Hacker News Reader

Comment by monsecchris | Hacker News Reader

I have rented in about 15 locations in the last 10 years and have a rental property of my own and I largely agree with everything here, but this particular sentence is fantasy.

> A landlord can maintain a revolving door of low-income tenants, evict those who fall behind on rent, and keep the security deposit.

The idea this is somehow going to be a long term money making strategy is a fantasy. If a tenant pays rent on time and doesn't wreck the place, a landlord isn't kicking them out without a really good reason because there is a huge risk you get a garbage tenant who doesn't pay and wrecks the place, or you fail to get a tenant at all.

View on HN

Absolutely - total trash statement. Landlords want tenants who a) stay, b) don't damage unit, c) pay rent on time. THAT is a guaranteed money maker. The overhead of flipping a unit in landlord time is high. You've got eviction, cleanout, repair costs, showing costs, lost rent, landlord / management co time etc etc.

In CA you can only keep portion of deposit used for repairs, you can't use it to cover all your other overhead costs on a flip. So you are guaranteed to lose money on the flip relative to renting it.

All the gravy comes when you can keep that tenant, keep unit in good shape with little work.

The big money is going to be to the folks who are successful with actively screening tenants. I know a landlord, basically upmarket, everyone I think kept paying the entire pandemic. Now that is gravy (she refinanced a ton of the properties down to rock bottom rates, got bailout money for prop mgmt staff, and is collecting rents) - that's pure goldmine

> that's pure goldmine

or antisocial.

people who charge other people money for basic life needs are already comfortable with themselves; no need to rub it in

The author of the articles makes a claim that instead of making what is generally great money renting to people who pay and stay over time landlords are purposely renting to folks who don't pay, and then must be taken through the eviction process, so that they can maybe skim something off an inflated repair bill?

So evictions are actually because landlords like evictions rather than getting paid and making money while doing very little work?

Does this logic track for anyone?

Where do you live? Sounds like you'd be happy to open up your home for free. I've got some childhood connections who could use a place to call home. Thank you in advance for your generosity!

camper van ;) nt

it is kind of antisocial to siphon emergency funds from the public, when income stayed constant.

Yeah. Those folks at the local green market trying to make a profit from selling food are down-right evil! /s

I live in CA and it’s very common for landlords to illegally attempt to keep all of the deposit with trumped-up damage charges. I’ve had success with aggressively worded legal threats to fight this behavior, but a lot of people lose their deposits this way. If the landlord is friends with a contractor who can write a receipt, they can get away with a lot.

I'd be surprised if this a profitable strategy.

Eviction timelines in CA under best of case circumstances are measured in months. That starts usually well after someone has fallen behind on their rent.

So you are 4-5 months out on rental income minimum.

And even in a reasonably well kept place by tenants (not common) you are going to be doing repairs / new carpet / new paint etc. Then the showings / applications / screening cycle begins again.

In CA deposits even earn interest.

So this claim, that landlords like renting to bad tenants so they can go through the CA eviction process when the tenants stops paying and damages the place to make money by maybe getting a contractor to inflate some kind of repair that they think they can get away with - is a real stretch.

In most evictions the default in rent alone will eat up most or all of the deposit. Landlords just wish they could get tenants out faster so the deposit would cover more of what is ultimately owed in these cases. There is not tons of extra deposit money floating around here.

I’m disagreeing with this specific claim:

> In CA you can only keep portion of deposit used for repairs, you can't use it to cover all your other overhead costs on a flip. So you are guaranteed to lose money on the flip relative to renting it.

I’m not endorsing the notion that there is a grand conspiracy to house and evict tenants to steal their security deposits. Just saying that landlords can and do opportunistically steal deposits, even in California. That can’t be the reason the grand conspiracy is impossible.

I thought the same thing. I own 6 rental properties, and there is no way serial eviction is a profitable business model. I want my tenants to stay in the property because tenant turnover is costly. You lose at least a month's rent while the property is on the market. If the tenant is represented by a real estate agent, they get 1/2 month's rent commission. At minimum, you must pay to clean the property, but usually, to keep the property marketable, you must paint or replace carpeting. Then there are the repairs and maintenance that must be done while the property is vacant. If you must go to court to evict, there is usually a months' long delay and the legal costs. And, I can't just wave my hand and keep the security deposit. In California, it can only be used for damage caused by the tenant, and any forfeit must be itemized.

The dirty little secret of high housing costs is illegal immigration. We limit immigration for a reason, and that reason is not to overburden our infrastructure. When you bring in an excess 1 million people, as we did last year, nearly all of them low wage workers, they take up the little amount of low income housing stock available. That drives up costs. There are other factors, of course, but that would be the easiest to remedy.

I think you are mistaking the strategy that works for you with the only viable strategy. The article calls out that this is a strategy that can work in some places, and it clearly can -- if evictions are fast enough and they aren't a large fraction of tenants.

Depends on the property. The article specifically refers to low-income tenants presumably renting low-cost housing. The security deposit is 2mo rent and you don't need to chase them for it.

Probably not too many slumlords on HN, as evidenced by sibling comments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com