Hacker News Reader

Comment by pnw | Hacker News Reader

Seattle's push to add additional regulation, compliance, fees and inspections has resulted in an exodus of small landlords, which are down anywhere from 19% to 22% in four years depending on how you slice it, and an explosion in large landlords which are up 77% in the same period.

The city has basically consolidated the rental market so it works best for large corporations. Was that the intent?

View on HN

Small landlords don't own apartment buildings. They buy houses/units to rent, lowering availability for buyers. So, you'd at least want to look at the number of new apartment rentals available plus the number of first time house buyers to get a better picture.

> lowering availability for buyers

This makes an unsubstantiated assumption that everyone would rather buy and can afford to, ignoring that people have reasons to rent.

No, it doesn't. It states that if a landlord has 3 houses and exits the landlord market, those houses are either kept unused or sold and are available for new buyers.

Sold...to a large landlord company... yes. That is what happened in Seattle

Assuming the same homes, which group do you think is larger:

A) Households who are currently renting who would prefer to own their home

B) Households who currently own who would prefer to be renting

I'm going to guess A >>> B, but I've never seen the data.

"prefer" is irrelevant. I prefer to be a billionaire and own an island. Question is of ability.

Your last point was that some people prefer to rent. I don't think it's irrelevant to compare that to the number of people who would prefer to own.

Small landlords also rent out basement suites and carriage homes on their own property, no? Those may very well sit empty if the return isn’t worth the risk.

Editing to just add: I absolutely support transparent pricing for rental properties.

They don't own the buildings, but it's frequently part of a condo association and they own a unit or two.

Yes, this is the same as buying a unit and renting as in my original post.

And market-rate rental complexes replace condos. I can see legitimate reasons for subsidized rental complexes, and there is always some need for market-rate units, but I don't see any justification for dedicated market-rate complexes. People who can afford paying the market rate should be able to buy if they stay in the area long enough, but American cities have a shortage of smaller units you can buy. For some reason, maybe due to regulatory and market failures, developers prefer rental complexes over condos.

Mine did, in North Hollywood, owned a 2 story building, I think 8 units with varying floor plans. Does that qualify as an apartment building? He did all the work himself unless it was something like HVAC or required permitting. He was an IT dude who got laid off by Century Link and diversified. Didn't seem to enjoy the maintenance part though, but was perfectly capable.

Can you cite what laws you are talking about. The one being discussed here does not seem to target small landlords, but big predatory ones. There aren't any additional fees or inspections and compliance is as simple as only charging one amount for rent and not tacking on additional fees.

My experience when renting in Seattle a decade ago was that it wasn't particularly hard to find a place, and that the only places that dealt in these bullshit fees were the big corporate landlords.

You are incorrect about this law being "simple". For a start it requires three years of mandatory recordkeeping with an automatic presumption of violation for inadequate records. Forget to save a copy of that ad you ran on Facebook three years ago for your rental? Tough luck, you owe the tenant $4000 plus their attorney fees.

The city also added a private right of action so this law will be weaponized by attorneys with a profit motive, the same way the ADA has been.

Seattle is free to pass whatever laws they wish but they can't do so and then complain about a lack of homes for rent in the city. This hits families who want to rent a home much harder than single people or couples who tend to rent apartments.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/where-seattle...

From your article:

"In Highland Park, the data suggests most homes taken off the rental market were sold directly to owner-occupants. While rentals dropped by 252, owner-occupied single-family homes increased by 266, and owner-occupied townhomes grew by 25 units — a mix of houses shifting from renters to homeowners, plus some redevelopment."

This is likely just landlords cashing out in a hot market and people living in the house they bought instead of renting. There is precious little evidence that regulation was invlved. The dynamic that makes it economically lucrative for a landlord to cash out, also makes it illogical for a different landlord to buy. What onerous regulations can you cite enacted between 2019 and 2024 would explain a mass exodus of landlords better than a booming housing market.

I won't even address the first part of your comment since it distorts the actual letter of the law so much as to not be good faith.

I get what you are saying. I think that some forms of regulation are too onerous. Requiring people to keep copies of business paperwork for three years (most of the examples they ask for are things the IRS already wants you to keep for 7 years) isn't onerous. You do a disservice to your argument by acting like a modification to an existing law is going to ruin small landlords.

Small landlords aren't the ones dropping junk fees on tenants

I think this might help small landlords out a bit. Big corporate landlords can easily add nonsense fees to make the rent look low. Small landlords wouldn't bother charging you to use your own mailbox and usually don't have common areas to charge you for access to. With things made transparent, the small landlords can simply offer a price, and be on a more level playing field.

Causation or correlation (if that)? I doubt small time landlords are charging these fees anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com