Header Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How many landlords own multiple properties

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    They have neither a responsibility or a conscience it's just a business.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by artemis View Post
      There is at least one part that is black and white. And that is the golden rule - the one with the gold makes the rules. The landlord has the asset / gold and can decide what to do with it. And, perhaps more to the point, decide what not to do with their gold. Like buying off the plans or new builds.Effectively some will pack up those houses and go - by not buying them.

      What is grey is that a landlord can decide to be a business or a charity or some combination. And that also applies to social housing landlords, though not so much to the taxpayers who pour into it a large and increasing amount of the fruits of their collective labour.
      He who has the gold does not always make the rule - many industries are regulated to one degree or another.
      You can choose not to participate but don't get to make all the rules.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Memphis Turnkey Property View Post
        They have neither a responsibility or a conscience it's just a business.
        I think there has to be, it’s the LL’s responsibility to bring the house up to a reasonable living standard. Without it you would have people living in refugee like slums, there are LL’s they don’t give a f what there place is like as long as they get the $. You hear the horror story’s every week, the sooner the slumlords are driven out the better

        Comment


        • #49
          Bdub that's true but that's nothing to do with anything "social", that's just running ones business professionally.

          Comment


          • #50
            politicians

            have a social responsibility

            not to lie to the electorate

            + to stick to their campaign promises

            surely that social responsibility of theirs

            should be taken care of

            before they pass laws to force new social responsibility on some

            to make up for the lack of social responsibility of others
            have you defeated them?
            your demons

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by BDub View Post
              I think there has to be, it’s the LL’s responsibility to bring the house up to a reasonable living standard. Without it you would have people living in refugee like slums, there are LL’s they don’t give a f what there place is like as long as they get the $. You hear the horror story’s every week, the sooner the slumlords are driven out the better
              are the tenants forced to live there?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by BDub View Post
                . . . the sooner the slumlords are driven out the better
                Where will you 'drive' the slum tenants, BDub?

                The local HNZ office? WINZ? A tenants' Gulag?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Don't believe the Hype View Post
                  are the tenants forced to live there?
                  Nobody is holding them in the house but many situations where family’s feel forced to stay in an unhealthy home due to not having other options to move to. There was an article on stuff yesterday that had a good scenario.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Aston View Post
                    Wow, I think I agree with everything in this post, well done Craig.

                    I am really loving watching/listening to squirming investors at the moment complaining about the changes to the RTA/CGT/insulation/heating/ etc etc and how it's going to cost several thousand dollars to install heating and insulation into their properties. Interesting that there is no complaints at all about recent capital gains that these same people have made over recent years.
                    And what about the landlords who have not made capital gains, as they invest in small places (regional residents need rentals, too) where values don't rise?
                    For a house/unit that's worth $100K and earns $150 per week, that several thousand dollars is huge.
                    Not everyone invests in Auckland or Tauranga.
                    My blog. From personal experience.
                    http://statehousinginnz.wordpress.com/

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Perry View Post
                      Where will you 'drive' the slum tenants, BDub?

                      The local HNZ office? WINZ? A tenants' Gulag?
                      They can catch the bus to HNZ. I avoid them with my property’s.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by BDub View Post
                        You hear the horror story’s every week, the sooner the slumlords are driven out the better
                        Whereas the serial rent defaulters with fake references don't make the front pages.
                        I wonder why?
                        There's probably 20-50 slumlords in all of NZ.
                        And each one can be dealt with by the existing regulations.
                        How many rent defaulters were reported in the last year?
                        You are focusing on the wrong villain.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by BDub View Post

                          Any LL who is complaining about raising the living standard in NZ needs to sell up
                          For LL whose properties will be made uneconomic by these requirements, that's exactly what they are doing. Exacerbating the rental shortage in some regions. Which is better? The uninsulated rental they used to live in, or the car they now live in?
                          My blog. From personal experience.
                          http://statehousinginnz.wordpress.com/

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by sidinz View Post
                            And what about the landlords who have not made capital gains, as they invest in small places (regional residents need rentals, too) where values don't rise?
                            For a house/unit that's worth $100K and earns $150 per week, that several thousand dollars is huge.
                            Not everyone invests in Auckland or Tauranga.
                            If your able bodied I’d suggest buying the insulation and doing it yourself.

                            If not, sadly I’d suggest better money management/investing or another hobby if you can’t afford the price of insulating a rental property.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Bob Kane View Post
                              Whereas the serial rent defaulters with fake references don't make the front pages.
                              I wonder why?
                              There's probably 20-50 slumlords in all of NZ.
                              And each one can be dealt with by the existing regulations.
                              How many rent defaulters were reported in the last year?
                              You are focusing on the wrong villain.
                              My villain is the slumlord that gives landlords a bad name, renting a house out that floods when it rains to a family with a newborn? But there is only 25 of them out there so don’t worry about having a living standard for rentals?

                              I’m not disputing that there are shit tenants out there. All I’m saying is the houses that get offered to tenants need to be liveable and healthy.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by BDub View Post
                                I think there has to be, it’s the LL’s responsibility to bring the house up to a reasonable living standard. Without it you would have people living in refugee like slums, there are LL’s they don’t give a f what there place is like as long as they get the $. You hear the horror story’s every week, the sooner the slumlords are driven out the better
                                But the ones you're talking about are flouting the rules we currently have. (And often getting away with it.)
                                You really think that upping the required standard will fix that? If you do, I have some beachfront property I'd like to sell you.....

                                The answer is to beef up punishments for LL who don't bother meeting current standards, not lift the standards. That's like tackling people who don't register their cars by increasing the registration fee.
                                My blog. From personal experience.
                                http://statehousinginnz.wordpress.com/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X