You're right, I was just being a pedant. It's still kicking most tenants out, it's just presenting it as a choice. Most people are renting at a certain price point because it's what they can afford. Not to mention, most complexes require you to make 3x or even sometimes 3.5x monthly rent in income.
It is a choice. Pay higher rate or leave. Used to move our grandmother around due to rent being raised. Choice was to move. If a landlord can get 3x more, should they not after the contract ends?
They're technically not going through the eviction process, just price gouging the tenant, so the tenant leaves, and they can rent to someone else without going through the court system.
They can raise rent 100% get the tenant to sign a notice to vacate, then the next person who inquires charge 30% more than they do now. Now I'm am making way more money and didn't have to bother with the expenses of evicting someone.
Edit: Why the fuck are you downvoting me for explaining a sleezeball landlord practice? You you illiterate fuxks think I approve of this bullshit? I don't Fuck off
It’s cuz what you responded to makes no sense.
The above person just stated you can simply not renew them if you don’t want them once the contract is up.
This is in reference to people calling it a loophole.
You either missed that or responded to the wrong person.
There is no non-technical eviction if the agreed upon time is up.
This is incorrect.
If they want to raise the rent by 30% but like the current tenant, they'll at least offer the current tenant that rate. Changing tenants carries a cost, and there's no guarantee that they'll be able to fill the vacancy so it's a seamless transition.
They're doubling the rate either because: 1) that's what they think the apartment will go for on the open market or 2) they don't like the current tenant.
Well so yes in this case you are correct. BUT a lot of the time now people will get this letter not even half way through their lease and essentially are kicked out because of pricing.
Yes i know dude, they give you notice that the NEXT lease renewal will be higher. They effectively evict you by raising the price so exponentially that you cant renew.
You're making no sense. It's not an eviction. This is a landlord raising rent for a new lease which is incredibly high but 100% not an eviction. You just like the unfair feeling built into the word 'eviction'.
It’s a gray area. I understand what they mean, if you keep rising rent exponentially - you’re basically evicting that particular renter (legally and in an asshole yet “fair and totally legal” way.)
It sucks and there should be a cap on how much rent can be increased on yearly basis. I would vote on that if it makes sense as having a roof over your head can be considered a human right and shouldn’t be considered 100% only a business venture.
What they mean is that it's constructive eviction, which it isn't. It's basically the opposite, "we fulfilled our contract and don't wish to sign another"
Okay goes like this
1 person rents at a fair price
2 landlord realise he can get more $ or wants the person out
3 landlord cant kick you out until lease is over
4 some states have certain laws for non lease renewal etc
5 landlord raises price by a fuck ton.
6 person cant afford it so they leave
7 landlord doesn’t have to evict them legally costing them money
You see when you own something other people get to use it at whatever price they want without limit, and you can never change the deal even after the deal is over
This isn’t an eviction. Eviction is a legal process to force change of possession.
This is just a price increase for renewal. Tenant can choose whether to renew at new terms or end relationship.
The definition of Eviction is the removal of a tenant by a landlord. If they received a letter that said they aren’t re-renting the apartment even though the tenant wanted to stay it would also be an eviction.
That hinges on what you mean by removal, and I wouldn't say creating new contract terms a tenet rejects is removal in the normal nor legal use of the word.
And if you want to use that broad definition you are conflating a fairly typical leasing conflict between private parties that resolves with someone moving out and living somewhere else with a highly combative court ordered process that resolves with the sheriff dragging someone out of an apartment.
I'm using the definition of the word as intended, and can give you changing the locks as an example. From a legal standpoint, changing the locks is considered a 'constructive eviction', even though it has nothing to do with a 'highly combative court ordered process' as you state.
Additionally, most leases state that a tenant must notify the landlord in 30/60/X number of days before moving out, *regardless* of whether the lease has ended. If the landlord raises the rent by an absurd amount preventing a tenant from staying in a location where they would otherwise have preferred to stay, that is also a 'constructive eviction', albeit a legal one.
Changing the locks is illegal and constructive eviction and is not what's happening here. Giving untimely notice is illegal and constructive eviction and not what's happening here. Removing a delinquent tenant who will not vacate under the law is legal and is eviction and is not what's happening here.
Giving timely notice to raise the rent after the conclusion of the lease is not illegal nor eviction nor constructive eviction in the normal or legal use of the word. Under your definition, that's because the tenant was not 'removed', they chose to vacate. If the tenant stays after the lease they may be evicted.
What I'm gathering in this thread is that the word eviction sounds extra mean so we are trying to use it everywhere it doesn't belong.
The only point I was trying to make was that if the rent increase was unreasonably high, and depending on the amount, potentially illegal, that would be considered a constructive eviction and AI backs up my claim, so I won't be engaging with this anymore.
It’s not, though. That’s like saying “being broke” and “being bankrupt” is the same thing.
Bankruptcy is a legal process. You need to file legal documents to have that. “Broke” is not a legal procedure. In either case, you’re in financial trouble.
“Eviction” is a court process. “Non-renewal” is a business agreement process. In either case, you no longer have possession of the property at some date in the future.
Because notice to vacate is expensive and lengthy and doesn’t mean they cant fight it. In some sates you can argue against it and the landlord has to give you a period to settle somewhere else. This is the most cost effective way to do it.
They may already have done the math on that (and if it's a large corporate landlord, they will have done) and discovered that method X results in problems in Y% of cases, and that method W results in problems in Z% of cases, and chosen whichever is best.
It might also (more likely) be because the market rate has risen a lot, and a significant number of people will simply sign the new lease. That's a LOT more profit and less costs than emptying, refurbing and marketing the unit. Like, thousands of dollars per acceptance, and a reduced future risk of costs associated with a bad tenant.
This depends on the location but my complex did the same last year and now is having negative results for them. They are not renting and people are not renovating their lease and now the complex has lower the rates and giving free months. I hope they burn, I'm leaving soon.
My big corporate apartment tried raising by 40%. I had only been there for 12 months. Got some bullshit about ‘catching up the market rate’. Like I’m sure it went up 40% in a year 🙄
Said goodbye and peaced out. I talked to one of the lease guys and he said they were doing that across the complex and getting the same results (people leaving)
I checked every now and then and it took about 5 months for that apartment to fill. Like… I always paid a little early, I was always quiet… what a waste
Balance of profit and consistent payout. Want more profit? Risk your bread and butter, and you have to hustle for more tenants more often and people damaging your units on the way out. Something old school landlords have learned already. There's a case for rising opex equating to rising rents but it's not the case for rents going to "market rate". Pursuing landlording as a potentially passive way of generating income is fine imo as long as it's not foolishly squeezing harder and harder. Unfortunately that's the culture right now.
I 100% agree. I own 1 rental property and i would never raise rents by more than a few % per lease term. Its just absurd that people think its ok to abuse tenants because "well, its within the bounds of the law so its ok!!!"
and yea. "passive income". Theres no such thing as passive income, someone, somewhere, is doing work so that the products are available to buy.
That’s not really how it works with bigger apartment complexes. The management companies typically get a cut between 2.5-3.5% of the property’s gross income, so they’re incentivized to push rents as much as they can.
There's bullshit involved in all options, owning or renting. The bullshit is just different. Boomers who were born on third base didn't prepare for rising property taxes and insurance. Millennials came along late enough to have the wherewithal to build in padding for inevitable rug pulls along the way.
(Not disagreeing that things are bad for our generation). But in no world would your mortgage payment just double per month and any increases in taxes or utilities/insurance (assuming you bought something you can safely afford to begin with) wouldn’t even come close to the strain that rent suddenly going up 100 percent would be or you being kicked out and not finding anything that’s even close to what you had……It sucks but buying is actually the only way for us to have any sort of actual stability or safety in comparison to the other available alternatives……
No.
Ever have to replace a roof? Appliances? Siding? Purchase tools for a home project? Pay a contractor? Do or pay for landscaping?
Not my mortgage but it most certainly comes out of my pocket!
Not all of those are apples to apples. You don’t *need* to buy tools for a home project, similarly you don’t *need* to pay for landscaping. The roof and appliances are valid, but roofs need replacing like every 15-20 years, same with appliances on a shorter schedule.
And let’s say the homeowner does need to replace the roof, that’s not going to increase their mortgage for the rest of the time they live in the home. To compare that with a renter who gets an unexpected 100% increase is not in the same vein at all, since they would need to pay the increased (and ever increasing) amount for as long as they live at the property.
Something more comparable would be unexpected property tax increases, but renters have to pay those as well if the landlord isn’t eating the cost.
I agree. My father lives in Arizona and has never had to replace his roof in 30 years. His landscaping is xeriscaping so almost no maintenance, maybe cutting some palm frawns. All his neighbors have been living in their houses for 30 years as well and no one has had to put money into their house except replace a $1500 fridge.
I have, but I’m not sure how you get to that conclusion from my post. An emergency plumbing repair, short of needing to replace your main sewer line down to the street, is not going to cost tens of thousands and is not going to permanently raise your housing payment.
Most of what you wrote is nonsense.
I like owning my home but I also don’t need to lie about the costs. Maintence sucks.
Takes up money and especially time. Its not just a mortgage and property taxes.
I also own a home, a home project like adding some fruit trees or building a chicken coop aren’t necessities, things like replacing a toilet’s wax seal since it’s leaking in my book is considered a repair. What else do you disagree with? Are you replacing your roof every 5 years?
People will tell you that those costs are baked into what renters pay, but what renters pay is really only impacted by market demand and the wage income of the rental population. I don't care what my landlord's costs are in providing housing services, same as any other good/service I purchase.
I mean sucks but this isn’t really entirely true……Rent is almost always is determined taking into account a landlord’s costs…..and it almost always ends up being profitable to the landlord at the end…..That’s the point…….
At some point a landlord is going to look at your unit and say, “If my tenant is paying me X, and my expenses / payment is generally going to be Y and even worst case scenarios that I have to pay for if insurance doesn’t will be Z- then the total of rent + my equity that I’m building + ROI/growth taking into account inflation + tax savings better be more than YZ (my expenses)”.
If it’s not, then there’s absolutely no point in being a landlord from their perspective and that unit may as well be offloaded now. And on that token, there would be no reason for anyone to be a landlord if it weren’t profitable……While the other profit factors aren’t really in their control, the only factor there that they can control is your rent, so they’re going to increase it to the point where it is profitable for them and that’s what the market will basically be because otherwise there would be no market….
If someone is renting to you, they are definitely largely baking in their costs into your rent and they absolutely overlap with your rent to a pretty large extent, and anything that doesn’t- is being accounted for via the other benefits to a landlord beyond your rent that I mentioned above^.
There’s a *reason* why these landlords are HAPPY to do the “labor” and spend the cost of doing bare minimum maintenance on their property in exchange for your rent as a dollar figure, even IF that maintenance exceeds your monthly rent once in a while…………And that’s because it’s not *just* your rent VS their maintenance expenses. It’s **your rent + their equity + their market gains + their tax breaks and deductibles + their insurance protection + their stability and security**.
> If it’s not, then there’s absolutely no point in being a landlord from their perspective and that unit may as well be offloaded now.
Exactly… because ultimately, *rent is determined by supply and demand, not the landlord’s costs.* Just as he said. If the math isn’t penciling out because he cannot rent for the price he needs, he will sell.
> there would be no reason for anyone to be a landlord if it weren’t profitable
Different landlords have different costs.
Except your supply and demand statement implies that there’s a somewhat equal relationship between the two. But in this case, for the most part that barely exists, there is a power dynamic more skewed towards the landlords.
Most tenants *need* to rent because they *need* housing, and because they are unable to buy. If they were able to comfortably buy, it would in the long run be worth it financially but because they can’t, they have no choice but to pay even an increasing rent that takes up a larger and larger portion of their income. In so situation can we just boycott or protest housing and as long as we are *capable* of paying, (maybe that means it becomes a greater portion of our income, maybe it means we are expected to cut down other expenses like cars, vacations, kids, etc because housing will always be the first thing you pay for over everything else which means we’re a lot more desperate for it) which we see already happening. So even if you aren’t willing to make those cuts, others will be and that isn’t going to change….
The demand is just so great, whether willfully or not, that there is no reason to lower rent and the fact of the matter is because of that and whatever else factors- your current rent is absolutely profitable to the landlord and that’s not going to change unless your landlord is the government or a body who’s motivation isn’t profit.
And from the landlords perspective, that rent is still something that pays for a majority of their short term costs costs if not above and beyond and still ends up being profitable in the long run in other ways. (Taxes, gains, etc).
Even if a home is paid off and the landlord has no mortgage, they still have an “opportunity cost” where if renting it was so unprofitable, they would just sell and invest elsewhere or let it sit idle and not deal with the risks of having someone else occupy your property. The fact that they don’t, and still happily continue to rent + take on those risks + pay for maintenances means they’re doing it because it still comes out to be a very profitable and relatively low labor investment for them, even if you factor in opportunity cost of investing elsewhere (say a mutual fund or something more labor intensive) even after inflation…..
Simply put, Housing demand is inelastic, but somehow some people on this forum thought it's elastic.
Most of the people that think it's elastic demand probably never have to face with the realty they might have no where to go, and no where to live to realize how important having a residence is.
In markets where the rent doesn't cover the costs -- eg: a lot of the bay area, some landlords are banking on appreciation. some bought decades ago and market rents cover their lower costs. But the fact that you can finance a rental in the bay at ...7%+ and some other guy got in decades prior has no actual impact on rents. The rent *is* the market rent, and you can either make it pencil out or you can't if you're a prospective new landlord.
The landlords that bought when the houses were $100k and have virtually no ongoing costs? Doesn't matter. A market rate 2/2 sfh in the bay will still fetch $4k/mo (made up number, didn't check). your financing terms don't matter.
No dude, renters pay for the mortgage + cost of operating + 1-2% minimum cash flow. That last one’s the important one, people who bought their rentals years ago get 30-45% cash flow due to market rate.
Yup. But here’s the thing. If you do all of the stuff that’s necessary (needs, not wants), it’s still a cost that’s in my opinion hands down worth incurring over your landlord paying to fulfill those needs but in exchange you also lacking the security and stability that comes with owning instead.
But for instance,
The roof and siding I had to replace was done by insurance. (But I also bought a home that had a fairly new roof. Had I not, it’s something I can account for since I know it’s a cost that’s coming and I know approximately when and how much it’ll be). But either way, It went into the equity of *my* home.
The appliances I had to replace (all were secondhand) and were at the end of the day *mine*, and when I didn’t need them anymore- I sold them.
And while yes paying a contractor or learning how to DIY is something that you have to do, doing it for the bare minimum necessities is something that ultimately goes towards your stability and security, which is something you **do not have** when you pay your landlord to do it instead. Paying for extras that may not be necessities (Your landlord isn’t going to pay to upgrade fancy appliances, plant beautiful flowers / build you a grilling station outside / pay to install your choice of flooring etc etc. ) is something that goes towards your happiness, is ultimately *yours* and hopefully will eventually go towards extra value / ROI. (And when you rent, it’s not like these expenses go away. If you want to decorate a certain way, have certain upgrades, do a certain type of landscaping or anything immovable- you still pay for it except you do it with the permission of your landlord and then they benefit from it when you leave it behind).
Like yes I agree that it depends, and at a fundamental level it takes a lot of privilege to get to the position to buy a home and have any sort of safety net built up in the first place and I recognize that not everyone has that……..but I’ll take some crap landscaping or a leaky roof for a while over being homeless because my landlord decided to double rent or kick me out any day if that’s the choice here…..
There’s a *reason* why these landlords are HAPPY to do the “labor” and spend the cost of doing bare minimum maintenance on their property in exchange for your rent as a dollar figure, even IF that maintenance exceeds your monthly rent once in a while…………And that’s because it’s not *just* your rent VS their maintenance expenses. It’s **your rent + their equity + their market gains + their tax breaks and deductibles + their insurance protection + their stability and security**.
yes but then you can spec the job, choose the materials, quality, the color, and learn to fix things yourself. I'd take that over some landlord half-assing it and charging me double to 'fix' it
They weren’t “doubling” lol. They increased yes for the folks who took out ARMs instead of fixed rates, but it still only increased by a set percentage point max.
But even in those situations, you knew what could happen and what was coming when you started. If you take out an ARM and don’t account for the worst possible scenario (usually max 2 point increase after a set period of years), then that’s a gamble that’s on you. But you don’t by any means *have* to buy a home with an ARM.
The fact that the US offers 30 year fixed rates (and is one of the only nations in the world to do so) is an incredible thing IMO. It means that if you are comfortably capable of paying the mortgage that you start with, barring a terrible situation where you lose your job and are incapable of getting another income source- you will most definitely have a paid off home where you do not have to be at the mercy of landlords worst case, and best case you have an asset that has seriously appreciated by the time you retire (at a time when you are less likely to have the same income source capabilities you had when you were younger).
If your Boomers are like my Boomers, they spent it all on themselves. My grandmother alone would take a cruise to Italy every other year with her church. Aunt and uncle got that reversed mortgage to retire early and travel in their RV and said “fuck those kids”.
Why have kids if they’re just throwing them scraps and bones while parents feast on everything else.
And paying rent blows. Zero sum game. You can use your position to get yourself a quick buck from someone else’s hard work but you can’t pretend that you’re not a self-serving leech.
LOL read the original OP in the other sub, they are all texting the property manager and giving him hell
tons of 1-star reviews, signing him up for porn sites, giving the number to debt collectors, etc.
oh dear. property management company ad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR5XTourEXE
one of the comments
> David Raley with 3Horizons doubled my rent when I told him I wasn’t down for a “tickle fight” as he called it.
Someone's going to have a good time tomorrow morning.
That’s because the previous rent was too low compared to the market.
People want to cast shame on the LL for the increase, but the real shame was not maintaining his prices with the market year to year to follow the market up.
Well idk man, sometimes rents are extremely low in comparison to some areas. Do you expect to never have landlords raise rents? The area code that the person put seems to be on par with some rental rates. We also have no context here, what if the person is a bad tenant? Or if the cost of taxes have gone up dramatically? Im in chicago and lived in a place for 950$ a month, the landlady was this real sweet older woman. She was stressed out to the point she had a stroke because raxes went from 1,200 a month to 4,500 a month within a year lol on a 4 unit building. She was basically going to lose her place, I advised her to raise the rents but she just couldnt do it because of the people living there. She eventually had to sell, and the new landlords tripled the rental rates essentially lol (after paint job and updated kitchen) .
This isn’t even in the ritzy part of Philly. It’s in on offshoot suburb that most wouldn’t even call the city. A relatively family oriented place though, so could probably go for $2500.
My guess is that it’s a new building and residents got an intro “new building, first year” type of offer.
Philly is a major metropolitan city on the East Coast, if you aren't aware. Even though this is a douchey move, it's still very much what would be expected for the location.
Philly does have it's nice parts, but it's 39th in terms GDP by city in the US. $4k just seems absurd, unless it's a genuine luxury building. In DC, Boston, Seattle, etc. (way wealthier cities) $4k gets you a way better building then what I saw on a quick google search for this building by the OP.
Eh, GDP is a bit of a murky metric. The metro area overall is actually quite affluent, and the city is increasingly so. It's a dramatic increase, no doubt. But it's a sign of the times/market, as well.
So, was the original rate $1,350? Because I don’t see that original number anywhere.
Also, a yearly lease and month to month always vary in price.
They always charge more for month to month. So never do that. Just always go for the year and break the lease and incur whatever small fee you have to incur to do that.
OP wrote that they were paying $1,350, but you might not be able to see the text under the image depending on which version of reddit you're using.
It's missing for me unless I view this post on new.reddit.
Are you paying the $2700 now? What’s the price if you sign a new lease? Of course month to month is the most expensive. They have no guarantee you’ll stay so they charge more.
When y'all say "Renting is the better option" I like to point out that your rent can change at any point in time to not be the better option... and when that happens, what then?
Renting is the only option for many, but if you HAD the option to get into a home/condo to live then it's still better than renting because rent goes UP randomly. At least your mortgage doesn't (unless you didn't do fixed rate because you believed a home was an investment).
If you think about it, rent is definitely a trickle down on mortgage costs. You buy a house, it costs X per month. If you rent it out, it must be at X+repairs+profit margin. As the cost of property rises for owners, so to will their bottom line to break even or profit on rent. Which means that today's $3000 mortgages are tomorrow's $3500 rental homes. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
Perhaps they had a promo. Say 3 free months for new residents. You can either not pay for three months or spread it out over 12 months. Tenant spread it out. At renewal there will be an increase in rent plus there is no promo to apply. Perhaps this tenant is in a three bedroom unit that has become highly in demand because recent foreclosures from single family homes is pushing them to rent 3 bedrooms so the demand pushed renewal up further. Perhaps this is the second notice after the tenant doxxed the property manager. This notice had a “hostile tenant” clause that I just made up that added to renewal base rent.
It amazes me how many didn’t click the post and how many in the comments are like “whELp thaTs wHy yOu shOuLd oWn” like wtf do you know where you are?
👏 we 👏know 👏 this 👏 we 👏 can’t 👏 afford 👏 it 👏 now
Not surprised. Especially when more and more smaller competitions got pushed out of the market by anti-landlord renters, and let the major corporations took over the market.
Would you mind sharing some examples on r/renters of posters who you would consider to be "nightmare tenants"? Is it the post about the tenant whose rent was raised 100%, or the post about the tenant with uninhabitable living conditions? Who is the nightmare tenant?
The nightmare tenant is someone who doesn’t pay their electric bill, has their electricity shut off, then messes with the meter and turns the electricity back on. Electric company finds out, shuts off electricity and puts a lock on the meter. Nightmare tenants break the lock and turn the electricity on again. Electric company finds out again and puts a large metal ring lock on the meter — it goes all around the meter. Nightmare tenants figure out how to break into the meter again and turn electricity back on.
It is now about six months later and two weeks before Christmas. There’s more than two feet of snow on the ground. It’s bitterly cold out, with wind chills of -25 degrees F. The natural gas heating boilers have a failsafe in them that shuts them off if it senses they’re close to boiling dry. The failsafe requires electricity. If the electricity goes off, it automatically shuts the boiler down.
Nightmare tenants still haven’t paid their electric bill. Electric company pull the meter off of the house because it is now considered a safety issue because the nightmare tenants could electrocute themselves by messing with the electricity like that. Tenants go to stay with a family member or friend because they have no heat.
We, the landlords, live on the second floor above the nightmare tenants — we purchased the two-family home as a mortgage helper because we couldn’t afford a single family home. The electric company won’t turn the electricity back on — which was against the law because it controlled the heat — until the tenants pay their bill.
We had to have all our taps running to keep the pipes from freezing for two weeks, until the tenants paid their bill. But that was not the end of the nightmare. Once a meter is pulled, in order for it to be put back on, one needs a permit from the city.
Our house was built in 1924 and we lost our grandfather status with regards to certain electrical things. We had pay an electrian to bring our house up to the current code. Part of that code was burying 8 six foot long copper rods into the ground, vertically, in the beginning of January, when the ground was frozen solid.
By the time it was all said and done, it cost us over $5K to get the electric meter put back on the house. Money we didn’t even have. Luckily the electrician was my sister’s best friend’s husband, and he let us pay a little each month until we paid it off.
We wanted to evict the tenants but didn’t have the $7K needed for an attorney to do so. After that, those same nightmare tenants ran an illegal puppy mill in their apartment. They ruined all the hardwood floors with all the feces and urine.
Once we finished paying for the electrical debacle, we saved our money so that we could hire an attorney to evict the nightmare tenants. It took another few years before we could do so.
It took 6 months to evict the nightmare tenants. After that we had to hire a contractor to fix the apartment they had destroyed. They had ripped pieces of wallpaper off every wall in the place. All 1200 square feet of hardwood floor was cupped, stained, and reeked of urine. There were holes in almost every single one of the horsehair plaster walls and lots of other damage to all the countertops, doors, cabinets, etc.
It cost us almost $40K to make that apartment habitable again. Our contractor knew what we had went through and told us that we could sell the place for really good money because we had kept the upstairs where we lived nice and had now renovated the first floor. He was correct and we sold it and got out of the landlord business.
The tenant prior to that nightmare were awful as well, in that they never paid their rent, and blasted loud music all the time. Loud enough that it vibrated photos and shelves right off the wall. Luckily for us he lost his job and decided to move to another state with his girlfriend. He still owed us rent, but we were happy to see him go, so we could have some peace and quiet.
The tenants not paying rent, holding it up in court for a year then trashing the place on move out. They have ruined things for small time landlords. If you only have 2-3 properties and get one of these tenants you go out of business.
It’s going to be hilarious when Amazon and Walmart own all the residential housing and shifts at the local warehouse are part of their rental lease.
Careful what you wish for….
What did you expect?
During covid, the government put a moratorium on tenant evictions while at the same time not assisting landlords. That kind of bullshit caused some landlords to go bankrupt or go broke.
Now, land lords have to factor in "government bullshit laws" into the price of rent and unfortunately for renters, the premium on an 18-month moratorium is incredibly high.
Sucks to suck, but this was always gonna happen.
"That kind of bullshit caused some landlords to go bankrupt or go broke."
Investments come with risks. Don't like the risks... perhaps some safer investments are in order.
This is what we call a forced eviction. They want you out so your rent magically needs to catch up for “inflation”
I mean, aren't all evictions forced?
You are correct but still stands. This is the most Common loop hole in the legal system
You're right, I was just being a pedant. It's still kicking most tenants out, it's just presenting it as a choice. Most people are renting at a certain price point because it's what they can afford. Not to mention, most complexes require you to make 3x or even sometimes 3.5x monthly rent in income.
People all over the country are being priced out of houses and rents are continuing to skyrocket. Wow that month to month rate is extreme!!!
We be living in the bad times brother
We really do be
Do be. Do be do.
Bah?
It be like dat sumtimes
It is a choice. Pay higher rate or leave. Used to move our grandmother around due to rent being raised. Choice was to move. If a landlord can get 3x more, should they not after the contract ends?
You missed the point of what I was saying
What’s the loophole? I mean the contract is up for renewal, so the landlord can just decide not to renew right?
They're technically not going through the eviction process, just price gouging the tenant, so the tenant leaves, and they can rent to someone else without going through the court system. They can raise rent 100% get the tenant to sign a notice to vacate, then the next person who inquires charge 30% more than they do now. Now I'm am making way more money and didn't have to bother with the expenses of evicting someone. Edit: Why the fuck are you downvoting me for explaining a sleezeball landlord practice? You you illiterate fuxks think I approve of this bullshit? I don't Fuck off
But why not raise rent by 30% then? If the current tenant can pay it, fine, if not, then the results are the same.
Because Greed. Why raise it 30 if I can raise it 100% and if I cut it to 50% I'm still up more than keeping them around
ok but in your example you said the LL raised it 30% for the new tenants. So just raise it 50% for the existing tenants and see if they want to stay.
It’s cuz what you responded to makes no sense. The above person just stated you can simply not renew them if you don’t want them once the contract is up. This is in reference to people calling it a loophole. You either missed that or responded to the wrong person. There is no non-technical eviction if the agreed upon time is up.
This is incorrect. If they want to raise the rent by 30% but like the current tenant, they'll at least offer the current tenant that rate. Changing tenants carries a cost, and there's no guarantee that they'll be able to fill the vacancy so it's a seamless transition. They're doubling the rate either because: 1) that's what they think the apartment will go for on the open market or 2) they don't like the current tenant.
Yup
Absolutely a degenerate move if people actually do this.
Either I found some redditors who agree with the practice or some illiterate dumbfucks think I approve of this
Well so yes in this case you are correct. BUT a lot of the time now people will get this letter not even half way through their lease and essentially are kicked out because of pricing.
But you can’t raise rent in the middle of a lease? You’re bound by contract for a year (typically).
Yes i know dude, they give you notice that the NEXT lease renewal will be higher. They effectively evict you by raising the price so exponentially that you cant renew.
You're making no sense. It's not an eviction. This is a landlord raising rent for a new lease which is incredibly high but 100% not an eviction. You just like the unfair feeling built into the word 'eviction'.
It’s a gray area. I understand what they mean, if you keep rising rent exponentially - you’re basically evicting that particular renter (legally and in an asshole yet “fair and totally legal” way.) It sucks and there should be a cap on how much rent can be increased on yearly basis. I would vote on that if it makes sense as having a roof over your head can be considered a human right and shouldn’t be considered 100% only a business venture.
What they mean is that it's constructive eviction, which it isn't. It's basically the opposite, "we fulfilled our contract and don't wish to sign another"
It's amazing that you and 5 other people lack the critical thinking skills to understand the point trying to be made. hung up on semantics. lol
No, you are the one who misses the point, lol
What loophole? Agreement between two parties?
Okay goes like this 1 person rents at a fair price 2 landlord realise he can get more $ or wants the person out 3 landlord cant kick you out until lease is over 4 some states have certain laws for non lease renewal etc 5 landlord raises price by a fuck ton. 6 person cant afford it so they leave 7 landlord doesn’t have to evict them legally costing them money
The legal agreement is over. Should they be locked in at that price forever?
You see when you own something other people get to use it at whatever price they want without limit, and you can never change the deal even after the deal is over
TIL a contract ending and new contract with new terms being drafted is a loophole. EDIT: /S
How is a contract ending a loophole?
I was being sarcastic dude.
Sorry. Never know on Reddit.
This isn’t an eviction. Eviction is a legal process to force change of possession. This is just a price increase for renewal. Tenant can choose whether to renew at new terms or end relationship.
I understand your point but for 99% of people this is effectively an eviction. What if they raised the rent 200% or 300%?
For 99% of people this is the end of a lease term, not an eviction. What if I got a letter that said they aren't re-renting the apartment?
The definition of Eviction is the removal of a tenant by a landlord. If they received a letter that said they aren’t re-renting the apartment even though the tenant wanted to stay it would also be an eviction.
That hinges on what you mean by removal, and I wouldn't say creating new contract terms a tenet rejects is removal in the normal nor legal use of the word. And if you want to use that broad definition you are conflating a fairly typical leasing conflict between private parties that resolves with someone moving out and living somewhere else with a highly combative court ordered process that resolves with the sheriff dragging someone out of an apartment.
I'm using the definition of the word as intended, and can give you changing the locks as an example. From a legal standpoint, changing the locks is considered a 'constructive eviction', even though it has nothing to do with a 'highly combative court ordered process' as you state. Additionally, most leases state that a tenant must notify the landlord in 30/60/X number of days before moving out, *regardless* of whether the lease has ended. If the landlord raises the rent by an absurd amount preventing a tenant from staying in a location where they would otherwise have preferred to stay, that is also a 'constructive eviction', albeit a legal one.
Changing the locks is illegal and constructive eviction and is not what's happening here. Giving untimely notice is illegal and constructive eviction and not what's happening here. Removing a delinquent tenant who will not vacate under the law is legal and is eviction and is not what's happening here. Giving timely notice to raise the rent after the conclusion of the lease is not illegal nor eviction nor constructive eviction in the normal or legal use of the word. Under your definition, that's because the tenant was not 'removed', they chose to vacate. If the tenant stays after the lease they may be evicted. What I'm gathering in this thread is that the word eviction sounds extra mean so we are trying to use it everywhere it doesn't belong.
The only point I was trying to make was that if the rent increase was unreasonably high, and depending on the amount, potentially illegal, that would be considered a constructive eviction and AI backs up my claim, so I won't be engaging with this anymore.
Found the sociopath landlord.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck brother. No matter what type of name you try to call it.
It’s not, though. That’s like saying “being broke” and “being bankrupt” is the same thing. Bankruptcy is a legal process. You need to file legal documents to have that. “Broke” is not a legal procedure. In either case, you’re in financial trouble. “Eviction” is a court process. “Non-renewal” is a business agreement process. In either case, you no longer have possession of the property at some date in the future.
I mean you can see this from the $1200 premium in month-to-month. Never seen it that high.
Yup. Wait why does it say your well endowed?😂
cause a realtor girl asked me a couple years ago if I wanted to make "content" for her you know what page when interest rates became well endowed.
Replying because I want to know how to well endowed, also.
If that was the goal why wouldn't the landlord just give OP a notice to vacate rather than a renewal offer?
Because notice to vacate is expensive and lengthy and doesn’t mean they cant fight it. In some sates you can argue against it and the landlord has to give you a period to settle somewhere else. This is the most cost effective way to do it.
Why is it expensive and lengthy for a landlord to not renew a lease when the lease term expires?
Because the tenant may refuse to obey, which leads to enforcement costs, and loss of revenue.
Couldn't the tenant still do that if the landlord offered to renew at a huge rent increase? What's the difference?
They may already have done the math on that (and if it's a large corporate landlord, they will have done) and discovered that method X results in problems in Y% of cases, and that method W results in problems in Z% of cases, and chosen whichever is best. It might also (more likely) be because the market rate has risen a lot, and a significant number of people will simply sign the new lease. That's a LOT more profit and less costs than emptying, refurbing and marketing the unit. Like, thousands of dollars per acceptance, and a reduced future risk of costs associated with a bad tenant.
Might you mean "constructive eviction"?
This depends on the location but my complex did the same last year and now is having negative results for them. They are not renting and people are not renovating their lease and now the complex has lower the rates and giving free months. I hope they burn, I'm leaving soon.
My big corporate apartment tried raising by 40%. I had only been there for 12 months. Got some bullshit about ‘catching up the market rate’. Like I’m sure it went up 40% in a year 🙄 Said goodbye and peaced out. I talked to one of the lease guys and he said they were doing that across the complex and getting the same results (people leaving) I checked every now and then and it took about 5 months for that apartment to fill. Like… I always paid a little early, I was always quiet… what a waste
Greed will destroy this country
Balance of profit and consistent payout. Want more profit? Risk your bread and butter, and you have to hustle for more tenants more often and people damaging your units on the way out. Something old school landlords have learned already. There's a case for rising opex equating to rising rents but it's not the case for rents going to "market rate". Pursuing landlording as a potentially passive way of generating income is fine imo as long as it's not foolishly squeezing harder and harder. Unfortunately that's the culture right now.
I 100% agree. I own 1 rental property and i would never raise rents by more than a few % per lease term. Its just absurd that people think its ok to abuse tenants because "well, its within the bounds of the law so its ok!!!" and yea. "passive income". Theres no such thing as passive income, someone, somewhere, is doing work so that the products are available to buy.
**property manager raises rates and suggests to the owner to raise rates to cover the fees. “Similar properties in your area are going for X,xxx/mo***
That’s not really how it works with bigger apartment complexes. The management companies typically get a cut between 2.5-3.5% of the property’s gross income, so they’re incentivized to push rents as much as they can.
This is why you want to own a place, eventually.
There's bullshit involved in all options, owning or renting. The bullshit is just different. Boomers who were born on third base didn't prepare for rising property taxes and insurance. Millennials came along late enough to have the wherewithal to build in padding for inevitable rug pulls along the way.
(Not disagreeing that things are bad for our generation). But in no world would your mortgage payment just double per month and any increases in taxes or utilities/insurance (assuming you bought something you can safely afford to begin with) wouldn’t even come close to the strain that rent suddenly going up 100 percent would be or you being kicked out and not finding anything that’s even close to what you had……It sucks but buying is actually the only way for us to have any sort of actual stability or safety in comparison to the other available alternatives……
No. Ever have to replace a roof? Appliances? Siding? Purchase tools for a home project? Pay a contractor? Do or pay for landscaping? Not my mortgage but it most certainly comes out of my pocket!
Not all of those are apples to apples. You don’t *need* to buy tools for a home project, similarly you don’t *need* to pay for landscaping. The roof and appliances are valid, but roofs need replacing like every 15-20 years, same with appliances on a shorter schedule. And let’s say the homeowner does need to replace the roof, that’s not going to increase their mortgage for the rest of the time they live in the home. To compare that with a renter who gets an unexpected 100% increase is not in the same vein at all, since they would need to pay the increased (and ever increasing) amount for as long as they live at the property. Something more comparable would be unexpected property tax increases, but renters have to pay those as well if the landlord isn’t eating the cost.
I agree. My father lives in Arizona and has never had to replace his roof in 30 years. His landscaping is xeriscaping so almost no maintenance, maybe cutting some palm frawns. All his neighbors have been living in their houses for 30 years as well and no one has had to put money into their house except replace a $1500 fridge.
*fronds
You have obviously ever paid for emergency plumbing work
I have, but I’m not sure how you get to that conclusion from my post. An emergency plumbing repair, short of needing to replace your main sewer line down to the street, is not going to cost tens of thousands and is not going to permanently raise your housing payment.
Most of what you wrote is nonsense. I like owning my home but I also don’t need to lie about the costs. Maintence sucks. Takes up money and especially time. Its not just a mortgage and property taxes.
I also own a home, a home project like adding some fruit trees or building a chicken coop aren’t necessities, things like replacing a toilet’s wax seal since it’s leaking in my book is considered a repair. What else do you disagree with? Are you replacing your roof every 5 years?
sounds like a bad shim, get that checked out, the floor is likely uneven underneath the toilet
You don’t think landlords are passing ALL of those costs and some along over time?
Maintenance sucks only if you're dumb and you don't know how to fix or maintain things.
People will tell you that those costs are baked into what renters pay, but what renters pay is really only impacted by market demand and the wage income of the rental population. I don't care what my landlord's costs are in providing housing services, same as any other good/service I purchase.
I mean sucks but this isn’t really entirely true……Rent is almost always is determined taking into account a landlord’s costs…..and it almost always ends up being profitable to the landlord at the end…..That’s the point……. At some point a landlord is going to look at your unit and say, “If my tenant is paying me X, and my expenses / payment is generally going to be Y and even worst case scenarios that I have to pay for if insurance doesn’t will be Z- then the total of rent + my equity that I’m building + ROI/growth taking into account inflation + tax savings better be more than YZ (my expenses)”. If it’s not, then there’s absolutely no point in being a landlord from their perspective and that unit may as well be offloaded now. And on that token, there would be no reason for anyone to be a landlord if it weren’t profitable……While the other profit factors aren’t really in their control, the only factor there that they can control is your rent, so they’re going to increase it to the point where it is profitable for them and that’s what the market will basically be because otherwise there would be no market…. If someone is renting to you, they are definitely largely baking in their costs into your rent and they absolutely overlap with your rent to a pretty large extent, and anything that doesn’t- is being accounted for via the other benefits to a landlord beyond your rent that I mentioned above^. There’s a *reason* why these landlords are HAPPY to do the “labor” and spend the cost of doing bare minimum maintenance on their property in exchange for your rent as a dollar figure, even IF that maintenance exceeds your monthly rent once in a while…………And that’s because it’s not *just* your rent VS their maintenance expenses. It’s **your rent + their equity + their market gains + their tax breaks and deductibles + their insurance protection + their stability and security**.
> If it’s not, then there’s absolutely no point in being a landlord from their perspective and that unit may as well be offloaded now. Exactly… because ultimately, *rent is determined by supply and demand, not the landlord’s costs.* Just as he said. If the math isn’t penciling out because he cannot rent for the price he needs, he will sell. > there would be no reason for anyone to be a landlord if it weren’t profitable Different landlords have different costs.
Except your supply and demand statement implies that there’s a somewhat equal relationship between the two. But in this case, for the most part that barely exists, there is a power dynamic more skewed towards the landlords. Most tenants *need* to rent because they *need* housing, and because they are unable to buy. If they were able to comfortably buy, it would in the long run be worth it financially but because they can’t, they have no choice but to pay even an increasing rent that takes up a larger and larger portion of their income. In so situation can we just boycott or protest housing and as long as we are *capable* of paying, (maybe that means it becomes a greater portion of our income, maybe it means we are expected to cut down other expenses like cars, vacations, kids, etc because housing will always be the first thing you pay for over everything else which means we’re a lot more desperate for it) which we see already happening. So even if you aren’t willing to make those cuts, others will be and that isn’t going to change…. The demand is just so great, whether willfully or not, that there is no reason to lower rent and the fact of the matter is because of that and whatever else factors- your current rent is absolutely profitable to the landlord and that’s not going to change unless your landlord is the government or a body who’s motivation isn’t profit. And from the landlords perspective, that rent is still something that pays for a majority of their short term costs costs if not above and beyond and still ends up being profitable in the long run in other ways. (Taxes, gains, etc). Even if a home is paid off and the landlord has no mortgage, they still have an “opportunity cost” where if renting it was so unprofitable, they would just sell and invest elsewhere or let it sit idle and not deal with the risks of having someone else occupy your property. The fact that they don’t, and still happily continue to rent + take on those risks + pay for maintenances means they’re doing it because it still comes out to be a very profitable and relatively low labor investment for them, even if you factor in opportunity cost of investing elsewhere (say a mutual fund or something more labor intensive) even after inflation…..
Simply put, Housing demand is inelastic, but somehow some people on this forum thought it's elastic. Most of the people that think it's elastic demand probably never have to face with the realty they might have no where to go, and no where to live to realize how important having a residence is.
In markets where the rent doesn't cover the costs -- eg: a lot of the bay area, some landlords are banking on appreciation. some bought decades ago and market rents cover their lower costs. But the fact that you can finance a rental in the bay at ...7%+ and some other guy got in decades prior has no actual impact on rents. The rent *is* the market rent, and you can either make it pencil out or you can't if you're a prospective new landlord. The landlords that bought when the houses were $100k and have virtually no ongoing costs? Doesn't matter. A market rate 2/2 sfh in the bay will still fetch $4k/mo (made up number, didn't check). your financing terms don't matter.
No dude, renters pay for the mortgage + cost of operating + 1-2% minimum cash flow. That last one’s the important one, people who bought their rentals years ago get 30-45% cash flow due to market rate.
Yup. But here’s the thing. If you do all of the stuff that’s necessary (needs, not wants), it’s still a cost that’s in my opinion hands down worth incurring over your landlord paying to fulfill those needs but in exchange you also lacking the security and stability that comes with owning instead. But for instance, The roof and siding I had to replace was done by insurance. (But I also bought a home that had a fairly new roof. Had I not, it’s something I can account for since I know it’s a cost that’s coming and I know approximately when and how much it’ll be). But either way, It went into the equity of *my* home. The appliances I had to replace (all were secondhand) and were at the end of the day *mine*, and when I didn’t need them anymore- I sold them. And while yes paying a contractor or learning how to DIY is something that you have to do, doing it for the bare minimum necessities is something that ultimately goes towards your stability and security, which is something you **do not have** when you pay your landlord to do it instead. Paying for extras that may not be necessities (Your landlord isn’t going to pay to upgrade fancy appliances, plant beautiful flowers / build you a grilling station outside / pay to install your choice of flooring etc etc. ) is something that goes towards your happiness, is ultimately *yours* and hopefully will eventually go towards extra value / ROI. (And when you rent, it’s not like these expenses go away. If you want to decorate a certain way, have certain upgrades, do a certain type of landscaping or anything immovable- you still pay for it except you do it with the permission of your landlord and then they benefit from it when you leave it behind). Like yes I agree that it depends, and at a fundamental level it takes a lot of privilege to get to the position to buy a home and have any sort of safety net built up in the first place and I recognize that not everyone has that……..but I’ll take some crap landscaping or a leaky roof for a while over being homeless because my landlord decided to double rent or kick me out any day if that’s the choice here….. There’s a *reason* why these landlords are HAPPY to do the “labor” and spend the cost of doing bare minimum maintenance on their property in exchange for your rent as a dollar figure, even IF that maintenance exceeds your monthly rent once in a while…………And that’s because it’s not *just* your rent VS their maintenance expenses. It’s **your rent + their equity + their market gains + their tax breaks and deductibles + their insurance protection + their stability and security**.
Crazy thing you can actually plan for and budget for these things. Wild stuff, i know
Right, so we’re in agreement. Homeownership isn’t just a mortgage and expenses can rise unexpectedly. Good talk bro 👊
yes but then you can spec the job, choose the materials, quality, the color, and learn to fix things yourself. I'd take that over some landlord half-assing it and charging me double to 'fix' it
That’s not how repairs under a rental work. But keep thumping your chest internet tough guy lol
In 2008 world mortgages were doubling...
They weren’t “doubling” lol. They increased yes for the folks who took out ARMs instead of fixed rates, but it still only increased by a set percentage point max. But even in those situations, you knew what could happen and what was coming when you started. If you take out an ARM and don’t account for the worst possible scenario (usually max 2 point increase after a set period of years), then that’s a gamble that’s on you. But you don’t by any means *have* to buy a home with an ARM. The fact that the US offers 30 year fixed rates (and is one of the only nations in the world to do so) is an incredible thing IMO. It means that if you are comfortably capable of paying the mortgage that you start with, barring a terrible situation where you lose your job and are incapable of getting another income source- you will most definitely have a paid off home where you do not have to be at the mercy of landlords worst case, and best case you have an asset that has seriously appreciated by the time you retire (at a time when you are less likely to have the same income source capabilities you had when you were younger).
Yes. But paying a mortgage for 30 years at least gives you a hard asset at the end of the day. Renting does not.
👏 we 👏know 👏 this 👏 we 👏 can’t 👏 afford 👏 it 👏 now
If your Boomers are like my Boomers, they spent it all on themselves. My grandmother alone would take a cruise to Italy every other year with her church. Aunt and uncle got that reversed mortgage to retire early and travel in their RV and said “fuck those kids”. Why have kids if they’re just throwing them scraps and bones while parents feast on everything else.
How old are "those kids"? Sounds like you're saying they're entitled to their parents money, but open to being wrong there.
Yeah good luck buying something so close to the Roxborough Acme though.
And be a landlord Meow
Imagine reading this and aspiring to it
Life sucks because of some PoS who controls your housing? Fix it by becoming that very same PoS!
Collecting rent is amazing
And paying rent blows. Zero sum game. You can use your position to get yourself a quick buck from someone else’s hard work but you can’t pretend that you’re not a self-serving leech.
So what are you going to do?
How about not be a landlord?
Well obviously you can barely afford rent
Don’t know why you got downvoted lol He’s right, We should all be our own landlord
That's called not being a landlord.
Landlord implies someone else lives at the property you own and pays you to stay there.
LOL read the original OP in the other sub, they are all texting the property manager and giving him hell tons of 1-star reviews, signing him up for porn sites, giving the number to debt collectors, etc.
Oof lawsuit time.
This is the way
oh dear. property management company ad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR5XTourEXE one of the comments > David Raley with 3Horizons doubled my rent when I told him I wasn’t down for a “tickle fight” as he called it. Someone's going to have a good time tomorrow morning.
Will you pay it?
Will anyone? I pulled up some listings and apparently they're not having trouble getting that kind of money in that area.
That’s because the previous rent was too low compared to the market. People want to cast shame on the LL for the increase, but the real shame was not maintaining his prices with the market year to year to follow the market up.
Well *of course* some fucking bootlickers come here and defend this lmao
Well idk man, sometimes rents are extremely low in comparison to some areas. Do you expect to never have landlords raise rents? The area code that the person put seems to be on par with some rental rates. We also have no context here, what if the person is a bad tenant? Or if the cost of taxes have gone up dramatically? Im in chicago and lived in a place for 950$ a month, the landlady was this real sweet older woman. She was stressed out to the point she had a stroke because raxes went from 1,200 a month to 4,500 a month within a year lol on a 4 unit building. She was basically going to lose her place, I advised her to raise the rents but she just couldnt do it because of the people living there. She eventually had to sell, and the new landlords tripled the rental rates essentially lol (after paint job and updated kitchen) .
Are there limits on how much rents can be raised in a year where you live?
Most month to month rates feel like they should be illegal. Not always having a tenant is the risk you take with real estate
A quick Google search shows this is Philly? Seems insane for Philly.
This isn’t even in the ritzy part of Philly. It’s in on offshoot suburb that most wouldn’t even call the city. A relatively family oriented place though, so could probably go for $2500. My guess is that it’s a new building and residents got an intro “new building, first year” type of offer.
Curious as to how many bedrooms, I would imagine it’s at least a 2 BR.
Philly is a major metropolitan city on the East Coast, if you aren't aware. Even though this is a douchey move, it's still very much what would be expected for the location.
Philly does have it's nice parts, but it's 39th in terms GDP by city in the US. $4k just seems absurd, unless it's a genuine luxury building. In DC, Boston, Seattle, etc. (way wealthier cities) $4k gets you a way better building then what I saw on a quick google search for this building by the OP.
Eh, GDP is a bit of a murky metric. The metro area overall is actually quite affluent, and the city is increasingly so. It's a dramatic increase, no doubt. But it's a sign of the times/market, as well.
Absolutely not. I am right outside of Philly in a very nice area and my rent is $1700....
The biggest bullshit is how the month to month hold over rate is extortionist
Eh, they'll be fine because of all the money they saved renting vs buying was invested in the stock market and the market is at all-time highs! /s
So, was the original rate $1,350? Because I don’t see that original number anywhere. Also, a yearly lease and month to month always vary in price. They always charge more for month to month. So never do that. Just always go for the year and break the lease and incur whatever small fee you have to incur to do that.
OP wrote that they were paying $1,350, but you might not be able to see the text under the image depending on which version of reddit you're using. It's missing for me unless I view this post on new.reddit.
No not the double rent in remote PA 😭
So did market rate jump 100%, is this above market, or was your rent 50% below market last year?
You are someone who gets it. Very rare.
Landlord: “I heard tons of WFH techies from LA and NY are moving here, let’s double down and make some mooonnneeeyyyy” Oops.
Who else is sending an email or text?
I mean, if you know my posting history, then you know I got in on that. He should be expecting Batman to show up just about anytime now.
Are you paying the $2700 now? What’s the price if you sign a new lease? Of course month to month is the most expensive. They have no guarantee you’ll stay so they charge more.
When y'all say "Renting is the better option" I like to point out that your rent can change at any point in time to not be the better option... and when that happens, what then? Renting is the only option for many, but if you HAD the option to get into a home/condo to live then it's still better than renting because rent goes UP randomly. At least your mortgage doesn't (unless you didn't do fixed rate because you believed a home was an investment).
jfc
For future refrence, check your area. This is highly illegal in some states. If someone else gets stuck with this.
Dude. I pay 700 a month mortgage payment. Renters are getting ripped the fuck off. This is painful to read.
The company I work for does this to renovate units. If you pay it great, if not they'll reno it and price it at that same point.
Wrong sub
Nah, it’s the right sub. Housing inflation includes rent. But still a good chance the OP is bullshit.
Jeezus. More than my mortgage. At this point might as well be a homeowner. At least you’ll be building your equity.
If you think about it, rent is definitely a trickle down on mortgage costs. You buy a house, it costs X per month. If you rent it out, it must be at X+repairs+profit margin. As the cost of property rises for owners, so to will their bottom line to break even or profit on rent. Which means that today's $3000 mortgages are tomorrow's $3500 rental homes. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
Perhaps they had a promo. Say 3 free months for new residents. You can either not pay for three months or spread it out over 12 months. Tenant spread it out. At renewal there will be an increase in rent plus there is no promo to apply. Perhaps this tenant is in a three bedroom unit that has become highly in demand because recent foreclosures from single family homes is pushing them to rent 3 bedrooms so the demand pushed renewal up further. Perhaps this is the second notice after the tenant doxxed the property manager. This notice had a “hostile tenant” clause that I just made up that added to renewal base rent.
This the kinda stuff that gets folks wanting rent control
It’s sad to say, but I really hope David raley and all these other assholes doing this, get what’s coming to them.
People that work in these leasing and mgmt companies are not smart.
It amazes me how many didn’t click the post and how many in the comments are like “whELp thaTs wHy yOu shOuLd oWn” like wtf do you know where you are? 👏 we 👏know 👏 this 👏 we 👏 can’t 👏 afford 👏 it 👏 now
That’s insane for anywhere in PA.
Not surprised. Especially when more and more smaller competitions got pushed out of the market by anti-landlord renters, and let the major corporations took over the market.
[удалено]
It is, and that’s why small time landlords get out of the game…. Nightmare tenants.
Would you mind sharing some examples on r/renters of posters who you would consider to be "nightmare tenants"? Is it the post about the tenant whose rent was raised 100%, or the post about the tenant with uninhabitable living conditions? Who is the nightmare tenant?
The nightmare tenant is someone who doesn’t pay their electric bill, has their electricity shut off, then messes with the meter and turns the electricity back on. Electric company finds out, shuts off electricity and puts a lock on the meter. Nightmare tenants break the lock and turn the electricity on again. Electric company finds out again and puts a large metal ring lock on the meter — it goes all around the meter. Nightmare tenants figure out how to break into the meter again and turn electricity back on. It is now about six months later and two weeks before Christmas. There’s more than two feet of snow on the ground. It’s bitterly cold out, with wind chills of -25 degrees F. The natural gas heating boilers have a failsafe in them that shuts them off if it senses they’re close to boiling dry. The failsafe requires electricity. If the electricity goes off, it automatically shuts the boiler down. Nightmare tenants still haven’t paid their electric bill. Electric company pull the meter off of the house because it is now considered a safety issue because the nightmare tenants could electrocute themselves by messing with the electricity like that. Tenants go to stay with a family member or friend because they have no heat. We, the landlords, live on the second floor above the nightmare tenants — we purchased the two-family home as a mortgage helper because we couldn’t afford a single family home. The electric company won’t turn the electricity back on — which was against the law because it controlled the heat — until the tenants pay their bill. We had to have all our taps running to keep the pipes from freezing for two weeks, until the tenants paid their bill. But that was not the end of the nightmare. Once a meter is pulled, in order for it to be put back on, one needs a permit from the city. Our house was built in 1924 and we lost our grandfather status with regards to certain electrical things. We had pay an electrian to bring our house up to the current code. Part of that code was burying 8 six foot long copper rods into the ground, vertically, in the beginning of January, when the ground was frozen solid. By the time it was all said and done, it cost us over $5K to get the electric meter put back on the house. Money we didn’t even have. Luckily the electrician was my sister’s best friend’s husband, and he let us pay a little each month until we paid it off. We wanted to evict the tenants but didn’t have the $7K needed for an attorney to do so. After that, those same nightmare tenants ran an illegal puppy mill in their apartment. They ruined all the hardwood floors with all the feces and urine. Once we finished paying for the electrical debacle, we saved our money so that we could hire an attorney to evict the nightmare tenants. It took another few years before we could do so. It took 6 months to evict the nightmare tenants. After that we had to hire a contractor to fix the apartment they had destroyed. They had ripped pieces of wallpaper off every wall in the place. All 1200 square feet of hardwood floor was cupped, stained, and reeked of urine. There were holes in almost every single one of the horsehair plaster walls and lots of other damage to all the countertops, doors, cabinets, etc. It cost us almost $40K to make that apartment habitable again. Our contractor knew what we had went through and told us that we could sell the place for really good money because we had kept the upstairs where we lived nice and had now renovated the first floor. He was correct and we sold it and got out of the landlord business. The tenant prior to that nightmare were awful as well, in that they never paid their rent, and blasted loud music all the time. Loud enough that it vibrated photos and shelves right off the wall. Luckily for us he lost his job and decided to move to another state with his girlfriend. He still owed us rent, but we were happy to see him go, so we could have some peace and quiet.
The tenants not paying rent, holding it up in court for a year then trashing the place on move out. They have ruined things for small time landlords. If you only have 2-3 properties and get one of these tenants you go out of business.
There’s two sides to every story…. Believing every story from every tenant as the gospel is quite foolish
Absolutely correct!
Funny they got so triggered. They don't want to know how big ass corporation and monopoly works lol.
It’s going to be hilarious when Amazon and Walmart own all the residential housing and shifts at the local warehouse are part of their rental lease. Careful what you wish for….
Both of these at least is cheap. If you get Disney do it, OMGZ.
Honestly, that was my rent 10 years ago. Where is this, and how old is that letter?
I think this illegal
What did you expect? During covid, the government put a moratorium on tenant evictions while at the same time not assisting landlords. That kind of bullshit caused some landlords to go bankrupt or go broke. Now, land lords have to factor in "government bullshit laws" into the price of rent and unfortunately for renters, the premium on an 18-month moratorium is incredibly high. Sucks to suck, but this was always gonna happen.
"That kind of bullshit caused some landlords to go bankrupt or go broke." Investments come with risks. Don't like the risks... perhaps some safer investments are in order.
That's one route they could take. Or they could raise prices as their costs and risk increase.
You’re seriously mistaken. Covid legislation gave states the funds to cover missed rent payments, including back payments in full.
Yea? And how incredibly mismanaged was that program?
You're moving goalposts. Just take the L it's less cringe
So bringing up a counter to your point is moving goal posts? Nice.
Boo Hoo. Being a landlord is a risk.
Being a renter is a risk.
Point?
I think my answer made my point…
An investment is a risk. Being a renter shouldn't be. And the risk isn't that big- move within 60 days.
Then do so
Landlords are trash.
your rent increasing is a risk as well. I am pretty sure your mom isnt charging you rent though.
Rent increasing is not a risk, it's a fact. Actually it's your mom who is charging me rent. She cuts me a good discount though.
Fuck this country