I've had to deal with difficult landlords a handful of times and I'd say the common thread is that they expect you, the tenant, to not understand your rights and the laws that enforce those rights. This is especially the case in low-quality housing units near universities, where students generally don't live in a single place for more than a year or two.
For example, one time a landlord didn't return the security deposit. I called him, messaged him, left notes in his mailbox. No reply. One month, two months went by. So, I looked up the relevant legal code, found the part that said "landlords have 30 days to return the security deposit with any deductions listed. Failure to do so results in the landlord owing the tenant double the original amount with no deductions." I printed that out, highlighted the relevant section, and mailed him a letter saying that he can return the original deposit amount to me immediately, or I will file at the local court and he'll owe me double. I got a check in the mail two days later.
This is one of the reasons I became a landlord in the first place. One of my tenants recently experienced a terrible water damage issue that caused both bathrooms in their unit to be unavailable while repairs occur. They were shocked when I told them I would cover the cost of their relocation expenses while the repairs occurred.
I got really lucky when the company I work for went public. Going from being nearly homeless as a child to being a well-compensated, and now wealthy, engineer really was motivating to give something back. Buying a few properties, renting them to lower income people, and really working with them when they're struggling might not be efficient/scalable with my little 7 figure windfall, but being able to make and see a direct impact really makes me quite happy.
That's not uniformly true, and often only applies if it's due to citation after an inspection. Regardless, the tenants are often not aware of these regulations. Besides, my point was mainly that the tenants I have are so used to landlords taking advantage of them that they are shocked when one shows basic human decency to them.
I could barely believe this story when a pretty big youtuber had his upstairs neighbor flood his entire apartment, mold started growing everywhere and all his landlord offered was signing a new long-term lease on a different unit he didn't want.
He ended up somewhat deliberately staying after he got it out of them that they couldn't legally kick him out quickly, and he was trying to finish the purchase of a house at the time. But it seemed nuts that the landlord wouldn't be on the hook to provide him housing through the term of his lease without signing a new contract, or pay some large amount to break the contract that could have helped him cover a temporary mold-free option.
In many jurisdictions there are habitability requirements that, if not met, make it unlawful for the landlord to collect rent for the period during which they are not remedied, but there I am not aware of any that requires the landlord to supply substitute lodging (the presumption generally being that the withheld rent can instead be used for that purpose, though that’s dubious, in general.)
It’s a simple breach of contract. A rental agreement basically states that the tenant will pay rent and the landlord will provide a habitable apartment. The most common breach occurs when the tenant doesn’t pay their rent. However, when the apartment isn’t habitable, it’s the landlord who is in breach. The damages in such a case are the cost of substitue comparable accommodations, even if that cost is higher than the rental amount. So the landlord may not have to provide substitute accommodations, but he would be liable for damages if he didn’t.
Edit: I may be biased by living in California where there is apparently an implied warranty of habitability.
Petty landlords are the vast majority, unfortunately. All they care about is extracting rent. They don't see tenants as human beings who can struggle, but rather as a source of income to exploit and ignore as much as they can.
Tenants don't have to be thinking about any of those things to maliciously destroy a property. None of them come into play when you have, for example, a tenant who hasn't paid rent in months, or who runs illegal businesses out of the property, etc.
yeah i lived in one that got in trouble (after i had moved out) for not telling their tenants about the lead paint or asbestos. they also had the elevator out of order for nearly two years during which period they raised the rent three times. have fun moving out of a fifth floor apartment when you have to carry furniture down the narrow stairs with four right angle turns every floor.
yes quiet. It sucked, especially because we had a baby at the time and trying to carry groceries and a child up those stairs to a unairconditioned apartment mid summer was not something deserving of a laugh track.
It’s a similar deal in the UK, where not to long ago parliament voted down an attempt to require rented accommodation be fit for human habitation. Apparently that’s too high a demand from landlords.
As an example of this kind of rule from a place that currently has them, the basic coverage of California’s implied warranty of habitability are covered on pp 48-50 of this document:
Being legally required to do something as a landlord, seldom translates into something convenient or even in one's favor, as a renter. Most landlords I've ever had use "legally required to do so" as a way to do the bare minimum and let you initiate contact with a lawyer or court, thus dragging out whatever it is you think they're legally required to do.
I think it depends on the state as well as contractual agreements. It's amazing how many rights you can legally sign away or minimize via contract law, largely to the benefit of those writing the contracts and not those signing contracts.
Simply relabeling or reclassifying the use of something and having agreement to those uses to pass liability of "misuse" when both parties are aware of actual and intended use goes a long way as well.
So many ways to pass liabilities and rights. The more society evolves, the less business is about providing or creating any sort of new value and more about optimizing away risk, costs, and any other potential liabilities while capturing as much actual value from the deal as possible in the process.
In theory, competition "regulates" this away. Some other landlord who provides a better value or service will clearly succeed over less value-add services to the consumer. In practice, the amount of choice, finite limitations of the best service providers, and often sheer complexity anymore of determining which amongst a set of options is actually best to the consumer seems to make this a non-starter. It allows a lot of abuse on the provider side to provide little-to-nothing and a continuous supply of new consumers to abuse should previous consumers become wiser and move on.
> Going from being nearly homeless as a child to being a well-compensated, and now wealthy, engineer really was motivating to give something back. Buying a few properties, renting them to lower income people
Isn't Adam Smith referring to feudal lords who fed/clothed their subjects and led them into war with their neighboring lords? That's not at all similar to landlords today.
You mean the one where he says that landlords (in the feudal sense, to be fair) are the only class in society which features the combination of the wits to recognize their own interests and interests aligned with the general interests of society, unlike both the mercantile (what we might now call capitalist) class, who knew their interests but whose interests were at odds with the broader society, and the laboring classes whose interests were the general interests, but who were too dull to know them and too easily misled by others?
Unless I’m mistaken, that refers to farmland and not developed housing. The opening words describe harvesting keep, fish, and animal husbandry. It seems to be decrying the fact that rent can be charged for a field of wheat, where nature did the work.
If there’s housing on that property, then that is something that was developed by the (current or previous) landlord for direct use by the tenant.
However, I’m unfamiliar with this work, so if a different conclusion is drawn elsewhere it would be interesting to read.
don't overlook the first line by smith which i originally intended to highlight: "Landlords' right has its origin in robbery."
in effect, from smith's early draft of "the wealth of nations" (~1763): "In a Civilized Society the poor provide both for themselves and for the enormous luxury of their Superiors. [...] [T]hose who labour most get least."
which calls for that staggering question by spinoza: "Why do men fight for their servitude as stubbornly as though it were their salvation?" deleuze & guattari following: "the astonishing thing is not that some people steal or that others occasionally go out on strike, but rather that all those who are starving do not steal as a regular practice, and all those who are exploited are not continually out on strike"
In metro areas of most concern, the cost of the house is almost always a pittance relative to the cost of the land the house sits on. The value of that land rarely having been accrued as the result of the landlord's actions.
Mine has a severe gas leak. Left me and kids with brain damage that took years just for us to get back to somewhat normal baseline again. Got nothing. Lawyers said too hard to prove that massive amounts of gas filling the house caused problems. Took years to just get our security deposit back.
Screw Invitation Homes
> As a landlord, I require my tenants to have renter's insurance.
A landlord requiring renters insurance is illegal in the state of Oklahoma. It may be illegal in certain cities or towns as well. That said these are exceptions; this is broadly legal in the United States.
Assuming you live in the US, presumably you have ensured this practice is legal where you live.
If you’re making profit from the fact that someone has not enough money or a good enough credit score to buy their own place, whilst you may be the nicest landlord in the world you’re still technically exploiting the situation for your own gain.
I’m not saying you’re a bad person or a parasite, our landlady is lovely, but you have to be frank about the fact that someone else is working to enrich you to some level.
I always find statements like this to be a strange rhetorical tactic of debate.
They presuppose that a personally held view, and oftentimes fringe one, is universally true and accepted and then make a bold unsupported criticism.
The charitable take is that people making them don't know that their view is controversial and think it is shared fact.
The less charitable take is that they are intentionally misleading, and doing it as a debate tactic to claim ground while avoiding discussing the real disagreement.
All throughout history, it is usually another society who comes in and takes an already occupied land by force and then charges a fee for the previous people to continue using it. Then there are complex laws set up to make it impossible for these previous people's to own their land again, becoming indebted in one way or another. After a while, after this land has been transferred, typically amongst the families of those who first took the land (or their friends), some people forget this history or are ignorant of it, and just go along with what has been done for years. Inevitably, those with the excess monetary value gained from rent is used to expand and establish these kinds of societal institutions so that it is part of the zeitgeist and thus a controversial take to think this kind of institution is an immoral, or bad, or exploitative one.
I believe you can Google "landlord history" and you'll get a plenty of results with some brief history of the term.
If you want to read further, look at history on colonization or apartheid which sets up these types of infrastructures or variations of it. History w/ Native Americans and what is going on in Israel are two recent/ongoing examples.
As for pre-capitalist history, you can look up "feudal land tenure", and before that is just different concepts of modes of land ownership across different geographies.
Are you saying that Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, and Karl Marx, the father of socialism and communism, both think like the above person, but they are the ones misleading?
Being a landlord is an economic and political matter. To pretend the status quo of current hierarchies is fine to go with because it is the status quo belief is an awful way to live. Imagine if any radicals you admire in history behaved this way.
Both Smith and Marx state their priors, and neither assume that their option is commonly held. Both make thoughtful and well articulated arguments.
this is like if Marx's Manifesto was one page saying "everyone knows landords are bad"
On the topic of radicals, there are a lot that I don't admire and were atrocious. being against the status quo is not inherently virtuous. Imagine if X mass murderer just respected the status quo.
you can be for challenging hierarchies, the status quo, and a more dynamic socio-economic structure without making yourself slave to your neighbor. For that matter, you can do it without trying to enslave your neighbor
I know this is an old comment (for HN) but I will check back in 24 hours), or we can take it offsite. I always like a good chat. "S1artibarfastHN" at Gmail
I have informed opinions on property ownership and housing. I was a director for 100-person housing Co-op. I have been a renter. I am currently a landlord squeezing one tenant for market rate and providing another tenant housing and perpetuity for utility costs.
- I’m unhoused and identify as a lumpenprole.
- Everything is a spectrum imo.
- I was referring to radicals that aren’t radlib or fascist leaning.
I’d be interested in the email I send you and a response on which orthodox left-wing radicals were atrocious. Or if we agree that those specific radicals were not atrocious but many others are.
Awesome being director of a coop! Though IME most housing coops are exclusionary and not remotely democratic*
*I mean real democracy, not what neoliberal countries have.
You're implying that owning a property is unconditionally more favourable than renting. That's not neccessarily true though.
My wife and I recently decided to buy after renting voluntarily for decades. We did all sorts of calculations. In some scenarios renting comes out on top. In others buying is more favourable.
Ultimately, our decision was based on the uncertainty created by the referencing system, on the recent spell of inflation and on changed personal circumstances rather than any long term financial advantage.
I don't like the sort of relationship that exists between landlords and tenants in the UK, but I'm not convinced that it is necessarily one of financial exploitation.
Small landlords have their money tied up in a badly diversified, inflexible asset that comes with unpredictable maintanance costs. I would never invest my own money like this.
If all goes well for the landlord, they make a profit. If not, only the bank makes a profit (unless interest rates rise too quickly and they have issued too many fixed rate mortgages).
If you buy your own home, the bank makes a profit and if you're lucky it turns out well for you financially. There's no guarantee that it will.
This isn't any different than running a business, except that landlords generally feel entitled to make a profit from their investment, no matter the economic situation, and laws generally favor that. Backing that is the army of folks like you who tend to side with the "small landlord", which normally leaves out that the vast majority of small landlords are quite wealthy, and tend to own multiple properties.
Yes, there are a small number of cases of a small landlord, with one property that they're having a hard time breaking even on, but those folks have a bad investment, and if they can't afford their investment, they should sell it to try to minimize their losses. Renters aren't on the hook to make them profitable.
By holding rental properties, they're inflating the value of homes for sale, making it harder for people to buy, and forcing people into renting.
We don't pity people who make stupid business decisions, so why should we pity landlords?
I never said we should pity them (I certainly don't) or that they are entitled to a profit. You're exactly right that they are running a business. They are running a business that comes with costs and risks. It can go right or wrong like any business. That's fine.
What I'm disputing is that it is necessarily exploitation and that owning your home is always the preferable choice.
I do understand where your sentiment comes from. The name "landlord" basically says it all. It hasn't always been a normal business and there is still quite a lot of that history left in the relationship between landlords and tenants (as well as in the grotesque distribution of land ownership in the UK).
About inflating the value of homes for sale I'm not sure. On one hand the available land is limited and so demand should inflate prices. I'm not even sure private ownership (or at least inheritance) of land should exist at all.
On the other hand, the price of homes as well as the level of rents is mostly determined by how many homes are built. More (private and public) capital flowing into building new homes makes home ownership and rents more affordable. Buy-to-let landlords provide some of that capital.
The other thing that could be done is changing planning rules and the taxation of land ownership so that more affordable homes get built.
I don't think home ownership deserves the status it has. Renting is fine. Affordability is far more important than who owns the place.
If you're taking a generalised anticapitalist view then I understand your position. But under the assumption that private capital exists, it is hard to argue that none of it should be used to increase the supply of homes. That doesn't preclude other sources of funding.
Also, it shouldn't be impossible to debate systemic issues without comparing people to pests.
I actually think your opinion is the damaging one. Do you honestly think a world without being able to rent because we've eliminated landlords is a good one?
There are many scenarios where people would far rather rent than buy. E.g. you are trying to get to know a city to decide where to buy a house. You want to work in a city for a few years. You've just moved to a country and don't want to buy a property until you get a feel for where in the country you want to live, or maybe until you get permanent residence sorted out.
And that's not even covering cases where people don't have the money to buy yet. And no, it's not realistic to expect that people will all always have money to buy. Maybe they are young and just entered the workforce. Maybe they are an immigrant looking for a better life and came with little cash.
There has to be a rental market and thus there have to be landlords. Being a landlord does not make one "evil" or even taking advantage of people. It's needed and frankly shitty job. I'd personally never want to do it.
I'm being frank, your attitude is pretty toxic does not help the people who need the help the most.
You're proposing a false dichotomy where the only two options are private landlords and no rental properties whatsoever. There are so many alternate systems of providing housing to people, including social housing, non-profit rental housing, housing cooperatives, building cooperatives, cohousing, intentional communities, community land trusts, communes, land value taxes, etc.
Also, being a landlord isn't a job. Owning property isn't a job. Property management can be a job, but the typical landlord is barely lifting a finger to do much of that.
> You're proposing a false dichotomy where the only two options are private landlords and no rental properties whatsoever. There are so many alternate systems of providing housing to people, including social housing, non-profit rental housing, housing cooperatives, building cooperatives, cohousing, intentional communities, community land trusts, communes, land value taxes, etc.
How are most of those things alternatives to housing ownership?
There's really only three possibilities. The occupant owns the place, or some other private party (individual or corporation) owns the place, or the government owns the place (public housing in its many variants).
Everything you list is one of these three (except for LVT which is an unrelated thing).
I worked as a property manager for years (of around 200 units, across numerous owners) and can vouch for the fact that the vast majority of landlords do absolutely nothing except for receive a monthly statement, and complain if the profits aren't high enough.
They made an investment and want you to maximize the returns. A very, very small percentage are active in their management, and those folks tend to be the worst form of slumlords, because they're so cheap they won't hire people to professionally manage the properties.
> I’m not saying you’re a bad person or a parasite, our landlady is lovely, but you have to be frank about the fact that someone else is working to enrich you to some level.
You can make this argument about literally any purchased good. Everything bought by a worker is the same thing.
Capitalism = exploitation? That seems like the point they are trying to make. And it’s mostly not wrong, although we haven’t found a better way. Perhaps more accurately, human behavior = economic behavior = exploitation, regardless of the economic system.
Expanding it out, I doubt it’s specific to humans, more like a property of known life forms.
You also have to believe that a willing Exchange that benefits both parties is exploitation.
It also doesn't help that exploitation is so poorly defined in these discussions that it could simply be substituted by "bad" or "something I don't like".
The financial asymmetry of having certain baseline costs to sustain our biomechanical meat bags despite wildly divergent means can easily lead to transactions that are mutually beneficial, while still reenforcing the leverage of those who already have plenty.
I’d be interested in your response to the person who replied to you. It’s a compelling argument against exploitation being vague. Which isn’t even true unless you mean conversations between liberals and conservatives.
It is a interesting and workable definition for further discussion once it is provided. In my experience you ask 10 people what exploitation means and you get 10 different answers- everyone has their own.
That said, I like it and would be interested in exploring it more. Exploitations is a transaction that increases leverage for future transactions is one that I havent heard before.
Im also curious about the inverse.e.g. what transactions reduce leverage?
There are many reasons why a landlord will either not get rich or get rich at a much slower pace than alternatives. Just to mention a few:
1. Buying in a bad neighborhood and things just get worse.
2. Tenant falling far behind for some reason then moving out.
3. Overpaying or over capitalizing.
4. While looking for a buyer or tenant, squatters or looters move in.
Please don't use terms like 'exploit' without specific details.
I prefer to be a tenant so that I have less worries, more freedom and more capital available for other investments.
> Buying in a bad neighborhood and things just get worse.
I can tell you've never done property management, because the most profitable areas are bad neighborhoods. In the US, section 8 housing is effectively guaranteed income, at favorable rates. The tenants don't really have much say in the conditions of the apartment, and all that's needed is to pass the housing authority inspection (which only cares about safety, not quality), so costs are generally low.
Being a slumlord is extremely profitable.
> Tenant falling far behind for some reason then moving out.
For the vast majority of the US, you can evict a person for nearly any reason with 30 days notice, and can evict someone for non-payment with 5 days notice. Holidays can extend that by a few days here and there, but for the most part, you can avoid tenants being months behind in rent, especially if the market is saturated.
Some landlords like to let their tenants fall behind because as long as the tenants eventually pay the rent, they get the late fees, which can increase their rents by 20% or so. Preying on the poor is also very profitable.
> Overpaying or over capitalizing.
You can do the same with any investment. Unlike other investments, though, you can write off most of your expenses, and you can carryover loss for essentially forever. Even bad real estate investments can be beneficial. There's a reason real estate investment is heavily favored by the rich.
Landlords aren't guaranteed to get rich, but it's extremely difficult to actually lose money as a landlord, unless you're a really shitty investor. Nearly everything you spend money on can be used for tax deductions (sometimes for years or forever after the loss), so even losses tend to be beneficial, when you're diversified properly. The law is way too favorable to property investment.
> While looking for a buyer or tenant, squatters or looters move in.
I did property management for a long time and can tell you this simply isn't a real problem. Squatters rights take a long time, and the police will forcibly remove them.
Doesn't one also have to admit that everyone has to be somewhere and for most people it costs money. What does it matter where one's housing money goes? The only concern is that one is satisfied with the housing they are paying for.
I don't get this take at all. Yes, I own my house, but it comes with a significant number of trade-offs: My employment is limited to what the immediate neighborhood can offer[0], I'm on the hook for major repairs[1], and moving is an expensive proposition. When I rent, the premium over what I'd pay for a mortgage is priced into that convenience.
[0] Things were better during the 100% remote environment of the pandemic, but many employers are now doing RTO
[1] In the recent past, I've had to replace my AC and my roof. The AC repair bill was equivalent to 6 months of mortgage payments and the roof was equivalent to a year's worth of mortgage payments.
Well, we need to have better system for temporary housing first. Not everyone renting is poor or can't afford buying one either and you can't really expect people to go against their own interest.
It would be nice if most of the renting was city-built and ran, with maybe buyout option if you live there for more than 5-10 or so years. THen city could easily control development, earn a bit of profit, and control the costs
We need a better solution for housing in general. I don't actually want to be a landlord very much. I have a 7-figure portfolio including two rental properties, and I still rent. I'm not sure I could ever convince myself to buy in the bay area until/unless I had a substantially larger portfolio ($20M+). The numbers just don't add up.
So? Sell it to some shitty landlord? What’s the best option here?
Even if you sell low to low income people, they may be forced to sell at some point, to the highest bidder. I think OP is doing something really great: provide affordable housing on good terms.
It's possible to attack this problem from multiple angles. As it stands right now the tenants that occupy my properties either don't want to own (grad students) or can't afford it (e.g., service workers, low-end "white collar" job holders in the bay area). By charging (significantly) lower than market rent, deferring or waiving rent, setting up very long term payment plans, and basically treating them like they're people with lives that shit happens to them in I do what I can as an individual. By working in other areas (e.g. with NGOs) I do what I can to contribute as an individual to a larger group effort to change the way housing works in this area.
Given that one person can't make the rental market go away, no matter how much they might want to, mitigating it is perfectly reasonable. I'd go further and suggest forming a Humane Landlord's Association with explicitly stated humane values.
The poor person it better served by someone who rents fairly at or below market rate, than it is by social housing that can take years to get into.
Making money while also doing the right thing is the best thing at all, everyone feels good about it, and its a relationship built off mutual respect.
Like, I want to encourage landlords to do this, and I want to move property holdings away from the consolidation we've seen towards private equity and massive REIT's holding rental housing - locally owned rentals, where the owner has a stake in the communities these homes are in, is the best practical case of all.
Do you really believe that homeownership is for everyone? It’s not. Hell, it is not for some of my friends in tech. You’ve got a lot to maintain, a lot of work to do, a lot to keep track of. That either means money, or pretty broad DIY skills. That’s not for everyone. It’s definitely not (at least right away) for someone who has perhaps not had the opportunity to experience homeownership via their parents.
If earlier poster is indeed renting at comfortable rates and taking better-than-average care of the properties and the residents, s/he truly is doing some good in the world.
Entering into and then holding up your end of fair bargains with other people is a good thing to do. We need that a lot more than we need altruistic gestures, in my opinion.
As throughly demonstrated in this thread - unless you go to extreme effort like threatening to take someone to court - Landlords hold all the power to set rates, increase rates, ignore complaints etc and there are almost no avenues for recompense.
So no, there can be no fair exchange when lambs negotiate with wolves.
What happens if you have a landlord who follows (or exceeds) the law?
I've rented from plenty like this, simply because I took the effort to find places that were locally owned (while not a cure all, it helps).
Also, whats the alternative? not everyone can meet the financial or responsibility requirements that come with homeownership. So what are you left with after that, government owned housing?
Your point is bullshit. Anyone who can rent can afford to own. I’ve owned half a dozen properties at this point and it’s clear that Banks just do as much fuckery as possible to make lending impossible to anyone that doesn’t perfectly fit their mold.
How about a system that doesn’t primarily benefit property owners?
I dont think thats correct, as a recent homeowner.
The deposit requirements are high to get a loan, now yes, we could change that thru subsidy or guaranty by the government.
But what about maintenance? renting is turn-key, even when your mortgage is lower than rent, you still have the unexpected costs that appear?
In the six months I've been here, I've had to replace or repair:
Garburator
Cooktop
Oven Coils
Shower Controls
Sink Faucets
A couple circuit breakers
Sprinklers (all of them, 80% of them were broken)
Also, yard maintenance is this ongoing battle, between tree droppings, grass mowing, and weed abatement (some of which you must do, like dealing with noxious vines).
If you wanna fix a greater social ill, the issue isn't 'benefitting owners' its that people have been conditioned to treat their home like an investment rather than a place to live and prosper in. Property Values shouldn't be going up 5x faster than inflation, but they have been for a couple decades.
You realize all those costs are baked into the rent right? Even with cost distribution among multiple properties or multi-family complex, the per-service fees often exceed what you would pay a tradesman and the lack of flexiblity drives certain costs up in renting situations like limitations on modifications.
In my experience (Owned 3 homes, rented 4 homes) it’s net-net between renting and owning across multiple factors including overall cost, and think I’m near the mean when it comes to handiwork - so it’s not like I’m doing all my electrical and HVAC myself and I’m in an expensive area.
Yes, all of the costs are just baked into rent. They're not baked into a Mortgage, and people dont get that so they end up buying as much house as their rent was, and then get over their skis when they suddenly need to cough up 15k for a new roof?
If you're in the position where even paying the rent consistently is a marginally difficult problem, even if lending standards are relaxed sufficiently, how is this person going to pay for a new roof unless the price of that loan is subsidized to the point that it either has a zero or negative interest rate?
Not everyone can buy - either because of the work required, or because of the financial outlays needed. Also to be honest, not everyone wants that responsibility.
In the states not having a garbage disposal is a relative rarity, but I'll give you that. Sprinklers are a regional thing.
We also had to replace:
Drywall due to mold issues
Leaking Laundry Valves (see above)
A leaking hose bib which necessitated sweating on new fittings
New fittings on the hot water heater (to add a shutoff)
Various other electrical work (replace outlets, retorque loose neutral, brought grounding most of the way up to modern code - house had no buried ground rod)
To make my point further - I've had many of these issues at an apartment, in my time living in apartments I've had the following work done in or around my unit:
Replacement of in wall heater
Replacement of Garburator
Replacement of Hot Water Heater
Replacement of Shower Vales
Replacement of AC Condenser
Replacement of Dishwasher
Replacement of Hot Water Heater (and remediation of the water damage from it)
Replacement of Water Faucets
Replacement of Load Center (Fuse Box)
Repair of Refrigerator and Stove
Installation of new landscaping (new sod, bushes, etc)
Repair/Replacement of Sprinklers
Repaving of parking area
Replacement of Roof
Painting
Replacement of Siding
Cleaning of HVAC Ducting
The total cost to me on all of these issues was zero dollars - and thats my point. Those multitude of repairs are not free when you own your home, and can often be quite costly.
Spoken like somebody who has clearly never owned property, rented homes, or built anything, or risked money to build a business. You are so, so far off here. Landlords only hold "all the power" if we constrict housing. That is a policy problem, not "evil landlords". Read up!
You're mostly right though, so long as housing is consistently treated as an investment rather than a commodity produced and sold in bulk, landlords hold all of the power.
People who criticize the commodification of housing I think tend to believe the correct and valid definition is:
(2) something useful or valued.
or
(5) one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market. (emphasis added)
I tend to focus on:
(1c) a mass-produced unspecialized product.
or
(4) a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (such as brand name) other than price.
Housing was commodified after WWII, when we stamped out so much housing, it was cheap and available to everyone. When housing is that available, it removes much of the power of landlords to distort the market.
Stealing deposits is such a scumbag crime. Typically stealing $3000 from someone is considered a serious felony but for landlords it is common practice.
For anyone reading this, I would highly recommend your ex-landlord them to small claims court for this kind of crime. The forms are not that hard, the Judges are sympathetic (the landlord is blatantly committing a crime), and it is very satisfying to know that the law can protect you from the criminal elements of society.
I would also add that in California, deposits must be put in an interest bearing savings account and paid back with the interest. Make sure they pay you the proper amount. Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense and it helps establish criminal intent.
In the UK it was such a routine thing (landlord not giving your deposit back) that I just stopped paying the last months rent before moving out.
The UK does have a supposedly mandatory deposit protection scheme, but a lot of dodgy landlords aren't compliant with it, and the dispute process is a fucking nightmare.
> The UK does have a supposedly mandatory deposit protection scheme, but a lot of dodgy landlords aren't compliant with it, and the dispute process is a fucking nightmare.
You can claim up to three times the deposit if it isn't protected in 30 days.
Penalties are steep for not using it, and fortunately enough, landlords have property that can have a charge attached to it. Good luck getting another BTL mortgage.
Curious about this, does the same hold in Arizona? I had a landlord steal my security deposit plus send me to collections for almost $2K for what they said were scratches on the flooring... which was vinyl... the picture they sent as proof would get absolutely laughed out of court I am sure[1]
Refusing to return security deposits is absolutely a low income landlord strategy.
It was so endemic in Chicago that it was standard practice to withhold last month’s rent and send the landlord a letter saying to take the security deposit and send you a bill for any repairs.
This is both against the lease and financially equivalent to what an honest landlord would do, except the burden to get paid is now on the landlord.
If they have kept your security deposit in a separate, interest bearing account as the law requires[0] there should be no problem in the transaction.
0. Hahahahaha there was exactly one landlord I had who actually did this (not in Chicago) and returned my full security deposit with interest.
> Refusing to return security deposits is absolutely a low income landlord strategy.
Oh I've had this happen to me from a "high income landlord" in San Francisco. Penny pincher lady living in a wealthy neighborhood, repairing herself the leaky roof of the SF building she owns with duct tape. Tried to keep my deposit until, like the comment you're replying to, I threatened to bring her to small claims court. I had the deposit in my mailbox the next day.
In Barcelona (and I think all of Spain), your 1-month deposit is kept by the state and is automatically returned to you unless the landlord can prove that you did something that entitles them to it.
The landlord is supposedly legally enforced to put the money in the chamber of commerce, but ALAS not all of them will (even if it's illegal) and many will also try to scam you out of your deposit if they see they can get away with it.
In Chicago landlords have to send you an annual check paying out the interest, which during the low interest rate years amounted to 10-30¢ a year. The postage stamp cost more.
In response landlords started to require non-refundable move-in fees in lieu of a security deposit. These can range between about 40-60% of a month's rent.
This is considerably more fair than charging some tenants 100% of a months rent (if they don’t know their rights) and others 0% (if they do). Also the fact the money is gone is stated upfront and agreed to by both parties.
I’ve never rented in a low-income area, but I’ve still had this problem with every single landlord I’ve had. Never did have the pleasure of meeting the “honest landlord” though I have always been, by all accounts, a model tenant.
> that they expect you, the tenant, to not understand your rights and the laws that enforce those rights
It could well be that they themselves don't understand your rights. Sure, in the case of the security deposit, they should be smart enough to know what this is.
But many landlords are just normal people with other jobs, where being a landlord is not a job to them, but an opportunity to earn money by renting. While one should be able to expect them to know the relevant laws, I bet that most of them don't care to bother because of the time and effort it takes.
Being a landlord is a job. If you aren't aware of the requirements of the job, you shouldn't be allowed to have the job. If you break the law by not adhering to the requirements, you should be punished. If you have a history of breaking said laws, you should be banned from being a landlord.
The regulations on security deposit in Massachusetts has led me to not use security deposits. I also don’t use a lease. A tenant can come and go from month to month. I only require first and last months rent.
I looked this up and Massachusetts is actually extremely strange that they count "last months rent" separate from "security deposit." In my state any money required to be collected past the first month's rent is legally considered a security deposit and required to be treated as one and subject to legal limits on security deposits. Which makes sense.
It's logical not to bother with the requirements of an extra security deposit if you can go ahead and collect two months rent up front without calling the extra a deposit. In my state the standard is also to collect two months rent up front - because the standard security deposit is a month's rent.
It seems to me that the semantics are different: you return the security deposit ~at handover time, while last month's rent is counted as rent for the last month of the stay, so the tenant "gets it back" (in the form of not having to pay rent they'd otherwise have to pay) a month before they move out. Do I misunderstand something?
The deposit is to cover any costs the tenant cause the landlord. Damage and unpaid rent are both costs.
A tenant who has $1,000 in upaid rent and $0 is damage is no different than a tenant who has $1,000 in damage and no unpaid rent. The security deposit can be used to cover either.
I would never move into a home without a lease. A lease protects a tenant as much as the landlord. What's preventing you from raising the rent arbitrarily or canceling the agreement with little to no notice?
Nothing. What holds a tenant to un-affordable/desirable apartment.
I would offer a lease. So far no tenant has requested a lease. I'm not going to force someone into a contract beyond a handshake.
Fundamentally I would like to be able to trust the people I'm dealing with where a contract isn't needed and it all works out. I don't have a lot of faith in a contract really satisfying any of my needs. I feel a contract with its specifics and each sides personal interpretation can distract from disputer resolution.
Squatters are my biggest fear. I feel it is a justified fear. I also am happy to offer anyone a lease that requests one. I don't want to mindlessly use one.
Live and learn they say:)
I appreciate the sentiment, but your tenants might have rights that you don't know about. These may vary depending on your locale, and may include restrictions on evictions of tenants who don't have written leases.
This was the document I used to shape my thinking and since I have more than 5 units (8 units total) I'm inspected by my town officials every 2 years to assure the livability.
I see the whole relationship as reciprocal and hope to avoid evictions. I do no credit checks and I do my own internet research. I place a lot of value on the personal interactions and so far I have had good fortune.
> But many landlords are just normal people with other jobs, where being a landlord is not a job to them, but an opportunity to earn money by renting. While one should be able to expect them to know the relevant laws, I bet that most of them don't care to bother because of the time and effort it takes.
...so ? They earn money for doing essentially nothing, the least they should do is to know the law.
But I just intended to point out that "they expect you, the tenant, to not understand your rights and the laws that enforce those rights" is not the only reason.
While I am no landlord, I have relatives who are and they don't care about the law. It's something you they will be made aware of when it arises and then dealt with accordingly.
Take the example of GP's post, he kindly did the research for his ex-landlord until he convinced him. His ex-landlord may now see himself confirmed in that his approach to not caring is the right one, until the ex-renter brings up a very valid point.
You are giving very charitable interpretation to someone who was clearly withholding the full security deposit for two months past the due in flagrant violation of the law and common sense. He didn't even fully comply with the law when it was shown to him. At two months past due, he would have been required to pay double for late payment, and the OP was generous in not enforcing the law to its full extent. Given the asymmetry between the number of instances where a renter and a landlord will need to engage in this transaction, it is hard to extend the same leeway to someone who does this transaction for multiple units that we might afford someone doing this for one unit. If anything I would suspect that the landlord in question is a repeat offender.
> Take the example of GP's post, he kindly did the research for his ex-landlord until he convinced him. His ex-landlord may now see himself confirmed in that his approach to not caring is the right one, until the ex-renter brings up a very valid point.
I HIGHLY doubt land-lord didn't knew the meaning of "security deposit" and didn't return it immediately "because he didn't knew the law", especially when he was clearly ignoring the former tenant. He most likely counted on people not bothering to get it back when being ignored
Spoken like somebody who has never rented out property, risked $$$$ on building something, or doing anything with a business. Please read up on how real estate businesses work.
It's really hard to be sympathetic considering how rent and housing prices have exploded over the last 20 years and how difficult that's made life and future prospects for the average person.
I would say the rewards extremely outweigh the risk.
That is a policy problem: we make it hard to build housing in the areas of high demand. There is nothing inherent in landlording that says a power differential needs to exist. The low-demand areas, renters have way more power.
Only risk really, if you're getting mortgage to get apartment to rent is that prices go up but you can then just increase the rent. Aside from "tenant completely trashed my house", the risks are nonexistent, it's one of safest ways to invest your money.
Tenants trash the place or don't pay IS a real risk. I have family who just lost 300k in damages and unpaid rent with bad tenants.
Similarly, value decline is another real risk. I have lost 200k in value on home I live in. If I needed to sell, I would be SOL, which is a low occurrence but serious risk.
Are you a landlord? If not, why not, if you are convinced the risks are nonexistent and it's one of safest ways to invest your money?
Reality is that while risk is moderately low (but far from nonexistent), returns are also very low, so being a landlord isn't a particularly good investment. You're much better off in the stock market, at least up to the point where you have so much money that you start needing to diversify.
>But many landlords are just normal people with other jobs, where being a landlord is not a job to them, but an opportunity to earn money by renting.While one should be able to expect them to know the relevant laws, I bet that most of them don't care to bother because of the time and effort it takes.
And you can't fire them for doing a piss-poor job. Do you see why that's an issue?
I mean, you're literally advocating breaking the law in order for already wealthy people to earn more money.
Funnily enough, we do agree on that end result, but definitely not on the methods. Housing should be a right, and housing should be provided to any citizen of a country. Letting a small minority of wealthy land owners become more wealthy and centralizing home ownership is a sign of failing societies.
A landlord does not "provide housing liquidity". Housing is not a good that I can live without. I'll die without a roof over my head. Profiting off of that is the behavior of a leech.
> Housing is not a good that I can live without. I'll die without a roof over my head. Profiting off of that is the behavior of a leech.
Is your local supermarket also a leech because they'll sell you tomatoes and make a tiny profit off those? Shouldn't everyone have their own tomato farm instead?
You do need food a lot more than a roof to survive, after all.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines the right to adequate standards of living. It includes housing, food, medical care.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including foods, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
So, yes, they're both part of the same human rights. Note that the US has not ratified the UDHR, because... Well, it's the US.
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines the right to adequate standards of living. It includes housing, food, medical care.
If I have a right to an adequate standard of living then why should I work? Why should anyone (except those uncommon cases of people who actually enjoy their jobs). I have a right to all the stuff I need already. Now, who do I sue so that it's actually delivered? :)
You ask for this in the snarkiest of ways but... Yes? You actually have a right to all of this, and in many countries, while not ideal, you have such a form of things. You're polish, so you have a right to social security, to a guaranteed amount of money during retirement, a bunch of allowances (zasilek staly/okresowy/celowy and a lot more)
So, why would you work? Aside from the fact that you can legitimately ask that question (productivity has increased a hundredfold in the past years, yet your salary has not. Clearly someone has pocketed that difference, and sadly we can't blame PiS for everything), the right to laziness being an actively debated subject in many circles, from economic to philosophical, note that it says "adequate". If you are content with a basic house, heating and food, sure, stay at home. If you intend to have things like a TV, a PC, books, vacations outside, a social life, you might want to work to pay for them. And with basic needs covered, you can actually work and do something you enjoy, instead of holding a miserable job because you have no choice but to.
>Now, who do I sue so that it's actually delivered? :)
I would recommend Ministerstwo Rodziny, Pracy i Polityki Społecznej as well as Parlament Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Good luck :)
> productivity has increased a hundredfold in the past years, yet your salary has not.
What? For comparison, check out the standard of living of a 1900 century laborer. Or a 1500 peasant for that matter. We live like kings, compared to both of them.
When people say "food is a human right" they typically want the government to provide food to the hungry. They don't want to make it illegal to operate a restaurant.
When people say "housing is a human right", what they really mean is that they want to outlaw renting or even private home ownership. If the government moved every homeless person to Wyoming and gave them a home, that wouldn't be enough.
Housing is not a human right. Do you have a right to force me to build you a house? Think about it. Why would we have any nice housing at all in that situation? Why would anyone build it?
These silly things like "x is a human right" miss the point. At some point people have to take responsibility.
> Do you have a right to force me to build you a house?
It's never been about that. Do you have a right to claim ownership of the land, that was created by God? Certainly neither you nor the people you inherited the land from or bought it from created it. It was there 1000 years ago, 100 000 years ago and 1 000 000 years ago. Yet you lay claim to it and demand that others pay you for using it.
There's some things stopping that, like the law you mentioned. But land redistribution by violent means have occurred before, like in China, and the Soviet Union most drastically in modern history. Is that what it takes? Should younger generations do a violent uprising with all the horrible consequences to be able to have a home?
The "ownership" of land is one of the most strong abstract belief among humans. If I tell hacker news that I should not have to pay taxes because I have the right to my own body and work, the people here will react like that is crazy. If I tell hacker news that I have the right to some land that I bought, the people here will heartily agree. Even though that land was not created by anybody and stolen several times during history.
We're in the situation right now when the majority of highly educated people and hard working people in the richest countries of the world has no chance of a future at all. Even something so primitive as Maoist revolution would give them a better shot at owning their own home than continuing to obey Western law and rules. How did things end like this?
Then let me build my own house. Oh, I can’t, someone “owns” the land. Then I can at least stay in a tent somewhere. Oh, no, I can’t, the cops stole all my stuff. All of the alternatives have already been closed.
>Do you have a right to force me to build you a house?
Me ? No. Us, as a society, where we decide to ? Abso-fucking-lutely.
>Why would we have any nice housing at all in that situation? Why would anyone build it?
Nothing prevents you from putting in more money to make yourself the fancy house you've dreamed of. You can decide to give 300k to your favorite fancy house builder to have a prettier house than the plebs living in state housing. The US has the ACA, yet as far as I know the US still has private, higher quality hospitals. Turns out, making something a right doesn't mean "everyone has to have access to the best in class", but "has to have access to something which guarantees livable conditions."
>These silly things like "x is a human right" miss the point. At some point people have to take responsibility.
These silly "people have to take responsibility" talking points mostly shows that you have no regard for human life and would rather perpetuate suffering than provide something as basic as housing to people. Then again, since almost 100% of your post history in the past three months is about "oh no being a landlord is hard", it seems that you actively benefit from misery.
The insults are childish and prove that your arguments are completely unserious. Going through my post history just tells me this is more about elevating your own status and opinion than actually having a dialogue.
Please go live in some government-run housing before demanding that the poor do so. And look up "luxury belief". :)
>The insults are childish and prove that your arguments are completely unserious. Going through my post history just tells me this is more about elevating your own status and opinion than actually having a dialogue.
There's no dialogue to be had with someone willing to leave people to die in the streets because "hurr durr they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps". Debate happens with reasonable positions, not with the depths of human indecency and Ayn-Randish takes.
>Please go live in some government-run housing before demanding that the poor do so.
I have been poor. I did. As a child, I lived in HLMs, which have been in existence in my country since 1894. As a student, I lived in student housing, that has existence since 1955.
>And look up "luxury belief". :)
Believing that people deserve a roof over their head without paying half of their income to a leech that did nothing be born with money is not a luxury belief.
You are misrepresenting my opinion and values because I don't agree with your particular solution to the problem of homelessness. Your ideas are bad, proven time and time again that they don't work. Instead of debating the merits, you paint me as some caricature. Thus proving that you live and operate in a world so insular that you have no idea how the real world actually works. You have no data to back up your claims, only insults. This is why nobody takes arguments like yours seriously.
I could very easily say you lack "human decency" by forcing the poor to live in run-down government housing. And that argument is just as strong as the one you are promoting.
You need to recognize that you are putting in effort here to elevate your own status in some "in group", not actually trying to argue a position with data and facts. Armchair socialism is entertaining, usually promoted by wealthy kids who have very few problems of their own. Honestly, this is me trying to help you.
Please talk to somebody (a real person) who has built a business. Broaden your perspective.
Do you realize that every single one of your arguments so far has been a straw man ?
- First you pretend I'm trying to force you to build houses, which I'm not, I'm telling you it's the state's job to provide housing should none be available at reasonable prices. If you built a fancy house, sure, rent it for higher costs, if you can find a renter. If you built a house that barely matches a government built one... match government built rents.
- Then you go on and pretend I'm trying to force the poor to live in government run units, which I'm not. Both because _many of them already do anyways_, and because I'm not saying to ban owning property. Merely that there should be a force preventing you from raising your rent for what happens to be a basic life necessity.
- Then you go on and pretend that it is a luxury belief to have my positions, when I have been in the exact situations that are a problem, and even as of today, despite my situation being much better, a bit over 50% of my salary goes either to my landlord or to electricity/heating my home. Paying my landlord's loan isn't exactly my goal in life, sorry.
- Then you go on and pretend that every government housing is run-down which... no ? I can't even find an answer to that because it's both not an argument _and_ a lie.
- Then you go on and pretend that I'm doing this to elevate my own status in some "in group", without even considering for a single second that the reality of things is that I actively care for people and would rather see them in (basic) housing than cutting off a meal a day to pay off a landlord, or being out in the streets.
> Please talk to somebody (a real person) who has built a business.
Cool! I do on the daily. Also, being a landlord is not a business. A business has the added benefit of producing value. A landlord merely hoards housing.
To finish up on that: "Your ideas are bad, proven time and time again that they don't work". Despite all the evil that stalinist policies and maoist policies have caused, their involvement in insuring that everyone has basic housing affordable and available to them meant amazing development from farmer focused countries to absolute powerhouses of manufacturing and knowledge. You can debate various 'communist' and 'socialist' policies all you want (not real communists state capitalism yadda yadda yadda), you can be very aware of the damage they caused, while still recognising that the one thing we're talking about is probably the one that actually fucking worked.
This is me trying to help you: every single one of your arguments has been projection of what _you_ would do if you were in a situation like that. It is not healthy, and I recommend you take a deep look within at your own morality.
You are advocating for government control of housing, which has been a failure in this country and in other places. Nobody wants government housing and there is no evidence that they can do a good job. All you have is "evil landlords!". Your glorious idea of rent control is a failure - do know of the cheap city that is called San Francisco? They have the most strict rent control in the country. Do your research.
Again, look up the term "luxury belief". It's not what you think it is.
Again, you clearly have never built anything or risked anything. Building and operating housing isn't some easy job that requires no risk, investment, or effort. To suggest such exposes how little you understand about businesses. Yet, you keep asserting that you know everything about what a business is. Odd. The massive profits being generated in the housing market are mostly owners of gentrified houses, not those evil developers. This takes 5 minutes of research to confirm. The rest are due to government policies that limit housing production. Again, do your research.
And... holding up Stalin as an example. I... just can't. You must be a parody account, right? Right? Please be so, because otherwise.... jesus christ.
Ending this one, as it's clear you have major gaps in business knowledge, basic economic theory... and Stalin? lol.
>I've had to deal with difficult landlords a handful of times and I'd say the common thread is that they expect you, the tenant, to not understand your rights and the laws that enforce those rights
Low interest rates and AirBnB has created a whole class of landlords that have no clue of their obligations to tenants. They think that owning the property is enough, and that they're doing you a favour.
Being a landlord is as old a business as there is. In any efficient market it is not easy or lucrative.
State and local laws matter a lot. I moved to a tenant-friendly state (NY) from a tenant-unfriendly state (Texas). NY has much stronger protections for renters. Better eviction laws, access to housing court, and actual enforcement of housing laws.
You'd hope that business owners would care about running ethical businesses and meeting their clients' needs instead of holding them in outright contempt and disdain.
I get questioning why someone would expect this given the world we live in, but why would we hope for it? How about because the world would just be a nicer place to live if every transaction around the place people live weren’t undertaken on the basis that both parties are trying to screw each other?
Do landlors consider themselves business owners? The few I know seem to treat it differently. It might be because they rent one or two houses/apparemments at most.
Most small-time landlords do NOT treat it as a business; they have a general idea that "total proceeds" > "mortgage expenses" + appreciation and consider themselves to be doing well. Often (especially in CA) they're doing arbitrage on property taxes (if they sold the house, it's tax would rise, so they can rent it close to the "sell it now mortgage + taxes" price).
They never stop to consider why their accountant keeps saying that they made $0 on the rental after depreciation ... must be a gift from the IRS!
Once you actually start trying to work it as a business you realize why most companies don't want to be in the business of renting single family homes, and stick to larger apartments.
> Once you actually start trying to work it as a business you realize why most companies don't want to be in the business of renting single family homes, and stick to larger apartments.
Can you elaborate on this? Is it due to the larger numbers in multifamily
"landlords have 30 days to return the security deposit with any deductions listed. Failure to do so results in the landlord owing the tenant double the original amount with no deductions." I printed that out, highlighted the relevant section,... "
Young jedi. You mail this AFTER 30 days and get the money.
What about $2000 without going to court? They will most likely pay immediately to avoid court [landlords don't like being in court with a 'failure to repay security deposit' type case].
Another way of looking at it is whether you should punish the landlord for attempting to steal your money, with the extra $1000 being an incentive/payment for your time. I don't think there's a moral obligation to do so, but it definitely improves the world if landlords are afraid to try this tactic on others.
Renting is a huge issue on Prince Edward Island, so much that a local legal group put out simple language information about provincially-legislated obligations for tenants and landlords.
PEI seems to be a terrible place to live now. A small population with 50% of the population in one small area. Surge of newcomers. The scourge Airbnb STRs. Buildings going up daily but nowhere to live. Lots of slum landlords in slum buildings. Historical properties as apartment buildings but renovating has to be done historically accurately so no landlord does anything. Rent jumping by 10% or even 95% for one place (a rush beofre the new regs). Controls and new regulations only now implemented after the party in power dragged its feet.
So I'm confused, why didn't you just file and inform them that you had filed and they now owed you double? From my reading you were 2 months in. They have no disincentive from your situation to improve.
I mean if you were concerned about the hassle it seems you could have equally said, 45 days have passed, at this point you are legally obliged to give me 2x the deposit, citing the law as you did. Pay me 1.5x the deposit now or 2x when I file at the local court.
At least then in the future they may respond to the first message to future tenants.
Lucky you to have encountered a scummy landlord smart enough not to want to waste his time in small claims court. Mine showed up there with a lawyer, of all things, and tried to argue that the ceiling fan falling out of the ceiling onto us while we were sleeping, the 15-year-old dishwasher flooding the kitchen, and a microwave button being broken were all worth $1000 or so in deductions.
> I'd say the common thread is that they expect you, the tenant, to not understand your rights and the laws that enforce those rights.
I think there's also a cost-benefit evaluation when it comes to deciding where to make use of those laws. I've heard that there are tenant screening services that will report whether you have previously sued a landlord. Is it even worth it to sue if it's going to make it more difficult to find a better place later?
I had a colleague who once pointed out to their landlord that something was not according to the law. The next day they come home from work and all their furniture was removed and the locks replaced.
Sure, you can take them to court, but most likely they'll let you know how they feel about that by sending some thugs.
Landlords can be the lowest scum of the earth. Many cooperations are great though, we never had any issues with them, they'd send someone quickly when asking for repairs, and were often very reasonable about things, etc.
There's significant overlap between organised - or semi-organised - crime and property rentals. It's not unusual for some landlords to also make money from prostitution, drug dealing, and sometimes extortion.
This doesn't mean all landlords are criminals. But if you have a greed-driven sociopathic mindset all of the above are very attractive, and it's not hard to make them work together.
For example, one time a landlord didn't return the security deposit. I called him, messaged him, left notes in his mailbox. No reply. One month, two months went by. So, I looked up the relevant legal code, found the part that said "landlords have 30 days to return the security deposit with any deductions listed. Failure to do so results in the landlord owing the tenant double the original amount with no deductions." I printed that out, highlighted the relevant section, and mailed him a letter saying that he can return the original deposit amount to me immediately, or I will file at the local court and he'll owe me double. I got a check in the mail two days later.