6 ms·

Devil's advocate: you think your landlord should be allowed to double your rent at the end of your lease? (If they can choose to not continue the lease and evic

by kspaans 11y ago

Devil's advocate: you think your landlord should be allowed to double your rent at the end of your lease? (If they can choose to not continue the lease and evict you, I guess it's the same thing.) In Ontario, for example, there is essentially an inflation-adjusted rate that landlords are allowed to increase their rent by every year (http://www.landlordselfhelp.com/RentIncreaseGuideline.htm http://www.landlordselfhelp.com/RentIncreaseGuideline.htm) without prior approval. I'm sure there are many flavours of rent control, tilting either towards landlords or tenants.

forrestthewoods 11y ago
Of course I do. You had a lease for a negotiated price for a year. That year ended. Now you can negotiate a new price based on current market conditions. A co-worker got tired of moving every year due several years in a row of homeowners wanted to sell their house when his lease ended. So he asked to sign a two year lease. The homeowner said no. Then he offered an extra $200 a month and two years. And the homeowner said yes. Voila! I work at a small company (<20) and we're looking for new office space. For some locations we can lock-in a pretty good price if we're willing to sign a 5-year lease.
- 6t6t6 11y ago
  That would allow a really dangerous behavior: the landlords would put flats under the market price, in order to get new tenants, and after one year living there (furniture bought, new friends, school for the children, etc.) the landlords would be able to rise the fee as much as they want. The situations where there's an asymmetrical negotiation like landlords-tenants or employer-employee must be regulated by law in order to make them fair. Law, not wealth, should give rights the people.
  - adventured 11y ago
    The majority of the US has had free market pricing for renting for two centuries, and the scheme you're describing has historically been the extreme rarity, not the common. Further, in a market system there's no such thing as: "landlords would be able to rise the fee as much as they want." Not even close. I don't believe anyone can fail to understand what happens next when a landlord tries to command ten times their prior rent. People are not hostages, they move.
  - cpitman 11y ago
    In the DC area many apartment buildings offer first year deals (months free, waived fees, etc). But you forget that there is nothing forcing you to stay in that apartment after the year is up. I have friends that purposely move from apartment to apartment nearly every year to take advantage of the deals. It's not like there is only one living unit available in a school district.
  - jldugger 11y ago
    Much of the US lives just fine without rent control. My landlord raises rents every year, in lockstep with local union raises. Doubling rent annually is hyperbole, and if you really think landlords can afford to pull bait & switch leases, local only movers cheap enough that clever people should exploit them by moving every year for the discount rent. At this point it seems like the only places with rent control are where rents are refucking-diculus.
    - 6t6t6 11y ago
      Where I live, once you rent a flat, the landlord is legally allowed to rise the fee only by a small amount every year (related to the CPI). Also, most of the rentings are long term and the landlord is not allowed to kick you out (except for some exceptional events). So, when you choose a place to live, you know that you can plan your life there. Also, you don't need to be scared for the landlord blackmailing you. I guess that both systems work. It's just different models of society.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      Doubling annually probably happens rarely enough you can ignore it. Where I live now, though, in a medium-sized Pacific NW city, rents in various of my friends and relations buildings/complexes have seen increases 50% in four years. That's still pretty bad, and I know several people myself who were forced out due to rising rents becoming unaffordable. That kind of disruption to people's lives doesn't make the kind of society I want to live in.
  - twblalock 11y ago
    > Law, not wealth, should give rights the people. Why do you think you have a right to live in a home that someone else owns, and to control the price they can charge you?
- danudey 11y ago
  If you can afford an additional $200/mo, then that's great for you, but there are a lot of people out there who can't. Housing is a necessity, and while, in our current system, we allow the free market to provide that, it runs counter to the goals of a stable and healthy society to allow landlords to force people out of their homes arbitrarily. Like health care and education, there are significant long-term and short-term benefits to treating housing as more than just another contractual transaction (for example, tenants who develop a sense of ownership of their place and treat it with respect and take care of it, vs. 'who cares we'll be out in a year anyway'), or building a sense of community in an area (a psychological necessity, and one which has tangible benefits like reduced crime, which in turn improves property values).
  - melling 11y ago
    1. Can you find an economist who would agree with you? 2. Healthcare and education costs have far outpaced inflation. we're doing something seriously wrong there. 3. You are asking the owner of the house to subsidize your rent. Doesn't seem fair. Maybe her costs have also increased. Painters, plumbers, insurance, taxes, etc all increase over time.
    - Camillo 11y ago
      2. I assume he was referring to health and education in places other than the US. In many European countries they are socialized and costs are far lower than in the US. 3. The notion of costs outstripping rent growth in the Bay Area is so far from reality as to constitute trolling. Owning real estate there is like a license to print money.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      > 3. You are asking the owner of the house to subsidize your rent. Doesn't seem fair. Maybe her costs have also increased. Painters, plumbers, insurance, taxes, etc all increase over time. Oh my no. Not in San Francisco or the SFBA. God no. Five years ago, the place I'm living in rented for ~$1,500/month. Now? It's north of $3,000. Now, either materials costs and wages have not DOUBLED over the last five years, or I am in ABSOLUTELY the wrong line of work, and need to get me a piece of that delicious building-maintenance-and-management pie before it runs out! Additionally: In California, Prop 13 caps property tax increases to a maximum of ~2% per year. Coincidentally, the San Francisco Rent Stabilization rent increase cap works out to be ~2% per year. SF also lets a landlord pass through all sorts of expenses and rate increases directly to their tenants. Moreover: The landlord knew the score when they became a landlord. In SF, Rent Stabilization was enacted around late 1970. It only applies to buildings built before late 1970. So, if you decide to rent a building, you ALREADY know whether or not you'll be subject to Rent Stabilization, or if you'll be able to rent at "market rate". It's not like this shit is a surprise in most districts! :)
- lobster_johnson 11y ago
  That might work for you. For a lot of non-wealthy people, this would be extremely disruptive. Landlords have a lot of power of such people already.
  - gozo 11y ago
    Or anyone who has kids, which is why they instead buy and US cities look like they do.
hueving 11y ago
>you think your landlord should be allowed to double your rent at the end of your lease? Of course! It's not your house/apartment and that's the entire point of the lease having a predetermined length.
mcpherrinm 11y ago
If the market rate for your apartment is double what you're paying (the landlord wouldn't double your rent if they couldn't get anyone to take it), you're trapped in that apartment: You presumably can't get any other place, because they're all double the price you pay. Thus the landlord has no motivation to keep you there, and your landlord can screw you over in any number of ways without worrying about losing tenants -- because that's good for them! I used to think rent control was good, but the more I think about it, I worry about trapped tenants who can't get out of their situation financially. Thus I believe we need to worry about controlling the other factors in housing pricing, so that people can afford market rate, which surely includes making enough supply available at all rates: Luxury condos through to places minimum wage workers can afford.
- ch4s3 11y ago
  How do you "[control] the other factors in housing pricing ...making enough supply available" for low wage workers? How do you do that if luxury units only cost a fraction more to construct than low rent units? How do you induce, by policy the construction of affordable housing?
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > How do you induce, by policy the construction of affordable housing? By making -as San Francisco does- a condition of the building permit that the developer either make X% of the newly constructed housing "affordable housing", or pay the city what it would cost the city to build that many units of "affordable housing". This is far from unprecedented. :)
    - forrestthewoods 11y ago
      How's that working out for San Francisco? Mandating some percent of units be "affordable" or charging various taxes which go towards building affordable is not unprecedented. But those strategies succeeding might be. ;)
      - 11y ago
simoncion 11y ago
Something that I've learned: HN reacts really poorly to Devil's Advocate positions. It's almost as if it doesn't understand the point of the practice. ;)
- kspaans 11y ago
  I don't appear to be downvoted to oblivion, so I don't see what the poor reaction is. :P
  - simoncion 11y ago
    At the time I made my comment you were downvoted to at least -1. :)
- twblalock 11y ago
  People think playing the "devil's advocate" card exempts their poor arguments from criticism. It doesn't.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    Downvotes in response to an honest, well-formed, well-founded argument are the lowest form of criticism. If someone is making an honest, earnest, well-founded attempt to play the Devil's Advocate, then they deserve a decent response. :)
    - twblalock 11y ago
      > Downvotes in response to an honest, well-formed, well-founded argument are the lowest form of criticism. I agree, which is why I singled out poor arguments in my comment.
      - simoncion 11y ago
        > I agree, which is why I singled out poor arguments in my comment. And that would be why I specifically only covered Devil's Advocate arguments (rather than poor arguments) in my comment. :) I've seen many examples of knee-jerk downvoters attack Devil's Advocate comments without consideration for the quality and earnestness of the comment's content.
raldi 11y ago
Yes; their right to do so might be the very thing that holds the rent down in the first place. If you're a landlord considering making a deal for a good tenant in a slump year, or making a deal to keep a good tenant despite a chance to capitalize on rising market rates, wouldn't you be more likely go for it if you know you have the option of changing your mind a year later? If you're instead making a possibly decades-long commitment, are you not much more likely to squeeze out every penny on that crucial day of initial lease-signing?
skybrian 11y ago
I guess Ontario's policy is okay if you think taking 30 years to double the rent is reasonable. I don't. There should be plenty of time to move out, but rents should reach market rate. Maybe 7% a year (double in ten years) would be reasonable.

by kspaans 11y ago

forrestthewoods 11y ago

Of course I do. You had a lease for a negotiated price for a year. That year ended. Now you can negotiate a new price based on current market conditions. A co-worker got tired of moving every year due several years in a row of homeowners wanted to sell their house when his lease ended. So he asked to sign a two year lease. The homeowner said no. Then he offered an extra $200 a month and two years. And the homeowner said yes. Voila! I work at a small company (<20) and we're looking for new office space. For some locations we can lock-in a pretty good price if we're willing to sign a 5-year lease.

6t6t6 11y ago
That would allow a really dangerous behavior: the landlords would put flats under the market price, in order to get new tenants, and after one year living there (furniture bought, new friends, school for the children, etc.) the landlords would be able to rise the fee as much as they want. The situations where there's an asymmetrical negotiation like landlords-tenants or employer-employee must be regulated by law in order to make them fair. Law, not wealth, should give rights the people.
- adventured 11y ago
  The majority of the US has had free market pricing for renting for two centuries, and the scheme you're describing has historically been the extreme rarity, not the common. Further, in a market system there's no such thing as: "landlords would be able to rise the fee as much as they want." Not even close. I don't believe anyone can fail to understand what happens next when a landlord tries to command ten times their prior rent. People are not hostages, they move.
- cpitman 11y ago
  In the DC area many apartment buildings offer first year deals (months free, waived fees, etc). But you forget that there is nothing forcing you to stay in that apartment after the year is up. I have friends that purposely move from apartment to apartment nearly every year to take advantage of the deals. It's not like there is only one living unit available in a school district.
- jldugger 11y ago
  Much of the US lives just fine without rent control. My landlord raises rents every year, in lockstep with local union raises. Doubling rent annually is hyperbole, and if you really think landlords can afford to pull bait & switch leases, local only movers cheap enough that clever people should exploit them by moving every year for the discount rent. At this point it seems like the only places with rent control are where rents are refucking-diculus.
  - 6t6t6 11y ago
    Where I live, once you rent a flat, the landlord is legally allowed to rise the fee only by a small amount every year (related to the CPI). Also, most of the rentings are long term and the landlord is not allowed to kick you out (except for some exceptional events). So, when you choose a place to live, you know that you can plan your life there. Also, you don't need to be scared for the landlord blackmailing you. I guess that both systems work. It's just different models of society.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Doubling annually probably happens rarely enough you can ignore it. Where I live now, though, in a medium-sized Pacific NW city, rents in various of my friends and relations buildings/complexes have seen increases 50% in four years. That's still pretty bad, and I know several people myself who were forced out due to rising rents becoming unaffordable. That kind of disruption to people's lives doesn't make the kind of society I want to live in.
- twblalock 11y ago
  > Law, not wealth, should give rights the people. Why do you think you have a right to live in a home that someone else owns, and to control the price they can charge you?
danudey 11y ago
If you can afford an additional $200/mo, then that's great for you, but there are a lot of people out there who can't. Housing is a necessity, and while, in our current system, we allow the free market to provide that, it runs counter to the goals of a stable and healthy society to allow landlords to force people out of their homes arbitrarily. Like health care and education, there are significant long-term and short-term benefits to treating housing as more than just another contractual transaction (for example, tenants who develop a sense of ownership of their place and treat it with respect and take care of it, vs. 'who cares we'll be out in a year anyway'), or building a sense of community in an area (a psychological necessity, and one which has tangible benefits like reduced crime, which in turn improves property values).
- melling 11y ago
  1. Can you find an economist who would agree with you? 2. Healthcare and education costs have far outpaced inflation. we're doing something seriously wrong there. 3. You are asking the owner of the house to subsidize your rent. Doesn't seem fair. Maybe her costs have also increased. Painters, plumbers, insurance, taxes, etc all increase over time.
  - Camillo 11y ago
    2. I assume he was referring to health and education in places other than the US. In many European countries they are socialized and costs are far lower than in the US. 3. The notion of costs outstripping rent growth in the Bay Area is so far from reality as to constitute trolling. Owning real estate there is like a license to print money.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > 3. You are asking the owner of the house to subsidize your rent. Doesn't seem fair. Maybe her costs have also increased. Painters, plumbers, insurance, taxes, etc all increase over time. Oh my no. Not in San Francisco or the SFBA. God no. Five years ago, the place I'm living in rented for ~$1,500/month. Now? It's north of $3,000. Now, either materials costs and wages have not DOUBLED over the last five years, or I am in ABSOLUTELY the wrong line of work, and need to get me a piece of that delicious building-maintenance-and-management pie before it runs out! Additionally: In California, Prop 13 caps property tax increases to a maximum of ~2% per year. Coincidentally, the San Francisco Rent Stabilization rent increase cap works out to be ~2% per year. SF also lets a landlord pass through all sorts of expenses and rate increases directly to their tenants. Moreover: The landlord knew the score when they became a landlord. In SF, Rent Stabilization was enacted around late 1970. It only applies to buildings built before late 1970. So, if you decide to rent a building, you ALREADY know whether or not you'll be subject to Rent Stabilization, or if you'll be able to rent at "market rate". It's not like this shit is a surprise in most districts! :)
lobster_johnson 11y ago
That might work for you. For a lot of non-wealthy people, this would be extremely disruptive. Landlords have a lot of power of such people already.
- gozo 11y ago
  Or anyone who has kids, which is why they instead buy and US cities look like they do.

hueving 11y ago

>you think your landlord should be allowed to double your rent at the end of your lease? Of course! It's not your house/apartment and that's the entire point of the lease having a predetermined length.

mcpherrinm 11y ago

If the market rate for your apartment is double what you're paying (the landlord wouldn't double your rent if they couldn't get anyone to take it), you're trapped in that apartment: You presumably can't get any other place, because they're all double the price you pay. Thus the landlord has no motivation to keep you there, and your landlord can screw you over in any number of ways without worrying about losing tenants -- because that's good for them! I used to think rent control was good, but the more I think about it, I worry about trapped tenants who can't get out of their situation financially. Thus I believe we need to worry about controlling the other factors in housing pricing, so that people can afford market rate, which surely includes making enough supply available at all rates: Luxury condos through to places minimum wage workers can afford.

ch4s3 11y ago
How do you "[control] the other factors in housing pricing ...making enough supply available" for low wage workers? How do you do that if luxury units only cost a fraction more to construct than low rent units? How do you induce, by policy the construction of affordable housing?
- simoncion 11y ago
  > How do you induce, by policy the construction of affordable housing? By making -as San Francisco does- a condition of the building permit that the developer either make X% of the newly constructed housing "affordable housing", or pay the city what it would cost the city to build that many units of "affordable housing". This is far from unprecedented. :)
  - forrestthewoods 11y ago
    How's that working out for San Francisco? Mandating some percent of units be "affordable" or charging various taxes which go towards building affordable is not unprecedented. But those strategies succeeding might be. ;)
    - 11y ago

simoncion 11y ago

Something that I've learned: HN reacts really poorly to Devil's Advocate positions. It's almost as if it doesn't understand the point of the practice. ;)

kspaans 11y ago
I don't appear to be downvoted to oblivion, so I don't see what the poor reaction is. :P
- simoncion 11y ago
  At the time I made my comment you were downvoted to at least -1. :)
twblalock 11y ago
People think playing the "devil's advocate" card exempts their poor arguments from criticism. It doesn't.
- simoncion 11y ago
  Downvotes in response to an honest, well-formed, well-founded argument are the lowest form of criticism. If someone is making an honest, earnest, well-founded attempt to play the Devil's Advocate, then they deserve a decent response. :)
  - twblalock 11y ago
    > Downvotes in response to an honest, well-formed, well-founded argument are the lowest form of criticism. I agree, which is why I singled out poor arguments in my comment.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      > I agree, which is why I singled out poor arguments in my comment. And that would be why I specifically only covered Devil's Advocate arguments (rather than poor arguments) in my comment. :) I've seen many examples of knee-jerk downvoters attack Devil's Advocate comments without consideration for the quality and earnestness of the comment's content.

raldi 11y ago

Yes; their right to do so might be the very thing that holds the rent down in the first place. If you're a landlord considering making a deal for a good tenant in a slump year, or making a deal to keep a good tenant despite a chance to capitalize on rising market rates, wouldn't you be more likely go for it if you know you have the option of changing your mind a year later? If you're instead making a possibly decades-long commitment, are you not much more likely to squeeze out every penny on that crucial day of initial lease-signing?

skybrian 11y ago

I guess Ontario's policy is okay if you think taking 30 years to double the rent is reasonable. I don't. There should be plenty of time to move out, but rents should reach market rate. Maybe 7% a year (double in ten years) would be reasonable.