6 ms·

Yep, easy come easy go. The quickest way to get landlords to become less selective would be to let them toss freeloaders on their ass on day one of delinquency

Yep, easy come easy go. The quickest way to get landlords to become less selective would be to let them toss freeloaders on their ass on day one of delinquency.

kylehotchkiss 5y ago
That would very quickly escalate the already very bad homelessness crisis in many parts of the country. Some levels of tenant protection are a way society can help their citizens get back on feet after a difficult time, which almost every person will encounter. Freeloaders will eventually get kicked out.
- notch656a 5y ago
  I'd argue the effect may be the opposite. Tenant protections lead to homelessness by forcing landlords to be selective against vulnerable peoples, making it harder to get back on their feet after difficult times. Risk in renting to these people is greatly reduced if you can toss them out as soon as they stop paying.
  - otterley 5y ago
    Either way, you’re making someone homeless, which is an intractable problem as long as the housing demand exceeds supply. The only change being made is the criteria for who gets to suffer.
    - erik_seaberg 5y ago
      Penalizing every innocent potential renter who’s more likely to default on a lease is worse than only penalizing renters who actually do.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  It’s a complicated issue - my anecdote is that any risk will ultimately be manifested in the form of more selectivity on the landlords end.
LorenPechtel 5y ago
Which would result in more improper evictions. As it is we have already seen multiple examples of landlords losing checks so they can evict and rent to someone else at a higher rate. I've wondered about taking a different approach: The landlord is free to evict on the day of delinquency, but must move the possessions to a storage facility (paying a month's rent at that time) and they must post a substantial bond. If the tenant shows the eviction was improper they get the bond + costs. (And I would apply the same thing to foreclosures.) Instead of a long process of showing that they are acting properly they are putting up a substantial financial promise that they are acting properly. Make improper actions a costly mistake and there will be few of them.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  How would that process help in the "lost check" scenario you mention?
  - jfk13 5y ago
    Somewhat of an aside, but as a non-American, I find it quite weird that it seems to be common to pay rent with a monthly check. Every place I've rented, I've paid automatically by standing order. (Oh, except in a couple of third-world countries, where cash was the norm.)
    - MaysonL 5y ago
      The building I live in has an online payment option, but the only payment option that the organization doing the collection takes is PayPal. Fuck PayPal, I can go to the bank and get a check (I haven't personally written a check for decades).
  - LorenPechtel 5y ago
    It wouldn't, but it would help with other bad evictions.
vkou 5y ago
If you're looking to increase the number of temporarily homeless people, this sounds like a great approach. Unfortunately, temporarily homeless people have a habit of turning into chronic homeless people. And living in a city that's full of chronic homeless people, I don't think we need more. Your comfort and convenience as a landlord does not rank higher than my desire to not step over human shit on my way to work.
- notch656a 5y ago
  Raising regulatory barriers increases cost of housing. Increased cost of housing disproportionately effects those who have less money. Eviction protections are incredibly harmful to homeless as it makes it can make it risky (costly) to rent to homeless, taking housing even further out of reach. Homeless become even less competitive renters. Your comfort and convenience to have the option not to pay a landlord does not rank higher than the desire of homeless to have better access to housing. Places with homeless problems badly need to remove these protections from renters.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Except it doesn't work the way you describe, because all it does is determine the quality of tenant that gets to stay in a housing unit in a shortage. Eviction protections are incredibly helpful at preventing people on the margin from ending up homeless, by increasing the friction of evictions for landlords. This is absolutely necessary, because the cost to the tenant of getting kicked out of where they live is enormous - doubly and triply so if you are the kind of marginal person that gets kicked out of their home. It is incredibly disruptive to their life - much moreso than for someone in a stable situation not being able to find a different place to live. Remove friction from evictions, and everyone on the margins is constantly at risk of losing their home - and once you do so, your ability to stay afloat becomes incredibly precarious. If, on one extreme, tenancies were for life, and you had no way to kick someone out of a unit, you'd have an 'unfair' but stable distribution of housing. There would be very few life disruptions to people's lives, at the cost of housing being stuck in a local optimum. If, on the other extreme, tenancies were day to day, and you constantly had to outbid other contenders for your apartment, you'd have a 'fair' but incredibly unstable distribution of housing. Between the incredibly high pain of moving/looking for a new place to live, anyone on the margins would suffer incredibly from this. Economists rage against a stable but 'suboptimal' distribution of goods. But people whose lives constantly get upended from the instabilities of an 'optimal' distribution of goods are the ones who will suffer. Harm minimization is exactly why there is more friction to throwing someone out of their house than 'the landlord feels like it'.
HWR_14 5y ago
> The quickest way to get landlords to become less selective would be to let them toss freeloaders on their ass on day one of delinquency. The quickest way to get landlords to become less selective is to say "any vacant apartment/home not occupied by at least one fulltime resident can be claimed by someone homeless as of [date]." You'd have landlords begging people to sign leases (and people would because then they would get a sure nice apartment as opposed to a lottery for one of the few ones left). Now, that produces bad other results, but so does allowing people's homes to be ripped away from them at a moments notice.
- notch656a 5y ago
  >Now, that produces bad other results, but so does allowing people's homes to be ripped away from them at a moments notice. What an entitled viewpoint. It's not their home; an entirely different person owns it and they failed to hold up to their end of the contract for the terms under which the owner agreed to let them occupy it. The person having their home ripped away at a moment's notice is the landlord.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    > It's not their home; an entirely different person owns it It's not their house. It certainly is their home. I would prefer those be the same person as often as possible to align incentives. > they failed to hold up to their end of the contract for the terms under which the owner agreed to let them occupy it Tenants, like many contract participants, have legal rights that cannot be waived (see also minimum wage.) They also have contractual rights due to the contract. It's not uncommon for landlords to be the first party to breach the contract either intentionally (e.g. losing checks to move a tenant at below market rates out), neglectfully (e.g. ignoring upkeep or repairs) or unintentionally (e.g. entering at will). Certainly, withholding rent from a breaching landlord is appropriate while the breach is resolved. > The person having their home ripped away at a moment's notice is the landlord. Unless the landlord lives there, the landlord's home is unrelated to the property.
    - notch656a 5y ago

Yep, easy come easy go. The quickest way to get landlords to become less selective would be to let them toss freeloaders on their ass on day one of delinquency.

kylehotchkiss 5y ago

That would very quickly escalate the already very bad homelessness crisis in many parts of the country. Some levels of tenant protection are a way society can help their citizens get back on feet after a difficult time, which almost every person will encounter. Freeloaders will eventually get kicked out.

notch656a 5y ago
I'd argue the effect may be the opposite. Tenant protections lead to homelessness by forcing landlords to be selective against vulnerable peoples, making it harder to get back on their feet after difficult times. Risk in renting to these people is greatly reduced if you can toss them out as soon as they stop paying.
- otterley 5y ago
  Either way, you’re making someone homeless, which is an intractable problem as long as the housing demand exceeds supply. The only change being made is the criteria for who gets to suffer.
  - erik_seaberg 5y ago
    Penalizing every innocent potential renter who’s more likely to default on a lease is worse than only penalizing renters who actually do.
endisneigh 5y ago
It’s a complicated issue - my anecdote is that any risk will ultimately be manifested in the form of more selectivity on the landlords end.

LorenPechtel 5y ago

Which would result in more improper evictions. As it is we have already seen multiple examples of landlords losing checks so they can evict and rent to someone else at a higher rate. I've wondered about taking a different approach: The landlord is free to evict on the day of delinquency, but must move the possessions to a storage facility (paying a month's rent at that time) and they must post a substantial bond. If the tenant shows the eviction was improper they get the bond + costs. (And I would apply the same thing to foreclosures.) Instead of a long process of showing that they are acting properly they are putting up a substantial financial promise that they are acting properly. Make improper actions a costly mistake and there will be few of them.

oh_sigh 5y ago
How would that process help in the "lost check" scenario you mention?
- jfk13 5y ago
  Somewhat of an aside, but as a non-American, I find it quite weird that it seems to be common to pay rent with a monthly check. Every place I've rented, I've paid automatically by standing order. (Oh, except in a couple of third-world countries, where cash was the norm.)
  - MaysonL 5y ago
    The building I live in has an online payment option, but the only payment option that the organization doing the collection takes is PayPal. Fuck PayPal, I can go to the bank and get a check (I haven't personally written a check for decades).
- LorenPechtel 5y ago
  It wouldn't, but it would help with other bad evictions.

vkou 5y ago

If you're looking to increase the number of temporarily homeless people, this sounds like a great approach. Unfortunately, temporarily homeless people have a habit of turning into chronic homeless people. And living in a city that's full of chronic homeless people, I don't think we need more. Your comfort and convenience as a landlord does not rank higher than my desire to not step over human shit on my way to work.

notch656a 5y ago
Raising regulatory barriers increases cost of housing. Increased cost of housing disproportionately effects those who have less money. Eviction protections are incredibly harmful to homeless as it makes it can make it risky (costly) to rent to homeless, taking housing even further out of reach. Homeless become even less competitive renters. Your comfort and convenience to have the option not to pay a landlord does not rank higher than the desire of homeless to have better access to housing. Places with homeless problems badly need to remove these protections from renters.
- vkou 5y ago
  Except it doesn't work the way you describe, because all it does is determine the quality of tenant that gets to stay in a housing unit in a shortage. Eviction protections are incredibly helpful at preventing people on the margin from ending up homeless, by increasing the friction of evictions for landlords. This is absolutely necessary, because the cost to the tenant of getting kicked out of where they live is enormous - doubly and triply so if you are the kind of marginal person that gets kicked out of their home. It is incredibly disruptive to their life - much moreso than for someone in a stable situation not being able to find a different place to live. Remove friction from evictions, and everyone on the margins is constantly at risk of losing their home - and once you do so, your ability to stay afloat becomes incredibly precarious. If, on one extreme, tenancies were for life, and you had no way to kick someone out of a unit, you'd have an 'unfair' but stable distribution of housing. There would be very few life disruptions to people's lives, at the cost of housing being stuck in a local optimum. If, on the other extreme, tenancies were day to day, and you constantly had to outbid other contenders for your apartment, you'd have a 'fair' but incredibly unstable distribution of housing. Between the incredibly high pain of moving/looking for a new place to live, anyone on the margins would suffer incredibly from this. Economists rage against a stable but 'suboptimal' distribution of goods. But people whose lives constantly get upended from the instabilities of an 'optimal' distribution of goods are the ones who will suffer. Harm minimization is exactly why there is more friction to throwing someone out of their house than 'the landlord feels like it'.

HWR_14 5y ago

> The quickest way to get landlords to become less selective would be to let them toss freeloaders on their ass on day one of delinquency. The quickest way to get landlords to become less selective is to say "any vacant apartment/home not occupied by at least one fulltime resident can be claimed by someone homeless as of [date]." You'd have landlords begging people to sign leases (and people would because then they would get a sure nice apartment as opposed to a lottery for one of the few ones left). Now, that produces bad other results, but so does allowing people's homes to be ripped away from them at a moments notice.

notch656a 5y ago
>Now, that produces bad other results, but so does allowing people's homes to be ripped away from them at a moments notice. What an entitled viewpoint. It's not their home; an entirely different person owns it and they failed to hold up to their end of the contract for the terms under which the owner agreed to let them occupy it. The person having their home ripped away at a moment's notice is the landlord.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > It's not their home; an entirely different person owns it It's not their house. It certainly is their home. I would prefer those be the same person as often as possible to align incentives. > they failed to hold up to their end of the contract for the terms under which the owner agreed to let them occupy it Tenants, like many contract participants, have legal rights that cannot be waived (see also minimum wage.) They also have contractual rights due to the contract. It's not uncommon for landlords to be the first party to breach the contract either intentionally (e.g. losing checks to move a tenant at below market rates out), neglectfully (e.g. ignoring upkeep or repairs) or unintentionally (e.g. entering at will). Certainly, withholding rent from a breaching landlord is appropriate while the breach is resolved. > The person having their home ripped away at a moment's notice is the landlord. Unless the landlord lives there, the landlord's home is unrelated to the property.
  - notch656a 5y ago