4 ms·
I don't mean to derail this even further but I'm going to anyway. My gut reaction is...So what? Landlords will absolutely hammer tenants over even the slighte
by techsupporter 7y ago
I don't mean to derail this even further but I'm going to anyway. My gut reaction is...So what?
Landlords will absolutely hammer tenants over even the slightest thing in a lease (so will tenants, for certain). To require that the contract the landlord puts forward be actually legal and reasonable does not move me in the slightest. The landlord has almost all of the power, both economic and market-moving, and is under no requirement to fairly negotiate a lease with a prospective tenant. This might not be a problem in areas with a glut of rental properties but it is for sure a problem in areas with a glut of prospective tenants.
By way of example, I'm living under a lease right now that was presented on take-it-or-leave-it conditions but that I cannot ever fulfill due to at least four requirements I read in it. The most hilarious is the requirement that my pet be covered by a pet license "issued by [local county] for household pets" and failure to have such a license is deemed "a material violation of the lease," subject to immediate notice to vacate when the landlord so chooses. The problem is, I can't ever do that because the county listed happens to contain the city I am in but the county does not issue pet licenses to residents of my city. Only my city does, but the lease does not require a city license; only a county one.
- the_watcher 7y agoThe point is that increasing the regulatory compliance burden actually gives landlords more power, as it will consolidate property ownership amongst those who have the ability to employ lawyers to argue for the reasonableness of their terms.