Also, corporate landlords can actually afford to maintain their buildings, which is a nice improvement over small ones.
on paper, corporate landlords should have better-maintained housing stock. in practice, i've never personally experienced it.
This definitely isn't true - there are markets where apartments aren't allowed/desirable, and in which corporate actors 'build to rent' entire subdivisions.s
Apartments have the opposite situation for weird legal reasons; there are almost no condos built in California anymore because the laws allow the original developer to get sued over quality issues, whereas for apartments the landlord has to deal with it.
> Apartments have the opposite situation for weird legal reasons; there are almost no condos built in California anymore because the laws allow the original developer to get sued over quality issues, whereas for apartments the landlord has to deal with it.
This feels like it confuses a couple of issues - one really needs to know the recourse a homeowner has against a home builder and how long this lasts (and to compare that recourse to what is available to condo owners)
"A month's rent less HOA fees may not translate to not less than 1/360th of an ownership share of the rented space" would be the 1 liner policy statement.
(All of these are real issues.)
