Submitted by LongjumpingShot t3_109x09s in baltimore
Otto_Von_Bisquick t1_j41703u wrote
Reply to comment by EfficiencySuch6361 in What does eviction prevention accomplish. by LongjumpingShot
Respectfully, I think you're missing a step here. Landlords likely won't "pause" renting if it is too risky.
They will either divest themselves of an asset that is not returning, increase rental requirements narrowing their pool of renters(because no renters), or not invest in a rental property in the first place.
Rather placing their capital into markets with more favorable returns. People aren't taking on second mortgages to hold empty property. Like this person said they are losing money because they do not have a renter.
This decrease in demand from capital holding people will have an equivalent effect on housing prices.
This is not to say the land lording class does not provide an essential service to the economy.
Just what we are seeing here is a natural process in economics. This person is experiencing risk they opened themselves up to when engaging with this asset. Same way someone in the stock market may see decreases and downturns.
Animanialmanac t1_j424neg wrote
I live in Southwest Baltimore. Multiple houses are now vacant because landlords paused renting, it’s the main reason for vacants. Many landlords in my area inherited the house, started renting because they couldn’t sell, or rent out part of the house they live in. When the city doesn’t honor their commitments for rental assistance these landlords stop renting. They don’t sell, new families don’t want to buy here now. The houses sit empty, on my block ten of the twenty four houses are empty, almost half. All empty because the current owner either inherited and rented it out for a while before giving up, or moved away, couldn’t sell and gave up renting after bad experiences. Almost half the houses on both sides of the block.
This is recent in my area, but I believe this is how areas of west Baltimore because blighted. The assumptions that all landlords will divest their property and a new landlord will maintain it as a rental is false.
EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j417qgg wrote
I know landlords that have already done what u are saying they won’t do but alrighty. Ppl don’t sell all their stocks bc the market is bad today and they’re retiring in 25 years from today. It isn’t infeasible to wait out bad policy decisions for a temporary problem vs selling at inopportune moment or losing a bunch of money in hand to realtor fees
Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j419mpu wrote
That’s a poor analogy. Stocks don’t cost money. There’s no loss or gain until you sell.
Real estate costs money. Many of these places have a mortgage and even if they don’t you need property tax and maintenance etc.
Otto_Von_Bisquick t1_j41bvfs wrote
It’s close but no cigar. Would have to view the relative lack of success of an individual’s stock choice relative to overall market success as a loss for stock to work
Maybe a leveraged position that actively costs money is closer
EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j41m27c wrote
Or maybe u are both missing the point that wasting $10,000 on a realtor before making back renovation costs vs waiting 1-2 years for bad policy to be fixed isn’t as cut and dry as these ppl who clearly have zero landlord experience seem to think
Otto_Von_Bisquick t1_j41nbek wrote
Yes, on the individual level people will make that choice.. When you look at the market at large, which is either growing or shrinking, there is no pause.
The entire market doesn't go on hold because the people you know are on pause. The larger market influences people at decision points of where to deploy capital.
Your friends have deployed capital and are willing to take a short term loss for a long term gain. (Likely forgoing gains already incurred). Some individuals are choosing different areas of the market to invest in. Some individuals are getting out of the market entirely.
Again you are having trouble separating personal experience from market forces.
EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j41tn6l wrote
A larger entity would have even greater tolerance for such circumstances. U continue to fail to understand that there are more options than just selling secondary properties when times get tough
EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j41lth4 wrote
TIL owning stocks is free!!!
Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41m7fh wrote
Yes it is.
Buying them costs money. Owning them is free.
EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j41twsj wrote
>Stocks don’t cost money
No I read that they don’t cost money
Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41uiq7 wrote
To maintain.
Did you read the context or no?
EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j41uygs wrote
U are acting like individual stock picking skill is the ultimate bell weather of stock market success when the fact is that the federal reserve’s interest rates policies move the market more than any other factor by indisputably huge margin. So no I didn’t “read the context” bc what u are saying is wrong and doesn’t make sense, and u very obviously don’t know hardly anything about real estate rental property investments while trying to sound like the foremost expert
Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j41vwpt wrote
Who are you talking to because I literally said none of that
Which you’d known if you read it.
It’s ok to be wrong dude. You don’t have to resort to making shit up.
Animanialmanac t1_j4256p3 wrote
What maintenance? Have you seen some of the empty rentals in Baltimore? Some are so poorly maintained they collapse, killing people. Holding on to property until better city leaders are in place and the property increase in value is called real estate speculation, people do it all over Baltimore.
EfficiencySuch6361 t1_j4292ff wrote
Ahhh yes I forgot that every vacant property isn’t receiving any maintenance at all city-wide
Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j425z3w wrote
The solution is repossession not writing that off.
Animanialmanac t1_j427x8u wrote
Do you mean receivership?
The city can’t repossess a house, a bank could file foreclosure proceedings and then file for possession if the property is mortgaged, most of these are not mortgaged.
Receivership is a long expensive process in the city. At the end of the process the city will own the property. The city also fails at maintaining the city owned vacant properties.
Expendable_Red_Shirt t1_j428bgf wrote
Lol. Ok dude. Way to honesty engage.
Otto_Von_Bisquick t1_j419djn wrote
"I know people"- the mantra of the anecdotal evidence.
I am describing a natural economic process and didn't say you don't know people. I am saying there are larger market forces beyond an individual decision and that your original comment didn't speak to that.
If you multiply your known landlords by a million do you think there hasn't been a decrease in willingness to expand rental operations.
It is hard to think conceptually so take your time if you need to.
Edit: Hell even in your response you almost get it. "They don't sell ALL their stocks". Exactly. All landlords aren't gonna sell all houses
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments