3 ms·

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-

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.

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.