Apartment Complex Owners - Society's Biggest Fools ?

[protectionist]

It has become the rule for apartment complexes to require an income of 3 times the monthly rent, to rent an apartment. Does anybody have any idea why ? If an apartment was $600 month, a person would need an income of $1800/month to "qualify" to rent that apartment. Why in the world should somebody need $ 1800/month to rent a $600/month apartment ? This is absurd.

Fact is, many of the people with monthly incomes less than twice the monthly rent are more secure and more sure rent payers than those with the higher incomes. That's because, in America, there are millions of senior citizens receiving Social Security, with incomes well below the required 3 times figure. They may be below the 3 times figure, but their income is more SURE and the rent payments, likewise more SURE than younger people still in the workforce. Same with the VA pension payment I get every month.

Somebody may have an income of $2000/month (or much more), and that's great - for now. But what about next month ? Or the month after that ? Or 6 months down the road ? The job holder may have a nice income today, but he may have NONE next week, while the senior Social Security recipient's lower (but more sure) income remains intact - month after month, year after year, as does the VA pension recipient.

Recently, I walked around in my apartment complex (which has 450 units) and I saw a couple of dozen eviction notices stuck on the doors. All were young people employed in the workforce (or at least they were). Not a single one was a senior on Social Security.

Apartment complex owners: Are you getting this ? You are your own worst enemies.

Business owners constantly crab about government intruding in their lives. But aren't they (the apartment owners) intruding on the lives of the people they unfairly, improperly (and stupidly) discriminate against ? So when these bozos fail to get it right, government winds up having to step in and fix their mess. In this case, we should have legislation banning apartment complexes from discriminating against people on the basis of income, as long as their income is about $500 more then the rent.

So, for example, in the case of the $600/month rent, the requirement ought to be an income of $1100/month, not $1800/month. And after that, won't the apartment owners feel good about all the secure Social Security renters they get, and the fewer evictions they have to enact ? That should more than make up for how bad they'll feel, realizing what idiots they've been.

 

[protectionist]

Where I live, young people losing jobs get evicted like flies. Older people never do. I'm one of them. My whole income is way below 3 times my rent. And I'm still here in this apartment complex after 4 and half years (53 consecutive rent payments, all on time). In that same period of time, we've had about 85 evictions (all young working people - losing their jobs).

 

[Boatswain2PA]

It could be an unintended consequence of an existing regulation. Let me explain...

Some (many?) states do not allow people to garnish social security, disability, or welfare payments. This means if a disability recipient rents my house and trashes it, I can take them to court for damages, but I can't garnish their gov't income....which means I'll never get the money.

Result? I don't count those as sources of income.

 

[protectionist]

It could be an unintended consequence of an existing regulation. Let me explain...

Some (many?) states do not allow people to garnish social security, disability, or welfare payments. This means if a disability recipient rents my house and trashes it, I can take them to court for damages, but I can't garnish their gov't income....which means I'll never get the money.

Result? I don't count those as sources of income.

Guess who trashes apartments. It ain't old people.

 

[Disir]

I remember coming across a website back in 2007 that contained discussions about how the rent was going to be jacked up to profit off of those that were losing their houses. They did it because they could. They do it because they can.

In some areas there was a 10% increase in rent last year. That's one year.

 

[rightwinger]

Apartment Complex owners can call their own shots

Many, many people cannot qualify for a mortgage (rates are still low) because of bad credit. They are flooding the rental market and apartment owners can set their own terms

 

[ogibillm]

Capitalism!

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Guess who trashes apartments. It ain't old people.

Generally no, but sometimes. And since I cannot legally use someone's age to determine whether I will or will not rent to them, I use their (non-governmental) income.

Apartment Complex owners can call their own shots

Many, many people cannot qualify for a mortgage (rates are still low) because of bad credit. They are flooding the rental market and apartment owners can set their own terms

Landlords have an incredible amount of rules and regulations they must follow....they certainly don't get to "call their own shots."

Capitalism!

Capitalism is GREAT!. It lets someone who is relatively poor buy an old house in poor condition, fix it up while they live in it, then rent it out while they move into another old house in poor condition....and do it all over again. In a few years, they're not so poor anymore!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It could be an unintended consequence of an existing regulation. Let me explain...

Some (many?) states do not allow people to garnish social security, disability, or welfare payments. This means if a disability recipient rents my house and trashes it, I can take them to court for damages, but I can't garnish their gov't income....which means I'll never get the money.

Result? I don't count those as sources of income.

Guess who trashes apartments. It ain't old people.

Sure at first....it's when they turn into the cat lady that the problems start.
And I'm only half kidding here.

 

[Zander]

I own some apartment units here in LA. I've never heard of the "3x income rule".

I give my property management company discretion, but generally speaking they require the renters spend no more than 39% of their gross income on rent.

So if you have a $3000/ month income - no more than $1170.00 in rent.

Seems to work, we have no delinquencies and no vacancies.

But I am still going to sell (actually we will be doing a 1031 exchange) the residential units this year. I prefer industrial properties.....

 

[protectionist]

Apartment Complex owners can call their own shots

Many, many people cannot qualify for a mortgage (rates are still low) because of bad credit. They are flooding the rental market and apartment owners can set their own terms

Sure, any business (as I used to be) can set his own terms (within govt law). But from another occupation I used to have (college economics teacher), I recall also that all business owners are limited in pricing. If they price too high, they LOSE SALE$$$. And often, this loss can be much more than what gains they can make with higher prices.

Simple fact is, landlords are hanging themselves by avoiding LOW RISK tenants (Social Security & VA pensions), and choosing to rent to HIGH RISK tenants (young people with jobs).

 

[protectionist]

Capitalism!

Yeah ? What about it ?

 

[protectionist]

Guess who trashes apartments. It ain't old people.

Generally no, but sometimes. And since I cannot legally use someone's age to determine whether I will or will not rent to them, I use their (non-governmental) income.

By using QUANTITY of income, in determining who to rent to, rather than QUALITY of income, you are bringing a great deal of trouble upon yourself, as well as income LOSSES$$$. (in evictions and reputation LO$$.)

QUALITY of income (Social Security & VA pensions VS. workforce income) is a far better yardstick for LOW RISK vs. HIGH RISK renting.

 

[protectionist]

It could be an unintended consequence of an existing regulation. Let me explain...

Some (many?) states do not allow people to garnish social security, disability, or welfare payments. This means if a disability recipient rents my house and trashes it, I can take them to court for damages, but I can't garnish their gov't income....which means I'll never get the money.

Result? I don't count those as sources of income.

Guess who trashes apartments. It ain't old people.

Sure at first....it's when they turn into the cat lady that the problems start.
And I'm only half kidding here.

Nothing wrong with having a few people who feed the stray cats. Those cats provide a FREE pest control service, that no humans could even cone close to duplicating. ANd they do it 24/7. Better to have cats than rats.

 

[protectionist]

I own some apartment units here in LA. I've never heard of the "3x income rule".

I give my property management company discretion, but generally speaking they require the renters spend no more than 39% of their gross income on rent.

So if you have a $3000/ month income - no more than $1170.00 in rent.

Seems to work, we have no delinquencies and no vacancies.

But I am still going to sell (actually we will be doing a 1031 exchange) the residential units this year. I prefer industrial properties.....

As I told another poster here, you are basing you rental operation entirely on QUANTITY of income, rather than QUALITY of income. Certainly one must have enough income to pay the rent + other necessities. But by your arithmetic, I would not qualify to rent from you. I haven't missed a rent payment in all the 5 years I've been on Social Security. You would have LOST money by reusing to rent to me (and hundreds of others.

Also, the young job-holders whom I'm sure you must have evicted at times, could have been older, Social Security recipients whose rent payment would be there for you, every month.

 

[Politico]

It has become the rule for apartment complexes to require an income of 3 times the monthly rent, to rent an apartment. Does anybody have any idea why ? If an apartment was $600 month, a person would need an income of $1800/month to "qualify" to rent that apartment. Why in the world should somebody need $ 1800/month to rent a $600/month apartment ? This is absurd.

Fact is, many of the people with monthly incomes less than twice the monthly rent are more secure and more sure rent payers than those with the higher incomes. That's because, in America, there are millions of senior citizens receiving Social Security, with incomes well below the required 3 times figure. They may be below the 3 times figure, but their income is more SURE and the rent payments, likewise more SURE than younger people still in the workforce. Same with the VA pension payment I get every month.

Somebody may have an income of $2000/month (or much more), and that's great - for now. But what about next month ? Or the month after that ? Or 6 months down the road ? The job holder may have a nice income today, but he may have NONE next week, while the senior Social Security recipient's lower (but more sure) income remains intact - month after month, year after year, as does the VA pension recipient.

Recently, I walked around in my apartment complex (which has 450 units) and I saw a couple of dozen eviction notices stuck on the doors. All were young people employed in the workforce (or at least they were). Not a single one was a senior on Social Security.

Apartment complex owners: Are you getting this ? You are your own worst enemies.

Business owners constantly crab about government intruding in their lives. But aren't they (the apartment owners) intruding on the lives of the people they unfairly, improperly (and stupidly) discriminate against ? So when these bozos fail to get it right, government winds up having to step in and fix their mess. In this case, we should have legislation banning apartment complexes from discriminating against people on the basis of income, as long as their income is about $500 more then the rent.

So, for example, in the case of the $600/month rent, the requirement ought to be an income of $1100/month, not $1800/month. And after that, won't the apartment owners feel good about all the secure Social Security renters they get, and the fewer evictions they have to enact ? That should more than make up for how bad they'll feel, realizing what idiots they've been.

Because many dumbass Amurkians who are earning $1800 a month before taxes cannot afford a $600 apartment.

 

[rightwinger]

Apartment Complex owners can call their own shots

Many, many people cannot qualify for a mortgage (rates are still low) because of bad credit. They are flooding the rental market and apartment owners can set their own terms

Sure, any business (as I used to be) can set his own terms (within govt law). But from another occupation I used to have (college economics teacher), I recall also that all business owners are limited in pricing. If they price too high, they LOSE SALE$$$. And often, this loss can be much more than what gains they can make with higher prices.

Simple fact is, landlords are hanging themselves by avoiding LOW RISK tenants (Social Security & VA pensions), and choosing to rent to HIGH RISK tenants (young people with jobs).

Age discrimination

A landlord can't turn down a young tennant with money for an old tennant without it. All dollars are created equal and a landlord can't discriminate against dollars. If you are an old tennant without much income but always pay your bills on time, you will have a good credit rating. If you are young, make alot of money but do not pay your bills, you will have a bad credit rating

A landlord can discriminate based on credit rating

 

[Roadrunner]

I remember coming across a website back in 2007 that contained discussions about how the rent was going to be jacked up to profit off of those that were losing their houses. They did it because they could. They do it because they can.

In some areas there was a 10% increase in rent last year. That's one year.

It is called supply and demand.

Demand sets rent rates.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It could be an unintended consequence of an existing regulation. Let me explain...

Some (many?) states do not allow people to garnish social security, disability, or welfare payments. This means if a disability recipient rents my house and trashes it, I can take them to court for damages, but I can't garnish their gov't income....which means I'll never get the money.

Result? I don't count those as sources of income.

Guess who trashes apartments. It ain't old people.

Sure at first....it's when they turn into the cat lady that the problems start.
And I'm only half kidding here.

Nothing wrong with having a few people who feed the stray cats. Those cats provide a FREE pest control service, that no humans could even cone close to duplicating. ANd they do it 24/7. Better to have cats than rats.

Not when the cat lady has three dozen of em living(and shitting)in her apartment.

 

[Disir]

I remember coming across a website back in 2007 that contained discussions about how the rent was going to be jacked up to profit off of those that were losing their houses. They did it because they could. They do it because they can.

In some areas there was a 10% increase in rent last year. That's one year.

It is called supply and demand.

Demand sets rent rates.

It's called because they can.