Some real estate dickhead just rang my mobile (which is not advertised anywhere) saying they were "just in the area" and wanted to do an appraisal on a house we own in <suburb name>.
It's an agency we don't use for any purpose, have never used for any purpose, and have never approached for any reason.
Is there some sort of legal issue with some smarmy sales knob looking up property owner details and cold calling them?
Makes me feel all gross that their grubby mitts are pawing through my deets somewhere in the hope of being able to stick a tongue up my bum and get a taste of some back door cash.
The practice of "renting" needs to die in a goddamn fire. Single family homes should never be "rented". Temporary (6-month to 5-year) occupancy of a single family home should be done under a "land contract".
Basically, the occupant starts making mortgage payments (principal, interest, taxes, insurance) but title stays with the landlord. The landlord receives only the "interest" part of the payment. The "principal" part of the payment is held in escrow, in an interest-bearing account. This is the occupant's equity in the home.
If the occupant stays through the term of the contract, title transfers to the occupant, the escrowed principal payments transfer to the landlord, and the contract converts to a private mortgage. If the occupant leaves before the term of the contract, the principal payments are returned to them.
Land contracts build tenant wealth and drive people toward home ownership. 20-year-old you, with no capital and working a minimum wage job, should be able to enter into a land contract and start building wealth.
To drive us toward such a system, we can provide significant property tax advantages to owner-occupants. Investors can only get those advantages by getting the occupant of a property to qualify as an "owner". A renter would not qualify, but a tenant under a land contract would.
Basically, we phase in an increase in property taxes, and a commensurate (or greater) owner occupant credit. Current owner-occupants will pay the same (or less) than they currently do. Investors who adapt, and convert their "tenants" to "buyers", will also pay the same (or less) than they currently do. Investors who refuse to convert will pay higher property taxes, while also serving a smaller pool of tenants with better options.
I'm sort-of following the idea here - and I appreciate that there has been actual thought behind it.
I'm missing a couple of points though:
The simplest answer is that the landowner could expect a higher ROI from issuing a land contract or private mortgage than from selling outright. If they do decide to sell, it's going to be to an owner-occupant, or another investor willing to "partner" with a tenant/buyer to secure that owner-occupant credit. The Non-occupant "penalty" should be high enough to kill the traditional landlord's ROI.
I don't think I am taking away the deposit. Where are you getting that?
The landowner is "gambling" just as much with a land contract as they would be with a traditional rental.
The private mortgagee can insist on a 20% down payment from the mortgager, just like a conventional mortgagee.
20-year-old me had no capital, remember? The shabby apartment I lived in back in the 90's was worth less than $100k, but 20% of whatever that number was would still have been well beyond my means.