are very attractive, and it's not hard to make them work together.
Any citations?
Why not file?
If glassdoor can’t protect the anonymity of its reviewers, this can’t either. There will be legal allegations of libel that will lead to one’s identity being revealed by court order or otherwise.
I also find these sites largely useless for research as only the people with extremely strong sentiment would go out of their way to add a review, meaning almost any management company with a large number of tenants will end up with bad ratings, as some portion of those tenants almost definitely will have a negative perception of the management and that portion will be overrepresented in the tally.
I also find these sites largely useless for research as only the people with extremely strong sentiment would go out of their way to add a review, meaning almost any management company with a large number of tenants will end up with bad ratings, as some portion of those tenants almost definitely will have a negative perception of the management and that portion will be overrepresented in the tally.
I get where you're coming from, but no system is perfect, right? While anonymity concerns and skewed reviews might be valid points, that doesn't mean we should dismiss the whole idea. Instead, we could work on refining the system to minimize these issues, like implementing measures to protect anonymity and encouraging a more balanced representation of reviews.
Remember, sites like this are just one piece of the puzzle when making decisions. Sure, they might not be perfect, but they can provide useful insights when taken with a grain of salt. And who knows? Maybe this website could inspire a new wave of accountability and transparency in the landlord-tenant relationship, which seems like a win to me.
Remember, sites like this are just one piece of the puzzle when making decisions. Sure, they might not be perfect, but they can provide useful insights when taken with a grain of salt. And who knows? Maybe this website could inspire a new wave of accountability and transparency in the landlord-tenant relationship, which seems like a win to me.
Further to add to your point 'RateMyProfessors.com' as a ideas was/is good.
But I understand the way it was designed (unverified students, double ratings, correlation of positive reviews to ease of the class...) did it in.
It boils down to how well thought through the implementation is, and how well it is iterated upon.
Same with yelp.com
But I understand the way it was designed (unverified students, double ratings, correlation of positive reviews to ease of the class...) did it in.
It boils down to how well thought through the implementation is, and how well it is iterated upon.
Same with yelp.com
> But I understand the way it was designed (unverified students, double ratings, correlation of positive reviews to ease of the class...) did it in.
It's still there and being used.
It's still there and being used.
Ratemyprofessor was very accurate in my experience, even more so if you're good at reading between the lines of critical comments. Knowing that positive reviews generally comes from the class being easier or negative reviews comes from stricter teaching is still useful, and hardly a severe negative imo. You just need to read what the reviews say (and don't say) and adjust accordingly.
We had something administered through my university called FAQs (Faculty Assessment Questionnaire?) that were published for students and would tell you how much time a class would take per week, etc that ended up being more useful overall. Does every university have these?
Ratemyprofessors was literally responsible for improving my college experience tenthfold.
> but no system is perfect, right?
If your data isn't going to be exhaustive or unbiased samples you could at least show the omission rate. E.g. "there were 100 tenants in period X, 1 left a review".
If your data isn't going to be exhaustive or unbiased samples you could at least show the omission rate. E.g. "there were 100 tenants in period X, 1 left a review".
Also, the common people has awful taste, and is terrible at understanding a situation from another point of view.
This is why trip advisor is so useless, at least in France.
Between the vocal unhappy outliers and the happy idiots that think those french fries coming out of the freezer were delicious, the noise/signal ratio is abysmal.
This is why trip advisor is so useless, at least in France.
Between the vocal unhappy outliers and the happy idiots that think those french fries coming out of the freezer were delicious, the noise/signal ratio is abysmal.
When I lived in Colorado Springs, my ex and I started only going to 2-star places for this reason, _especially_ if the biggest complaint was “bad service” or the restaurant “looked dirty”. Found a lot of great, minority-owned hole-in-the-walls this way. In a town where Panera Bread is 5-star to the white suburbanites, you gotta assume other places are the good ones.
For a moment I though you were talking about Michelin stars, and I got confused.
https://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/Canidae-Reviews-E845482.htm
Glassdoor has a way of dealing with this that is more damning than a bad review.
Glassdoor has a way of dealing with this that is more damning than a bad review.
Yet, glassdoor is still thriving. This is just a step forward for transparency.
But the question remains: is it useful?
Yes. It's like a pseudo-union. Collectively bad companies are avoided and good ones receive more interest. Low salaries and bad managers are put on display. Good ones are, too.
It's useful for the job seeker, and it's useful for society.
It's useful for the job seeker, and it's useful for society.
Some of the companies I worked for have removed my reviews, so I'm not so sure about that.
You're saying it is corruptible. But it doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. There's plenty of critical reviews on the platform. More than enough to take a peek into the problems some corps have before joining.
No. I've looked up companies that were great or awful, and the reviews looked about the same. A fee negative reviews from the janitor, and lots of positive reviews that look like they were written by the PR team.
Yep. I’ve used Glassdoor reviews in making my decision about employers. I ignored bad reviews once and regretted it.
More information is better than less information. A few more cases definitely are red flags.
Is it required to record personally identifying data?
You could even have the web browser do like a mini Tor protocol where your IP is tunneled through others currently logged in.
You could even have the web browser do like a mini Tor protocol where your IP is tunneled through others currently logged in.
It would be trivial to just link the words of the review to the individual. You write something like "My screen door broke and the landlord refused to fix it" and the landlord can just remember or check who mentioned a screen door. It's not like a job where they have hundreds or thousands of other employees who could have written it.
Two factors matter in these scenarios: identifying the reviewer and proving it.
Employees can maintain anonymity by avoiding specific work anecdotes ("My manager A did B"), using ChatGPT for rephrasing, and delaying their review (a few months after the experience).
Employers must prove the reviewer's identity for legal remedy, but Glassdoor may issue damning alerts about employers who do so. Even then, using Tor and temporary emails with fake names offers protection to the employee.
By making it difficult to both figure out who wrote the review and prove it, I think employees are safe posting their genuine exp online.
I also believe it's totally morally fine if the reviews are accurate. It may break the ToS of Glassdoor to use a fake name, for example, but an authentic peek into what's going on in corps benefits both society and Glassdoor itself.
Employees can maintain anonymity by avoiding specific work anecdotes ("My manager A did B"), using ChatGPT for rephrasing, and delaying their review (a few months after the experience).
Employers must prove the reviewer's identity for legal remedy, but Glassdoor may issue damning alerts about employers who do so. Even then, using Tor and temporary emails with fake names offers protection to the employee.
By making it difficult to both figure out who wrote the review and prove it, I think employees are safe posting their genuine exp online.
I also believe it's totally morally fine if the reviews are accurate. It may break the ToS of Glassdoor to use a fake name, for example, but an authentic peek into what's going on in corps benefits both society and Glassdoor itself.
OP is concerned about demasking via the court system. Even if the company has no desire to "win" a case, they can compel Glassdoor (or anyone else) to give up the identity of a user. Even if Glassdoor can't figure out who you are, then they'd have to put up a fight to defend you. If they choose not to and to just remove the review with cause instead, then the price of removal is the attorneys time.
Which is a flaw in the US court system - "winning" a civil case may not award you the attorneys fees, so it paradoxically makes it easier to just accept instead of fight, if you're against somebody rich.
Can a court compel someone to give up information they don't have?
No, but see the consequence: the information is removed if the user or the company fail to defend it. That makes it a vector for people who have a lot of money they can waste.
It’s their own fault if they say something in a review that they can’t prove.
People maintain this sort of blind faith only until they are bitten themselves.
Truth doesn't matter in the US court system, unless both sides are equally well funded. Given that one party owns capital and the other rents, I'd say that seems not too likely.
So you think the landlord can just liquidate what you call the capital? Sell the house?
Unless it‘s a large landlord, chances are that the renter is more liquid.
Unless it‘s a large landlord, chances are that the renter is more liquid.
Real estate you rent out is probably the prime example of Capital, and many who own real estate (without a mortgage on it) certainly aren't working class.
I didn't find a great source on this, but the average landlord in the US seems to own 3 properties. [1]
[1]: https://www.mysmartmove.com/SmartMove/blog/todays-landlord-c...
I didn't find a great source on this, but the average landlord in the US seems to own 3 properties. [1]
[1]: https://www.mysmartmove.com/SmartMove/blog/todays-landlord-c...
In my experience, the more difficult a landlord is, the more tenants they have.
That’s not the direction that burden of proof goes.
In England and Wales it is.
English courts are notable for requiring the defendant to prove what they said was true. It is common practice for the world’s rich and infamous to take a trip to London whenever they want to chill their critics’ speech:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism
English courts are notable for requiring the defendant to prove what they said was true. It is common practice for the world’s rich and infamous to take a trip to London whenever they want to chill their critics’ speech:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism
I'm not sure exactly how I feel about English libel law, I think a bit too strict but wouldn't want to lose it all - but surely libel tourism just shouldn't be allowed? Is it just too hard to stop without blocking legitimate claims too?
edit: I read the rest of that Wikipedia article, seems a decade ago something was done to at least reduce it -
"On January 1st, 2014 the Defamation Act 2013 came into force, requiring plaintiffs who bring actions in the courts of England and Wales alleging libel by defendants who do not live in Europe to demonstrate that the court is the most appropriate place to bring the action. Serious harm to an individual's reputation or serious financial harm to a corporation must also be proven. Good faith belief that a disclosure was in the public interest was made a defense."
edit: I read the rest of that Wikipedia article, seems a decade ago something was done to at least reduce it -
"On January 1st, 2014 the Defamation Act 2013 came into force, requiring plaintiffs who bring actions in the courts of England and Wales alleging libel by defendants who do not live in Europe to demonstrate that the court is the most appropriate place to bring the action. Serious harm to an individual's reputation or serious financial harm to a corporation must also be proven. Good faith belief that a disclosure was in the public interest was made a defense."
I don’t know enough to answer your questions but the McLibel case is another good entry on the subject:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case
That sounds....reasonable ? Not the tourism part but the fact one comitting suspected libel needs to use actual facts or else they are guilty of it ?
It’s not about whether they need to use actual facts, it’s about which side needs to prove whether or not they’re using actual facts.
Why would one suing for slander need to that whatever slanderer invented he didn't do ?
That puts unreasonable level of burden on one being slandered (i.e. the victim) and would allow one doing the slander just make up stuff that is very hard to prove that the victim didn't do.
That puts unreasonable level of burden on one being slandered (i.e. the victim) and would allow one doing the slander just make up stuff that is very hard to prove that the victim didn't do.
It is in most places that aren't USA
Like a lot of these efforts, I suspect it will start off OK, but rapidly dissolve into either a protection racket, or a gossipy, unreliable, junk drawer of hate.
The Internet shows what happens, when we don't have to be accountable for our words. Inside of almost every one of us, is a monster, waiting to burst forth, once we know the guardrails have been removed.
But the other side of the coin, is that people can be punished and silenced for legitimate concerns.
"Landlords" are, increasingly, changing from the little old lady, renting out her cottage, to huge conglomerate corporations, with the means and the desire to silence critics.
In the aggregate, we're probably better off without these types of sites, and encouraging remedy through "proper channels," which is a hard sell, as these large corporations are pretty good at owning the channels.
The Internet shows what happens, when we don't have to be accountable for our words. Inside of almost every one of us, is a monster, waiting to burst forth, once we know the guardrails have been removed.
But the other side of the coin, is that people can be punished and silenced for legitimate concerns.
"Landlords" are, increasingly, changing from the little old lady, renting out her cottage, to huge conglomerate corporations, with the means and the desire to silence critics.
In the aggregate, we're probably better off without these types of sites, and encouraging remedy through "proper channels," which is a hard sell, as these large corporations are pretty good at owning the channels.
you also have the problem where ChrisMarshallNY may rent from bombcar for decades, and since nothing ever went wrong, there were no complaints at all on either side.
But some other person rented for a year and there was a complication - and how THAT was handled matters more than anything when comparing.
https://xkcd.com/325/ comes to mind.
I think a "Zillow-like" database of properties that talked about the rental and only indirectly about the landlord could be more useful.
But some other person rented for a year and there was a complication - and how THAT was handled matters more than anything when comparing.
https://xkcd.com/325/ comes to mind.
I think a "Zillow-like" database of properties that talked about the rental and only indirectly about the landlord could be more useful.
Love that XKCD!
> Landlords who believe they have received a dishonest review can report the review and include their email in the report form. We will contact you directly to address the issue.
I am sure this sounds like a great resource for people that are renting and have bad experiences but after reading this in the FAQ, I am not so sure. How do they manage fake reviews, fake reports etc. Its an open source project and by a quick look at the code on github [0], it seems like a project with a handful of commits and contributors. I cannot help but wonder how much time these folk will have for handling customer support and what process they follow to settle disputes (considering the review was posted anonymously and looks like doesn't even require an email). Generally, I would be OK if this sort of thing takes time for small projects but this project literally is about reviewing people (including names, addresses etc) from anonymous users on the internet. I'd be concerned.
[0] https://github.com/RateTheLandlord
I am sure this sounds like a great resource for people that are renting and have bad experiences but after reading this in the FAQ, I am not so sure. How do they manage fake reviews, fake reports etc. Its an open source project and by a quick look at the code on github [0], it seems like a project with a handful of commits and contributors. I cannot help but wonder how much time these folk will have for handling customer support and what process they follow to settle disputes (considering the review was posted anonymously and looks like doesn't even require an email). Generally, I would be OK if this sort of thing takes time for small projects but this project literally is about reviewing people (including names, addresses etc) from anonymous users on the internet. I'd be concerned.
[0] https://github.com/RateTheLandlord
And by the nature of what it is, it's going to lend itself more to people who are unhappy with their landlords than those who are happy.
And I wouldn't be surprised if this projects ends up getting legal letters very quickly if it takes off.
And I wouldn't be surprised if this projects ends up getting legal letters very quickly if it takes off.
A natural way to cause positive reviews to appear is for landlords to point out the site to tenants. Sadly, this can very easily morph into basically requiring tenants to leave positive reviews (i.e. disadvantaging them until a positive review appears).
I've written a few landlord reviews, and none were even pseudonymous; my identity was exposed in each case. Of course downthread they are totally correct; if you give enough information about particular disputes you had, you automatically reveal your identity anyway.
The sites where I left reviews were carefully patrolled by the business itself, so I often receoved responses or feedback on what I'd said. At some point I defended their practices around maintenance, and they thanked me. At another point, I was disgruntled, and they made a public reply offering to meet with me, which was disingenuous since they had no such intent.
The reality of the landlord-tenant relationship in these United States, especially at a low income level and a frighteningly low vacancy rate, is that the tenant is absolutely powerless and defenseless in any dispute. Evictions are quick, easy, and decisive. There is no lawyer who will defend tenants against landlords because there's no money in that. You can try to play the landlord-tenants rights game, but once you stick your neck out as a nuisance, all they have to do is decide not to renew your lease, and you're out in the cold. There's no recourse for that.
The sites where I left reviews were carefully patrolled by the business itself, so I often receoved responses or feedback on what I'd said. At some point I defended their practices around maintenance, and they thanked me. At another point, I was disgruntled, and they made a public reply offering to meet with me, which was disingenuous since they had no such intent.
The reality of the landlord-tenant relationship in these United States, especially at a low income level and a frighteningly low vacancy rate, is that the tenant is absolutely powerless and defenseless in any dispute. Evictions are quick, easy, and decisive. There is no lawyer who will defend tenants against landlords because there's no money in that. You can try to play the landlord-tenants rights game, but once you stick your neck out as a nuisance, all they have to do is decide not to renew your lease, and you're out in the cold. There's no recourse for that.
> Evictions are quick, easy, and decisive.
Speaking for the Bay Area, this is totally, completely, and insanely wrong. I ended up letting a tenant who had not paid rent for two months stay for an additional three months for free and keep his entire security deposit because if my lawyer didn't come to an agreement with him before they got in front of the judge (this happened at the courthouse after repeated failed negotiations beforehand), he was going to request a trial by jury, which would have delayed anything happening for at least a couple of months. This was not someone who had a lawyer or financial resources, but it was pretty apparent he had done this before (and would do it again, since our agreement meant he did not end up with an eviction on his record).
> all they have to do is decide not to renew your lease
Again, just wrong. Rent control means you don't just get to not renew a lease.
Speaking for the Bay Area, this is totally, completely, and insanely wrong. I ended up letting a tenant who had not paid rent for two months stay for an additional three months for free and keep his entire security deposit because if my lawyer didn't come to an agreement with him before they got in front of the judge (this happened at the courthouse after repeated failed negotiations beforehand), he was going to request a trial by jury, which would have delayed anything happening for at least a couple of months. This was not someone who had a lawyer or financial resources, but it was pretty apparent he had done this before (and would do it again, since our agreement meant he did not end up with an eviction on his record).
> all they have to do is decide not to renew your lease
Again, just wrong. Rent control means you don't just get to not renew a lease.
I think you just got unlucky. Most tenants don’t know their rights in the Bay Area and there’s a lot of smarmy landlords here. I have had to deal with them almost regularly. I hate condos but they were the best to rent. All SFH landlords want to increase rent every year so they can go galavanting about the world. I hope rent control is here to stay, it’s the only way I can hope to save some money while inflation is so crippling.
Evictions are quick, easy, and decisive
While it varies from place to place, this is false.
There is no lawyer who will defend tenants against landlords
There are many such lawyers.
all they have to do is decide not to renew your lease
That's true generally. If the lease says "1 year" it does not imply "n years". You seem to think that is a problem--that a contract says what it means. In some very lefty places, to be sure, tenants will stop paying and squat, and landlords have a years-long nightmare.
...
As for the article, your typical good-credit, good-income tenants who have options might actually be able to use the service to save trouble. Your typical deadbeats have to take what they can get, bad reviews or otherwise. Another potential user would be professional scammers, who might be able to discern which of the "bad" landlords are just hard-asses who expect to be paid, and so could use the service to avoid them.
While it varies from place to place, this is false.
There is no lawyer who will defend tenants against landlords
There are many such lawyers.
all they have to do is decide not to renew your lease
That's true generally. If the lease says "1 year" it does not imply "n years". You seem to think that is a problem--that a contract says what it means. In some very lefty places, to be sure, tenants will stop paying and squat, and landlords have a years-long nightmare.
...
As for the article, your typical good-credit, good-income tenants who have options might actually be able to use the service to save trouble. Your typical deadbeats have to take what they can get, bad reviews or otherwise. Another potential user would be professional scammers, who might be able to discern which of the "bad" landlords are just hard-asses who expect to be paid, and so could use the service to avoid them.
There's a missing middle problem. The actual, real BAD deadbeat tenants know the law and every corner of it (you can find horror stories if you dig in landlord areas; the final usual sure emergency release is the landlord selling the property outright, but that can be hard if the property has been trashed). The actual, real BAD deadbeat landlords know the law and every corner of it, too.
And rich, really good tenants don't know the law and never need to; they pay enough that problems never occur, or if they do they throw money at it or just move away.
It's the missing middle where you have working-class to upper middle-class tenants who don't know the law and how to enforce it, and the same on the side of the landlords.
And rich, really good tenants don't know the law and never need to; they pay enough that problems never occur, or if they do they throw money at it or just move away.
It's the missing middle where you have working-class to upper middle-class tenants who don't know the law and how to enforce it, and the same on the side of the landlords.
Interesting in your option is it just a lack of information?
It is frightening, how little tenants are protected from being kicked out by the landlord in the US. Are there major differences between the states?
In contrast to that, I believe tenants are too well protected in Europe, or at least Germany, from sitting out in the cold. For example, if a tenant has not paid rent in months (and is not planning on doing so) it still is legally difficult to put them on the street. I think the term for that is squatter?! Friend of mine had damage on his property exceeding €10k until he could regain control over his apartment/flat.
In contrast to that, I believe tenants are too well protected in Europe, or at least Germany, from sitting out in the cold. For example, if a tenant has not paid rent in months (and is not planning on doing so) it still is legally difficult to put them on the street. I think the term for that is squatter?! Friend of mine had damage on his property exceeding €10k until he could regain control over his apartment/flat.
> I think the term for that is squatter?!
Squatting falls under the principle that when a building is unused (a broad term) for a long period of time (e.g. a year), it may be squatted because there is a housing shortage and the country is owned by the civilians. And eviction is generally not straightforward because having a roof above your head is a basic right. I would say its the USA which is backwards here. I mean, WTF. If you decide your tennant has to go, they just have to deal with your decision, make their next weeks of their life revolve around your decision, no matter what? What if they are ill? Need help from others? Cannot relocate easily? Need to find a different job as a result? A one month notice is very, very short.
Btw, squatting isn't even legal anymore in The Netherlands.
Squatting falls under the principle that when a building is unused (a broad term) for a long period of time (e.g. a year), it may be squatted because there is a housing shortage and the country is owned by the civilians. And eviction is generally not straightforward because having a roof above your head is a basic right. I would say its the USA which is backwards here. I mean, WTF. If you decide your tennant has to go, they just have to deal with your decision, make their next weeks of their life revolve around your decision, no matter what? What if they are ill? Need help from others? Cannot relocate easily? Need to find a different job as a result? A one month notice is very, very short.
Btw, squatting isn't even legal anymore in The Netherlands.
In Europe its with the idea that even if a tenant is put on the street it will cost money. Plus it will usually create bigger problems than what ever months of rent are missed.
It’s similar to the fact that giving homeless people a place to live for free is cheaper than continually kicking them on the streets
It’s similar to the fact that giving homeless people a place to live for free is cheaper than continually kicking them on the streets
I can’t speak for other states but there are a number of protections in New Jersey where you cannot easily be kicked out as a tenant with out going to court including things like non payment. This was before Covid added further protections which some have been rolled back.
The tenant is absolutely powerless and defenseless in any dispute.
This is meaningless hyperbole. There always at least some opportunity for legal defense, in all but banana-republic jurisdictions.
Evictions are quick, easy, and decisive.
This statement is definitely at odds with reality in every major city in the U.S. In certain cities the process is in fact famously difficult, and (in the very best cases for the landlord) can take several months at least.
There is no lawyer who will defend tenants against landlords because there's no money in that.
As is this statement. Seriously, what kind of nonsense are you trying to push here?
Every major city has some form of a tenant legal aid society. They may not be able to take on every case, but they do exist.
This is meaningless hyperbole. There always at least some opportunity for legal defense, in all but banana-republic jurisdictions.
Evictions are quick, easy, and decisive.
This statement is definitely at odds with reality in every major city in the U.S. In certain cities the process is in fact famously difficult, and (in the very best cases for the landlord) can take several months at least.
There is no lawyer who will defend tenants against landlords because there's no money in that.
As is this statement. Seriously, what kind of nonsense are you trying to push here?
Every major city has some form of a tenant legal aid society. They may not be able to take on every case, but they do exist.
> There is no lawyer who will defend tenants against landlords because there's no money in that.
> nonsense ... Every major city has some form of a tenant legal aid society.
As far as legal representation goes, it is dominated by landlords in NYC.
While you _can_ get a lawyer as a tenant, the housing court is set up to favor tenants not having counsel in the name of access and fairness, and they try to run things in a way that makes this tenable by quickly ruling to e.g. have the tenant pay back rent over time, or order the landlord to fix whatever etc.
If as a tenant, you do get counsel, everything changes and then the landlord holds all the cards through usual legal shenanigans like not showing up, dragging things out, having huge firms on retainer. Plus the judges decide you're not worth helping anymore since "you can afford a lawyer".
This also makes it that the vast majority of lawyers are on the landlord side as their really is "no money in it" to defend tenants and there's also no public-defender system. A legal-aid society is a band-aid at best. Even if you do pay you're getting the bottom of the barrel of lawyers who can't get any other work are the ones who represent tenants.
> nonsense ... Every major city has some form of a tenant legal aid society.
As far as legal representation goes, it is dominated by landlords in NYC.
While you _can_ get a lawyer as a tenant, the housing court is set up to favor tenants not having counsel in the name of access and fairness, and they try to run things in a way that makes this tenable by quickly ruling to e.g. have the tenant pay back rent over time, or order the landlord to fix whatever etc.
If as a tenant, you do get counsel, everything changes and then the landlord holds all the cards through usual legal shenanigans like not showing up, dragging things out, having huge firms on retainer. Plus the judges decide you're not worth helping anymore since "you can afford a lawyer".
This also makes it that the vast majority of lawyers are on the landlord side as their really is "no money in it" to defend tenants and there's also no public-defender system. A legal-aid society is a band-aid at best. Even if you do pay you're getting the bottom of the barrel of lawyers who can't get any other work are the ones who represent tenants.
The barrel of lawyers who can't get any other work are the ones who represent tenants.
That's what the landlord-dominated system would have you believe.
Those who work on the tenant side (that I've known) are some of the most capable and principled professionals you'll ever meet. It's the ones who work the eviction machine who are the bottom feeders - and are viewed as such by other lawyers, accordingly.
That's what the landlord-dominated system would have you believe.
Those who work on the tenant side (that I've known) are some of the most capable and principled professionals you'll ever meet. It's the ones who work the eviction machine who are the bottom feeders - and are viewed as such by other lawyers, accordingly.
I'm actually speaking from experience. I'm certainly glad to hear there are capable lawyers for tenants, but when I needed one, nobody would take my case until I found my own "bottom feeder".
Eventually I did retain a better lawyer (who usually represents landlords) and I can certainly agree that the firm representing the large landlord were hacks. However they had endless time to delay, not show up etc. For certain ends, "incompetent" lawyering works well as it racks up legal fees for the more competent party and can wear you down to a minimal settlement.
Eventually I did retain a better lawyer (who usually represents landlords) and I can certainly agree that the firm representing the large landlord were hacks. However they had endless time to delay, not show up etc. For certain ends, "incompetent" lawyering works well as it racks up legal fees for the more competent party and can wear you down to a minimal settlement.
Where did you leave these reviews
I don’t think this will work, for the many reasons other comments have laid out, but I hope something can be done.
The power imbalance between landlords and tenants is outrageous. Tenant legal rights are rarely respected. Agencies basically ignore the needs of tenants. I cannot think of another product category where the buyer is treated so poorly - and for a service costing 1000s of dollars!
Clearly the current incentive structures are not working.
The power imbalance between landlords and tenants is outrageous. Tenant legal rights are rarely respected. Agencies basically ignore the needs of tenants. I cannot think of another product category where the buyer is treated so poorly - and for a service costing 1000s of dollars!
Clearly the current incentive structures are not working.
> I cannot think of another product category where the buyer is treated so poorly - and for a service costing 1000s of dollars!
If we’re talking about the US, health insurance and time shares must be worse, no?
If we’re talking about the US, health insurance and time shares must be worse, no?
I think this varies dramatically state to state. Perversely my experience has been that strong tenants’ rights are highly correlated with high hurdles to renting
How so? Also, which states have strong tenant's rights?
For example it can be a long drawn out process to evict someone in NYC for non payment of rent, and super easy in TX. Which means landlords in Texas run a credit check and take first and last months deposit and you’re in business because if you don’t pay, you’re gone shortly thereafter. In NYC you need to provide bank accounts, tax returns, have co-signers etc. because if you end up not paying it could be a long drawn out struggle to get you out and they don’t want to take that risk. Which leads to my comment that perversely the bar to renting becomes higher where there are more tenants rights
it's kind of a trade off. i've definitely found it to be a pain in the ass to rent in places with strong tenant's rights.
On the other hand, I've also lived in a town with very weak tenant's rights. When the heater broke one winter, the landlord's solution was to give me 6-8 space heaters and tell me to leave them on 24/7. Since these technically kept the temperature above 68 degrees, he had no legal obligation to do anything more.
On the other hand, I've also lived in a town with very weak tenant's rights. When the heater broke one winter, the landlord's solution was to give me 6-8 space heaters and tell me to leave them on 24/7. Since these technically kept the temperature above 68 degrees, he had no legal obligation to do anything more.
If we have to choose between high barriers to renting and tenants rights then something is fundamentally broken.
Anything that increase the hassle/cost of dealing with an actual bad actor will raise the barriers to entry.
If a company can fire someone they just hired for basically no reason at all via a layoff, they'll be much more willing to expand quickly and be less thorough in screening applicants.
If once they hire someone, they cannot fire them for 40 years without an actual honest-to-goodness crime prosecuted; they'll be more cautious about hiring.
If a company can fire someone they just hired for basically no reason at all via a layoff, they'll be much more willing to expand quickly and be less thorough in screening applicants.
If once they hire someone, they cannot fire them for 40 years without an actual honest-to-goodness crime prosecuted; they'll be more cautious about hiring.
There are genuinely bad tenants. There are genuinely bad landlords. The system does a poor job of filtering the two. If the system worked well, good participants from either group would have little to fear from doing business with a bad actor on the other side. The system we have-and that you described well-forces a policy choice between favoring landlords (including the bad ones) or favoring tenants (including the bad ones). It is not a fair and free market.
Seems trivial for landlords to filter with credit and reference checks no?
[deleted]
Send people a postcard to verify their address. If they lived there recently, they probably set up forwarding - so USPS would forward the postcard to their new address, and they could still verify themselves as being a tenant during the past 12 months.
I agree with the concept and we definitely need this. The issue, generally speaking, is that there isn't much of a business model.
I agree with the concept and we definitely need this. The issue, generally speaking, is that there isn't much of a business model.
Why does there need to be a business model? Can't people contribute to society for its own sake? Comments like this are implicitly hostile to that idea, and that is "The Issue" with our society, generally speaking.
Aside from server costs and dev costs (which do have to be paid by someone), a postcard-based authentication method means the platform would be spending about $0.48 per review. That has to be paid for somehow.
Thats ok, the reviewer can pay.
I’d happily pay 48c to warn people about a particular past landlord.
Make it an even $1 and that pays for probably all the costs of that program assuming they don't want to turn it into a big business. It probably won't need full time dev work.
Then put up a donation button. We're not talking about millions here
How is that figure calculated?
https://www.usps.com/business/prices.htm
Not OP, but 0.48 is the price to mail a postcard.
Not OP, but 0.48 is the price to mail a postcard.
Probably the cost of a postage stamp
It's not the issue with society that things cost money.
Things just cost money: Be it electricity, housing, food, hosting, opportunity cost, whatever.
If you want something to be sustainable there needs to be a plan for covering the costs involved.
Life is not a fairy tale.
Things just cost money: Be it electricity, housing, food, hosting, opportunity cost, whatever.
If you want something to be sustainable there needs to be a plan for covering the costs involved.
Life is not a fairy tale.
You're not wrong (but I dispute the fairy tale characterization you attributed to my comment).
Everyone's life priorities and capabilities are different. Occasionally over the years I have had enough disposable income and free time to work on a passion project. Since the latest inflation wave that has gone away sadly, but before that I was able to commit a few hundred a month.
Eventually, one did get a large amount of traffic, and a handful of volunteers forming a team. While it wasn't something I could monetize, it did contribute to successful job interviews, and a temp gig working for someone who was a user of the project and gave me priority over other candidates due to seen first-hand that I was fixing things when they needed to be fixed.
Keeping the costs low can be done, some are better than others at it. Low-cost IT infrastructure still exists, even in this economy. You should go into such a project expecting to not outgrow your cheap infrastructure unless you are in fact turning it into a business. Otherwise it is wasted effort (and money).
Everyone's life priorities and capabilities are different. Occasionally over the years I have had enough disposable income and free time to work on a passion project. Since the latest inflation wave that has gone away sadly, but before that I was able to commit a few hundred a month.
Eventually, one did get a large amount of traffic, and a handful of volunteers forming a team. While it wasn't something I could monetize, it did contribute to successful job interviews, and a temp gig working for someone who was a user of the project and gave me priority over other candidates due to seen first-hand that I was fixing things when they needed to be fixed.
Keeping the costs low can be done, some are better than others at it. Low-cost IT infrastructure still exists, even in this economy. You should go into such a project expecting to not outgrow your cheap infrastructure unless you are in fact turning it into a business. Otherwise it is wasted effort (and money).
I'm with you that it's possible for some, just like the money drain "Blue Origin" is possible for JB.
But hardly everyone can afford to lose money like that.
Besides, it's not really possible to keep the costs low if you take into account the opportunity costs involved. Therefore it's not rational to expect that from others however I agree that it would be nice if those who can would just do.
But hardly everyone can afford to lose money like that.
Besides, it's not really possible to keep the costs low if you take into account the opportunity costs involved. Therefore it's not rational to expect that from others however I agree that it would be nice if those who can would just do.
It's a legal target, it costs money to run and nobody very much wants to pay for the service.
It would have to be run by a very dedicated volunteer with deep pockets.
It would have to be run by a very dedicated volunteer with deep pockets.
> I agree with the concept and we definitely need this. The issue, generally speaking, is that there isn't much of a business model.
This is similar to one of the anti-businesses I have long considered, except I would like to perform actual, invasive background checks on landlords. A couple others:
- A service for employees to drug-test their employers.
- A neighborhood watch app to report suspected police activity in your community.
This is similar to one of the anti-businesses I have long considered, except I would like to perform actual, invasive background checks on landlords. A couple others:
- A service for employees to drug-test their employers.
- A neighborhood watch app to report suspected police activity in your community.
> I would like to perform actual, invasive background checks on landlords.
Why would a landlord sign up for that though? A rating system or history is one thing, but what additional value would a tenant have in a landlord who passes these "invasive background checks"?
> - A service for employees to drug-test their employers.
What's the goal there? What are the incentives? Why would employers sign up to it and why would employees especially care? The system doesn't have your real or perceived injustices because there are a few evil fat-cat employers and landlords who just need to be shown the error of their ways and/or publicly shamed about their hypocrisy and driven off. It just happens as a consequence of the incentives involved.
> - A neighborhood watch app to report suspected police activity in your community.
What would be the goal? Every neighborhood group I've seen significantly features discussions about crimes and police activity. As far as I can see the most use people get out of them is being alerted to speed traps.
Why would a landlord sign up for that though? A rating system or history is one thing, but what additional value would a tenant have in a landlord who passes these "invasive background checks"?
> - A service for employees to drug-test their employers.
What's the goal there? What are the incentives? Why would employers sign up to it and why would employees especially care? The system doesn't have your real or perceived injustices because there are a few evil fat-cat employers and landlords who just need to be shown the error of their ways and/or publicly shamed about their hypocrisy and driven off. It just happens as a consequence of the incentives involved.
> - A neighborhood watch app to report suspected police activity in your community.
What would be the goal? Every neighborhood group I've seen significantly features discussions about crimes and police activity. As far as I can see the most use people get out of them is being alerted to speed traps.
>what additional value would a tenant have in a landlord who passes these "invasive background checks"?
the question is more what disincentive would a prospective tenant have leading them to not sign up with a landlord who fails the background check. I also can't imagine there would be a system where the landlord is required to sign up.
the question is more what disincentive would a prospective tenant have leading them to not sign up with a landlord who fails the background check. I also can't imagine there would be a system where the landlord is required to sign up.
The goal is to satisfy someone's anti-authority fetish.
How is an employer or landlord an "authority"? Having the same standards for employers and landlords as they have for employees and tenants sounds like a great idea. We'd get rid of many hostile anti-employee and tenant practices quickly.
Employers and landlords are authorities in that they legally have rights to something a person needs: housing and income/healthcare. A landlord or employer can choose to withhold those things(maybe with some extra steps like an eviction, or a layoff, but still).
In good jurisdictions they can't legally withhold those things as evictions and layoffs are strictly regulated.
I don't know, people can have a genuine desire to improve things. I wasn't trying to call that out, just wondering what they expected might come of these ideas.
I am surprised that there isn't a market for more invasive checks on a lot of things, from potential dates (especially from women) to landlords to employees in sensitive positions.
I wouldn't trust anything that background checks potential dates.
I've met folks that decide their exes are "theirs" - my sister's ex harassed her and her now husband for some years, for example. (He's still not an upstanding person, just has less harassment. They have a child together, so no getting away).
Some folks are abusive. There is no real catch for that. Some of the abusers won't do it until living together or married: Understandably, not all victims want to talk to random services about their experience. And worse yet, the date in question might not have that many exes, so they are going to know it is you.
Similar things can happen with mental illness: It might have made the relationship rocky and contributed to the end, but you also might have enough compassion to not really want to talk about this. After all, perhaps they'd do better without the baggage of your past relationship and might have found a combination of medicines/care that works for them. (I have this: I hate my ex, but I don't actually wish them suffering)
We end up with vague information on-par with a 5-point system, one that folks aren't willing to answer in some circumstances.
I've met folks that decide their exes are "theirs" - my sister's ex harassed her and her now husband for some years, for example. (He's still not an upstanding person, just has less harassment. They have a child together, so no getting away).
Some folks are abusive. There is no real catch for that. Some of the abusers won't do it until living together or married: Understandably, not all victims want to talk to random services about their experience. And worse yet, the date in question might not have that many exes, so they are going to know it is you.
Similar things can happen with mental illness: It might have made the relationship rocky and contributed to the end, but you also might have enough compassion to not really want to talk about this. After all, perhaps they'd do better without the baggage of your past relationship and might have found a combination of medicines/care that works for them. (I have this: I hate my ex, but I don't actually wish them suffering)
We end up with vague information on-par with a 5-point system, one that folks aren't willing to answer in some circumstances.
I was thinking more credit and fingerprint criminal checks, less so reviews.
A Social Credit System?
The whole reason that employers can make you drug test or landlord can make you submit to background checks etc is that there is a power imbalance. The idea of make them do the annoying thing is great, but without the power imbalance in your favor how do you force that?
I think a business model that mirrors a brokerage could work.
Brokers are essentially a pure middleman with very little added value outside of connecting the owner with the tenant, so the audience here is definitely worth something.
Brokers are essentially a pure middleman with very little added value outside of connecting the owner with the tenant, so the audience here is definitely worth something.
It's hilarious that people think this is absurd and not the extremely generous compromise that it actually is. In history the penalty for being a landlord was often a sharp blade or hot lead.
As it was the penalty for being a bad tenant. Probability more often than being a bad landlord.
Hah! I had this idea in the car the other day ("like ratemyprofessor, but for landlords") -- the big issue I got hung up on is authenticity. How does this tool ensure that reviewers are actually tenants, and not landlords trying to boost their rating?
I worked for a while at a company that everyone hated, and there was an ongoing war on Glassdoor between the narcissistic CEO and the employees. Every new employee (and there were a lot of those because turnover was high) left negative reviews, and periodically the CEO would get on with a bunch of sockpuppet accounts and leave positive reviews. It was a small enough company that we knew they couldn't be real (they claimed roles that were all accounted for, and they'd all show up over a day or two with the same writing style), but Glassdoor has basically no verification and never responded to our reports. The only action their moderators ever took was to remove our reviews if we tried to call out the inauthentic ones.
This could be a cool domain for LinkedIn to move into —— allow reviews only from people who publicly list the company in their profile
> How does this tool ensure that reviewers are actually tenants, and not landlords trying to boost their rating?
I have only ever felt the need to tell other people about my landlord when they were really terrible. I had a landlord that I liked once, but “getting to hang out with a cool dog sometimes” wouldn’t have compelled me to seek out and contribute to a review website.
I would simply treat anything on the site that’s even slightly more effusive than “I have had little to no reason to interact with my landlord” as patent garbage.
I have only ever felt the need to tell other people about my landlord when they were really terrible. I had a landlord that I liked once, but “getting to hang out with a cool dog sometimes” wouldn’t have compelled me to seek out and contribute to a review website.
I would simply treat anything on the site that’s even slightly more effusive than “I have had little to no reason to interact with my landlord” as patent garbage.
This is how I pretty much treat all reviews these days. There is relatively little incentive to lie in a negative review (a competitor could try to trash on you, but I've yet to see that become a big problem and it would be potentially actionable), but there are lots of reasons why someone would want to manufacture positive reviews. So I typically just read through the negatives these days and see if there's a common theme.
Good points. These platforms, if they gain traction, get sullied quick and are anything but objective.
upload proof of address with your name on it when creating the account, like a bank statement or electricity bill.
The only way for the landlord to cheat it is to set up fake accounts with companies and get statements sent to them. Probably possible but a lot of work for 1 review
The only way for the landlord to cheat it is to set up fake accounts with companies and get statements sent to them. Probably possible but a lot of work for 1 review
And how would the service verify the statements? Why would it take a fake account? It's not that hard to get a sample statement and modify it to seem real. If you could get confirmation from a bank or utility that might be enough to prevent forgeries, but what incentive would there be for them and why would they want to share private information?
These days those are mostly electronic, it's not hard to edit the text in a PDF to make it show a different address. Not something an average person can easily do, but trivial for a motivated attacker to pull off with a bit of money or the right friends.
Also, if it has your name on it then it's no longer anonymous.
Also, if it has your name on it then it's no longer anonymous.
Photoshop seems like a straightforward way around this method of verification. It works for the DMV here in the States, but perhaps only because lying in that context carries legal penalties.
[deleted]
Any landlord will have utilities in his name at some point or another.
NextDoor mails a card with a confirmation code to your address
Weird they didn’t do it for me
They have other options too https://help.nextdoor.com/s/article/How-to-verify-your-addre...
How about this scheme: a service that provides a hash of your {SSN, DOB, domain of a web site}, which allows anyone to cryptographically check that the domain is part of the hash, but not SSN or DOB, and which is required to create an account. This guarantees that any physical person can create one and only one account on that web site and also preserves anonymity.
Needs a critical mass of tenants. Any landlord with a significant portion of low ratings would be assumed that the positive ratings are fake.
Require the reviews to be videos of someone speaking, and require that they turn their head sideways several times during the video.
Maybe the verification process is not perfect, but there is very little you can do if you have a bad landlord. In fact, you are at their complete mercy because you need them to give a good reference to your next landlord.
Great job to whoever made this. I encourage you to keep going at it and improving it until it becomes an indispensable consumer tool. Can't wait for the time where landlords have to explain themselves.
Great job to whoever made this. I encourage you to keep going at it and improving it until it becomes an indispensable consumer tool. Can't wait for the time where landlords have to explain themselves.
The only barrier to defamation is an hCaptcha. Not a good idea.
> What do I do if I receive a dishonest review?
> Landlords who believe they have received a dishonest review can report the review and include their email in the report form. We will contact you directly to address the issue.
Good luck addressing issues you can’t verify.
> What do I do if I receive a dishonest review?
> Landlords who believe they have received a dishonest review can report the review and include their email in the report form. We will contact you directly to address the issue.
Good luck addressing issues you can’t verify.
It's the Yelp model. Landlords will pay to get negative reviews taken off if they think it's affecting their business... you know, when a time comes where there'll be plentiful rental property to choose from /s
After hearing decades of rent vs buy financial debates and arguments about equity, interest, etc, the strongest factor in my decision to buy has surprisingly turned out to be “90% of the landlord’s I’ve had have been either bad or terrible and I can’t deal with it anymore”.
It's amazing, every other professional we hire we'd be absolutely flabbergasted if someone suggested we use someone who did it once a month, on the side, and wasn't trained or certified or anything.
But that's exactly what most landlords are, unless you're renting an apartment from a massive company.
But that's exactly what most landlords are, unless you're renting an apartment from a massive company.
I don't know if I've just been lucky, but to add anec-data, I've rented from 5 different landlords in 2 different states, and I've never had a real negative experience. When I have an issue, it's resolved relatively quickly, noise mostly isn't a problem, and I can easily move to a new location with fairly limited hassle. Rent has perhaps increased more than I'd like at times, but no more than the market price would indicate it should.
I think their heart is in the right place, but this is also not the right way to handle this. Do what I do instead. When you have a dispute with your landlord and they're failing to either follow the law or the contract, sue them. This is what lawsuits are for. In most cases, you can file yourself and represent yourself in small claims court. I've won, every single time, and I've sued nearly every landlord I've had in my life, because unfortunately most landlords are scumbags that will absolutely try to illegally steal from you or otherwise cause you harm.
There's no point in me "reviewing them" on some random site which someone may or may not see and which has no legal authority. Now there is a permanent court record, publicly searchable by anyone online, showing that they were sued by a tenant and lost because they had done something illegal. I highly highly recommend people to sue their landlords when they do illegal and damaging things. It's not just your right, it's the right thing to do.
There's no point in me "reviewing them" on some random site which someone may or may not see and which has no legal authority. Now there is a permanent court record, publicly searchable by anyone online, showing that they were sued by a tenant and lost because they had done something illegal. I highly highly recommend people to sue their landlords when they do illegal and damaging things. It's not just your right, it's the right thing to do.
Lawsuits cost money, and in most cases there tends to be a large wealth disparity between landlord and tenant. Landlords know this, not just in general but also in particular since they've seen your finances (proof of income etc.) before letting you move in. So when the time comes to consider whether to try to screw you over, the choice tends to be rather easy.
In most US jurisdictions small claims court requires self-representation, so your landlord can’t out spend you on lawyers to win.
I thought what you said too before I filed the first time. It cost me $50 to file and I was able to do it by mail. It took forever to get the case heard because the landlord was a huge d-bag who intentionally dodged service for nearly two years, but I got my day in court and it took less than 20 minutes in front of a judge to be awarded my deposit back + interest + a penalty on the landlord. I showed up to court over my lunch break and was back to work before anyone knew I had left. No lawyers, just a single file folder of evidence, a $50 check, and one printed and mailed form to file.
It can sometimes be challenging to get paid, but many times it’s a manager acting improperly on behalf of a national corporate landlord and they will cut you a check immediately, they get sued so often it’s an expected business expense (says something about how scummy landlords are).
I thought what you said too before I filed the first time. It cost me $50 to file and I was able to do it by mail. It took forever to get the case heard because the landlord was a huge d-bag who intentionally dodged service for nearly two years, but I got my day in court and it took less than 20 minutes in front of a judge to be awarded my deposit back + interest + a penalty on the landlord. I showed up to court over my lunch break and was back to work before anyone knew I had left. No lawyers, just a single file folder of evidence, a $50 check, and one printed and mailed form to file.
It can sometimes be challenging to get paid, but many times it’s a manager acting improperly on behalf of a national corporate landlord and they will cut you a check immediately, they get sued so often it’s an expected business expense (says something about how scummy landlords are).
> In most US jurisdictions small claims court requires self-representation, so your landlord can’t out spend you on lawyers to win.
They can’t bring one in to the court, they absolutely can spend on lawyers to prepare though. Depending on circumstances, they may also be able to countersue with a claim that exceeds the small claims limit, which will transfer the whole controversy out of small-claims court.
They can’t bring one in to the court, they absolutely can spend on lawyers to prepare though. Depending on circumstances, they may also be able to countersue with a claim that exceeds the small claims limit, which will transfer the whole controversy out of small-claims court.
>> In most US jurisdictions small claims court requires self-representation, so your landlord can’t out spend you on lawyers to win.
Well, if most tenants don't know their rights, then they definitely will not know this either. :)
Well, if most tenants don't know their rights, then they definitely will not know this either. :)
I sued my land lord recently and it was an absolutely awful experience that took years and cost thousands of dollars. We won but havent been able to recover the money yet because our old land lord is a slippery scumbag. Now we need to put a lien on his property, which is a huge pain in the ass.
It almost wasn't worth it tbh. Posting a bad review is much easier and accessable
It almost wasn't worth it tbh. Posting a bad review is much easier and accessable
My experience is that just giving them written indication that you are aware of your rights, and (with specificity) that their actions are illegal, will often get them to back to off of whatever illegal thing they were doing and often even overcorrect.
Also cheaper, both in upfront cost and time, than suing (even in small claims court), and leaves suit open if you need it.
But step one in either case is knowing (or at least knowing how to research effectively when an issue comes up) what your rights are.
Also cheaper, both in upfront cost and time, than suing (even in small claims court), and leaves suit open if you need it.
But step one in either case is knowing (or at least knowing how to research effectively when an issue comes up) what your rights are.
Can you talk about what that process was like
It depends on jurisdiction, but in most of the US small claims court is at the county level, this was the way it worked the first time I sued a landlord. You go on the website of the county courthouse and get a fillable PDF for the small claims court process, which contains instructions. Generally, you fill out your information (plaintiff), their information (defendant), and then a statement of allegations or affidavit, which you sign. It's just a statement in your own words of why you're suing plus the dollar amount of damages, which can't be higher than the cap for small claims in your jurisdiction (it's usually like $5k).
After that, you send this with a check in the mail to the court clerk to file, or you can take it in person to the courthouse and hand it over with a check to the clerk. The fee varies by jurisdiction, but is pretty much always less than $100. It was $50 as I mentioned the first time I sued in small claims. After you've filed, the court will serve the defendant and set a court date, this is usually done via certified mail. Depending on jurisdiction, if they don't show you get a default judgement in your favor, or you may be required to pay for personal service, which is $25-$30 for a sheriff's deputy to go to their home or place of business and personally serve them court papers. At any rate, once it's decided you can use that judgement and place a lien against their business, including accounts, properties, etc. if they do not pay you in full within 90 days of the judgement being entered by the court. Once a judgement is entered it's part of the permanent public record, which is a big reason I recommend this. There's no way for them to get this removed unlike a website review.
That's basically the process. It may differ slightly by jurisdiction, but it's relatively easy and painless. The main issue is just that you also must personally be in court on the court date, so if you move out of state you have to be willing to travel back and you usually cannot get your travel expenses covered in a small claims case, so it may not be "worth it" financially for you. For me, it's always worth it to stick it to scumbags, even if it costs me more than it gains in dollars.
After that, you send this with a check in the mail to the court clerk to file, or you can take it in person to the courthouse and hand it over with a check to the clerk. The fee varies by jurisdiction, but is pretty much always less than $100. It was $50 as I mentioned the first time I sued in small claims. After you've filed, the court will serve the defendant and set a court date, this is usually done via certified mail. Depending on jurisdiction, if they don't show you get a default judgement in your favor, or you may be required to pay for personal service, which is $25-$30 for a sheriff's deputy to go to their home or place of business and personally serve them court papers. At any rate, once it's decided you can use that judgement and place a lien against their business, including accounts, properties, etc. if they do not pay you in full within 90 days of the judgement being entered by the court. Once a judgement is entered it's part of the permanent public record, which is a big reason I recommend this. There's no way for them to get this removed unlike a website review.
That's basically the process. It may differ slightly by jurisdiction, but it's relatively easy and painless. The main issue is just that you also must personally be in court on the court date, so if you move out of state you have to be willing to travel back and you usually cannot get your travel expenses covered in a small claims case, so it may not be "worth it" financially for you. For me, it's always worth it to stick it to scumbags, even if it costs me more than it gains in dollars.
Sites like these have been popping up everywhere through the years. Why not simply use Yelp or Google? What are the moderation and verification challenges? What about legal/defamation issues? How would one trust each review?
Yelp and Google are not reliable--no review website I've seen really is. For instance, Makras Real Estate in San Francisco is a horrible property management company (i.e. slumlord) where the owner was even concvicted of crimes: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/jury-convicts-san-franc... but only after the news of this became public did the ratings on those site show Makras Real Estate as anything less than a 4/5 star company and most of the one sentence reviews were from accounts with generic profile pictures and only a handful of other reviews--they were clearly faked. I reported it multiple times and nothing ever happened. Facebook even responded saying the accounts looked legit and still shows Makras as having 4.9/5.0--what a joke!
Why would an alternative rating site be more trustworthy?
I don't think any of them would be unless they verified an ID to make sure each account was actually unique--but currently none of them have any incentives to limit their user count. Users = growth! So they just turn a blind eye to it.
For me, I don't think any review/reference site is really much use.
The problems are:
* Is the review accurate
* Is the reviewer someone who has similar standards as I
* Is the review looking at aspects I rate
* Does the reviewer have a bias (good/bad)
* Was the review based on a representative sample
It's the same for job references, service reviews, product reviews. It's almost random.
The problems are:
* Is the review accurate
* Is the reviewer someone who has similar standards as I
* Is the review looking at aspects I rate
* Does the reviewer have a bias (good/bad)
* Was the review based on a representative sample
It's the same for job references, service reviews, product reviews. It's almost random.
You're right, there are quite a few similar platforms out there. However, a website specifically dedicated to reviewing landlords could offer more targeted and relevant information for tenants than more general sites like Yelp or Google. Besides, a little competition never hurt anyone, right?
As for moderation and verification, these are indeed important challenges. But with the right combination of community-driven moderation and automated systems, it's possible to create a trustworthy environment. Legal and defamation issues can be addressed through clear guidelines and by fostering a culture of constructive criticism.
Of course, blindly trusting every review isn't recommended. The key is to use these platforms as a tool, not the ultimate authority. By looking for patterns and corroborating information, tenants can make more informed decisions. It's about empowering people with information, not providing a definitive verdict.
As for moderation and verification, these are indeed important challenges. But with the right combination of community-driven moderation and automated systems, it's possible to create a trustworthy environment. Legal and defamation issues can be addressed through clear guidelines and by fostering a culture of constructive criticism.
Of course, blindly trusting every review isn't recommended. The key is to use these platforms as a tool, not the ultimate authority. By looking for patterns and corroborating information, tenants can make more informed decisions. It's about empowering people with information, not providing a definitive verdict.
> Why not simply use Yelp or Google?
My landlord isn't a company or a management agency, but the guy who owns the house I live in. Google and Yelp probably aren't great venues for reviewing him, except in the "infamy" sense.
My landlord isn't a company or a management agency, but the guy who owns the house I live in. Google and Yelp probably aren't great venues for reviewing him, except in the "infamy" sense.
What about legal/defamation issues?
In the U.S., Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects the operator of the website.
In the U.S., Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects the operator of the website.
This is no substitute for laws that protect tenants, and an authority that actually enforces these laws.
Indeed the very existence of such a site indicates how badly the system is failing tenants. If landlords were held to account via conventional means, there would be no need for third-party rating websites at all.
Indeed the very existence of such a site indicates how badly the system is failing tenants. If landlords were held to account via conventional means, there would be no need for third-party rating websites at all.
Certainly not a substitute, but come on, no need at all? We have food handling safety laws and restaurant inspectors, so there’s no need to review restaurants?
Landlords should be required to publish what capital they’re putting into a property, including interest. This data point alone would make it clear how good of a landlord you have.
There are two tough spots for landlords. There are some truly awful tenants out there. You can’t effectively screen them out.
The other hard place is lenders. Lenders soak up the margin. Unless the landlord rents out free and clear property he’s always behind, and it’s hard to maintain “his” property to provide a real service to tenants when he's collecting for the bank.
There are two tough spots for landlords. There are some truly awful tenants out there. You can’t effectively screen them out.
The other hard place is lenders. Lenders soak up the margin. Unless the landlord rents out free and clear property he’s always behind, and it’s hard to maintain “his” property to provide a real service to tenants when he's collecting for the bank.
On the contrary, lenders have been the landlords best friend. Until recently, you could borrow money at 1-1.5%, buy a property and rent it for 5%+ return, banking the difference.
This was basically free money and the optimal thing to do was to borrow as much as you can for as long as you can.
You could put a small deposit down, and by the time you add the margin on the borrowed piece then you were yielding 10-20% on your cash in. Much better than just the 5% on unemcumbered property.
This model has completely collapsed as interest rates of normalised.
This was basically free money and the optimal thing to do was to borrow as much as you can for as long as you can.
You could put a small deposit down, and by the time you add the margin on the borrowed piece then you were yielding 10-20% on your cash in. Much better than just the 5% on unemcumbered property.
This model has completely collapsed as interest rates of normalised.
> Until recently, you could borrow money at 1-1.5%
Please share more details. Because even during the pandemic, when rates were at their minimum, the lowest conventional 30 year mortgage rate that I saw was over 2.7%.
Please share more details. Because even during the pandemic, when rates were at their minimum, the lowest conventional 30 year mortgage rate that I saw was over 2.7%.
I was referring to the UK, where we tend to have 2-5 year fixes. Rates were less than 2% for a long time.
I can’t see how that statistic is remotely useful given the varying condition, age, type, etc of the housing stock
This is great. I've had unfortunate issues with landlords before and wished this existed. When your landlord is a real estate company (say, in a building complex), it's usually smoother because they have a reputation to manage (and Google reviews!). But when you're dealing with sole proprietors, you're dealing with that person as a human and all of their potential character traits. Good or bad. Some landlords do not understand that they are providing a professional service to a customer (the tenant). They can sometimes be super approachable, but lack proper boundaries, not give enough space or completely fail to deliver.
In a previous house, some things needed attention and it took the landlords forever to fix it. Same thing to give the deposit back. And they kept giving us excuses like "We're new parents. We have a baby." And even got mad at me when I requested the deposit after 3 weeks. I had plenty of compassion for them being new parents, (since we also have a young baby), but if I pay you for something, you need to treat it as a business and act professionally. Your personal problems have no place in the business...
In a previous house, some things needed attention and it took the landlords forever to fix it. Same thing to give the deposit back. And they kept giving us excuses like "We're new parents. We have a baby." And even got mad at me when I requested the deposit after 3 weeks. I had plenty of compassion for them being new parents, (since we also have a young baby), but if I pay you for something, you need to treat it as a business and act professionally. Your personal problems have no place in the business...
The vast, vast majority of single family landlords do NOT treat it as a business and don't even properly account for everything; they're being held up by appreciation and if that stops the whole market around that will collapse.
Once you actually treat it like a business, you realize "wow this is why real estate companies don't manage single family homes as rentals" - and if you hire one to manage your property and do the math you're realize you're losing money before appreciation unless you have a small or no loan; and if that's the case you should just sell and buy into an REIT anyway.
Once you actually treat it like a business, you realize "wow this is why real estate companies don't manage single family homes as rentals" - and if you hire one to manage your property and do the math you're realize you're losing money before appreciation unless you have a small or no loan; and if that's the case you should just sell and buy into an REIT anyway.
I'm not sure I follow you. Most of the houses I've rented were fully paid off so my rent (- minor expenses) was net profit for the landlord. Sometimes it was their sole income stream + retirement. But even if the house is still on a mortgage, and my rent is less than their monthly payment (say 80%), it still means they're buying their house at only 20% of its cost. 40 years later, they can resell and get all of that money back too, even if the house did not appreciate.
> if that stops the whole market around that will collapse.
What does that look like, and for how long?
What does that look like, and for how long?
This site (which currently wont connect) was created by some redditors. I understand the sentiment, and the reasoning but I predict it will fail as did previous attempts to create a very similar landlord rating site.
Why? Because unless there is rigid control over who is allowed to input and some verification of that input, there will be an influx of garbage comments that will make the site completely useless. Much like YELP reviews, you can read 'em but do you actually trust what they say? Is the submitter an actual tenant, the landlord, or the landlord's family and friends? Who knows?
Secondly, I think a single lawsuit may bring it down. There have been similar private sites for tenant information that landlords shared among themselves that have been shut down by the privacy commissioner. My understanding is that this site is going to try and anonymize certain data, but Im not sure how its going to hold useful data and anonymize it enough to make a landlord unidentifiable at the same time.
Yes, everyone has a bad landlord story. But every landlord has quite a few bad tenant stories. If this site flies, prepare for the same to be done for tenants.
Why? Because unless there is rigid control over who is allowed to input and some verification of that input, there will be an influx of garbage comments that will make the site completely useless. Much like YELP reviews, you can read 'em but do you actually trust what they say? Is the submitter an actual tenant, the landlord, or the landlord's family and friends? Who knows?
Secondly, I think a single lawsuit may bring it down. There have been similar private sites for tenant information that landlords shared among themselves that have been shut down by the privacy commissioner. My understanding is that this site is going to try and anonymize certain data, but Im not sure how its going to hold useful data and anonymize it enough to make a landlord unidentifiable at the same time.
Yes, everyone has a bad landlord story. But every landlord has quite a few bad tenant stories. If this site flies, prepare for the same to be done for tenants.
In NYC landlords go to great lengths to hide their identity and real estate brokers aid and abet them. It’s not uncommon to pay rent to an LLC that has only an attorney attached to it publicly, and often these entities are property-specific.
In my renting years I asked brokers who owned the building on numerous occasions and was told basically that’s private information. I knew this was bollocks but there’s not a lot most people can do.
In my renting years I asked brokers who owned the building on numerous occasions and was told basically that’s private information. I knew this was bollocks but there’s not a lot most people can do.
Australia needs this. Not that it’ll help because all power rests with property owners, but at the very least some owner reviews could help change the conversation.
This site has Australian ratings in it. Only problem is at the moment, the rental market is so tight, you really have no choice about your agent.
I think the extra heat might help over time. A possible path could be ratings -> media -> pressure. On the margin if people avoid your properties it’ll impact you first when there is a downturn. Agree nothing will come of it in the current state, but a lack of reviews definitely won’t help.
Probably useless because until say 50%+ of all the landlords in your area are rated, the chances are the place you want doesn't have a rating. Requiring a rating would hamper your research. What we need of course is better protection for tenants in general.
You might consider a better way than dropdown selection for zipcodes. heh
How about ratethetenant.com - I can imagine many property owners paying heavy $$$ for such rating.
Don't landlords more or less already have access to this via credit scores, background checks etc? I don't think there's a reasonable equivalent to this for tenants.
It's exactly what they have access to, though the landlord will usually be looking at credit to determine the tenant has a job and can pay, the background check is more useful to see if they have any tenant/landlord civil suits in their history.
Generally the more transparency there is on both sides, the better:
This way, the market can punish bad behaviors (abusive landlords / problematic tenants) and reward those who act properly.
This way, the market can punish bad behaviors (abusive landlords / problematic tenants) and reward those who act properly.
Yea, give more power to landlords. Brilliant
If you to this you're a horrible person, just like the people who made the app for landlords to collude on price hikes
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/17/1129489582/this-computer-soft...
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-evictions-monarch-in...
If you to this you're a horrible person, just like the people who made the app for landlords to collude on price hikes
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/17/1129489582/this-computer-soft...
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-evictions-monarch-in...
Solid NPR rundown.
Thanks.
Thanks.
After looking at this site for a bit, I have a hunch that it was created by landlords. The quotes were designed to push a false narrative. Humans don’t talk like that.
Would you explain what you mean by "a false narrative"?
I would have loved to have had something like this when I was living in New Zealand, which is notorious for slumlords and rentals which are literal health hazards. Every time someone has proposed something like this for New Zealand on the NZ subreddit there are questions around legality (although some of it might just be fear mongering). How does it work out in the US? Are you planning to take info for properties worldwide?
Two decades ago we moved to new Zealand and the apartment my mom had rented (sight unseen since we were moving from the us) was unlivable with bugs and garbage literring the house. Can confirm that new Zealand has this problem
Always visit before renting, to see it but also to hear it (in particular traffic noise level).
(Book a cheap hotel if you need for the first weeks. Make sure your belongings arrive by the slow route (e.g. by sea) and are re-routable when you know your definitive address.)
(Book a cheap hotel if you need for the first weeks. Make sure your belongings arrive by the slow route (e.g. by sea) and are re-routable when you know your definitive address.)
How are the NZ defamation laws?
I hear nearby Australia is pretty intense about it
I've heard that landlords in Bangalore, India demand the equivalent of 1 year's rent as deposit, your grad school scores, a write up about yourself, linkedin profile, caste, marriage status, scores of hidden charges, living rules that dictate food and dress rules and even specify curfew timings. There are also instances where some landlords have even demanded to see the mobile history of renters.
I think something like that could and should only work at the government/public/macro level.
One approach: when a tenant gets back their deposit via the deposit protection scheme they get asked to rate their landlord and provide further feedback (data provided is private to landlord and tenant).
This is then used to score landlords (similar to credit scores) - for example if they consistently get bad reviews from tenants who got back their full deposit (so "good" tenants) their reviews get reviewed by a person and they get barred from landlording or have to pay a penalty.
It is admittedly a very elaborate process that will induce a lot of overhead, but housing market is so broken in most of the world and will probably require radical intrusive policies to fix. Making landlording less appealing/ more work by punishing bad landlording is not a bad start.
One approach: when a tenant gets back their deposit via the deposit protection scheme they get asked to rate their landlord and provide further feedback (data provided is private to landlord and tenant).
This is then used to score landlords (similar to credit scores) - for example if they consistently get bad reviews from tenants who got back their full deposit (so "good" tenants) their reviews get reviewed by a person and they get barred from landlording or have to pay a penalty.
It is admittedly a very elaborate process that will induce a lot of overhead, but housing market is so broken in most of the world and will probably require radical intrusive policies to fix. Making landlording less appealing/ more work by punishing bad landlording is not a bad start.
Please open it to other countries as well, maybe all of them, it doesn't matter if it is English only for now.
I’m so glad I got out of the slumlord game, at a certain level and below if you don’t get college students you’re gonna have a bad time no matter what. Nothing is ever the fault of the tenant and as soon as you even mention their oft neglected lease obligations you’re an unreasonable monster.
I take it that the data currently in there for my city is 'demonstration' data. There is very low correspondence between the 'star rating' system (all 5s in every category for all landlords) and what the 'written review' is saying.
I've rented in many locales over a long time. How much power the landlords have is pretty much up to local statutes. Some cities make them give you a copy of the landlord-tenant laws. In some cities, for example, if they don't make timely repairs, they may be forced to pay for your move. If they 'visit' your place without 48 hours notice (except in emergency) they've broken the law.
Adding this tenant-impowering information to a site like this would make it much more valuable.
I've rented in many locales over a long time. How much power the landlords have is pretty much up to local statutes. Some cities make them give you a copy of the landlord-tenant laws. In some cities, for example, if they don't make timely repairs, they may be forced to pay for your move. If they 'visit' your place without 48 hours notice (except in emergency) they've broken the law.
Adding this tenant-impowering information to a site like this would make it much more valuable.
The ideal way a landlord review site would work is tenants like reviews of landlords.
But if the system is anonymous, what's to stop any of the following bad actor situations?
* Real tenants leave false negative reviews: people who really did have the landlord, but has some feud with the landlord unrelated to the rental, leave negative reviews.
* Fake tenants leave false negative reviews: same as above, except the people didn't actually live there, such as the landlord's competitors.
*Fake tenants leave false positive reviews: friends of the landlord, or the landlord's sockpuppet account, leave glowing reviews.
How can the site be trustworthy given that you don't know if you're reading a legitimate or fake review.
But if the system is anonymous, what's to stop any of the following bad actor situations?
* Real tenants leave false negative reviews: people who really did have the landlord, but has some feud with the landlord unrelated to the rental, leave negative reviews.
* Fake tenants leave false negative reviews: same as above, except the people didn't actually live there, such as the landlord's competitors.
*Fake tenants leave false positive reviews: friends of the landlord, or the landlord's sockpuppet account, leave glowing reviews.
How can the site be trustworthy given that you don't know if you're reading a legitimate or fake review.
Can anyone recommend a, “as a tenant, these are your rights in jurisdiction X”?
https://www.avail.co/education/laws might be a good starting point, but there may be local laws, too.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-landlord-tenan... https://ipropertymanagement.com/laws/landlord-tenant-rights
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-landlord-tenan... https://ipropertymanagement.com/laws/landlord-tenant-rights
Zero stars: landlord expected me to pay to live somewhere they did nothing to maintain or add any value to, but at the end I discovered I had not accrued a capital share in the property. Complete scam, avoid.
[deleted]
So there are ways to vet tenants (credit/background checks) and ways to vet landlords (sites like TFA). They are not ideal but they exist.
Now what is the best way to vet a property management firm?
For background, I own a townhome that I plan to move out of soon. I would like to keep it as a rental but do not want to manage it myself. All I've got for finding a property management firm are Google reviews (worried they are gamed) and colleagues recommendations (they will ignore the request and tell me to manage it myself).
Now what is the best way to vet a property management firm?
For background, I own a townhome that I plan to move out of soon. I would like to keep it as a rental but do not want to manage it myself. All I've got for finding a property management firm are Google reviews (worried they are gamed) and colleagues recommendations (they will ignore the request and tell me to manage it myself).
Find other small landlords in your area and get a word of mouth rec, or ask for references from current clients of the firm you are checking out
Back in 2012 I was on a startup weekend team that built the opposite. It was a site to help landlords vet tenants. It's remarkable the amount of damage a bad tenant can do.
We never actually launched it due to the possibility of it being misused in housing discrimination and our liability for hosting information that could contribute to that.
Truly there are a few bad apples in most groups that just make any progress difficult.
We never actually launched it due to the possibility of it being misused in housing discrimination and our liability for hosting information that could contribute to that.
Truly there are a few bad apples in most groups that just make any progress difficult.
Yep! Had a problem tenant that was like pulling teeth to get rent out of them, turned out the problem was the roommate. Once the roommate moved out getting full rent arrived like clockwork.
On the flip side, as we were installing new laundry units in the condos, I recounted to my wife about how in college we had to pay monthly for the convenience to rent laundry machines from the 80s.
On the flip side, as we were installing new laundry units in the condos, I recounted to my wife about how in college we had to pay monthly for the convenience to rent laundry machines from the 80s.
The search is broken on mobile for me. Using the drop downs to filter I can’t hit the x to close on mobile safari. It’s as if the page dies.
I have never had problems renting from individuals. It is when _everything_ is handled by some legal entity that it all goes down hill. As long as the actual owner of the house is a human (not a company), and I can talk to them, I have no issues. Maybe I am just a disarming conversationalist, or maybe I just got lucky.
This would be great in a market in which people looking for housing have power of choice. Too many times you're renting whatever is available in the area you need to live in at the price you can afford, and the landlord's ratings will have little to no weight on the final decision.
if it can bring some small amount of accountability and awareness, that's a step in the right direction.
but the nature of capital is such that if these websites succeed then their incentives will start to more closely align with those of the landlords.
not every problem can be solved with software.
but the nature of capital is such that if these websites succeed then their incentives will start to more closely align with those of the landlords.
not every problem can be solved with software.
I read https://ratethelandlord.org/about. It is vague. What are their policies? Who controls moderation? Why should we trust them to carry out their claimed mission?
I made a site like this, but for tenants to rate the places they lived in:
https://ratethispad.com/
I've pretty much never promoted it so it's quite empty, but feel free to pop over.
https://ratethispad.com/
I've pretty much never promoted it so it's quite empty, but feel free to pop over.
I think the angle from rating a property you rented would be better. Just like rating a company you worked for. Going into details about noise levels, how the winter feels, what the issues with water pipes may be... so on.
I would love if this became popular! Just submitted a review for a solid landlord I had a couple years ago.
The zip code dropdown is broken, at least on mobile safari. Would like an input with type="number" rather than a drop down.
The zip code dropdown is broken, at least on mobile safari. Would like an input with type="number" rather than a drop down.
Yeah! A yelp for landlord- This information is currently missing from the net.
This is long overdue, and I can see this taking off like Yelp. Just stick with it and work on the website's branding, and you'll do well.
I plan to share this with everyone I know.
I plan to share this with everyone I know.
These folks must definitely launch this in Bangalore, India. They must :)
A slick video of their version 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcspUD0kF7g
How does this verify that you actually live there? How does this prevent sybil attacks against a landlord?
(Whenever I architect this stuff, I ask these standard questions)
(Whenever I architect this stuff, I ask these standard questions)
I don’t expect to agree on one notion of fairness, but I want to know how the service will behave.
There are a range of good and bad actions on both sides. Services all have some implied/stated/actual policies and ethics (or lack thereof). How exactly are tenants treated fairly? Landlords?
So far what I see are unstated policies, opaqueness around moderation and curation, and a lack of organizational and structural reputation and accountability.
We need to pay more attention to human nature and models of trust before launching and using a product. You don’t pivot to find a model of ethics and trust; is should be the foundation.
There are a range of good and bad actions on both sides. Services all have some implied/stated/actual policies and ethics (or lack thereof). How exactly are tenants treated fairly? Landlords?
So far what I see are unstated policies, opaqueness around moderation and curation, and a lack of organizational and structural reputation and accountability.
We need to pay more attention to human nature and models of trust before launching and using a product. You don’t pivot to find a model of ethics and trust; is should be the foundation.
Ah, yes, the classic 'human nature' argument, as if our current system of landlord-tenant relationships is the epitome of ethical behavior. At least this platform attempts to level the playing field by giving tenants a voice. Sure, it may not be perfect, but let's not pretend that the status quo is a shining example of trust and ethics. Instead of criticizing the very idea, maybe we could focus on improving the platform and establishing those foundational values you speak of. Or, you know, we could just continue to trust our benevolent landlord overlords without question.
> Ah, yes, the classic 'human nature' argument, as if our current system of landlord-tenant relationships is the epitome of ethical behavior.
Hold on; I didn’t say that. I don’t think that landlord tenant relationships are fairly balanced in most jurisdictions.
It seems you assumed incorrectly about me. If you got my intentions wrong, how do you know you got the intentions of the website correct? Why do you assume that the website is trustworthy? (Do you?) What gives you confidence that it will put in place reasonable moderation standards?
Please, let’s try to remain calm and use logic here.
Hold on; I didn’t say that. I don’t think that landlord tenant relationships are fairly balanced in most jurisdictions.
It seems you assumed incorrectly about me. If you got my intentions wrong, how do you know you got the intentions of the website correct? Why do you assume that the website is trustworthy? (Do you?) What gives you confidence that it will put in place reasonable moderation standards?
Please, let’s try to remain calm and use logic here.
> Instead of criticizing the very idea, maybe we could focus on improving the platform and establishing those foundational values you speak of.
Criticism is essential.
To paraphrase a wise person I know: sometimes the most beneficial thing we can do is not support ill-conceived projects. We can make our own assessment.
Criticism is essential.
To paraphrase a wise person I know: sometimes the most beneficial thing we can do is not support ill-conceived projects. We can make our own assessment.
> Instead of criticizing the very idea, maybe we could focus on improving the platform and establishing those foundational values you speak of. Or, you know, we could just continue to trust our benevolent landlord overlords without question.
A false dichotomy.
You don’t know me. I’ve rented in many jurisdictions. I likely share many of your values.
This is not primarily a technological problem. One key to solving this problem well is setting up the organizational structure reasonably. What legal structures are in place? Whose personal reputations are on the line? What track record do we have to go on?
Some may think these organizational things can be done later. I disagree. They should be designed before any product is launched. They are foundational.
A false dichotomy.
You don’t know me. I’ve rented in many jurisdictions. I likely share many of your values.
This is not primarily a technological problem. One key to solving this problem well is setting up the organizational structure reasonably. What legal structures are in place? Whose personal reputations are on the line? What track record do we have to go on?
Some may think these organizational things can be done later. I disagree. They should be designed before any product is launched. They are foundational.
> Sure, it may not be perfect, but let's not pretend that the status quo is a shining example of trust and ethics.
No one is assuming that.
No one is assuming that.
Maybe this could work with the airbnb model: Let landlords make a home profile and verify renters. But unlike airbnb the system is heavily rigged
Is this legal? What if the opposite, a community of landlords rating tenants?
I think it's very useful but I wonder if it is legal.
It will be almost entirely protected by section 230.
And the opposite exists and is MORE regulated in the credit bureaus and similar.
If the town is small enough there are informal whisper-networks.
And of course you can google the name of the landlord or the tenant if you want. Many bad ones of either leak tons of information on social media.
And the opposite exists and is MORE regulated in the credit bureaus and similar.
If the town is small enough there are informal whisper-networks.
And of course you can google the name of the landlord or the tenant if you want. Many bad ones of either leak tons of information on social media.
I've nearly built this site for years -- it's actually partially created in one of my project folders. Thanks for doing this!
Exactly the kind of site a landlord would make
It's not going to be useful.
The only people who provide reviews will be people who are unhappy. And you'll only get their side.
The only people who provide reviews will be people who are unhappy. And you'll only get their side.
There are two sides to every story. And a disgruntled tenant is, not infrequently, a really awful neighbor. Landlords often can't proceed to eviction until a tenant has been really recalcitrant, a huge pain, or doing patently illegal stuff and bringing the wrath of the State down on the property. Tenants often have nothing better to do than snipe and feud at either their neighbors or the landlord, and the worst disputes are the one that take place close to home.
I'm really blessed that I have a good, ethical landlord now, and even my neighbors give so little to complain about, so I just get by, and it's always smart not to stick your neck out, lest it get chopped.
I'm really blessed that I have a good, ethical landlord now, and even my neighbors give so little to complain about, so I just get by, and it's always smart not to stick your neck out, lest it get chopped.
They'll be like hotel ratings. A bunch of 1 star reviews complaining the breakfast buffet closed at 10am and they wouldn't extend the hours for them personally.
Feels destined to be like the rate my teacher sites which host copious defamatory reviews, pranks, and trolls.
There's one review for "the mods of r/australia". I somehow suspect that's not a real rental property.
I'm also seeing:
Review contents not matching star ratings, in both directions (landlord is a compulsive liar, respect: 5 stars!)
Repeats that appear to be the same disgruntled tenant posting multiple times
Landlords could also be behind some of the positive reviews. It's hard to tell.
I'm also seeing:
Review contents not matching star ratings, in both directions (landlord is a compulsive liar, respect: 5 stars!)
Repeats that appear to be the same disgruntled tenant posting multiple times
Landlords could also be behind some of the positive reviews. It's hard to tell.
Glad to finally have a chance to shit on that property rental company :)
This could be the next Trustpilot, subscribe today to remove your bad reviews.
[deleted]
Use a real estate agent, solves most problems like this
This looks like the biggest honeypot for legal libel.
I had a similar idea but abandoned it for multiple reasons.
1) gdpr/avg. You can't record data in Europe about a landlord or an address without permission.
2) landlords are not people that you want to annoy. Especially the bad ones.
1) gdpr/avg. You can't record data in Europe about a landlord or an address without permission.
2) landlords are not people that you want to annoy. Especially the bad ones.
For example, one time a landlord didn't return the security deposit. I called him, messaged him, left notes in his mailbox. No reply. One month, two months went by. So, I looked up the relevant legal code, found the part that said "landlords have 30 days to return the security deposit with any deductions listed. Failure to do so results in the landlord owing the tenant double the original amount with no deductions." I printed that out, highlighted the relevant section, and mailed him a letter saying that he can return the original deposit amount to me immediately, or I will file at the local court and he'll owe me double. I got a check in the mail two days later.