6 ms·

> 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

by 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
    >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. If you take something you're obliged to pay for without paying for it, it isn't "yours." >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. Minimum wage is another thing that crushes the poor, as do eviction protections. Both serve to make jobs/housing (respectively) more difficult for the poor to acquire via regulatory barriers. >Certainly, withholding rent from a breaching landlord is appropriate while the breach is resolved. Conversely, withholding housing from a breaching tenant is appropriate. >Unless the landlord lives there, the landlord's home is unrelated to the property. In the US, "Home" can simply mean a house [1]. My apologies if you're using a different dialect of English and I misunderstood; I was using home as it's used in one common interpretation of the word in English in my country. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/home https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/home : refer to 1b
    - tom_ 5y ago
      'Home' and 'house' are perhaps synonymous when preceded by the indefinite article. In the abstract, a house and a home can be considered the same thing. A house is, at least in principle, a home for somebody. But you can't call a rental property the landlord's home, since the key characteristic of somebody's home is that it's the place they live.
      - notch656a 5y ago
        Nearly every landlord I have interacted with when renting single family housing has referred to the house he is renting as a 'home' even when no one was living in it. I understand local dialects may be differ.
rdtwo 5y ago
This would just cause rental terms to require tenants to find a replacement before moving out
- HWR_14 5y ago
  That would probably be one of the terms. Which meets the stated goal of ensuring the housing is being used. Although I don't see how that clause would be enforceable. A tenant almost certainly doesn't have enough assets to go after to make up for a building. Otherwise they could have bought the home for their own use.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> 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]." This is basically extreme squatter's rights. Places which have those produce some combination of people paying guards, those who can't afford guards taking matters into their own hands, people demolishing perfectly-good housing to avoid risking the land, et cetera.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  I actually meant via a lottery system, not armed competition. Paying the guards when the city says someone else gets the house is not a real thing. And demolishing housing could be fixed by going off zoning.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > via a lottery system, not armed competition You’re proposing to reassign millions of dollars of property based on various levels of evidence for whether someone was physically present? That’s basically the 90s in Russia. It’s certainly a neat fictional universe. I imagine everyone who can afford to would live in a hotel, leaving the scramble of defending your property to those who can’t. Also, fraud. Lots of fraud.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      Simple, comrade. 15 years you work on potato farm and trade ration-booklet for wood and drywall. You pay for and possibly build with your own two hands nice home for hard working fellow comrade to live in, and you ask in return they pay you some amount to help you recoup your investment. After a couple years, nice family leaves, so you spend long time to find another nice family to fit into the house you worked hard to provide. Instead Kommisar come along, give house to homeless in name of proletariat. Social welfare bureau hold lottery, and the neighborhood violent drunk under the bridge is ecstatic his number came up, as he was very sad he no longer has home to beat wife in. Much vodka is drunk while copper piping is gutted and appliances scrapped to dealers in nearby Ossetia. Sit back and cry: I work on potato farm for 15 years to build nice second home to house hard working families! Instead government create lottery and hands to drunk who destroys house in only 15 days. Decide to stop trying. Start drinking everyday. Become a drunk yourself, enter the lottery, now you gut houses of others to survive. Process repeats -- now all units look like Grozny in the late 90s. Mission accomplished.

by HWR_14 5y ago

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
  >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. If you take something you're obliged to pay for without paying for it, it isn't "yours." >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. Minimum wage is another thing that crushes the poor, as do eviction protections. Both serve to make jobs/housing (respectively) more difficult for the poor to acquire via regulatory barriers. >Certainly, withholding rent from a breaching landlord is appropriate while the breach is resolved. Conversely, withholding housing from a breaching tenant is appropriate. >Unless the landlord lives there, the landlord's home is unrelated to the property. In the US, "Home" can simply mean a house [1]. My apologies if you're using a different dialect of English and I misunderstood; I was using home as it's used in one common interpretation of the word in English in my country. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/home https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/home : refer to 1b
  - tom_ 5y ago
    'Home' and 'house' are perhaps synonymous when preceded by the indefinite article. In the abstract, a house and a home can be considered the same thing. A house is, at least in principle, a home for somebody. But you can't call a rental property the landlord's home, since the key characteristic of somebody's home is that it's the place they live.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      Nearly every landlord I have interacted with when renting single family housing has referred to the house he is renting as a 'home' even when no one was living in it. I understand local dialects may be differ.

rdtwo 5y ago

This would just cause rental terms to require tenants to find a replacement before moving out

HWR_14 5y ago
That would probably be one of the terms. Which meets the stated goal of ensuring the housing is being used. Although I don't see how that clause would be enforceable. A tenant almost certainly doesn't have enough assets to go after to make up for a building. Otherwise they could have bought the home for their own use.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> 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]." This is basically extreme squatter's rights. Places which have those produce some combination of people paying guards, those who can't afford guards taking matters into their own hands, people demolishing perfectly-good housing to avoid risking the land, et cetera.

HWR_14 5y ago
I actually meant via a lottery system, not armed competition. Paying the guards when the city says someone else gets the house is not a real thing. And demolishing housing could be fixed by going off zoning.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > via a lottery system, not armed competition You’re proposing to reassign millions of dollars of property based on various levels of evidence for whether someone was physically present? That’s basically the 90s in Russia. It’s certainly a neat fictional universe. I imagine everyone who can afford to would live in a hotel, leaving the scramble of defending your property to those who can’t. Also, fraud. Lots of fraud.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    Simple, comrade. 15 years you work on potato farm and trade ration-booklet for wood and drywall. You pay for and possibly build with your own two hands nice home for hard working fellow comrade to live in, and you ask in return they pay you some amount to help you recoup your investment. After a couple years, nice family leaves, so you spend long time to find another nice family to fit into the house you worked hard to provide. Instead Kommisar come along, give house to homeless in name of proletariat. Social welfare bureau hold lottery, and the neighborhood violent drunk under the bridge is ecstatic his number came up, as he was very sad he no longer has home to beat wife in. Much vodka is drunk while copper piping is gutted and appliances scrapped to dealers in nearby Ossetia. Sit back and cry: I work on potato farm for 15 years to build nice second home to house hard working families! Instead government create lottery and hands to drunk who destroys house in only 15 days. Decide to stop trying. Start drinking everyday. Become a drunk yourself, enter the lottery, now you gut houses of others to survive. Process repeats -- now all units look like Grozny in the late 90s. Mission accomplished.