This statement will soon apply to pretty much whole of the California.
Run, donât walk.
The large corporations can handle it.
Corporations can afford to buy government and its officials. An individual landlord cannot.
Form a landlord co-operative 
As an individual, should you try to scale up and become more of a corporation or get away from these tougher cities and/or state or just completely get out of the rental business?
What do you guys think?
Why do business where your customers and government are both aligning against you? Current cap rates suck anyway. Itâs been awhile since it made since to acquire rentals.
Right, thatâs exactly the thinking of a rational landlord. Itâs too hard for too little reward.
Over time, wouldnât these barriers create a bigger moat for the existing players, especially the bigger players?
There will still be landlords in Oakland. Who will they be and how profitable will they be?
SF and NYC has had tough rental controls. Yet, there is still a strong landlord market.
I do think itâll squeeze our small landlords. Regulation always squeezes out the small players who canât spread the cost of regulation across enough customers. Just look at what happened when banks got more regulated.
Itâs probably fine for landlord with a low enough cost basis on their purchase. Theyâll still make a profit. The better question for them is could they earn a higher profit by investing that equity in something or somewhere else?
One of my friends paid $46k for a rental in Detroit and nets $740/mo after fees. Iâm curious how he will do on vacancy rate and repairs. The cash flow makes it easier to keep acquiring more.
Good points as usual @marcus335.
These are not merely theoretical questions for me. I think Iâm at crosswords with my own business. I should start a new thread on it.
1 Like
You do not want real estate to become kind of business that attracts people of different kind. Of the kind that will run casinos or gambling.
What have I done? Didnât form a LLC because was told by a lawyer that corporation tends to invite predatory law suits since predatory lawyers think youâre rich and your lawyers prefer to settle such petty law suits quickly - pay a small sum to the suitors to go away. So I moved to Austin where state income tax is zero and cost of living is lower. I use a PM who will ensure known legal liabilities are removed e.g. a pool and rectified any safety issues immediately.
Thatâs smart. You have a licensed/professional intermediary to act another buffer. Another layer removed from the tenants is always a good idea .
So Youâre still buying properties in your name?
I use a trust. So donât know my ethnicity. My PM has a low rating in YELP, mostly complaints by prospective tenants who got rejected, apparently, for small errors 
What @hanera did is smart. But, as a owner, one is still responsible for everything that happens with the property. It is good to be a smart owner and not be dependent upon the intermediary. Your intermediary is only as good as you are.
Right.
Seem to go against the principle of employing some1 smarter than you 
That is not why you hire someone. You hire some one because you have lot of other things to do or you cannot be physically present at the job. You only hire a smart person to advise and consult you. But, you make your own decisions. Buck stops at you even if someone else made decisions for you.
1 Like
Look like you wonât use PM. Thought you believe in ROPE.
There are situations where you must be dependent upon others. Like someone managing your property at distant sites. What I am saying is that you should know the business so you face minimal disruption should you have to fire your intermediary. Your intermediary is only your agent. The principal agent relation and its complexities must be kept in mind.