10 ms·
> That is of course false. It may be a hassle, but you can absolutely to something. It depends where. In France you are completely stuck when someone dies not
by BrandoElFollito 9y ago
> That is of course false. It may be a hassle, but you can absolutely to something.
It depends where. In France you are completely stuck when someone dies not pay. It can take over a year to finally kick someone out.
And this is just if he is not paying. If someone pays, it is simply impossible. Every three years you may take back the house for your or your close family use only. You cannot sell it empty. You cannot end the contract.
You are awfully stuck.
- dalore 9y agoIf someone dies and does not pay, and it still takes a year to kick them out, won't the body be severely decomposed then?
- jsjohnst 9y agos/dies/does/ And it’ll make more sense to you.
- BrandoElFollito 9y agoThanks. The joy of commenting on a mobile...
- snvzz 9y agoObjects don't get the level of protection people do.
- kaybe 9y agoGermany has strong tenant protection, but the situation in the article would not be protected because the tenant and the landlord share the same space. The protections are only strong if you do not share. (2 weeks notice for both parties otherwise)
- maaaats 9y ago> It depends where. In France you are completely stuck when someone dies not pay. It can take over a year to finally kick someone out. But then how do you kick them out? By doing something! Which was my point. Saying "nothing whatsoever to do about it" is a lie by the OP. I'm not saying all the rules are sane. But it's better to protect the weak that need roof over their heads, than the persons renting out a house they don't need. One could even argue the French law is good. If it deters people from buying properties for renting to others by making it not as lucrative, it keeps the prices down and makes housing affordable for many. Owning multiple properties and renting them out isn't a right. Having a house to live in should be.
- microcolonel 9y ago> ...than the persons renting out a house they don't need. Is a camera rental company just "renting out cameras they don't need"? Maintaining rental properties is a livelihood, a bad faith tenant is just as abusive as a bad faith landlord. People buy properties on loans to rent them out, when a tenant refuses to pay the rent, the utilities and the loan payments fall to the landlord. The obvious effect of this is that only people who can afford to lease and rent many properties out at once to spread the cost of this can become landlords. Furthermore, if this dwelling is some part of an existing home, and you can't evict them for violating the lease agreement, then you have unwanted strangers who don't care about you, forcibly staying in your own home. You don't have to be a steenking bourgeois to own a home, and you don't need to be "advantaged" to draw the short end of this straw. Some countries have a mix of laws for tenant relations, for example sublet agreements in some places are afforded little or none of the extreme tenant rights that direct let agreements are. That would likely have helped in this article's situation.
- jacobolus 9y agoIf it destroyed someone's life to go without a camera then this would be a reasonable analogy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_housing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_housing
- microcolonel 9y agoIt destroys a landlord's life if their primary asset is turned unfairly into a liability.
- heavenlyblue 9y agoSo find an investment that does not amplify the housing crisis.
- justherefortart 9y agoTakes 15 days where I live to fully evict someone. I was going to buy a house when I lived in SF and rent out the other 2 floors (to make it both reasonable to me and renters). After reading up on the laws I noped the fuck out of that.
- sjg007 9y agoThis is why people rent to techies among other things.
- fbdjskajxb 9y agoThe housing crisis is that there is less housing than people who want housing. Whether the homes are rented or owner-occupied has nothing to do with it.