Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

fullstackeconomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 684 posts

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#461

Post by pyuser583 »

Teknoman117 wrote: post #71
paxys wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Heck I know several people who prefer to keep their condos/houses empty rather than rent them out at market rate because of 100% tenant friendly city and state laws. Someone can move in and refuse to pay rent, refuse to leave, use your house as a drug den, destroy your property and lots more, and you can do nothing about it. At that point the city is just incentivizing homeowners to contribute to the housing…

> Someone can move in and refuse to pay rent, refuse to leave, use your house as a drug den, destroy your property and lots more, and you can do nothing about it. This is one of those things that really just confuses me. It's like no one could agree on happy medium between "landlord can eject you whenever they want for whatever reason" and "no one can make you leave, ever, for any reason". And to whoever downvoted yo…

The problem is ultimately how well the courts handle liars.

The middle ground is to investigate the situation and establish facts. And do it quickly.

That costs money, and poor tenants can’t afford it.

So many courts adopt the position of believing one side over the other.

This isn’t limited to liars … it applies to all bad faith actors. For example, in parts of the Midwest, it’s really hard to evict someone in winter.

So bad faith tenants will sign a lease in September, pay for a month or two, then stop. Can’t be evicted until spring.

And by “can’t be evicted” I mean can’t begin eviction proceedings. If the proceedings can be stretched out (“I’m in the hospital and can’t appear in court”) you can get to the next winter.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#462

Post by Aeolun »

jasd wrote: post #448
pj_mukh wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land is a finite resource but housing units are not. Once America gets over it’s love affair with single family homes, we could undercut most speculators by just building up.

In the last 2 years condo prices in the Seattle area have stayed flat while everyone is desperate to buy townhomes and single families that are becoming out of reach for most. That makes me wonder if building up will actually fix the issue.

Most people obviously want a family home, but it would be an improvent if they actually have an alternative.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#463

Post by jdross »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #68
ourmandave wrote: post #53

I'm planning to sell very soon and love the iBuyer model. Don't have to deal with showings, or fix anything, or hope a buyer's financing doesn't fall through at the last minute. To me that's worth whatever percent they're getting. Sadly, no iBuyer operates in my fly-over state.

Not sure why the article goes to such lengths to legitimize "Corporate flipping", calling it iBuying or whatever. No matter what terminology you use, buyers without cash-in-hand are getting screwed.

look up Opendoor’s buy with cash product. Turns every buyer into a cash buyer in exchange for the same commission as any other buyer agent (maybe lower?)

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#465

Post by zamfi »

jdmichal wrote: post #423
tempnow987 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a friend who let someone move in as part of an apartment share. Person NEVER paid them a nickel, never paid landlord anything, claimed they felt unsafe and got a restraining order. It was actually genius. My (female) friend HAD TO MOVE OUT of the house she was renting, the landlord required she still pay rent on the lease. "self-help" (changing locks) was totally out. All this would have been fine I think if sh…

So she basically directly sublet part of her apartment, and is surprised the landlord didn't care and still held her responsible? That's exactly the stance the landlord should take in such a situation. Assuming it wasn't just directly a breach of contract of the rental terms to start with, which would even further just protect the landlord. Did she even bother to draft a contract with the subletter? Or was this all j…

Did you miss the part about waiting 18 months for a court date?

A legal contract is only as strong as the incentives to litigate it. Doesn't seem likely a contract would've helped, it may even have existed.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#466

Post by Ekaros »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #364
endisneigh wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should doctors work for free? Should farmers?

Do landlords labor?

No, but they certainly have provided or paid for previously paid capital that allowed housing to be build.

Ofc, it might be better if everyone build their own houses like some slums around the world.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#467

Post by moltke »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #264
giraffe_lady wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cites are not fungible, I hate that this always comes up. I have relationships here going back to my childhood, I sometimes visit the grave of the person I am named for, I spend every sunday afternoon cooking and eating with the 97-year-old who took me in and nursed me back to health decades ago. If I move to another city these things aren't coming with. Now you can dismiss these things as inherently less meaningful…

> A necessity of life has become a competitive investment vehicle My perspective is that a necessity of life (land) has started bumping up against the limits of nature. Population has drastically increased, and for various reasons such as increased access to information, economic agglomeration, etc, certain areas of land are in far more demand than others relative to supply. Allocating scarce resources (sufficient la…

Then we should absolutely stop and do our best to reverse immigration. Under your model immigration is how 3rd world countries export their unsustainable behavior.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#468

Post by Ekaros »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #349
baq wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there’s return, there’s risk. All markets are adversarial.

Yeah I don't really disagree with that. I don't believe housing should be a "market" in the sense I think is meant here. But if it is to be, I agree that landlords need to accept the risk of their tenants not paying and not leaving either.

Not paying sure. Not leaving no. That never should be the case. They own the property the should be able to get it vacated in reasonable time let's say 3 to 6 month. For any reason. There could also be a fixed time contract binding both sides.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#469

Post by Ekaros »

tempnow987 wrote: post #358
Teknoman117 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone can move in and refuse to pay rent, refuse to leave, use your house as a drug den, destroy your property and lots more, and you can do nothing about it. This is one of those things that really just confuses me. It's like no one could agree on happy medium between "landlord can eject you whenever they want for whatever reason" and "no one can make you leave, ever, for any reason". And to whoever downvoted yo…

I had a friend who let someone move in as part of an apartment share. Person NEVER paid them a nickel, never paid landlord anything, claimed they felt unsafe and got a restraining order. It was actually genius. My (female) friend HAD TO MOVE OUT of the house she was renting, the landlord required she still pay rent on the lease. "self-help" (changing locks) was totally out. All this would have been fine I think if sh…

Seems like the problem was the restraining order. Should have fought that one. Blame the part of the system that was true problem.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#470

Post by quesera »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #398
endisneigh wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? Do you think the house magically takes care of itself?

This comment made me see red, seriously the maddest I've been in weeks. You couldn't have known that and I'm not upset at you. _I_ take care of the house in this situation. The landlord doesn't shovel snow or mow grass, I do. They do carry some of the burden specifically in taxes and liability, yes I know. I also know the maintenance responsibilities aren't inherently and legally mine, and so I can be blamed for ente…

> The landlord doesn't shovel snow or mow grass, I do.

I've rented places where that was my responsibility, enumerated in the lease. Also taking out the trash, keeping porches and exterior areas clean, etc.

These are common expectations when you're renting a full single-family house. I've also seen arrangements where a single tenant of a multi-unit property will accept grass & snow responsibilities in exchange for reduced rent.

I understand that you don't want those jobs though. If they are not in your lease, you are not required to perform them. (Don't take legal advice from me, but that's true everywhere I've lived). You might have trouble finding a SFH lease that doesn't include them, but multi-unit buildings will be easier.

The law will require that grass mowing and snow removal happens. The property owner will be fined if they do not happen. These services cost money, so if the tenant is unable or unwilling to do them as part of the lease contract, the owner will purchase these services and increase the rent correspondingly.

Post reply on HN