3 ms·

i have never once rented a place with a specific date in mind when i would move out again. it was always: we'll stay here until life circumstances force us to m

by em-bee 3y ago

i have never once rented a place with a specific date in mind when i would move out again. it was always: we'll stay here until life circumstances force us to move, which may well be never. when we moved within the same city, it was always because the landlord forced us to and never because we wanted to (well, except once to get closer to our sons school). my grandmother lived in her home from her 20s until she passed away some 60 years later. and i believe before that her aunt lived there. and now my mother. and eventually me or someone else from our family will move in so we can continue the lease of this same apartment that has been rented by our family for probably close to a century. my dad lives in his current home for more than 40 years now. i am the odd one out in my family, having traveled so much that i have never lived more than a few years in the same place.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
Is this in the USA?
- em-bee 3y ago
  USA, China, Europe, everywhere i have been to... while moving out at the end of a lease was a possibility, it was never suggested that it was the expectation. on the contrary. generally the expectation was that we'd stay. most landlords we met favored long term tenants.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    My experience is that the expectation is that people will stay longer, not for the rest of their lives.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      of course not for the rest of their lives. i don't even know where that sentiment comes from. the original argument was about the claim that a tenant wanting to renew a lease is unilaterally changing the agreement with the landlord. and that is simply not true. the expectation almost always is that a lease will be renewed, and if a landlord doesn't want to renew they are the ones going against expectations. a landlord not renewing the lease has certainly happened to us. mostly i think it was because they wanted to sell the apartment. but this was never expected at the time we moved in. if we had known in advance we would have found another place. in germany btw, terminating a lease in order to sell is also illegal. the buyer of an apartment has to continue the lease. they may then only terminate it if they can prove that they need the apartment for themselves.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        >i don't even know where that sentiment comes from. I introduced when I said I dont know anyone who expected to be in a rental for the rest of their lives. This is support for the idea that the contracts in the US are expected to be terminatable by either party at will. You then countered with stories of family that never left and statements like the following: "most people who rent have no intention to move out but expect the contract to be renewed." "we'll stay here until life circumstances force us to move, which may well be never." >the original argument was about the claim that a tenant wanting to renew a lease is unilaterally changing the agreement with the landlord. and that is simply not true. If the agreement is that renting continues as long as both parties are happy, and either party can end it after a minimum time, for no special cost. If someone agrees to that contract, then refuses to let the other party terminate after the minimum time, that is changing the contract. If someone signs a contract saying they will leave whenever asked, then later refuses to leave without a payment, that is clearly changing the agreement.
        em-bee 3y ago
        If the agreement is that renting continues as long as both parties are happy, and either party can end it after a minimum time, for no special cost. If someone agrees to that contract, then refuses to let the other party terminate after the minimum time, that is changing the contract. ok, putting it explicit like that i kind of agree. but i don't see the example from the story in that way. the tenant had a clear expectation that they could stay, and the landlord knew that. they got blindsided by the landlord wanting them to move out because regardless of the actual contract they signed, the tenant clearly wasn't in the position to be able to simply move. situations like this are the reason why this is actually illegal in germany. being forced to move always creates a hardship for the tenant, and the laws are made to protect against that.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I think the difference in emotional responses you and I have is largely dependent on the backstory that we are filling in. I'm more biased to believe or assume a malicious or incompetent tenant, and you are more inclined to assume a malicious landlord. You think they are being blindsided, and I think they've been given a minimum of 2 months notice. There are no facts about the reason for non-renewal in the article. Maybe the tenant is knocking holes in the walls or the owner is moving in. Like I said, our differences is probably colored by our experiences. I've seen people making 200k a year extort 50K cash for keys simply because they can and it's cheaper than an eviction. I've seen other tenants demand similar amounts to move out because they are doing 100K of damage per year and they know it's cheaper to pay them off.
em-bee 3y ago
according to my mother, the apartment has actually been rented by our family since 1875 with changing owners of the building over time.
smsm42 3y ago
So, the point is it's ok for one side to want to continue the contract forever, or to exit it anytime they want, for any reason they want - but it's not ok for the other side to have the same freedom? Why is that?

by em-bee 3y ago

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Is this in the USA?

em-bee 3y ago
USA, China, Europe, everywhere i have been to... while moving out at the end of a lease was a possibility, it was never suggested that it was the expectation. on the contrary. generally the expectation was that we'd stay. most landlords we met favored long term tenants.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  My experience is that the expectation is that people will stay longer, not for the rest of their lives.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    of course not for the rest of their lives. i don't even know where that sentiment comes from. the original argument was about the claim that a tenant wanting to renew a lease is unilaterally changing the agreement with the landlord. and that is simply not true. the expectation almost always is that a lease will be renewed, and if a landlord doesn't want to renew they are the ones going against expectations. a landlord not renewing the lease has certainly happened to us. mostly i think it was because they wanted to sell the apartment. but this was never expected at the time we moved in. if we had known in advance we would have found another place. in germany btw, terminating a lease in order to sell is also illegal. the buyer of an apartment has to continue the lease. they may then only terminate it if they can prove that they need the apartment for themselves.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      >i don't even know where that sentiment comes from. I introduced when I said I dont know anyone who expected to be in a rental for the rest of their lives. This is support for the idea that the contracts in the US are expected to be terminatable by either party at will. You then countered with stories of family that never left and statements like the following: "most people who rent have no intention to move out but expect the contract to be renewed." "we'll stay here until life circumstances force us to move, which may well be never." >the original argument was about the claim that a tenant wanting to renew a lease is unilaterally changing the agreement with the landlord. and that is simply not true. If the agreement is that renting continues as long as both parties are happy, and either party can end it after a minimum time, for no special cost. If someone agrees to that contract, then refuses to let the other party terminate after the minimum time, that is changing the contract. If someone signs a contract saying they will leave whenever asked, then later refuses to leave without a payment, that is clearly changing the agreement.
      - em-bee 3y ago
        If the agreement is that renting continues as long as both parties are happy, and either party can end it after a minimum time, for no special cost. If someone agrees to that contract, then refuses to let the other party terminate after the minimum time, that is changing the contract. ok, putting it explicit like that i kind of agree. but i don't see the example from the story in that way. the tenant had a clear expectation that they could stay, and the landlord knew that. they got blindsided by the landlord wanting them to move out because regardless of the actual contract they signed, the tenant clearly wasn't in the position to be able to simply move. situations like this are the reason why this is actually illegal in germany. being forced to move always creates a hardship for the tenant, and the laws are made to protect against that.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I think the difference in emotional responses you and I have is largely dependent on the backstory that we are filling in. I'm more biased to believe or assume a malicious or incompetent tenant, and you are more inclined to assume a malicious landlord. You think they are being blindsided, and I think they've been given a minimum of 2 months notice. There are no facts about the reason for non-renewal in the article. Maybe the tenant is knocking holes in the walls or the owner is moving in. Like I said, our differences is probably colored by our experiences. I've seen people making 200k a year extort 50K cash for keys simply because they can and it's cheaper than an eviction. I've seen other tenants demand similar amounts to move out because they are doing 100K of damage per year and they know it's cheaper to pay them off.

em-bee 3y ago

according to my mother, the apartment has actually been rented by our family since 1875 with changing owners of the building over time.

smsm42 3y ago

So, the point is it's ok for one side to want to continue the contract forever, or to exit it anytime they want, for any reason they want - but it's not ok for the other side to have the same freedom? Why is that?