Quote:
Originally Posted by daepp
^Fair, and I, too, think there may be something nefarious going on here. But if a landlord/investor is going to risk his capital, society has to balance tenants' rights with investor risk, else there will be no where to rent.
|
Ok, now you lost me. With all due respect, wtf is the risk of being a landlord?
If you're trying to give me a lesson in capitalism, I understand the concept of capital and risk in business situations where someone invests tons of their own money into some venture that may or may not succeed, years of their life, etc. I even understand the risk of just being an investor in speculative investment products like stocks and bonds, someone who creates nothing of value to the rest of society but gets rich on the gamble of others' business ventures.
But being a landlord? What is the risk? That the building burns down and you didn't pay your insurance premium, (or burn it down yourself)? You buy a building w the help of the bank and you rent the apartments out. It's not exactly rocket science. I know a guy back in Minneapolis who started small w one building in the '70s when we graduated from HS and now owns thousands of units in dozens of buildings, I don't think he even has a degree and he's a multi-millionaire. Only in America.
I know others who have done the same, including a single mother who is a school teacher and now owns a few properties in Mpls. She is set for life. It's not a risky gambit, you just have to want to be a landlord and of course there is the broken water heater and leaky faucets and new roofs, etc., etc... I'm not saying that it isn't work but it's pretty lucrative out here if you bought a while ago. I'll even wild guess that the landlord in the OP story is extremely financially comfortable and his daughter could live in a high-rise in Westwood or DTLA. He's just being a POS because he can squeeze a few more dollars out of his cash cow.