• SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    9 months ago

    If you think that California landlords aren’t already charging the absolute most they can for renting houses, you’re probably paying less than $3800/month for a 2/1 built in 1906.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      All these “this will cause X to raise prices” responses always inherently assume that the people currently setting the prices are just giving everyone a deal because they feel like they’ve made enough profit and don’t need any more. Maybe you’ve got a sweetheart landlord here or there, but the market writ large isn’t leaving money on the table. The only reason rents aren’t higher is because at some point the preferable alternative is moving away or homelessness

    • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      And the first time a tenants dog does $5k in damage to your house, you look at the next tenant wanting a year lease and say that’s an extra $400/mo minimum. That’s how it works. Being a landlord isn’t a charity.

      • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s totally not how it works. If you could get an extra $400/month because someone was willing to pay that, you’d do it.

        • Skeezix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          That’s not how it works. You advertise at market rates. If the rules change, the market rates will rise

          • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            9 months ago

            It will rise to the level where the supply and demand curves meet, modulo market uncertainty and information imbalance.

            I’ve rented several places that listed “no pets,” and after telling them I’d pay an extra $200 per month or whatever because I had two 75lb pit bulls, no one even blinked. If they had originally thought they could get away with charging the extra $200 and people would snap it up, they would have.

            Most people renting houses do not do sufficient due diligence on market rates, and there’s enough variability in both housing and tenants that it’s probably a bit difficult to price ideally. If you have a large enough company that you can write some kind of statistical analysis and are renting similar/identical places in the same building, that’s one thing. If you’re a new buyer just purchasing a second house to rent over on 2nd Street because it’s $800k and you think you can cover the mortgage in rent after looking at Zillow, that’s something else.

            • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              That has been true historically, I’m not so sure now. They have started using algorithms. There’s some sort of Zillow type shit for landlords that monitors every market and is helping them price gouge, market fix, and pluropolize. Thank fuck I don’t have to worry about that