Hacker News Reader

Comment by wayoutthere | Hacker News Reader

Not if you’re a landlord.

Landlords don't like to evict. They prefer to receive rent.

If you’re a big enough landlord you want to have a certain percentage of evictions as a low eviction rate is a signal you should hike rent. When housing supply near jobs is as constrained as it is, evicting people causes more people to cram into a tiny apartment, which means you can charge more rent for that tiny apartment.

That's true, though the "big enough landlord" isn't as common as many think. About 40% of rental properties in the US are owned by individuals[1], with most owning less than $400k in properties[2].

1. https://www.nar.realtor/blogs/economists-outlook/landlord-st...

2. https://getflex.com/blog/landlord-statistics/#:~:text=The%20....

I was a landlord. I preferred to receive the rent late from someone that didn't want to be evicted.

The maximum profit is renting to someone that can barely afford to pay, but also desperately doesn't want to leave. In total, I probably made a 13th months rent each year in fees. You are leaving money on the table renting to people that can afford to pay on time.

You're proud of the fact that you exploited your tenant's desperation to extract an extra month's rent when they can barely afford 12?

For everyone wondering why landlords get a bad reputation, this right here is the reason. It's also what people mean when they say "It's expensive to be poor".

Yes, I am fine with it.

There are a lot of nuanced variables that are hard to enumerate, but maximizing revenue is not evil.

My tenants voluntarily chose to sign a rental agreement, were aware of the terms of that agreement, I was always in compliance with all applicable laws on rent and fee collection, and when my tenants lease was terminated, it was always voluntarily and with all parties leaving on good terms.

I agree it is expensive to be poor, but I disagree that maximizing fee collection is why people hate landlords - lying about terms in the lease, violating local laws, denying applicants based on protected status, refusing repairs, trespassing, unlawful evictions, etc.

You can hate me for what I did though, I can't change that. I wish you luck.

I can only assume that my complex made a profit from evictions as they were always evicting someone. I am positive they would steal their deposit, add a bunch of fees/fines/back rent and then take them to court and usually winning. Well they sold the building a few months ago and new owners are raising rent by 20 percent.

Maybe you shouldn't assume so much.

While a landlord might find a way to make some money from an eviction, the main way they make their money is by getting the rent paid. That's what they evict for, so that they can get someone else who will pay them occupying that unit.

And, if they evict for non-payment of rent, I think they get to keep the deposit, and I don't think that's "stealing". That's part of what the deposit is for. What's stealing might be occupying their place without paying the rent, if you think about it.

And, winning in court doesn't mean you get paid. If they didn't have the money to pay the rent, they usually don't have a huge wad of cash sitting around to pay the back rent + court costs. So, you won in court, enjoy your nice victory that you can't collect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com