Apartment Complex Owners - Society's Biggest Fools ?

[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).

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

1. I'm not talking about discriminating against young people. I'm talking about discriminating against older people with Social Security.

2. Landlords "discriminate against dollars" EVERY DAY with income requirements.

3. When I moved into my current apartment complex I had a bad credit rating. The manager let me move in anyway. Since then, from my stable Social Security & VA pension income, I have paid 55 consecutive rent payments, all on time. Over the same time period, there have been 42 evictions in this complex (all young people who lost their jobs or had divorce issues)

4. I tend to disagree with you on the credit rating issue. Reason being, there is no credit rating just for housing rents. If there was, you'd find a massive number of people with low credit scores, but who simultaneously haven't missed a rent payment in years. Obvious reason > You can get along without paying for a computer system, some medical bills, sporting goods, jewelry, even a car, but you're going to pay for that roof over your head.I don't have the greatest credit score around town, but I haven't missed a rent payment in 30 years.

Credit scores and apartment rental risks are kind of like apples and oranges. Not easily comparable.

Lastly, on some occasions (more than most people realize) landlords LIE. But they still report those lies to the credit bureau. Do you think the CB cares ? They're getting PAID by those landlords, and they're not getting a dime from you.

Credit bureaus are looked upon, functionally, as the equivalents of court judges rendering judgements. That's what your credit score is. A judgement. But if court judges operated on the same basis as a credit bureau, being PAID by alleged creditors, they'd be scorned, disbarred from the courtroom for life, and probably arrested and jailed. (for doing what credit bureaus do every day)

 

[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.

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

HA HA. Well there are rules on pet population, and they should be abided by.

 

[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.

HA HA. Well there are rules on pet population, and they should be abided by.

When dealing with dementia and alzheimer's those rules go out the window.

 

[protectionist]

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.

HA HA. Well there are rules on pet population, and they should be abided by.

When dealing with dementia and alzheimer's those rules go out the window.

You're saying apartment rules can be violated, if the violator is not in their right mind ?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

HA HA. Well there are rules on pet population, and they should be abided by.

When dealing with dementia and alzheimer's those rules go out the window.

You're saying apartment rules can be violated, if the violator is not in their right mind ?

Yep...

 

[protectionist]

If someone isn't in their right mind, and they violate rules that impose harm on other residents, that resident is going bye-bye, right mind or not.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It has become the rule for apartment complexes to require an income of 3 times the monthly rent, to rent an apartment.

I don't think thats true. Any smart landlord will make his own decisions based on many factors to determine if someone will have the ability going forward to pay their rent.

 

[AquaAthena]

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.....

I owned 3 apartments and I charged the local going rate for similar units.

It was the worst experience of my life. Boy, did I learn a lot about human nature though, and those tenants extended families and friends and lack of regard for respect of a signed contract and another persons personal property.

Always get a deposit and never in the same amount as the rent being charged. Otherwise a tenant can use that in court to say, they thought it was first and last month's rent. The courts will almost always side with the tenant. A clever tenant you are trying to evict knows how to stay at your place, rent free, for 3 to 5 months before the sheriff comes to assist their departure. Meanwhile you are still struggling to pay the mortgage.

I found, generally speaking, the best tenants to be men, although the best tenant I ever had was a woman and the worst tenant I ever had was a man.

Never again.

 

[HenryBHough]

Recently sold the last of my rentals.

Had three excellent tenants over a 10-year period. Zero damage from any of them; rent always paid on time and it was a pleasure to refund deposits as they moved on.

Why such good luck?

Primarily because I invested ONLY in "over 55" properties - where federal rules allow no residents younger than 55 and where anyone under age 18, regardless of family relationship, is allowed to live on the premises for a minute beyond two weeks.

Previously I had used the 1031 approach to avoiding taxes but this time tallied up the cash I had taken out of the property, the recapture taxes that would be due, and sold well under market value for a quick turnaround. Was nice to see Obama denied much in the way of taxes.

 

[protectionist]

It has become the rule for apartment complexes to require an income of 3 times the monthly rent, to rent an apartment.

I don't think thats true. Any smart landlord will make his own decisions based on many factors to determine if someone will have the ability going forward to pay their rent.

You can think whatever you wish, but you cannot deny REALITY. In the Tampa, FL area, the 3X rent rule is widespread. This is FACT, not opinion. And as I stated in the title of the OP, the landlords are NOT smart.

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

As far back as I can remember, like 40 years, it has ALWAYS been the case that your rent/mortgage should be no more than 1/3 of your take home income. Yep. You are just way off.

 

[JoeB131]

I used to own a rental property.

I will never own another rental property again. Too much hassle, you get dragged into their problems, and you usually end up losing money.

 

[Asclepias]

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).

I'm glad you finally admitted you were low income and thats why you are against AA. This is priceless. Now you think asking for 3 times the rent is a bad thing. Its to protect the owner and has the effect of also protecting the the tenant.

 

[Asclepias]

I used to own a rental property.

I will never own another rental property again. Too much hassle, you get dragged into their problems, and you usually end up losing money.

Invest in a property management firm and write off the cost.

 

[jwoodie]

I used to own a rental property.

I will never own another rental property again. Too much hassle, you get dragged into their problems, and you usually end up losing money.

Invest in a property management firm and write off the cost.

Ever heard of ROI?

 

[Asclepias]

I used to own a rental property.

I will never own another rental property again. Too much hassle, you get dragged into their problems, and you usually end up losing money.

Invest in a property management firm and write off the cost.

Ever heard of ROI?

Yes. Before you invest in a property the cost of property management should be factored in. If you dont understand the positive ROI of having a property management firm maybe you should sit this one out.

 

[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.

As far back as I can remember, like 40 years, it has ALWAYS been the case that your rent/mortgage should be no more than 1/3 of your take home income. Yep. You are just way off.

That's not what I'm talking about here. You're OFF TOPIC.

 

[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).

I'm glad you finally admitted you were low income and thats why you are against AA. This is priceless. Now you think asking for 3 times the rent is a bad thing. Its to protect the owner and has the effect of also protecting the the tenant.

I feel like I'm talking to an insane person. None of what you just said makes any sense. Absolutely NONE of it.

1. Finally ? I have many times (for years) mentioned that I am low income, and that has absolutely nothing to do with affirmative action. I was just as opposed to it in the 1980s when I made over $100K/year (in 1980s dollars). You can excuse AA until you're blue in the face. You'll always be wrong, and everyone knows it.

2. 3X times rent does NOT protect the owner, as I explained clearly in the OP. No re-explanation is needed.

3. 3X rent doesn't protect the tenant. It makes the most reliable tenants unable to rent.

4. I wonder why I bother responding to your idiotic posts. I mean really.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Until the cats multiply and create a whole new set of problems.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

As far back as I can remember, like 40 years, it has ALWAYS been the case that your rent/mortgage should be no more than 1/3 of your take home income. Yep. You are just way off.

That's not what I'm talking about here. You're OFF TOPIC.

Actually, her comment was dead on topic. The 1/3 rule has been around for a very, very long time.