@Tyler Rowland. If I allow a tenant to rent at $100 below market rent I’m essentially giving away $100 from my family, from my household, to a stranger. Nothing wrong with that if you consciously decide to provide charity, just putting it in perspective. Perhaps the person who asked you the question would be willing to give the $100 instead, after all it’s really not much different. Would that person feel guilty if they didn’t give the tenant $100/month to effectively reduce their rent? In fact perhaps you could offer this person a proposition, you will refrain from the $100 rent increase if this person will subsidize a tenant by $100/month. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if this person, by calling out perceived injustice, can benefit not one renter but two?
Oh but of course we know the likely answer. For the lowly landlord is to be looked down upon and reviled for daring to derive income in exchange for providing safe shelter. After all, is shelter that important? It ranks behind food and clothing, it’s merely number 3.
And what of the doctor, he or she of the large home and expensive car? Does not the landlord provide a service similar in importance? And how often do we hear the doctor spoken about with terms of contempt and judgement? Or is that treatment reserved solely for the greedy, heartless landlord?
Friends, do not allow such foolishness to go unchallenged. Stand up and defend our profession!