I think there is a very real difference between someone with a low income and a comfortable income in terms of what they consider an acceptable residence.

If the guy has 20ish mortgage free properties, then he's got to be an order of magnitude of wealth above the comfortable income person, so his standards are likely a lot higher. It's likely not "unlivable", just not of a standard appropriate for the head of the country.

But now I think about it, letting the media see is gonna be a disaster because the first thing they will do is go and talk to one of his tenants in one of those properties and see what standard the house is in compared to Premier House.

[–] Ilovethebomb 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I suspect his rental properties will be in better condition than Premier house actually, mostly because a lot of landlords prefer to have a better quality property, in good condition, as you tend to get a better standard of tenant.

Owning and renting the bottom of the market as a landlord means you're also dealing with the bottom of the market with your tenants, from my understanding.

[–] Dave 5 points 8 months ago

It probably depends on the specific properties. But you're right, there is definitely a group of landlords that have higher quality properties, but I also know landlords that just buy any old property, hand it over to a rental agency, and do nothing but the minimum legal requirements.

It could go either way really.