3 ms·

The article isn't just about bankruptcies. It's about a tenant scoring system that has as much power over your life as the credit scoring system, albeit with fa

by danso 5y ago

The article isn't just about bankruptcies. It's about a tenant scoring system that has as much power over your life as the credit scoring system, albeit with far less regulation and consumer protections: > Tenant screening companies compile information beyond what’s in renters’ credit reports, including criminal and eviction filings. They say this data helps give landlords a better idea of who will pay on time and who will be a good tenant. The firms typically assign applicants scores or provide landlords a yes-or-no recommendation. > A ProPublica review found that such ratings have come to serve as shadow credit scores for renters. But compared to credit reporting, tenant screening is less regulated and offers fewer consumer protections — which can have dire consequences for applicants trying to secure housing.

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Selecting tenants is a legal minefield. As a result, many landlords find it safer to offload that decision to a third party. It sounds like these third-party rating services, including their "rent, don't rent" decisions, are filling a need but are ahead of legislation to curb some of their excesses.
ilikehurdles 5y ago
If eviction for nonpayment, property destruction, and major lease violations could be filed and processed in days rather than months, the landlords wouldn't have to delve so thoroughly into tenants' backgrounds to screen them. Heck, if that were the case, I'd be renting out my place now, but the legislative hoops make landlording above my risk tolerance so I'll let my condo go for sale and it will probably end up in some big corporate entity that has a much higher appetite for that sort of risk. More than happy to let them deal with that.
- 7sidedmarble 5y ago
  From a strictly utilitarian point of view (the favorite view of this website), since there's more tenants than landlords out there, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting tenants from abuse rather than the other way around? You can't have it both ways, so you have to do something.
  - novok 5y ago
    Because it's high risk to rent out units, many who don't need to, don't do so. I know of several who don't do this but could. They have extra rooms in their first floors of their houses that could function as a more affordable in law suite for example. They have jobs, careers or have stress tolerance issues and thus have much better things to do than to deal with nightmare tenants. These tenant protections come up because governments want their cake and eat it too. If you live in a functional housing market the need for tenant protections also decrease, because more people can afford to rent places!
  - djbebs 5y ago
    Havr you considered the possibility that these laws don't protect anyone?
  - jjav 5y ago
    > You can't have it both ways, so you have to do something. But we could have it both ways pretty easily (if political will is there). Meaning, protect both parties from abusive people on the other side.
dd82 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System US is doing somethign similar to this, except its being done by companies rather than the government.

by danso 5y ago

Mountain_Skies 5y ago

Selecting tenants is a legal minefield. As a result, many landlords find it safer to offload that decision to a third party. It sounds like these third-party rating services, including their "rent, don't rent" decisions, are filling a need but are ahead of legislation to curb some of their excesses.

ilikehurdles 5y ago

If eviction for nonpayment, property destruction, and major lease violations could be filed and processed in days rather than months, the landlords wouldn't have to delve so thoroughly into tenants' backgrounds to screen them. Heck, if that were the case, I'd be renting out my place now, but the legislative hoops make landlording above my risk tolerance so I'll let my condo go for sale and it will probably end up in some big corporate entity that has a much higher appetite for that sort of risk. More than happy to let them deal with that.

7sidedmarble 5y ago
From a strictly utilitarian point of view (the favorite view of this website), since there's more tenants than landlords out there, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting tenants from abuse rather than the other way around? You can't have it both ways, so you have to do something.
- novok 5y ago
  Because it's high risk to rent out units, many who don't need to, don't do so. I know of several who don't do this but could. They have extra rooms in their first floors of their houses that could function as a more affordable in law suite for example. They have jobs, careers or have stress tolerance issues and thus have much better things to do than to deal with nightmare tenants. These tenant protections come up because governments want their cake and eat it too. If you live in a functional housing market the need for tenant protections also decrease, because more people can afford to rent places!
- djbebs 5y ago
  Havr you considered the possibility that these laws don't protect anyone?
- jjav 5y ago
  > You can't have it both ways, so you have to do something. But we could have it both ways pretty easily (if political will is there). Meaning, protect both parties from abusive people on the other side.

dd82 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System US is doing somethign similar to this, except its being done by companies rather than the government.