> A land owner decides not to raise the rent on their properties.
If a landlord has fifty prospective tenants (as they surely will if they're offering the best deal in town), how should they whittle that down if not by raising the asking price?
If a landlord has fifty prospective tenants (as they surely will if they're offering the best deal in town), how should they whittle that down if not by raising the asking price?
Now of course it is silly. Why would they not just raise the price? Unless they do what they do for fun or provide a public charity or good, why sift through hundreds of cred reports and pay marketing researches or run a lottery of sorts if say it is easier to just say "ok, rent is now 20% higher".
It just doesn't pay to worry about it if can just raise the price. The price to fix-up and absorb the damage from a few such incidents is folded into the insurance and current rent price.
My uncle owned a few properties, mostly outright with no mortgages. Once he found a good tenant, he'd generally only raise the rents to absorb new property taxes.
Everything has a price. If your investment horizon is 30 years vs 30 months, the safe gets are good bets.
There's a reason stories of housing discrimination generally center around communities employing rent control. When faced with more tenants than they know what to do with, landlords have way less financial consequences from doing all manner of unfortunate things.
Actually, a lot more than two.