4 ms·
As a landlord (am I still allowed to say that word?) in a very pro-tenant state myself, this is one of the costs associated with the extremely strong tenant pro
by codefreeordie 5y ago
As a landlord (am I still allowed to say that word?) in a very pro-tenant state myself, this is one of the costs associated with the extremely strong tenant protections and nearly compete ban on evictions -- if I let a bad tenant in my house, I could lose $50-100k by the time I get them out (which could take a year or more) and the house fixed up and the lawyers paid.
As a result, I can only afford to consider tenants that are absolutely perfect -- never had any problems, have stellar credit, can easily afford a big deposit and the rent.
I wouldn't need to do as absurdly thorough and limiting of screening if it were easier to deal with problems when they occur, but with eviction moratoria, huge legal costs, and all of the other misery associated with bad tenants, we have to be super picky and really invasive in our screenings to protect ourselves.
I understand why people want to have strong tenant protections, but they're not free, and much of that cost is born by would-be tenants who are probably going to be fine but aren't absolutely perfect.
- dredmorbius 5y agoWhy is this a problem whose response is risk-shifting onto tentants through both limited access and privacy-violating surveillance apparatus, rather than risk-pooling and restitution to landlords when such harms do occur? What is the false-positive rate in denying housing to reasonable tenant risks? What is the false-negative rate in failing to identify high-risk tenants? What are the externalities of living in a low-trust, high-surveillance society?
- wolpoli 5y ago> rather than risk-pooling and restitution to landlords when such harms do occur? How would this work? Would it be some kind of tenant paid for insurance for compensating landlords?
- dredmorbius 5y agoI'll flip this back around: What mechanisms would be part of a sensible programme? What benefits would be required, and to what parties? Delivered in what manner?
- codefreeordie 5y agoThe most straightforward and equitable solution to the problem is a fairly simple one: allow landlords to evict tenants who do not pay their rent. If you want to develop some housing-for-all plan, you can try to develop one, but it isn't particularly reasonable to just demand that property owners provide free housing out of the "goodness of their hearts"
- dredmorbius 5y agoYou seem to be arguing against an imagined position rather than the one I've taken.
- nullfield 5y agoWell, you did ask why this a problem “whose response is a risk-shifting onto tenants”, and the response is super-simple: “because it’s not their property”. If there were a whole bunch of laws that said that if you rented a, say, car you were making payments on to another person, that protected them from having to give it back even if they weren’t making payments until a court said so? …and while a court would rule that they owed you, the result would be a car you had to pay for that you couldn’t possess or use for months because court dates and enforcement were months out? …and further, even once the court said so, you’d still get a damaged/broken car along with a debt against someone you’d never be able to collect most of the time? You’d be real, real damn careful who you rented that car to. Same thing.
- dredmorbius 5y agoAnd it's not your residence, in the sense of abode. The question of "propery" versus "residence" is one of values. There is no right or wrong answer between them, and the question of which is to be given higher consideration is a social construct. The answers chosen may well vary with time and circumstances. I've asked a few questions upstream in this thread. You might find value in giving a serious attempt at considering and answering them, perhaps from several viewpoints and value-bases.