←back to thread

115 points harambae | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
mwkaufma ◴[] No.46208059[source]
Summary: they're pulling "starter homes" off the market, predominantly in nonwhite neighborhoods, and skimping more on maintenance/landscaping.
replies(4): >>46208337 #>>46208346 #>>46208349 #>>46208577 #
potato3732842 ◴[] No.46208337[source]
>and skimping more on maintenance/landscaping

I.e the kind of stuff everyone wants to do but can't justify flying so close to the sun on because they don't have a legal army say "we are in compliance and here's why" on their behalf when the municipal government comes looking for fine money or the slip and fall lawyer tries to make something their fault.

In "reasonable" (note for the bottom feeders, I did not say "free", I said "reasonable") markets the big guy has to do things to higher standards because his big pot of money will attract vultures looking for a quick buck if he does even slightly wrong.

replies(2): >>46208505 #>>46218207 #
nradov ◴[] No.46208505[source]
It's usually the opposite. In a lot of rental markets the small time landlords do even less than the minimum in terms of maintenance and upkeep, whereas the big corporate landlords at least have some basic level of organizational competence. Most local governments don't have the resources to do much enforcement so only the most serious violations are ever punished.
replies(1): >>46209519 #
1. potato3732842 ◴[] No.46209519{3}[source]
Eh, toss a coin. I've seen it cut both ways. Corporate can be "is sending someone to fix it" for months just like a slumlord.