Hacker News Reader

Comment by branchless | Hacker News Reader

Love the hypocrisy:

> So, I decided to hire a property manager (Lesson 1: Never be a landlord if you're not going to be present to manage the property yourself - PMs take their 10% cut of the rent and do absolutely nothing in return) to rent the place out and sell in a few years after the market had recovered - which didn't happen in Colorado Springs until recently.

So you figured you'd do nothing and wait for your profit whilst another parasite waited for theirs whilst the tenant did all the work and gave you both a cut!

And easy $40k. Glad it didn't work out for you.

Here's some light reading from today's Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/16/landlo...

View on HN

Ha, that's a bit harsh, no? Nice opinion piece, by the way, checks all the boxes for stoking outrage.

Maybe landlords do serve a purpose? Maybe people who don't want the responsibility of owning a home can benefit from renting? Maybe people who can't or don't want to save for a down payment can benefit from renting? Maybe people who don't plan on settling in a single place any time soon can benefit?

Let's use our critical thinking skills next time before jumping on the crazy train.

Grow up. I've been a renter in the past, and when you're a renter you're expected to perform a minimal amount of basic upkeep (to include small things like not breeding rabbits inside the home) as stipulated in the lease -- don't like it, don't sign it.

And a property owner is not a parasite who does 'nothing.' They're responsible for making repairs when something breaks and performing regular maintenance. A property manager is supposed to handle collecting rents, arranging for repairs (and passing along bills to the owner), and monitoring the property to ensure the lease is being adhered to (which my PM clearly failed to do).

I always turned over the properties I rented back to their owners clean and fit to be rented out (or sold) again (I always got my security deposit back). It's also kind of a basic courtesy when someone trusts you to live in their property. I'd rather be trusted than have to suffer through weekly inspections by the property owner, but that's just me.

I'm not condoning willfully damaging something, I would never do that, however I am amused that the original poster just wanted to live the rentier dream of delegating and watching the dollars flow in. No risk (wrong). No work (wrong).

As for "collecting the rent" for the most part this is checking if it appears in a bank account. If you are exploiting someone who has finance issues then sometimes you have to threaten them if they don't pay.

They should just work on creating wealth instead of trying to exploit a need for housing for their own gain. The negative equity they found themselves in is part of the same cycle of greed.

As a another poster noted, it's a zero sum game and for there to be successful parasites others have to lose.

>> I'm not condoning willfully damaging something

Yes, you are. By using it as a point against the landlord in saying they thought there was no risk in renting out property. The willful destruction of the property is the risk. The work comes in having to deal with the outcome of that risk as well as building up the capital to purchase the property in the first place. The person wasn't just magically gifted a property to rent out to someone who would just destroy it. The story you are trying to refute actually quite handily disproves the point you think you are gloriously making.

But keep going with this drivel, you are quite amusing.

As a renter you pay for services that you have to provide when you're an owner.

When I rented, I shopped around and made sure I found a landlord that wasn't bilking me as a revenue source.

Keep in mind that your analogy can be applied to property owners who think they can just occupy a house for a few years and walk away with a massive profit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com