A Boring Dystopia

Absolutely not. Do what you got to do to move back to your condo.

Am I a leech?

Technically, I guess so, you're profiting just by owning the property. And having tenants exactly balancing out the costs of owning property.

Morally? Fuck no. What you're doing you are doing to survive, not to live excessively.

This is tough, because even though you are charging your tenants the exact amount of your minimum mortgage payment, you are still earning equity in an appreciating asset-- eventually you will be able to turn their rent payments into profits. Now, in my opinion, your level of exploitation is very low, and barely worth considering at all.

On the one hand you're getting someone else to make full payments on your mortgage. On the other hand, it's your sole property and the only way you could maintain ownership of it. You weren't profiting over cost, or collecting money from the renters that would go to maintenance (the only actual service/labor that landlords perform). Your choices were practical, not profitable. At least less profitable than you might think. Profitable to the minimum that the system required for you to keep your one home. Short of a revolution where all mortgages are zeroed out, it sounds like you did the best you could.

I don't believe binary logic is very useful. So I'm not going to answer "am I a leech" because I don't think it has a yes or no answer.

You have an asset that you can't afford, and to afford it you rent it out. That is absolutely valid in a capitalist society, and many people do it. This allows you to hold the asset instead of selling it. That means there's one fewer property on the market, which means that if somebody wants that home they have to rent it from you, where your equity increases and they get a place to live. Again, in a capitalist society this is absolutely valid. And it's not like you aren't taking risk, you could get a bad tenant and they could damage the unit, in turn decreasing your equity. One common "protest" I've seen among renters is to poor grease down the sink, damaging the plumbing over the long time, creating a huge long term cost for the owner. Or flushing cat litter down the toilet, causing a blockage, and similar results. You are accepting risk, and capitalist society says if you accept risk you deserve reward. But from a human-focused perspective you get a very different conclusion.

An issue many people have with this is that the renter is gaining no equity and you are while you aren't contributing production to society. In the world we live this is valid. Another example of this would be dividend stocks, if you hold KO (Coke) you get quarterly dividends, and really you're not actually contributing anything. These are capital gains.

My biggest issue with capital gains is that they're usually taxed lower than labour gains. I think that should be reversed. If capital gains were heavily taxed and that tax was used to better the community then I think it would have more justification. But I digress,

If you sold that property it would probably just go to an investor, but in a world where people couldn't own investment properties it would go to a person or family who would live it in, allowing them to build equity themselves. The number of properties being held and rented out has an impact on the homes available to people buying, or rather being forced to rent.

But ultimately I believe that renting and charging rent is bad for society as a whole. But I also don't think you selling your property wouldn't have any meaningful impact. I think it needs to be a systematic change to be meaningful.

So I'd say you do you, but you are taking advantage of the system and renters. But that's the reality of the world we live in. Doesn't mean it's OK, but does mean you can do it. Also means I won't have sympathy for you if somebody damages your property. But maybe that's because I'm a bad person, I don't know.

I firmly believe homes are for living in, not generating income - even if that income is only to maintain your ownership on your asset. But if you follow that perspective your life will be a bit worse.

Like I said, I don't take the binary perspective.

Obviously that depends on how you define "leach" and this community is going to give you a fairly skewed perspective.

You are a person in a bad position, nothing more nothing less. If you are providing a competitive rate for rent you are benefiting these people, especially since you were up front with them. Your plans were not to be a landlord but this is where you have been forced. Hopefully you are able to return to your home soon

there is one separating detail that is not shared between most of us. It really depends on how long that tenant lives there. if they are living there for a long period of time and like the place, then yes you are a leech, but a good one since they enjoy living there enough to stay. On the other hand, if you switch tenants often because of high rent costs or bad housing(maintenance included), then you are just simply a leech and not a good one because you are not even providing anything, you instead are holding the property that is simply rotting away with no way for the family holding it to be able to make changes or work towards making it better as they don't own it. If they leave for other reasons outside of your control, then you are not a leech and provided good housing for someone.

Since this isn't usually known by most and takes time to build that moral ideal, it is usually up to you to consider how to act and there is not really an incentive or demand for you to act morally good. Your current living arrangements, life choices and poor job market is not applicable here, you held a home and still operate on living on someone's paycheck. I hope the best for you and anyone who might be put in a bad spot, I know I am in my own bad spot. Would I try to hold myself to a moral high ground? maybe, though pain is short and I will likely still act not morally good at times, though I am not going to consider myself otherwise but a leech if I do. I would rather make sure I can get new tenants by making sure I get the current one is able to get one that is better or their own property, and help someone new with housing. That is what I think a good landlord could do but if the family likes the house then I can help them afford to buy it off me. See it is just business.

That is only for leeching aspects. I bet there are more complex thinking involved but this is what I think who a financial/real state leech is.

It would also require everyone to own 4+ houses which isn't exactly feasible

Quite the opposite in fact.

Housing cooperatives (wiki) are quite great. Where I'm from they are rather common, but unfortunately the 'buy in' costs have increased a ton in the last couple decades. Even then, paying e.g. a third of what a comparable owner apartment costs, still makes it a lot more affordable for many people.

That's nice, but you shouldn't have an extra property to rent out to others when there's not enough to go around.

Using my “friends” to pay off a personal debt while making $250/mo in profit off them. See, it’s possible to be a good landlord, everyone!

Did you share any of what you made from the sale with your “friends” who helped you pay for it and kept it in good condition for you?

Your "friend" still paid a substantial portion of your mortgage and gained nothing from it beyond being out of the rain. You used him and paint it as mutually beneficial.

I live in the UK and many neighbours of mine are "professional landlords" and it is so annoying seeing them so relaxed and doing nothing while I am stressed and anxious at my job.

You still take someone elses money, just less of it.