Apartment Complex Owners - Society's Biggest Fools ?

[WinterBorn]

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.

Because rent is not the only bill a resident will have.

If rent is $600, and they average $150 in utilities, $50 a week in groceries ($200 per month), $350 on a car (car payment, insurance, gasoline, and maint) their bills will total $1,300 per month. So they are already $200 in the hole if they make $1,100 per month. And that does not include the ever increasing cost of medications, which cause more out-of-pocket costs even with Medicare/Medicaid.

$1,100.00 per month is only $13,200.00 per year.

 

[Picaro]

I rented three houses for over 15 years. I never checked any of that stuff and did just fine with renters, but then I didn't advertise via papers ads or signs, just word of mouth among people I knew. Average length of time was some 8 years, with active military staying about 4 years on average. The base closed a while back, so no new military coming in except for weekend training stuff and even my brother stays in the barracks on base when in town.

Sold them in 2004, and never got back into real estate; prices were outrageous even in the 2008 bubble bust. They still are.

If I didn't already own a big place and some 20 acres of pasture and parkland, I would look at fourplexes or something like that, nothing big, but still in the high end of the market. The high end and the very low end are the only really 'booming' markets', and that is because of the swarms of dufus house flippers who watch all those late night real estates scam infomercials on TV.

 

[protectionist]

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

Where I live, we have almost all the cats fixed.

 

[protectionist]

Because rent is not the only bill a resident will have.

If rent is $600, and they average $150 in utilities, $50 a week in groceries ($200 per month), $350 on a car (car payment, insurance, gasoline, and maint) their bills will total $1,300 per month. So they are already $200 in the hole if they make $1,100 per month. And that does not include the ever increasing cost of medications, which cause more out-of-pocket costs even with Medicare/Medicaid.

$1,100.00 per month is only $13,200.00 per year.

All of that is already taken into account, just by reviewing a prospective renter's HOUSING payment record of the immediate past 3 years. With All rents paid on time, no reason to deny rental, and lose money.

 

[protectionist]

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.

1. My income has nothing to do with affirmative action. I've been out of college for 40 years, and am retired, and out of the workforce for 9 years.

2. If you think requiring an income of 3 times the rent protects landlords, you're very dumb. Only thing LL needs to see is a 3 year housing payment record that's up to date. And an income that is the same as during that 3 year period.
Note: the highest incomes are the least reliable. They are most often young people with jobs. Could be $5K/month now. Next week could be nothing. Social Security and VA pensions keep on going.

Yes, this is priceless - how ignorant you are,

 

[protectionist]

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

Not a rule with most people I know. Not at all. The correct rule is, if you've been paying your housing OK, and nothing's changed... you're good for housing. THAT is the smart "rule". Anything else is stupid.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

Where I live, we have almost all the cats fixed.

All the stray cats? Riiight.

 

[WinterBorn]

Because rent is not the only bill a resident will have.

If rent is $600, and they average $150 in utilities, $50 a week in groceries ($200 per month), $350 on a car (car payment, insurance, gasoline, and maint) their bills will total $1,300 per month. So they are already $200 in the hole if they make $1,100 per month. And that does not include the ever increasing cost of medications, which cause more out-of-pocket costs even with Medicare/Medicaid.

$1,100.00 per month is only $13,200.00 per year.

All of that is already taken into account, just by reviewing a prospective renter's HOUSING payment record of the immediate past 3 years. With All rents paid on time, no reason to deny rental, and lose money.

Or reviewing their entire credit record to see if they can afford rent.

If someone makes $1,100 a month, as my example showed, cannot afford $600 a month rent. Especially if they have any medical issues that will require expensive medicines.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

Not a rule with most people I know. Not at all. The correct rule is, if you've been paying your housing OK, and nothing's changed... you're good for housing. THAT is the smart "rule". Anything else is stupid.

Then apparently you don't know many people who decide on home loans or rental approvals. It has been that way for decades, at least.

 

[protectionist]

All the stray cats? Riiight.

Never heard of the word "almost" ? You heard right.

 

[WinterBorn]

All the stray cats? Riiight.

Never heard of the word "almost" ? You heard right.

Almost means there are still cats out there reproducing. And their offspring will reproduce ect ect

 

[protectionist]

Or reviewing their entire credit record to see if they can afford rent.

If someone makes $1,100 a month, as my example showed, cannot afford $600 a month rent. Especially if they have any medical issues that will require expensive medicines.

Absolutely not. Becasue their ENTIRE credit record contains lots of stuff having nothing to do with HOUSING. For the 10th time >> over the immediate past 3 years, with All rents paid on time, no reason to deny rental, and lose money.

. PS - My monthly income is $1149/month/ My apartment rent is $600/month incl water. I've been living here and paying this for 6 years, Never missed a rent payment, never been late. In fact, I've been renting for 50 years, and have a perfect record, through both high and low incomes over that long time.

. The OP said all that needs to be said, 100%. I don't have time to waste talking to you

 

[Leo123]

Could be it is easier to rent to someone on a government stipend like SS for older folks and younger folks who qualify for HUD which pays rent to landlords.

 

[Picaro]

2. If you think requiring an income of 3 times the rent protects landlords, you're very dumb. Only thing LL needs to see is a 3 year housing payment record that's up to date. And an income that is the same as during that 3 year period.
Note: the highest incomes are the least reliable. They are most often young people with jobs. Could be $5K/month now. Next week could be nothing. Social Security and VA pensions keep on going.

Yes, this is priceless - how ignorant you are,

It's people like doctors and lawyers who are the worst at paying bills on time.

 

[protectionist]

Almost means there are still cats out there reproducing. And their offspring will reproduce ect ect

Those few will replace the ones who die off. Stray cats only have a longevity of about 8-10 years.

 

[WinterBorn]

Almost means there are still cats out there reproducing. And their offspring will reproduce ect ect

Those few will replace the ones who die off. Stray cats only have a longevity of about 8-10 years.

Those few? LMAO!!

You might try looking at actual facts.

from: Statistics

• Feral cats have an average of 1.4 litters per year, with an average 3.5 live births in each litter. That equals 4.9 kittens per year, per female feral cat. Indeed, a pair of breeding cats and their offspring can produce 420,000 kittens over a seven-year period.

 

[protectionist]

Those few? LMAO!!

You might try looking at actual facts.

from: Statistics

• Feral cats have an average of 1.4 litters per year, with an average 3.5 live births in each litter. That equals 4.9 kittens per year, per female feral cat. Indeed, a pair of breeding cats and their offspring can produce 420,000 kittens over a seven-year period.

I don't need to look at anything more than what I'm already looking at. In our apartment complex we look at the cats, not your statistics. We have our populations under control, thank you.

 

[WinterBorn]

Those few? LMAO!!

You might try looking at actual facts.

from: Statistics

• Feral cats have an average of 1.4 litters per year, with an average 3.5 live births in each litter. That equals 4.9 kittens per year, per female feral cat. Indeed, a pair of breeding cats and their offspring can produce 420,000 kittens over a seven-year period.

I don't need to look at anything more than what I'm already looking at. In our apartment complex we look at the cats, not your statistics. We have our populations under control, thank you.

So facts are irrelevant. Since you don't see them in your apartment complex, they don't exist. What a surprise.

 

[Dekster]

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.

Yeah because as an apartment complex owner I want my investment to be known as projects.....and no, people making below three times are not the best renters at all. If you want guaranteed payments, you do Section 8. If you are interested in not having our investment lose value, you do not rent to people who can barely scrap by.

 

[Snouter]

Apartment complexes and everything that is rented needs to be overseen by independent, fair market oriented folks. Buying up real estate with syndicate money and raising rents so that the apartment or retail or whatever is vacant for 3 years means there is a problem. By the way, my apartment is very expensive and they have never asked about my income ever even during a renewal because I guess they have access to one of my bank account totals.