The ignorance of some people on these boards is amazing. The old “greedy landlord” stereotype. A landlord runs a business, just like anyone else. He typically has a mortgage to pay, real estate taxes, insurance, and operating costs just like anyone else. He takes real economic risk in the possibility that he loses tenants- at certain times, depending upon the economy, he has to take on expensive build-outs or rent abatements at his own risk. Most investment property owners aren’t rich, and they struggle along in these economies just like everyone else.
Given the choice, a landlord would be a fool not to take a Chase Bank over a Roadfood joint. Chase is a tenant that would sign a corporate lease, pay more than a local joint, sign a longer term triple-net lease, and is an accredited tenant. If you’re a landlord and you’re interested in taking care of your family, you would make that deal in a heartbeat, and you would only be incurring risk by re-signing a restaurant, especially in these times. Moreover, why is it OK for a Roadfood joint to try and be successful, while it’s not OK for the landlord to do his best to be successful? Why is it that the landlord is responsible for his tenant beyond the stipulations of the lease? If you’ve ever owned a property, you know the risks and benefits of ownership. If you’ve ever had a building go under 50% occupancy, had it foreclosed upon, and had it taken by the bank, you know the risks. Most people don’t get it. The “rich, greedy, landlord” stereotype is such a convenient crutch to fall on. When times are tough, do you know who usually gets paid last? The landlord.
If you’ve ever sat in a courtroom trying to get back 8 months of rent after a tenant has moved out in the middle of the night because he got a better deal somewhere else and has stiffed you, and you’ve spent substantial $$ on attorneys fees and your time, you might have an idea what I’m talking about. I don’t understand why people think it’s OK for a individual to go to work and try to make as much money as he or she can everyday, but it’s not OK for a landlord to insure that he or she has the most secure tenant possible that maximizes their profit. Truly, if a store owner or a restaurant can’t pay the going lease rate, is that the landlord’s fault? If the landlord gives the tenant a sweetheart deal and ultimately is overwhelmed by rising expenses over the lease term, who takes care of the “evil landlord”? And what happens if a less secure tenant goes out of business, leaving the “greedy landlord” with a vacant building, but still with a mortgage, utilities, and taxes to pay? I guess the “greedy landlord” just deserves that.
Thank you, saps, for having the patience to write the simple truth in a calm, evocative, eloquent manner. In the present environment I just cannot “do” calm.
Presently, I teach economics and own properties. In the former I earn an ever-growing income ( & benefits + pension); in the latter, my net has fallen by 70% over the past five years to the point where I pay more in property tax than I net.
As is typical for those of us who turn 65 as I did last month, I look back and contemplate how life may have been had I taken a different path. Frankly, the “greediest” path not taken was my declining, at 30, a GS-13/14 position with the then newly formed Department of Energy. At that point “the Administration” was having a difficult time making breeder reactor technology (falsely) “look bad” and it, evidently, needed a man of my talents. Had I signed on for that in 1978, today’s ‘financial worst case’ (should I have spent 35 years being a vegetable with just a sandwich and the Washington Post [/,12,723571.001001001001002001001001001001001001001001001001001001001001001001001001001001001004001001001002001001001001001001001001001002002,43,39745,188.8.131.52
729638,729278,729633,2013-02-09 20:21:44.193000000,Re:Northeasterners: all ready for the latest STORMPOCALYPSE?”