4 ms·
> real estate agents who exclusively represent the landlord’s interests wouldn’t be able to seek a fee from the person signing the lease. I'm curious if this w
by tdeck 2y ago
> real estate agents who exclusively represent the landlord’s interests wouldn’t be able to seek a fee from the person signing the lease.
I'm curious if this will be creatively interpreted so that the broker is mandatory but supposedly represents the interests of both LL and tenant, so the tenant has to pay anyway.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> curious if this will be creatively interpreted so that the broker is mandatory but supposedly represents the interests of both LL and tenant, so the tenant has to pay anyway The problem with the old system was I was paying a guy who didn’t have any obligation to me. Dual obligations means the broker can at least be sued for a conflict of interest if they hide something or don’t do their job. It’s a step in the right direction.
- soperj 2y agoIn America, paying lawyers always seems like it's a step in the "right" direction
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoYes, having more rights is better than having fewer rights. Perfect versus good.
- tdeck 2y agoI disagree. The problem is that this whole job doesn't need to exist and is parisitic. I've lived in multiple cities and never once dealt with a "broker" when renting an apartment or paid a broker fee, directly or indirectly. This system isn't normal, even in the US.
- orangecat 2y agoRight. At a global level, the major benefit to this bill will be to eliminate most brokers' jobs and require them to instead do something that actually provides value to society.