3 ms·
That doesn't make any sense, the Oregon law works very well for the landlord in that case. Tenant is locked in at $1000/mo. 6 months in, decides they want to mo
by chasontherobot 5y ago
That doesn't make any sense, the Oregon law works very well for the landlord in that case.
Tenant is locked in at $1000/mo. 6 months in, decides they want to move. Tenant pays $1500 to break lease, and landlord can charge $10000/mo immediately to the next tenant.
- xyzzyz 5y agoYes, but the point is that the tenant doesn’t want to break the lease then, but the landlord does. 12 month leases protect the tenant from rent hikes as much as they protect the landlord from losing a tenant. If legislating easy breaking of the leases results in removing landlord protection, the landlords will stop offering 12 month leases as they confer no benefit to them, and will only offer month to month lease. Then, you’ll be able to break lease easily too, but so will the landlord be able to kick you out on the month notice.
- Robin_Message 5y agoIn the UK, all leases are legally for at least 6 months; 12 months obviously is common. So you could combine that with Oregon law. Or use the German system someone mentioned. Basically anything but the unfettered free market is going for home tenancy, given the obvious and large power imbalance between renters and landlords.
- 6f8986c3 5y agoWhy on earth would the tenant spend $1500 to break their lease, just so they can go find a new place for $10000/month?
- simonh 5y agoThey’ve bought a house, moving out of state, moving in with their boyfriend, lost their job and moving in with their parents, been convicted and going to jail, etc, etc.