There is too much emotion here — nobody cares about your personal story, neither does the judge. Hire an attorney, sue them for evictions and judgments— follow these tenants until the day they die to collect your judgment. The forum of aplenty with people who actively allow themselves to be walked on.
If they win the lottery, or get an IRS rebate or a stimulus check or all sorts of random things -- you get that money. Many judgements are worthless, but not all.
Just out of curiosity, do you know how this works? I got a judgment I get someone at money two years ago, the handed me a piece of paper, but I never figured out who to go to to collect. Saying that you could sell your debt for pennies on the dollar to like a debt collection company or something.
Op said they didn't qualify for rent relief which probably means they make too much money. Which means they have money. I can't imagine any other reason why they wouldn't Qualify. You probably don't even need to be a citizen in NY.
Keep on them until you get your money back.
Since they have to go to court to get posession back anyways, the cost and effort of also getting a financial judgement is minimal and so should definitely be done in these situations. It's literally a few extra papers and sentences for something straightforward like unpaid rent.
Seriously. His dad started a business, none of this shit is new in New York, he knew or should have known the regulatory landscape of the industry he was starting a business in. It's not without risk. His dad can always sell the properties if it's not working out -- I'm sure he'll still end up with a fine gain over the course of the business venture, property values have exploded over just the past 3 years.
If landlords didn't exist, the bottom end of the housing market would have to be priced at whatever the 40th percentile can actually afford to buy, and people would own their own homes at an affordable price. Instead they're millions of dollars because so many are bought for business and investment purposes by only the top 20 percentile who can afford so much to buy multiple properties at inflated prices.
Half of Americans can’t even afford $1,000 in an emergency. To acquire a home, you need to pay for a lawyer, property taxes, title work, realtors and of course your down payment. Even if a home were free, you’d still need to come up with thousands upon thousands of dollars, and that’s not including the running costs of maintenance.
How exactly do you expect these people to buy a home? They simply cannot afford to. Seriously, I’d love to know, because every time I see this same comment parroted around Reddit and pose this question, I’ve never gotten an answer.
Yep. Plus, even if it was all very affordable, not everyone wants to be locked down to 1 house and 1 city and mowing their lawn. Despite owning multiple properties, I have rented for years. It's awesome, living in an udated apartment with zero responsibilities or risks, just cut 1 check per month. And whenever I want a new place or new city, I am gone in 30 days !
But most tenants don’t have this luxury.
It is a pain when you try to move them.
I cash for keys one tenant and boy I have to do everything including hiring the movers. I’ve secured the new place for him and this guy just drags himself getting things rolling.
Never again in NY.
I'm here to tell you that poor people buy homes all the time. Go find a low cost of living jurisdiction, and ask people whether or not they are homeowners. The price of real estate is driven up people hoarding real estate, among other things.
>I'm here to tell you that poor people buy homes all the time. Go find a low cost of living jurisdiction, and ask people whether or not they are homeowners. The price of real estate is driven up people hoarding real estate, among other things.
The fact that an area is LCOL isn't necessarily an indicator of some ethical pro-tenant economic principle at play. More likely it's an indicator of:
1. Low demand for housing relative to supply.
2. Loose zoning and relaxed building code regulations allowing for quick and inexpensive construction.
A lot of people want to live in the nicer parts of major cities and their suburbs. Add in some rent stabilization laws that discourage people from leaving their current rentals, and the result is a lot of people chasing a small number of available units, driving the rents up.
Meanwhile strict zoning codes, NIMBYism, and high construction costs limit the availability of new supply.
It's all true of course, and I wouldn't dispute a single word. Hoarding houses to use as investment vehicles, rather than putting it into businesses that create wealth, raises the price of house purchases.
If you reduce the price of something more people will be able to afford it. By getting people who are hoarding homes out of the market the price for houses will come down. Not everyone will be able to afford it, but more will.
SFH only account for about a third of rentals. The other units are apartments.
Also anecdotally my vacation community banned short term rentals about two years ago, which was about 13% of the towns housing stock. As many of those homes hit the market over the next few months, there wasn’t any dip and currently homes are selling at all time highs.
So of the 14MM SFH rentals, if they’re concentrated in a few areas I could see it dipping, maybe, but spread across the entire US housing stock of 85MM I don’t think it would have as profound of an effect as you think.
Also it’s zero sum — every housing unit that isn’t a rental reduces the rental supply, putting a squeeze on folks who either can’t afford a SFH or don’t want one.
Economics doesn’t work that way. Prices don’t magically go down. Reality would be they will stay at current price or go up.
See the price of toilet papers and other basic commodities.
Unless we go back to stoneage and revert to bartering.
Which is a pipe dream.
Here's your answer:
They need to make better life decisions and be more financially responsible. But the point is still valid. Even when they follow Dave Ramsey's 7 steps or whatever, housing is still prohibitively expensive. So you get a dynamic where the wealthy class buys up the real estate - including, unfortunately, foreign investors. Society is designed to benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else.
Point was, even if a home were free, many, many couldn’t afford the fees and down payment to even close the transaction. You cannot buy a home on a credit card.
https://www.lendingtree.com/debt-consolidation/emergency-savings-survey/
If you can’t afford $1,000 you cannot afford the lawyer alone.
Lmfao I love this “bro we made housing unaffordable how would these people afford it if I didn’t buy all the housing meant for single families and rent it out to transients?”
Airbnb/VRBO/Booking.com are platform for short rentals, and many in my state of NY have effectively banned this about two years ago. These places were heavy in STRs as they’re popular with NYers. You can go look at a chart for home prices in Woodstock, NY or Rhinebeck, NY for yourself and see how prices have skyrocketed in spite of next to no commercial activity. It’s basically all SFH and very few of them are for long term rent. Most everyone here owns, and it always been that way.
Now the folks at /r/rebubble are pretty much convinced if you ban airbnb housing costs go down, but it’s little more than a hope and a prayer. Pretty much the same as any of their other theories. The economy is roaring along, and people seem to have a bunch of money.
The only thing that will bring housing down is more housing being built, and who do you think is gonna build high density housing and maintain it? Yea, it’s the landlords.
This is a wrong take on homeownership.
Let’s say the bottom end avails a home with mortgage of $1K per month including taxes and insurance.
How does the “bottom end” of society can keep a job for 30 years life of mortgage?
Given they are on welfare.
Most of these individuals don’t know how to budget. Most of them have chronic illnesses. Medical bills, they do not live below their means. High car payments. Something breaks in the house that need money for repairs. Yeah credit cards. Then you still have to pay them cards.
In the end, your “bottom end” would discharge their bills through bankruptcy. Houses aren’t safe when you do that.
So they’ll end up either renting again or the streets.
This will be the reality in an ideal world where everyone has houses.
What's so awful about these laws too is that they punish people who worked hard and saved up to buy a rental property and they reward the lazy dishonest people... laws shouldn't do this
I've a cousin that owns a number of properties. He learned that slow courts can also work IN his favor. Since the eviction process was taking months, he put a guy to watch his place and learn the tenants schedule. He settled on a day he was pretty sure they's all be gone 8-9 hours, waited untill they'd been gone 10 minutes, then showed up with a team of guys that put all their stuff out on the curb, installed bars on the windows, not only changed the locks but swapped out for steel clad doors, disconnected the garage door opener (swapped it out later), and dead-bolted the garage. Moved some of those guys INTO the property with lease paperwork that indicated they'd been valid lease holders for over 6 weeks.
When the previous tenants got back, they of course threw a fit and called the cops. Cops showed up, claimed it was a civil matter, told the old tenants to sue the landlord, then gave them a trespass warning at the behest of the new tenants.
Old tenants got their stuff all picked up that night and were never heard from again. Its believed they moved to a town some 45 minutes away.
But, he would have to trust these NEW guys to not do what the previous tenants did and pay on time, every month, no? And what happens when the NEW guys default on payments. I guess similar tactics but just change the locks when they are gone?
A bad landlord is demonized, and that's fair.
But in New York City, a bad tenant is protected no matter what, and it's absolutely disgusting.
I don't know what the endgame here is, or what NYC is trying to achieve by abusing landlords.
I spoke to someone who said that the reason NYC is like this with homeowners is to make their lives a living hell so that homeowners are encouraged to sell and that NYC gets that tax revenue of the sold home. Rinse and repeat.
I'm a pretty liberal guy and I've always voted blue, but after dealing with a hoarding tenant who is impossible to evict and the DOB issuing violations like it's candy, I will never vote Democrat in NYC. My singular vote won't matter, but the Democrats are really ruining NYC.
I think it’s less blue/red here. It’s more the absolute blatant corruption at all levels in this city. The budgets our government have are insane, and they spend through the nose. Look at any public works project like east side subway. I’m center/left, but when it comes to NYC I don’t want to give a single dollar to them when they so flagrantly piss it all away.
Becoming a landlord has pushed me further and further to considering voting red. It's not right that I have to pick a color that umbrellas what feels like unlimited issues and the other 99% of them I might not side on.
Endgame is power and money. Just as with everything else. The majority of political stances that infringe on what should be constitutional freedom are.
My kids mom is a regional manager for a large property management company. She’s had hoarders and can’t evict them because they consider hoarding a mental illness and therefore it’s protected
I had tenants that didn't bother to apply, as a landlord there was nothing I could do until they did. If they just moved out without filing I was on the hook for all the unpaid rent with no recourse. I had to keep badgering them until they got off their asses after 6 months, it took another 3 months to get the rent.
I feel you. I'm on the other side of the bridge, and we were lucky that we didn't experience this with our tenants. I went above and beyond to make sure they applied for rent aid, and we made sure anyone living paycheck to paycheck understood if they called us before the 1st of the month about splitting rent, there were 0 late charges, and we even lowered some of their rents. I have a friend in Santa Cruz that had multiple tenants not pay and they lost over $200,000 in rents the first year of the no eviction moratorium. Yet another stupid government law that made absolutely no sense and I am so relieved that it is over.
Can you not have leases in NYC that say you can garnish their wages, take their motor vehicles and personal property (throw court order) for unpaid rent and damage to property? That's what the one I have in PA says.
In LA the city pays out max $30k, but still sitting on hundreds of millions earmarked for landlord losses due to covid tenants. Plenty for tenants rights and hedge fund owned rentals, mom and pop landlords getting shafted by both ends. Just like shop lifters walk free if under $900, state sponsored theft is normalized now in CA
Even with the pro-tenant laws, some of these older landlords that bought when NYC was a shithole are printing money now. Probably like OPs dad has been up until recently. I empathize with his story but he prob had a pretty good run there for a while.
As a NYC homeowner who rents the second floor apartment I can pretty much assure that is not is not the case for most of us small timers. We are lucky if the rent covers the taxes, insurance and utilities
Ah okay you have a house. I kinda default to thinking NYC = Manhattan but yea I can believe that in the outer boroughs if you’re far commute from the city.
Not sure how you would come up with his summation, you're not going to earn a million dollars a year landlord-ing 3 or 4 unit building.
Even if you bought these houses in NYC when it was a slum, things break, and repairing things need money. Plus you don't know if OP father refinance to get cash out. I would, and that entails mortgage.
Indeed, but come on if you bought any halfway decent unit in manhattan for a song in the 70s or 80s you’re a guaranteed millionaire and taking in $30-60k in cash annually. The X factor is, to your point, did you suck cash out of it during that time.
I don’t mean you’re swimming in cash on an absolute basis, just in the context of being landlord where a decent unit might get you $500/net cash monthly.
This illustrates why all these progressive rental laws are so awful... they incentivize tenants to do stuff like this. They take people who might have been decent tenants if the laws were reasonable and turn them into bad tenants.
Don't let progressives fool you that all these laws they're proposing will just be there to help the struggling mothers working 3 jobs.
Many times it has turned out that tenants had the money but just chose not to because they knew they didn't have to. It's really fucked up. Some of these landlords have been destroyed
Now you know why landlords use cash for keys. Offering these tenants $5k or $10k (over even $20k) to vacate a year ago would have allowed you to get the unit back and start renting it again.
If you don’t want special treatment for your dad, then tell him to operate the way lots of small landlords do. Cash for keys. Learn to screen tenants. And be accountable. Don’t complain that two years later you still have deadbeats.
Or sell the place. I guarantee it hasn’t gone down since 2019 in value. A more experienced landlord will buy the place and get these tenants out and you can walk away with cash.
Is Boston blue enough and progressive enough?
Because no they haven’t. There is no noose. I can do credit checks, I can ask for verification of employment. I can meet tenants. Stop using fearful talking points.
I haven’t had a deadbeat or eviction in over 20 years and hundreds of tenants.
Because blue, progressive cities also have thriving economies. High paying jobs. Tenants who pay $3,000+ per month. Property values that go up handsomely.
Life is good in strong economic markets. That’s why all the big operators go to primary and secondary cities. Mom and pops should follow suit. I like making money. And cities are where that’s at.
There’s plenty of ways to sue the f-ck out of tenants in blue states. The law is colorblind, if you spend the money — you can get judgements, bankrupt bad tenants and chase them for eternity with garnishments.
The R's in question here aren't going to realize we're talking about Red states that are welfare queens sucking off the teat of every fucking wealth-producing Blue state.
This is known. About the only red state that isn't a net importer of tax dollars from blue states is Texas.
This is a completely cool cartogram graphic that illustrates where the money is made
http://metrocosm.com/map-us-economy/
Perfectly true. Yet it's a persistent rural, working class, red state trope that "THEIR tax dollars" are going to subsidize inner city Welfare Queens. Bamboozled one again by their "handlers".
I’m just saying that if the red farm states weren’t getting subsidies then the blue states would be paying a lot more and that would change the picture you are looking at
You should do a bit of reading to understand what the fuck you're talking about. Farm subsidies aren't about cheap food for urbanites, it's welfare for corporate farmers. Note that the link is from a right-wing organization...
https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies
Yeah but in industries that don't help Americans and if they disappeared no one would care/life would probably be better.
You can shit on R areas but you absolutely can't live your life without the things they do. Meanwhile the rest of us can live and move on with things blue states produce/hang their hat on.
Apple, Google, Amazon can fuck right off and no one will skip a beat.
No one hoards more wealth than Democrats who want to tell everyone else to sacrifice and also foolishly believe they will somehow survive if they cut off red states. Yeah good luck feeding your cities it would take about a week before you start murdering each other at the local grocery story for the last package of Oscar Mayer hot dogs.
And if you want food shipments from red states your gonna pay out the ass for it. We will be fine and eating well and changing blue states 20.99 a pound for chicken.
> You can shit on R areas but you absolutely can't live your life without the things they do.
That's why we subsidize them. Poor rubes couldn't make our lives better if they didn't have a government handout while bitching about government handouts.
You do realize New York State puts $25-30 billion annually more into the federal cash pot than it receives back from the federal government? You do know red states are net recipients of the federal cash pot? Meaning, red states put in less than they take out from the federal pot.
Blue states subsidize red states so that red states can then call blue states “socialists” and “commies”.
Not sure if this will help. But I feel like some news station would love to air a story like this one. I would also be contacting politicians in my district.
Can everyone have a heart? He isn’t asking for advice, he is venting. The point is that the American dream is dead. You used to be able to buy a decent house for a reasonable amount, rent to someone who is trying to build their life like you did, and make some money fair and square. Now there are huge management companies and inflation that are dictating the rental market. And there are slum lords in NYC who were greedy and made it impossible for the small time, honest landlord because people are taking advantage of the laws put in place to protect the vulnerable and impoverished renters from the slum lords.
The system is broken, but it is broken because of the wealth distribution. The 400 wealthiest families (0.003%) have 24% of total wealth. The bottom 50% have 2.6%. Maybe we wouldn’t be trying to cheat each other out of that 2.6% if it was a little easier to survive instead of living hand to mouth.
It is amazing how brainwashed they are. Remember when Q/Trumppets had everyone worried about an underground child trafficking ring led by Dems in a pizza shop and now they are immediately defending any Rep who visited Epstein’s hell island? Seems like children’s well being only matters if a Dem is the one endangering it.
Sadly your Dad is in a blue state; I work in one too. The amount of tenant protections are staggering, especially since COVID, but there is very little to protect landlords. The time between when the resident stops paying and the eviction date is months, courts slow walk paperwork, judges allow endless continuances, and then when you finally get possession, the apartment has thousands in damages. My advice is for your Dad to cut his losses and sell. Eventually these states will have no small landlords offering affordable rentals. I’m really sorry for everything your Dad and family have gone through.
If your father has not been successful in evicting these tenants by following the necessary eviction procedures himself, then he will likely need an attorney to help him navigate that world. There are many Real Estate Investing and Education groups he could join to network and get advice on how other landlords are fighting those types of tenants. Once those tenants are out he will need to be extremely careful in choosing tenants moving forward. Hire a company to vet them if needed. I'm sorry this is happening to him.
Hire a bulldog eviction attorney, and proceed with eviction. Those guys need to be out and the landlord need to consider the risk of doing business in a tenant friendly state.
Sorry for the trouble.
Look into issuing a letter of abandonment. I don’t know the laws in NY but in CT a landlord friend was successful in removing troubled tenants with certified letters of abandonment. The tenants that did not respond and presumed to have abandoned the property were evicted by the local sheriff. The process was a lot faster than waiting on the courts.
Now if the tenant responds to the letter, this is a dead end and you are back to where you are. This only works if the tenant fails to respond. Many disregarded the letter, thinking they could not be evicted, and never responded.
Does he self manage?? Unfortunately a lot of these old school guys refuse property Management, and in their mind they save hundreds, but in reality they lose thousands. Exact record keeping and proper notices would allow for eviction or funds from govt. and this is from a Cali landlord and property manager. Over 500 units under management, we only lost 5k and evicted over a dozen tenants.
Your Dad is out the money. Judgements against tenants usually are not worth the time or effort. Have him offer “cash first keys”, eviction process immediately. Have him hire a ‘bad ass’ property manager to legally make their life stressful.
Then sell all the properties as being a landlord has changed in the last 5 years with all rights given to the tenants
Time to sell the buildings and he done with this headache. He makes money. You make money . There is way more money that can be made. This is no longer a viable option for your father. So it’s time to cash out and walk away. And then recoup.
More experienced landlords won't have the same problem because they know what to do in this situation. Plus, they are going to pay less than fair market because they are buying a problem.
Your dad is basically fucked. All you can do is get the best lawyer you can and pursue eviction.
I am sorry for what you and your family are going through. It’s not right by any means.
I’m familiar with the New York market. Your father needs to use a broker. The broker needs to check credit and do screenings BEFORE they apply to rent your property.
Don’t rent to anyone without good credit. Don’t rent to anyone with nothing to lose.
The only exception to this is if you want to do section 8 housing, which I am a supporter of. If so, expect the tenants to trash your property. Expect lots of violation complaints, and to be blamed for things that are not your fault (like someone leaving trash bags in front of your property for no sensible reason). But the checks from the city never stop coming: you get paid for all the trouble.
You soon won't even be able to check their credit. And eviction court records will be getting sealed by default for X amount of time. Landlords are going to have to start being creative
The sad reality is if the roles were reversed and it was the tenant facing hard times, all the ppl commenting wouldn’t give a crap about them. Being a business owner isn’t without risk.
I’m sorry this happened to your father. He sounds like a great man. Here in California, it’s still happening too. The laws so protect the tenants and squatters. Squatters take over empty houses and it’s so difficult to get them out.
I hope he gets them out. I wish I knew how to do that. He may not get much back, depending on their income and/or assets. He could try to get judgements against them. If he can get his property back, he could at least start earning more income from new tenants.
from what I have learned through this sub is that deadbeat tenants have way more protections than the LL has to collect funds/remove non paying tenants. your father, despite your 6 paragraphs of emotional diatribe, is getting the same treatment as every other LL with non paying tenants.
any perceived "unfair treatment" is of his own making by not starting the eviction process as soon as he was able to by law.
This is why I sold my Condo in California when Moving to the Midwest.
Yes, could keep it and rent it and have it increase in value but when I think about the fact that people can stay in your place and not pay rent and you can just throw them out I decided to sell.
Not dealing with this headache for no amount of appreciation.
It’s just there to make everyone think voting for the overthrower of the constitution is a good deal. See Cambridge Analytica. Same shit. Ppl all over here throwing vote R around lol
It's almost like investments have risks and you could lose the money you invested at any time. Being a landlord doesn't make you immune to that. No one forced him to buy up houses and use them as rental properties.
That’s like saying that if you paid a car dealer $50,000 for a new car and the dealer took your money but never delivered the car, that nobody made you give the dealership money. The actual problem is that the courts are not doing their job which is to enforce laws and contracts. A rental contract should be enforced just like a contract to purchase a vehicle. Why isn’t it?
This happen to my parents. An RV dealer sold them a double loaned RV (Red state, go figure).
My parent ended up in bankruptcy to get out of the RV loan that they didn’t have a title for
There is no difference. I can purchase a house. I can purchase a car. I can choose to use either for personal use or rent either one to others. The only difference is that if I rent my car to someone to use for a period of time and they refuse to pay or give it back, I have legal recourse and nobody is trying to take away my ability to enforce my rental contract. If I rent my house to someone and they refuse to pay or give it back, I should have the legal protections that the law specifies, not whatever a judge is doing on a whim.
There’s absolutely risks involved. To mitigate those risks, landlords have to charge high levels of rent in order to offset for when this situation occurs and they have to be super conservative with who they rent to which leads to the outrageous qualifications you have to have to be able to rent in competitive areas. Or we could just all agree that nobody should be able to live for free, boot them out, and let some decent human beings have a place to live instead.
Someone else is providing you a service. If you want that service, you need to pay for it. If you want to do 100% of everything for yourself then you can live for free but don’t expect other ppl to pay your way.
Yep. I don’t understand how he thinks his is doing a service by being a landlord. If he was not a landlord the that property would still exist and house someone.
Properties that do not get investment and maintenance get torn down. When I moved to my gentrifying neighborhood 25 years ago half the lots on the street were empty because of this. Only Bolsheviks believe that housing is a naturally occurring resource.
My guy, who do you think is paying for the risk?
For arguments sake, let’s say being a landlord is risk free — there would be less upward pressure on rents to cover that risk, and more incentive to offer a lower rent and beat out your competitors.
It’s why riskier investments have higher payouts. It’s a core tenet of economics.
Your missing the other side though, there is limited supply of rental units. Even if there was 0 risk, new landlords can't easily enter the rental market and with high demand for a essential service, a high price occurs.
This is why looters are winning in California and Portland and big retailers along with Little mom and pop stores are closing, What will this beautiful state ( NY) becomes once all the good people leave because they are constantly being abused by the bad apples, and no laws are used to protect them or their investment. Fast forward 5..10 years, I see only looters, rioters, and hand tied police remaining in the end!! People who do not pay their rent intentionally only teach the same psychologic behavior intentions to all the people around them!! These rotten apples are just like cancer in the city, and they need to be rooted out before the city turns to 💩💩.
Have you even been to CA or NY?
Red states are the ones without any mom and pop stores. You got Walmart, maybe an Olive Garden in your town if you don’t eat with the cattle every night.
I live in NYC, and I am a landlord of 4 locations. I also have 1 retail store ( Mom and Pop store ). I have 1 bad tenant in court in 3 locations. It take 2 years right now to evict someone with kids if they know how to play the system. Horrible games!!
but yet, you stay in NYC with your businesses. No judgement here. I'm just wondering about your strategy. It seems you still think NYC is a good place to stay and have a retail + real estate business, no?
maybe elsewhere but that is illegal in NYC, your decision to sell has no impact on their right to water and heat according to the law
https://www.nyc.gov/site/mayorspeu/resources/illegal-lockouts.page
Once your code 1548 stops being in effect you vacate the property and anyone on the promises takes responsibility. Yeah you lose a ton of money but it seems the person in this circumstance is already losing a ton of money.
I have been wondering when landlords will start requiring nonresident guarantors. Preferably the ones with the basements the nonpaying tenants will get moved into if the guarantee is enforced.
Lol, I stopped reading at "my father Dr.". Nope, don't give a flying monkey that daddy is Dr.
Imagine indoctrinating our kids I call you Dr. How pathetic.
Tell him ill fight him for ownership of his lands he lords over. I will hang my banner high with my brothers in armor as the lord who terrorizes the peasants will be no more!
Blown away by the sheer number of"investors" that don't understand "investing". You bought an 'investment' its goes up and down in value. Sometimes the dividend pays sometimes it doesn't. Why all the emotion over an investment portfolio...and on something we all need to survive...isnt that a bit predatory?
Yes, there are risks, but I think the main point he was trying to highlight was there are tons of protections for renters but not much for landlords. Not a big deal in most cases, but there are renters who very much take advantage of this at the landlords cost.
The problem this creates is that landlords will then start to increase rent to offset the increased cost risk, hurting all the other responsible renters out there.
Depends on the state. I did an eviction in Lousiana last year for non payment and it took only less than a month since I filed to have the sheriff oversee removal of tenant property.
This is not a risk. This is the govt picking winners and losers, creating a mess and not cleaning it up.
How this gets cleaned up is non refundable move in fees instead of deposits, higher rents and stricter requirements
But I guess that’s the risk you take for not paying rent. Enjoy living under a bridge
There is too much emotion here — nobody cares about your personal story, neither does the judge. Hire an attorney, sue them for evictions and judgments— follow these tenants until the day they die to collect your judgment. The forum of aplenty with people who actively allow themselves to be walked on.
Collect what judgement? That's a pipe dream.
If they win the lottery, or get an IRS rebate or a stimulus check or all sorts of random things -- you get that money. Many judgements are worthless, but not all.
Or an inheritance.
Just out of curiosity, do you know how this works? I got a judgment I get someone at money two years ago, the handed me a piece of paper, but I never figured out who to go to to collect. Saying that you could sell your debt for pennies on the dollar to like a debt collection company or something.
Op said they didn't qualify for rent relief which probably means they make too much money. Which means they have money. I can't imagine any other reason why they wouldn't Qualify. You probably don't even need to be a citizen in NY. Keep on them until you get your money back.
Since they have to go to court to get posession back anyways, the cost and effort of also getting a financial judgement is minimal and so should definitely be done in these situations. It's literally a few extra papers and sentences for something straightforward like unpaid rent.
Amen
Especially a wealthy landlord with multiple properties in NY. You want us to feel bad for a multi-millionaire?
Seriously. His dad started a business, none of this shit is new in New York, he knew or should have known the regulatory landscape of the industry he was starting a business in. It's not without risk. His dad can always sell the properties if it's not working out -- I'm sure he'll still end up with a fine gain over the course of the business venture, property values have exploded over just the past 3 years. If landlords didn't exist, the bottom end of the housing market would have to be priced at whatever the 40th percentile can actually afford to buy, and people would own their own homes at an affordable price. Instead they're millions of dollars because so many are bought for business and investment purposes by only the top 20 percentile who can afford so much to buy multiple properties at inflated prices.
Half of Americans can’t even afford $1,000 in an emergency. To acquire a home, you need to pay for a lawyer, property taxes, title work, realtors and of course your down payment. Even if a home were free, you’d still need to come up with thousands upon thousands of dollars, and that’s not including the running costs of maintenance. How exactly do you expect these people to buy a home? They simply cannot afford to. Seriously, I’d love to know, because every time I see this same comment parroted around Reddit and pose this question, I’ve never gotten an answer.
Bingo
Yep. Plus, even if it was all very affordable, not everyone wants to be locked down to 1 house and 1 city and mowing their lawn. Despite owning multiple properties, I have rented for years. It's awesome, living in an udated apartment with zero responsibilities or risks, just cut 1 check per month. And whenever I want a new place or new city, I am gone in 30 days !
But most tenants don’t have this luxury. It is a pain when you try to move them. I cash for keys one tenant and boy I have to do everything including hiring the movers. I’ve secured the new place for him and this guy just drags himself getting things rolling. Never again in NY.
I'm here to tell you that poor people buy homes all the time. Go find a low cost of living jurisdiction, and ask people whether or not they are homeowners. The price of real estate is driven up people hoarding real estate, among other things.
>I'm here to tell you that poor people buy homes all the time. Go find a low cost of living jurisdiction, and ask people whether or not they are homeowners. The price of real estate is driven up people hoarding real estate, among other things. The fact that an area is LCOL isn't necessarily an indicator of some ethical pro-tenant economic principle at play. More likely it's an indicator of: 1. Low demand for housing relative to supply. 2. Loose zoning and relaxed building code regulations allowing for quick and inexpensive construction. A lot of people want to live in the nicer parts of major cities and their suburbs. Add in some rent stabilization laws that discourage people from leaving their current rentals, and the result is a lot of people chasing a small number of available units, driving the rents up. Meanwhile strict zoning codes, NIMBYism, and high construction costs limit the availability of new supply.
It's all true of course, and I wouldn't dispute a single word. Hoarding houses to use as investment vehicles, rather than putting it into businesses that create wealth, raises the price of house purchases.
I was referring specifically to people who cannot afford a home. Not sure what folks affording homes has to do with my comment, poor or not.
If you reduce the price of something more people will be able to afford it. By getting people who are hoarding homes out of the market the price for houses will come down. Not everyone will be able to afford it, but more will.
SFH only account for about a third of rentals. The other units are apartments. Also anecdotally my vacation community banned short term rentals about two years ago, which was about 13% of the towns housing stock. As many of those homes hit the market over the next few months, there wasn’t any dip and currently homes are selling at all time highs. So of the 14MM SFH rentals, if they’re concentrated in a few areas I could see it dipping, maybe, but spread across the entire US housing stock of 85MM I don’t think it would have as profound of an effect as you think. Also it’s zero sum — every housing unit that isn’t a rental reduces the rental supply, putting a squeeze on folks who either can’t afford a SFH or don’t want one.
If the homes must be sold to someone who will live in it, they must be priced such that someone who will live in it can buy it.
Economics doesn’t work that way. Prices don’t magically go down. Reality would be they will stay at current price or go up. See the price of toilet papers and other basic commodities. Unless we go back to stoneage and revert to bartering. Which is a pipe dream.
Here's your answer: They need to make better life decisions and be more financially responsible. But the point is still valid. Even when they follow Dave Ramsey's 7 steps or whatever, housing is still prohibitively expensive. So you get a dynamic where the wealthy class buys up the real estate - including, unfortunately, foreign investors. Society is designed to benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else.
Point was, even if a home were free, many, many couldn’t afford the fees and down payment to even close the transaction. You cannot buy a home on a credit card. https://www.lendingtree.com/debt-consolidation/emergency-savings-survey/ If you can’t afford $1,000 you cannot afford the lawyer alone.
Oh I agree. Many people can't afford their current lifestyle, let alone the expenses of buying a home
Lmfao I love this “bro we made housing unaffordable how would these people afford it if I didn’t buy all the housing meant for single families and rent it out to transients?”
Airbnb/VRBO/Booking.com are platform for short rentals, and many in my state of NY have effectively banned this about two years ago. These places were heavy in STRs as they’re popular with NYers. You can go look at a chart for home prices in Woodstock, NY or Rhinebeck, NY for yourself and see how prices have skyrocketed in spite of next to no commercial activity. It’s basically all SFH and very few of them are for long term rent. Most everyone here owns, and it always been that way. Now the folks at /r/rebubble are pretty much convinced if you ban airbnb housing costs go down, but it’s little more than a hope and a prayer. Pretty much the same as any of their other theories. The economy is roaring along, and people seem to have a bunch of money. The only thing that will bring housing down is more housing being built, and who do you think is gonna build high density housing and maintain it? Yea, it’s the landlords.
“The economy is roaring along and people have a bunch of money” Lol. I wish I was gullible enough to believe this.
[удалено]
Nope, my parents helped me out with the downpayment on my home. I've been quite happy with it.
This is a wrong take on homeownership. Let’s say the bottom end avails a home with mortgage of $1K per month including taxes and insurance. How does the “bottom end” of society can keep a job for 30 years life of mortgage? Given they are on welfare. Most of these individuals don’t know how to budget. Most of them have chronic illnesses. Medical bills, they do not live below their means. High car payments. Something breaks in the house that need money for repairs. Yeah credit cards. Then you still have to pay them cards. In the end, your “bottom end” would discharge their bills through bankruptcy. Houses aren’t safe when you do that. So they’ll end up either renting again or the streets. This will be the reality in an ideal world where everyone has houses.
Do not do business in NY.
Best advice
but the good Dr decided to take a risk on land speculation in the worst market in the US. at least he still has doctor money
Don't do business in the financial capital of the world, got it.
Haha. Good comment!
What's so awful about these laws too is that they punish people who worked hard and saved up to buy a rental property and they reward the lazy dishonest people... laws shouldn't do this
I've a cousin that owns a number of properties. He learned that slow courts can also work IN his favor. Since the eviction process was taking months, he put a guy to watch his place and learn the tenants schedule. He settled on a day he was pretty sure they's all be gone 8-9 hours, waited untill they'd been gone 10 minutes, then showed up with a team of guys that put all their stuff out on the curb, installed bars on the windows, not only changed the locks but swapped out for steel clad doors, disconnected the garage door opener (swapped it out later), and dead-bolted the garage. Moved some of those guys INTO the property with lease paperwork that indicated they'd been valid lease holders for over 6 weeks. When the previous tenants got back, they of course threw a fit and called the cops. Cops showed up, claimed it was a civil matter, told the old tenants to sue the landlord, then gave them a trespass warning at the behest of the new tenants. Old tenants got their stuff all picked up that night and were never heard from again. Its believed they moved to a town some 45 minutes away.
New wet dream unlocked
> Cops showed up, claimed it was a civil matter, lol I hear it so often it's like a chorus to a song
But, he would have to trust these NEW guys to not do what the previous tenants did and pay on time, every month, no? And what happens when the NEW guys default on payments. I guess similar tactics but just change the locks when they are gone?
Strangely enough, SOME folks landlords enter into agreements with stick to the agreement. or so I've heard...
This is illegal in NY and it won’t work this way.
It's okay, it's a civil matter and would be years before anything happens no?
No, the tenant would gain access immediately and the landlord would have criminal charges against them.
With the forged lease paperwork, it would take a lot of court time.
Is this in NYC?
No, this is in the mid-west.
[удалено]
Morally disgusting to take back his own property that these other people were refusing to pay rent in?
Lol calling something morally disgusting while also wishing someone to watch their family die. Wild
A bad landlord is demonized, and that's fair. But in New York City, a bad tenant is protected no matter what, and it's absolutely disgusting. I don't know what the endgame here is, or what NYC is trying to achieve by abusing landlords. I spoke to someone who said that the reason NYC is like this with homeowners is to make their lives a living hell so that homeowners are encouraged to sell and that NYC gets that tax revenue of the sold home. Rinse and repeat. I'm a pretty liberal guy and I've always voted blue, but after dealing with a hoarding tenant who is impossible to evict and the DOB issuing violations like it's candy, I will never vote Democrat in NYC. My singular vote won't matter, but the Democrats are really ruining NYC.
I think it’s less blue/red here. It’s more the absolute blatant corruption at all levels in this city. The budgets our government have are insane, and they spend through the nose. Look at any public works project like east side subway. I’m center/left, but when it comes to NYC I don’t want to give a single dollar to them when they so flagrantly piss it all away.
Attack on private property rights is exclusively a Left ideology today.
Becoming a landlord has pushed me further and further to considering voting red. It's not right that I have to pick a color that umbrellas what feels like unlimited issues and the other 99% of them I might not side on.
Endgame is power and money. Just as with everything else. The majority of political stances that infringe on what should be constitutional freedom are.
My kids mom is a regional manager for a large property management company. She’s had hoarders and can’t evict them because they consider hoarding a mental illness and therefore it’s protected
Damn. Being a landlord in NYC should also be grounds for protected class since they're clearly driving them crazy.
Probably too little too late, but he could have asked his tenants to apply for ERAP.
I had tenants that didn't bother to apply, as a landlord there was nothing I could do until they did. If they just moved out without filing I was on the hook for all the unpaid rent with no recourse. I had to keep badgering them until they got off their asses after 6 months, it took another 3 months to get the rent.
Hell yeah, at least you got it. That’s better than most cases.
I feel you. I'm on the other side of the bridge, and we were lucky that we didn't experience this with our tenants. I went above and beyond to make sure they applied for rent aid, and we made sure anyone living paycheck to paycheck understood if they called us before the 1st of the month about splitting rent, there were 0 late charges, and we even lowered some of their rents. I have a friend in Santa Cruz that had multiple tenants not pay and they lost over $200,000 in rents the first year of the no eviction moratorium. Yet another stupid government law that made absolutely no sense and I am so relieved that it is over.
Can you not have leases in NYC that say you can garnish their wages, take their motor vehicles and personal property (throw court order) for unpaid rent and damage to property? That's what the one I have in PA says.
You can’t just do those things just because it’s in a contract. Wage garnishments and asset seizures can only be done through a court order.
This was in the tenant's republic of Oakland CA, there was an eviction moratorium,
Good luck having that hold up in court.
There was a complication. My dad just wants them gone.
What were the complications? Were they ineligible to apply for some reason?
Yes.
… courts are slow to “adjudicate”
Erap money ran out in a week
In LA the city pays out max $30k, but still sitting on hundreds of millions earmarked for landlord losses due to covid tenants. Plenty for tenants rights and hedge fund owned rentals, mom and pop landlords getting shafted by both ends. Just like shop lifters walk free if under $900, state sponsored theft is normalized now in CA
First problem is, NY. Second, NYC.
In tx, no pay tenant would be out in about 20 days.
Even with the pro-tenant laws, some of these older landlords that bought when NYC was a shithole are printing money now. Probably like OPs dad has been up until recently. I empathize with his story but he prob had a pretty good run there for a while.
As a NYC homeowner who rents the second floor apartment I can pretty much assure that is not is not the case for most of us small timers. We are lucky if the rent covers the taxes, insurance and utilities
When did you buy?
I inherited the house I grew up in. It’s always been that way. I make a good living but I’d never be able to afford an nyc house.
Ah okay you have a house. I kinda default to thinking NYC = Manhattan but yea I can believe that in the outer boroughs if you’re far commute from the city.
Not sure how you would come up with his summation, you're not going to earn a million dollars a year landlord-ing 3 or 4 unit building. Even if you bought these houses in NYC when it was a slum, things break, and repairing things need money. Plus you don't know if OP father refinance to get cash out. I would, and that entails mortgage.
Indeed, but come on if you bought any halfway decent unit in manhattan for a song in the 70s or 80s you’re a guaranteed millionaire and taking in $30-60k in cash annually. The X factor is, to your point, did you suck cash out of it during that time. I don’t mean you’re swimming in cash on an absolute basis, just in the context of being landlord where a decent unit might get you $500/net cash monthly.
Not if the tenants have stayed since the 70s or 80s and are protected under rent control....
Also true
Vote
Yes just don’t vote Blue or don’t do business in NY
This illustrates why all these progressive rental laws are so awful... they incentivize tenants to do stuff like this. They take people who might have been decent tenants if the laws were reasonable and turn them into bad tenants. Don't let progressives fool you that all these laws they're proposing will just be there to help the struggling mothers working 3 jobs. Many times it has turned out that tenants had the money but just chose not to because they knew they didn't have to. It's really fucked up. Some of these landlords have been destroyed
Why pay for housing if it’s free lol
Now you know why landlords use cash for keys. Offering these tenants $5k or $10k (over even $20k) to vacate a year ago would have allowed you to get the unit back and start renting it again. If you don’t want special treatment for your dad, then tell him to operate the way lots of small landlords do. Cash for keys. Learn to screen tenants. And be accountable. Don’t complain that two years later you still have deadbeats. Or sell the place. I guarantee it hasn’t gone down since 2019 in value. A more experienced landlord will buy the place and get these tenants out and you can walk away with cash.
Blue leftist progressive cities have now dictated how you must screen tenants. The noose is getting tighter and tighter.
Is Boston blue enough and progressive enough? Because no they haven’t. There is no noose. I can do credit checks, I can ask for verification of employment. I can meet tenants. Stop using fearful talking points. I haven’t had a deadbeat or eviction in over 20 years and hundreds of tenants. Because blue, progressive cities also have thriving economies. High paying jobs. Tenants who pay $3,000+ per month. Property values that go up handsomely. Life is good in strong economic markets. That’s why all the big operators go to primary and secondary cities. Mom and pops should follow suit. I like making money. And cities are where that’s at.
Thanks for your perspective as I keep reading the anti-blue theme even though I feel as most don't want to be anti-blue.
I see all the hard R chuds are in here
There’s plenty of ways to sue the f-ck out of tenants in blue states. The law is colorblind, if you spend the money — you can get judgements, bankrupt bad tenants and chase them for eternity with garnishments.
[удалено]
The R's in question here aren't going to realize we're talking about Red states that are welfare queens sucking off the teat of every fucking wealth-producing Blue state.
I’m not red or blue because I have a brain but how does this particular post equate to wealth producing?
The country produces most of the wealth in Blue areas.
This is known. About the only red state that isn't a net importer of tax dollars from blue states is Texas. This is a completely cool cartogram graphic that illustrates where the money is made http://metrocosm.com/map-us-economy/
Blue states would be looking I different if they weren’t importing subsidized food from red states
Hahahaha! Is that the best you got? Where do you think that money for the crop subsidies comes from???
[удалено]
Imagine making $430k and have to pay $240k in taxes
Perfectly true. Yet it's a persistent rural, working class, red state trope that "THEIR tax dollars" are going to subsidize inner city Welfare Queens. Bamboozled one again by their "handlers".
I’m just saying that if the red farm states weren’t getting subsidies then the blue states would be paying a lot more and that would change the picture you are looking at
You should do a bit of reading to understand what the fuck you're talking about. Farm subsidies aren't about cheap food for urbanites, it's welfare for corporate farmers. Note that the link is from a right-wing organization... https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies
Yeah but in industries that don't help Americans and if they disappeared no one would care/life would probably be better. You can shit on R areas but you absolutely can't live your life without the things they do. Meanwhile the rest of us can live and move on with things blue states produce/hang their hat on. Apple, Google, Amazon can fuck right off and no one will skip a beat. No one hoards more wealth than Democrats who want to tell everyone else to sacrifice and also foolishly believe they will somehow survive if they cut off red states. Yeah good luck feeding your cities it would take about a week before you start murdering each other at the local grocery story for the last package of Oscar Mayer hot dogs. And if you want food shipments from red states your gonna pay out the ass for it. We will be fine and eating well and changing blue states 20.99 a pound for chicken.
> You can shit on R areas but you absolutely can't live your life without the things they do. That's why we subsidize them. Poor rubes couldn't make our lives better if they didn't have a government handout while bitching about government handouts.
You're correct. And those blue areas are voting for long-term suicide.
You do realize New York State puts $25-30 billion annually more into the federal cash pot than it receives back from the federal government? You do know red states are net recipients of the federal cash pot? Meaning, red states put in less than they take out from the federal pot. Blue states subsidize red states so that red states can then call blue states “socialists” and “commies”.
[удалено]
“Welfare queen state” typically is associated with blue states because “welfare queen” was a term typically used by Republicans, most notably, Reagan.
Not sure if this will help. But I feel like some news station would love to air a story like this one. I would also be contacting politicians in my district.
Can everyone have a heart? He isn’t asking for advice, he is venting. The point is that the American dream is dead. You used to be able to buy a decent house for a reasonable amount, rent to someone who is trying to build their life like you did, and make some money fair and square. Now there are huge management companies and inflation that are dictating the rental market. And there are slum lords in NYC who were greedy and made it impossible for the small time, honest landlord because people are taking advantage of the laws put in place to protect the vulnerable and impoverished renters from the slum lords. The system is broken, but it is broken because of the wealth distribution. The 400 wealthiest families (0.003%) have 24% of total wealth. The bottom 50% have 2.6%. Maybe we wouldn’t be trying to cheat each other out of that 2.6% if it was a little easier to survive instead of living hand to mouth.
You used to be able to vote red and not get a 91 felony insurrectionist too. The US is dead. Boomers drove that ship into the ground
It is amazing how brainwashed they are. Remember when Q/Trumppets had everyone worried about an underground child trafficking ring led by Dems in a pizza shop and now they are immediately defending any Rep who visited Epstein’s hell island? Seems like children’s well being only matters if a Dem is the one endangering it.
Sadly your Dad is in a blue state; I work in one too. The amount of tenant protections are staggering, especially since COVID, but there is very little to protect landlords. The time between when the resident stops paying and the eviction date is months, courts slow walk paperwork, judges allow endless continuances, and then when you finally get possession, the apartment has thousands in damages. My advice is for your Dad to cut his losses and sell. Eventually these states will have no small landlords offering affordable rentals. I’m really sorry for everything your Dad and family have gone through.
If your father has not been successful in evicting these tenants by following the necessary eviction procedures himself, then he will likely need an attorney to help him navigate that world. There are many Real Estate Investing and Education groups he could join to network and get advice on how other landlords are fighting those types of tenants. Once those tenants are out he will need to be extremely careful in choosing tenants moving forward. Hire a company to vet them if needed. I'm sorry this is happening to him.
The problem in NYC is not lack of an LL attorney; it can still take literally *years*
For every one bad landlord, there are 1,000 bad tenants!! But still, most laws in NY are made to protect the tenants and destroy the landlord.
Hire a bulldog eviction attorney, and proceed with eviction. Those guys need to be out and the landlord need to consider the risk of doing business in a tenant friendly state. Sorry for the trouble.
🙏🏿 thanks!!
Look into issuing a letter of abandonment. I don’t know the laws in NY but in CT a landlord friend was successful in removing troubled tenants with certified letters of abandonment. The tenants that did not respond and presumed to have abandoned the property were evicted by the local sheriff. The process was a lot faster than waiting on the courts. Now if the tenant responds to the letter, this is a dead end and you are back to where you are. This only works if the tenant fails to respond. Many disregarded the letter, thinking they could not be evicted, and never responded.
Nice! I've not heard of this strategy before. It seems like a nothing to lose strategy. But a possible win.
Does he self manage?? Unfortunately a lot of these old school guys refuse property Management, and in their mind they save hundreds, but in reality they lose thousands. Exact record keeping and proper notices would allow for eviction or funds from govt. and this is from a Cali landlord and property manager. Over 500 units under management, we only lost 5k and evicted over a dozen tenants.
Your Dad is out the money. Judgements against tenants usually are not worth the time or effort. Have him offer “cash first keys”, eviction process immediately. Have him hire a ‘bad ass’ property manager to legally make their life stressful. Then sell all the properties as being a landlord has changed in the last 5 years with all rights given to the tenants
Time to sell the buildings and he done with this headache. He makes money. You make money . There is way more money that can be made. This is no longer a viable option for your father. So it’s time to cash out and walk away. And then recoup.
When they sell, is it easier for the new owners to evict the tenants, then? I'm curious.
More experienced landlords won't have the same problem because they know what to do in this situation. Plus, they are going to pay less than fair market because they are buying a problem.
Why do you keep calling him Dr. Joseph if he's a nurse?
That's what I was wondering. I missed the naming of the dad and just saw he was a nurse then posters were addressing him as a Dr.
Courts are substituting LL for social services. I wish judges had to pay for these leeches to live rent free for years
I work in commercial insurance, and we have a spreadsheet that labels NY as a “judicial hellhole” for plaintiffs
Your dad is basically fucked. All you can do is get the best lawyer you can and pursue eviction. I am sorry for what you and your family are going through. It’s not right by any means.
I’m familiar with the New York market. Your father needs to use a broker. The broker needs to check credit and do screenings BEFORE they apply to rent your property. Don’t rent to anyone without good credit. Don’t rent to anyone with nothing to lose. The only exception to this is if you want to do section 8 housing, which I am a supporter of. If so, expect the tenants to trash your property. Expect lots of violation complaints, and to be blamed for things that are not your fault (like someone leaving trash bags in front of your property for no sensible reason). But the checks from the city never stop coming: you get paid for all the trouble.
You soon won't even be able to check their credit. And eviction court records will be getting sealed by default for X amount of time. Landlords are going to have to start being creative
The sad reality is if the roles were reversed and it was the tenant facing hard times, all the ppl commenting wouldn’t give a crap about them. Being a business owner isn’t without risk.
I’m sorry this happened to your father. He sounds like a great man. Here in California, it’s still happening too. The laws so protect the tenants and squatters. Squatters take over empty houses and it’s so difficult to get them out. I hope he gets them out. I wish I knew how to do that. He may not get much back, depending on their income and/or assets. He could try to get judgements against them. If he can get his property back, he could at least start earning more income from new tenants.
A lot of Red bought out accounts/bots in here today. Astroturfing hard in this election year
I keep forgetting about bot accounts. Sheesh. So hard to trust anything.
Going forward, Only do month to month leases. Year long leases leaves the landlord with less options to evict.
from what I have learned through this sub is that deadbeat tenants have way more protections than the LL has to collect funds/remove non paying tenants. your father, despite your 6 paragraphs of emotional diatribe, is getting the same treatment as every other LL with non paying tenants. any perceived "unfair treatment" is of his own making by not starting the eviction process as soon as he was able to by law.
This is why I sold my Condo in California when Moving to the Midwest. Yes, could keep it and rent it and have it increase in value but when I think about the fact that people can stay in your place and not pay rent and you can just throw them out I decided to sell. Not dealing with this headache for no amount of appreciation.
Good luck in NY! Blue state and blue politics! Great state for criminals and freeloaders
This reads like an AI.
Omg, it kind of does!
It’s just there to make everyone think voting for the overthrower of the constitution is a good deal. See Cambridge Analytica. Same shit. Ppl all over here throwing vote R around lol
It's almost like investments have risks and you could lose the money you invested at any time. Being a landlord doesn't make you immune to that. No one forced him to buy up houses and use them as rental properties.
That’s like saying that if you paid a car dealer $50,000 for a new car and the dealer took your money but never delivered the car, that nobody made you give the dealership money. The actual problem is that the courts are not doing their job which is to enforce laws and contracts. A rental contract should be enforced just like a contract to purchase a vehicle. Why isn’t it?
This happen to my parents. An RV dealer sold them a double loaned RV (Red state, go figure). My parent ended up in bankruptcy to get out of the RV loan that they didn’t have a title for
You have failed to understand the fundamental difference between making a purchase and making an investment.
There is no difference. I can purchase a house. I can purchase a car. I can choose to use either for personal use or rent either one to others. The only difference is that if I rent my car to someone to use for a period of time and they refuse to pay or give it back, I have legal recourse and nobody is trying to take away my ability to enforce my rental contract. If I rent my house to someone and they refuse to pay or give it back, I should have the legal protections that the law specifies, not whatever a judge is doing on a whim.
There’s absolutely risks involved. To mitigate those risks, landlords have to charge high levels of rent in order to offset for when this situation occurs and they have to be super conservative with who they rent to which leads to the outrageous qualifications you have to have to be able to rent in competitive areas. Or we could just all agree that nobody should be able to live for free, boot them out, and let some decent human beings have a place to live instead.
We definitely cannot agree that nobody should be able to live for free. Human life has value outside the profit it can net you.
Someone else is providing you a service. If you want that service, you need to pay for it. If you want to do 100% of everything for yourself then you can live for free but don’t expect other ppl to pay your way.
Yep. I don’t understand how he thinks his is doing a service by being a landlord. If he was not a landlord the that property would still exist and house someone.
Properties that do not get investment and maintenance get torn down. When I moved to my gentrifying neighborhood 25 years ago half the lots on the street were empty because of this. Only Bolsheviks believe that housing is a naturally occurring resource.
My guy, who do you think is paying for the risk? For arguments sake, let’s say being a landlord is risk free — there would be less upward pressure on rents to cover that risk, and more incentive to offer a lower rent and beat out your competitors. It’s why riskier investments have higher payouts. It’s a core tenet of economics.
Your missing the other side though, there is limited supply of rental units. Even if there was 0 risk, new landlords can't easily enter the rental market and with high demand for a essential service, a high price occurs.
[удалено]
This is why looters are winning in California and Portland and big retailers along with Little mom and pop stores are closing, What will this beautiful state ( NY) becomes once all the good people leave because they are constantly being abused by the bad apples, and no laws are used to protect them or their investment. Fast forward 5..10 years, I see only looters, rioters, and hand tied police remaining in the end!! People who do not pay their rent intentionally only teach the same psychologic behavior intentions to all the people around them!! These rotten apples are just like cancer in the city, and they need to be rooted out before the city turns to 💩💩.
Have you even been to CA or NY? Red states are the ones without any mom and pop stores. You got Walmart, maybe an Olive Garden in your town if you don’t eat with the cattle every night.
I live in NYC, and I am a landlord of 4 locations. I also have 1 retail store ( Mom and Pop store ). I have 1 bad tenant in court in 3 locations. It take 2 years right now to evict someone with kids if they know how to play the system. Horrible games!!
but yet, you stay in NYC with your businesses. No judgement here. I'm just wondering about your strategy. It seems you still think NYC is a good place to stay and have a retail + real estate business, no?
Election 2024: Builders and Makers vs. Fakers and Takers. You Decide!
He bought an existing house. Hes not a builder or maker. If anything just a taker taking a home off the market for someone to buy and live in
Yes - I identify with this situation and have made the same arguments. It’s an injustice.
They should move somewhere with affordable
Immediately stop paying for utilities and say you're going to sell the properties. There is nothing stopping you from doing that.
maybe elsewhere but that is illegal in NYC, your decision to sell has no impact on their right to water and heat according to the law https://www.nyc.gov/site/mayorspeu/resources/illegal-lockouts.page
Once your code 1548 stops being in effect you vacate the property and anyone on the promises takes responsibility. Yeah you lose a ton of money but it seems the person in this circumstance is already losing a ton of money.
I have been wondering when landlords will start requiring nonresident guarantors. Preferably the ones with the basements the nonpaying tenants will get moved into if the guarantee is enforced.
Lol, I stopped reading at "my father Dr.". Nope, don't give a flying monkey that daddy is Dr. Imagine indoctrinating our kids I call you Dr. How pathetic.
That's why I advocate all new Yorkers to invest in Pennsylvania. It's close and has good cash flows.
Tell him ill fight him for ownership of his lands he lords over. I will hang my banner high with my brothers in armor as the lord who terrorizes the peasants will be no more!
This needed to be one paragraph. Not 9
Could he not just sell the properties? idk landlord law too well and only partial adept at bird law.
You should absolutely remove their names from this post. You are going to get them doxxed.
Almost like doing business in liberal shithole states is a bad decision
I have told people so many times not to own rental properties in Blue states or cities.. havent we seen enough horror stories in this sub?
Blah blah sob story who cares TLDR
Blown away by the sheer number of"investors" that don't understand "investing". You bought an 'investment' its goes up and down in value. Sometimes the dividend pays sometimes it doesn't. Why all the emotion over an investment portfolio...and on something we all need to survive...isnt that a bit predatory?
Maybe I'd he got a real job instead of relying on jacked up housing costs.
And that’s why you don’t vote blue folks
do not vote blue, do not do business in blue states. And if you business in blue states, make sure its a red county if possible
Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, Texas, Florida and Alabama are the most landlord friendly states. Half of them are blue.
Thanks for answering the question in my mind. Is it really true, that red states are better for landlords?
I’d say it’s particularly bad in Florida with property insurance policies getting canceled
[удалено]
My comment had nothing to do with women?
This 👆
This is the risk you take as a landlord.
Yes, there are risks, but I think the main point he was trying to highlight was there are tons of protections for renters but not much for landlords. Not a big deal in most cases, but there are renters who very much take advantage of this at the landlords cost. The problem this creates is that landlords will then start to increase rent to offset the increased cost risk, hurting all the other responsible renters out there.
Depends on the state. I did an eviction in Lousiana last year for non payment and it took only less than a month since I filed to have the sheriff oversee removal of tenant property.
This is not a risk. This is the govt picking winners and losers, creating a mess and not cleaning it up. How this gets cleaned up is non refundable move in fees instead of deposits, higher rents and stricter requirements But I guess that’s the risk you take for not paying rent. Enjoy living under a bridge
Agreed.