3 ms·

I am renting out an apartment since the tenant protection law in my country is so permissive it is basically non-existent. I am a laid back landlord who can aff

I am renting out an apartment since the tenant protection law in my country is so permissive it is basically non-existent. I am a laid back landlord who can afford to rent out at slightly under-market rate and not try to squeeze any juice from my tenants. If there would be eviction moratorium, I will think twice before renting out and will only ever consider wealthy tenants and exclude anybody who may have any problems in the future. If there were anything like Paris laws where the tenant may refuse to evict at all, I will just take the property off market. This is basic game theory. The only reason why there's supply is because it comes no strings attached.

johncessna 5y ago
I'm also a landlord and in a state that is trying to still push a moratorium and on top of that make it harder to evict once its lifted. You're right. The more strict the laws, the more that goes into tenant screening. Right now the only requirement for me is that you need a security deposit. That'll get adjusted to credit checks, criminal checks, and leases that allow me to void them over basically anything I can get away with per the law. Others, I fear, won't work within the law and start screening on perceptions, stereotypes, and personal history with individuals that get projected onto groups. In short, the quicker it is to evict someone for failure to pay, the less protections a landlord needs to use or worse, invent, to protect their livelihood.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  > to protect their livelihood Maybe they should grow up and get a job.
  - woah 5y ago
    Do you believe that only those who can afford to buy a home should have shelter?
    - throwawaygh 5y ago
      Philosophically, I believe the right to shelter is a more important natural right than any other property right. I don't believe it should be legal to extract a profit from ownership of real estate. I don't have any issues with handymen, gardeners, plumbers, construction workers, or even real estate/leasing agents receiving fair compensation for their labor. My issue is only with the idea that landlords should have a right to take profit.
      - HKH2 5y ago
        So what about admission tickets? Do you have an issue with them?
        throwawaygh 5y ago
        No. Clearly, above, in context, I'm referring to residential real-estate. Everyone having a safe place to live and sleep is a more important right than any other property right. Law designed to protect property rights should start with this premise. Nothing about this premise entails that movie theaters shouldn't exist. Because, again, the goal is to protect the right to shelter and movie theaters don't make for good shelter. Except perhaps in the case where there's not enough housing stock. Which is actually an excellent setting for demonstrating the imminent sanity my value system and cruelty of the landed gentry value system. Why? Because "movie theaters shouldn't have a right to make a profit when people need to sleep in them" isn't even particularly controversial. In rare circumstances when there are severe shortages in habitable housing (eg emergencies) we often see spaces like theaters or stadiums reappropriated as housing. Anyways. Even in hypothetical cases where the right to shelter and property rights of the theater own conflict, it's not the sale admissions tickets that I would object to per se.
        HKH2 5y ago
        I never said admission tickets to movies. If you got rid of rent, I think you would see something like seasonal passes for properties and other workarounds.
InitialLastName 5y ago
> I will just take the property off market. And do what with it? Pay taxes for it to be empty? Sell it (thus providing exactly the same unit of living space to the market)?
- thriftwy 5y ago
  I could let it stay vacant, let my friends live in it when they come to town, keep it for my children/old years, keep around as an investment, etc, etc. At the very minimum I could never consider any vulnerable people as tenants. And this is a red light for any housing policy, really!

johncessna 5y ago

I'm also a landlord and in a state that is trying to still push a moratorium and on top of that make it harder to evict once its lifted. You're right. The more strict the laws, the more that goes into tenant screening. Right now the only requirement for me is that you need a security deposit. That'll get adjusted to credit checks, criminal checks, and leases that allow me to void them over basically anything I can get away with per the law. Others, I fear, won't work within the law and start screening on perceptions, stereotypes, and personal history with individuals that get projected onto groups. In short, the quicker it is to evict someone for failure to pay, the less protections a landlord needs to use or worse, invent, to protect their livelihood.

throwawaygh 5y ago
> to protect their livelihood Maybe they should grow up and get a job.
- woah 5y ago
  Do you believe that only those who can afford to buy a home should have shelter?
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    Philosophically, I believe the right to shelter is a more important natural right than any other property right. I don't believe it should be legal to extract a profit from ownership of real estate. I don't have any issues with handymen, gardeners, plumbers, construction workers, or even real estate/leasing agents receiving fair compensation for their labor. My issue is only with the idea that landlords should have a right to take profit.
    - HKH2 5y ago
      So what about admission tickets? Do you have an issue with them?
      - throwawaygh 5y ago
        No. Clearly, above, in context, I'm referring to residential real-estate. Everyone having a safe place to live and sleep is a more important right than any other property right. Law designed to protect property rights should start with this premise. Nothing about this premise entails that movie theaters shouldn't exist. Because, again, the goal is to protect the right to shelter and movie theaters don't make for good shelter. Except perhaps in the case where there's not enough housing stock. Which is actually an excellent setting for demonstrating the imminent sanity my value system and cruelty of the landed gentry value system. Why? Because "movie theaters shouldn't have a right to make a profit when people need to sleep in them" isn't even particularly controversial. In rare circumstances when there are severe shortages in habitable housing (eg emergencies) we often see spaces like theaters or stadiums reappropriated as housing. Anyways. Even in hypothetical cases where the right to shelter and property rights of the theater own conflict, it's not the sale admissions tickets that I would object to per se.
        HKH2 5y ago
        I never said admission tickets to movies. If you got rid of rent, I think you would see something like seasonal passes for properties and other workarounds.

InitialLastName 5y ago

> I will just take the property off market. And do what with it? Pay taxes for it to be empty? Sell it (thus providing exactly the same unit of living space to the market)?

thriftwy 5y ago
I could let it stay vacant, let my friends live in it when they come to town, keep it for my children/old years, keep around as an investment, etc, etc. At the very minimum I could never consider any vulnerable people as tenants. And this is a red light for any housing policy, really!