3 ms·

If eviction for nonpayment, property destruction, and major lease violations could be filed and processed in days rather than months, the landlords wouldn't hav

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.

3 ms·

If eviction for nonpayment, property destruction, and major lease violations could be filed and processed in days rather than months, the landlords wouldn't hav

by ilikehurdles 5y ago

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.