6 ms·

There's "covering risk", and there's tenant lock-in. I have no problem with requiring a tenant to rent for a year, to prevent quick turnover and the risk and c

There's "covering risk", and there's tenant lock-in. I have no problem with requiring a tenant to rent for a year, to prevent quick turnover and the risk and costs associated with that. But multiple landlords now have all had the same policy: the lease will never go month-to-month, basically. You can, but e.g., for my current lease, it costs ~60% more to go month to month. This creates bizarre pay-off points, and greatly raises the costs of trying to move. When it's "+$2k/mo to go month-to-month", that's not risk-reduction, that's just greed, trying to make sure I can't move. IME, it used to be that after you rented for a while (e.g., a year), the lease went month-to-month. You were a long-term stable renter, and you'd paid enough rent at that point to cover the overheads of finding a new tenant and making the necessary touch-ups to the apartment. (Beyond what was covered by security deposit.) (I recently had this conversation with my parents recently. The previous generation has no idea about some of the provisions that renters of my generation are having to put up with.) An average price of $18,000 to break lease on a 3+ year old lease is absurd. We need more housing, to drive competition in the rental & housing markets. If I ever get to buy a house (… if my landlord doesn't first capture any gains I might get…) the first thing I'll have to do is not get to live in it: the most logical course of action would be to rent it short term, until I can get out of my own lease.

twblalock 4y ago
I was renting until just a few years ago and I never had a lease longer than 12 months, and it was actually difficult to find one longer than that. I'm not sure where you live, but in a lot of places, a landlord refusing to allow a lease to go month-to-month is illegal.
- dinosaurdynasty 4y ago
  Making month-to-month 60% more expensive is effectively refusing to allow it to go month-to-month
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  Yes it probably varies by location. And if housing supply were more plentiful then landlords could compete on more flexible lease terms as well as actual monthly rent. When housing is scarce they can demand whatever price and terms they want. When I've lived in areas where housing was not scarce, it was reasonably easy to find apartments that would do month-to-month leases right from the start.
- superfrank 4y ago
  They're not super common, but they are out there. I'm in Seattle and my first lease here was 13 months and second was 14 months. When we were first looking, we probably found 3 out of the 15 places we looked at that were offering up to 15 months. I've actually got friends in this building (https://www.thenoloseattle.com/ https://www.thenoloseattle.com/) on a two year lease and there are plenty of 18 month leases still available on their website right now.
- deathanatos 4y ago
  The term of the lease isn't materially longer than 12 months. (Mine actually is >12 mo, but not by a whole lot.) But at the end of the (say) 12 months, you sign the next lease, for another (say) 12 months, or move out. (The rent invariably goes up, at this point.) It's at those individual lease boundaries that I (rather technically) have the opportunity to go month-to-month, if I want to be bled dry. My note about it being a 3+ year lease is the total time we've rented, consecutively. That the lease is broken into separate segments by the contract is an implementation detail, when discussing recovering the costs of / managing the risk of short-term tenants. I'm not a short term tenant, after having been here for that long. > a landlord refusing to allow a lease to go month-to-month is illegal. That's news to me! I've never lived in such a place, and boy would that be nice. A cursory Google search indicates that, in my jurisdiction, "allows the landlord or tenant to end a month-to-month lease at any time, as long as they give 30 days' notice". The state I lived in previously is the same. (This is where the nuance of "what the lease actually says" meets the "how it is implemented".) Technically, my lease becomes month-to-month at the end of its lease period. To my landlord, not signing a new lease would result in (their, legally speaking) 30 days notice to move out. (They've made this somewhat apparent to us in the past, as they tend to not send out the new terms soon enough and then get antsy when they're not signed.) They want the increased rent, and it appears they'll get it from me, or the market.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    > They want the increased rent, and it appears they'll get it from me, or the market. Is that wrong? Do you think you are entitled to live in someone else's property, at a price below what others in the market would pay, for as long as you like? There has to be some balance here. Someone is contracting to let you live in their property. If they don't get something out of it, why should they do it? Why would anyone be a landlord? And if nobody wanted to be a landlord, wouldn't it be harder for you to find a place to live in your price range?
    - freeone3000 4y ago
      If nobody wanted to be a landlord, it'd be so much easier to find a place to live -- so many vacancies, so much empty space, so little occupied land...
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  In Seattle there are many places that will do leases longer than 12 months e.g. my current lease is 36 months. It may not be the default but if you ask they are often amenable.
aorloff 4y ago
Requiring a full year lease, instead of month-to-month, is the landlords only option under just cause eviction. Otherwise the landlord is essentially a non-party to the lease (the rent board and tenant dictate the future terms).
- danaris 4y ago
  That sounds like something that's true in particular jurisdictions, but probably not nationwide...

twblalock 4y ago

I was renting until just a few years ago and I never had a lease longer than 12 months, and it was actually difficult to find one longer than that. I'm not sure where you live, but in a lot of places, a landlord refusing to allow a lease to go month-to-month is illegal.

dinosaurdynasty 4y ago
Making month-to-month 60% more expensive is effectively refusing to allow it to go month-to-month
SoftTalker 4y ago
Yes it probably varies by location. And if housing supply were more plentiful then landlords could compete on more flexible lease terms as well as actual monthly rent. When housing is scarce they can demand whatever price and terms they want. When I've lived in areas where housing was not scarce, it was reasonably easy to find apartments that would do month-to-month leases right from the start.
superfrank 4y ago
They're not super common, but they are out there. I'm in Seattle and my first lease here was 13 months and second was 14 months. When we were first looking, we probably found 3 out of the 15 places we looked at that were offering up to 15 months. I've actually got friends in this building (https://www.thenoloseattle.com/ https://www.thenoloseattle.com/) on a two year lease and there are plenty of 18 month leases still available on their website right now.
deathanatos 4y ago
The term of the lease isn't materially longer than 12 months. (Mine actually is >12 mo, but not by a whole lot.) But at the end of the (say) 12 months, you sign the next lease, for another (say) 12 months, or move out. (The rent invariably goes up, at this point.) It's at those individual lease boundaries that I (rather technically) have the opportunity to go month-to-month, if I want to be bled dry. My note about it being a 3+ year lease is the total time we've rented, consecutively. That the lease is broken into separate segments by the contract is an implementation detail, when discussing recovering the costs of / managing the risk of short-term tenants. I'm not a short term tenant, after having been here for that long. > a landlord refusing to allow a lease to go month-to-month is illegal. That's news to me! I've never lived in such a place, and boy would that be nice. A cursory Google search indicates that, in my jurisdiction, "allows the landlord or tenant to end a month-to-month lease at any time, as long as they give 30 days' notice". The state I lived in previously is the same. (This is where the nuance of "what the lease actually says" meets the "how it is implemented".) Technically, my lease becomes month-to-month at the end of its lease period. To my landlord, not signing a new lease would result in (their, legally speaking) 30 days notice to move out. (They've made this somewhat apparent to us in the past, as they tend to not send out the new terms soon enough and then get antsy when they're not signed.) They want the increased rent, and it appears they'll get it from me, or the market.
- twblalock 4y ago
  > They want the increased rent, and it appears they'll get it from me, or the market. Is that wrong? Do you think you are entitled to live in someone else's property, at a price below what others in the market would pay, for as long as you like? There has to be some balance here. Someone is contracting to let you live in their property. If they don't get something out of it, why should they do it? Why would anyone be a landlord? And if nobody wanted to be a landlord, wouldn't it be harder for you to find a place to live in your price range?
  - freeone3000 4y ago
    If nobody wanted to be a landlord, it'd be so much easier to find a place to live -- so many vacancies, so much empty space, so little occupied land...
jandrewrogers 4y ago
In Seattle there are many places that will do leases longer than 12 months e.g. my current lease is 36 months. It may not be the default but if you ask they are often amenable.

aorloff 4y ago

Requiring a full year lease, instead of month-to-month, is the landlords only option under just cause eviction. Otherwise the landlord is essentially a non-party to the lease (the rent board and tenant dictate the future terms).

danaris 4y ago
That sounds like something that's true in particular jurisdictions, but probably not nationwide...