5 ms·

A landlord should not be prevented from evicting a tenant deceptively renting out a unit for the purpose of reselling it on AirBnB. This unit could be made ava

A landlord should not be prevented from evicting a tenant deceptively renting out a unit for the purpose of reselling it on AirBnB. This unit could be made available to a family who needs a place to live. Preventing it from going on to the open market also reduces supply and places upwards pressure on rents.

georgespencer 6y ago
Particularly if the tenant is in arrears. The faux socialist anti-landlord outrage on HN is hilarious.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  Is the purpose of housing to provide an income for a landlord, or to provide somewhere for someone to live? If it's socialist to think that houses are for living in, not for speculatin on, then yeah I'm a socialist. And so should everyone be.
  - georgespencer 6y ago
    I'm sure you don't mean to but you're simplifying this massively, in a way which makes it hard for me to think that we can have a productive conversation. I guess a starting point would be to look at the axioms in your logic -- particularly the use of the word "purpose". You're framing the two potential purposes of a house as: 1. Providing income for a landlord OR 2. Providing somewhere for people to live This is a false dichotomy. A rental property explicitly fulfils both of those purposes. An owner-occupied property likely fulfils a different version of the same purpose: 1. Providing an income for a bank, 2. Providing a place for someone to live. If you're saying that houses should provide a place for someone to live even over providing an income for landlords, that's an argument we can get into. It amounts to: the first priority with housing is the sheltering of inhabitants. If it's possible for economic utility to be derived from that process then that's fine, but whatever happens people must have a roof over their heads. That logic is also flawed, but I'd appreciate you offering a bit more context before we go further -- I'd love to be able to really clearly play your argument back to you in a way you agree with, so that I know I understand it properly. Edit: Sorry to see you being downvoted for asking honest questions and disagreeing with the status quo.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      Where I'm coming from is experiencing the housing market in the UK, Australia (which share a perspective on housing similar to the US) and Berlin (which does not). I have owned my own home in the UK, and rented in all three places. In the "anglo" perspective, a house is an investment. Owning your own home is something most people reasonably expect to do during their working life. Having a "property portfolio" is something that most people aspire to. Renting out a second property has been a common way of investing. In the "euro" perspective, a house (actually usually an apartment, even in rural towns) is a place to live. Most people rent all their lives. Owning your own home is seen as optional, kinda nice maybe, but not really something you need to do. Renting a property to someone else is a bureaucratic nightmare that almost no-one does (however subletting for short periods is extremely common). Most renting is done from companies who specialise in owning and renting housing (similar to commercial property companies in the anglo world). Regulation in the anglo world is stringly tilted towards the owner. Tenants can be easily evicted (compared to the bureaucratic nightmare of trying to evict a Berlin tenant). Tenants have very few rights over the property (getting refused permission to do even minor things like put up picture hooks is common). Subletting is usually not allowed. Rent inspections are commonly every 3-6 months. Rent is not controlled, and landlords can charge whatever the market will bear. Tenancies are usually a year at most, and being evicted so the landlord can sell the property is a common experience. In contrast, Berlin prioritises the tenant. Tenants can, for instance, repaint the property, make cosmetic adjustments (even knocking down and moving interior walls without permission). Kitchens are usually owned by the tenant not the landlord, and installed by the tenant. Subletting is common. There are no inspections. Rent is heavily controlled, price changes are limited and have to be justified. Tenancies usually go on for many years, sometimes decades, without interruption. If the property is sold the new owner must respect the existing tenancy agreements. So, yes. This is a dichotomy. A house is either an investment, that incidentally someone lives in, with no rights and no ability to control their tenancy. Or it's a place for someone to live, providing a secure home for the tenant and a controlled, extremely regulated, income for the owner. That's where I'm coming from. I hope you understand my perspective better now :)
      - georgespencer 6y ago
marcus_holmes 6y ago
This is a tiny, tiny problem. If this is used as a reason to allow evictions, then that'll be the thin end of the wedge to justify more, and soon people in real need will be evicted.
- bestnameever 6y ago
  Can you please clarify whether what you are claiming is factual or speculative?
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    I would say that the "this is a tiny problem" is factual, and "it'll be used as a wedge to justify evicting ordinary tenants in arrears" is speculative.

georgespencer 6y ago

Particularly if the tenant is in arrears. The faux socialist anti-landlord outrage on HN is hilarious.

marcus_holmes 6y ago
Is the purpose of housing to provide an income for a landlord, or to provide somewhere for someone to live? If it's socialist to think that houses are for living in, not for speculatin on, then yeah I'm a socialist. And so should everyone be.
- georgespencer 6y ago
  I'm sure you don't mean to but you're simplifying this massively, in a way which makes it hard for me to think that we can have a productive conversation. I guess a starting point would be to look at the axioms in your logic -- particularly the use of the word "purpose". You're framing the two potential purposes of a house as: 1. Providing income for a landlord OR 2. Providing somewhere for people to live This is a false dichotomy. A rental property explicitly fulfils both of those purposes. An owner-occupied property likely fulfils a different version of the same purpose: 1. Providing an income for a bank, 2. Providing a place for someone to live. If you're saying that houses should provide a place for someone to live even over providing an income for landlords, that's an argument we can get into. It amounts to: the first priority with housing is the sheltering of inhabitants. If it's possible for economic utility to be derived from that process then that's fine, but whatever happens people must have a roof over their heads. That logic is also flawed, but I'd appreciate you offering a bit more context before we go further -- I'd love to be able to really clearly play your argument back to you in a way you agree with, so that I know I understand it properly. Edit: Sorry to see you being downvoted for asking honest questions and disagreeing with the status quo.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    Where I'm coming from is experiencing the housing market in the UK, Australia (which share a perspective on housing similar to the US) and Berlin (which does not). I have owned my own home in the UK, and rented in all three places. In the "anglo" perspective, a house is an investment. Owning your own home is something most people reasonably expect to do during their working life. Having a "property portfolio" is something that most people aspire to. Renting out a second property has been a common way of investing. In the "euro" perspective, a house (actually usually an apartment, even in rural towns) is a place to live. Most people rent all their lives. Owning your own home is seen as optional, kinda nice maybe, but not really something you need to do. Renting a property to someone else is a bureaucratic nightmare that almost no-one does (however subletting for short periods is extremely common). Most renting is done from companies who specialise in owning and renting housing (similar to commercial property companies in the anglo world). Regulation in the anglo world is stringly tilted towards the owner. Tenants can be easily evicted (compared to the bureaucratic nightmare of trying to evict a Berlin tenant). Tenants have very few rights over the property (getting refused permission to do even minor things like put up picture hooks is common). Subletting is usually not allowed. Rent inspections are commonly every 3-6 months. Rent is not controlled, and landlords can charge whatever the market will bear. Tenancies are usually a year at most, and being evicted so the landlord can sell the property is a common experience. In contrast, Berlin prioritises the tenant. Tenants can, for instance, repaint the property, make cosmetic adjustments (even knocking down and moving interior walls without permission). Kitchens are usually owned by the tenant not the landlord, and installed by the tenant. Subletting is common. There are no inspections. Rent is heavily controlled, price changes are limited and have to be justified. Tenancies usually go on for many years, sometimes decades, without interruption. If the property is sold the new owner must respect the existing tenancy agreements. So, yes. This is a dichotomy. A house is either an investment, that incidentally someone lives in, with no rights and no ability to control their tenancy. Or it's a place for someone to live, providing a secure home for the tenant and a controlled, extremely regulated, income for the owner. That's where I'm coming from. I hope you understand my perspective better now :)
    - georgespencer 6y ago

marcus_holmes 6y ago

This is a tiny, tiny problem. If this is used as a reason to allow evictions, then that'll be the thin end of the wedge to justify more, and soon people in real need will be evicted.

bestnameever 6y ago
Can you please clarify whether what you are claiming is factual or speculative?
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  I would say that the "this is a tiny problem" is factual, and "it'll be used as a wedge to justify evicting ordinary tenants in arrears" is speculative.