5 ms·

Am I understanding you right that you believe that homelessness would decrease if it were easier to evict people? This strikes me as one of those gasoline on t

by MrLeap 2y ago

Am I understanding you right that you believe that homelessness would decrease if it were easier to evict people? This strikes me as one of those gasoline on the fire suggestions. Made me laugh though! I never get perspectives like this anywhere but HN. I think self interest being what it is, easier evictions would raise rents.

bdangubic 2y ago
if we were to provide sensible landlord/tenant laws this idea could be helpful. BUT (big BUT) I lost faith than a senisble laws can be enacted in the USA. In more liberal places the laws are written so extreme that it makes you question your sanity if you are a landlord. in other more conservative places - the landlords are true Lords! I am a landlord in a place which is liberal. I will keep my place vacant for months against a mountain of applications until I find someone which I feel comfortable with signing a lease (that bar is HIGH). My place is dirt cheap, I have 3% interest on a place I bought after real estate crash and I only charge enough to cover my mortgage and condo fees (could easily charge additional $1.5k/month). I would be 100% more open to signing a lease with someone who needs an afforable place A LOT more than my current and former tenants but with the present laws I have to deal with there is absolutely no way that will ever happen
- tossandthrow 2y ago
  > I will keep my place vacant for months against a mountain of applications until I find someone which I feel comfortable with signing a lease. This should be illegal. If you want zero effort assets to put your money into, then real-estate really is not you. This behavior is highly immoral.
- MrLeap 2y ago
  The perspective is understandable to me. It's easy to imagine rationally leaving a place vacant for longer if you're very picky about who you rent to. It's a timed binding commitment you make with your tenants, that puts you both on the same raft at least a little. That said, you're saying that you could charge 1.5k more for the place, but don't because you value other qualities in a tenant more, right? On mass, I'd bet dollars and donuts that what we'd find is people being evicted, or threatened with eviction, in order to raise rents. Situations like "property values have gone up 10% this year and I was too low to begin with. they've got 6 months left on their lease, but if I evict them I bet I have more cache to keep the deposit and I can ~fix my prices~. Business!" Maybe your principles wouldn't have you do that, but people statistically make self interested decisions like that more often than compassionate ones. Balance compassion for self and others oughta be the guide.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    100% agree with everything you said! Yea, I didn’t really want to be a landlord, my wife got pregnant and requested a mandatory move to the suburbs. Bought a place and while I was moving two high school teachers approached me about renting it (this was in 2012). My wife and I decided to let them rent. we never wanted to make any money from it, the place itself, as you can imagine appreciated in value over the years, and we just take whatever money we need to cover the mortgage and condo fees. several friends that are landlords have had horror stories and I would rather not make more money I don’t need for a extra headache. what you are saying though is a core problem with writing sensible laws, if they are landlord-leaning the landlords will be evicting left and right to make a few extra bucks. if they are tenant-leaning you get families moving from minnesota do east coast that pay sec deposit and first month’s rent and then live in your place for 18 months without possibility of eviction (some covid laws are still in place…)
- mmooss 2y ago
  > In more liberal places the laws are written so extreme that it makes you question your sanity if you are a landlord. And yet, despite the complaints, the evidence says otherwise: There is no shortage of landlords. Property is in very high demand - prices are extreme.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    I am speaking from personal experience. there may not be a shortage of landlords somewhere (say ATL where rental properties have been fully taken over by large corps) but this isn’t true on the whole. additionally, even if there isn’t a shortage of landlords the prices are skyhigh pricing out large percentage of population, especially in urban areas
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Where is there a shortage of landlords? I've never heard of it, but it would be an interesting phenomenon!
  - amazingamazing 2y ago
    A shortage of landlords is not possible - the properties scale with management the way construction happens in the USA There could be a shortage of rental property - oh that’s exactly what the article is talking about.
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      I believe there seldom could be a shortage of rental property but often shortage of afordable rental property
amazingamazing 2y ago
Yes. Do you think more or less people would rent out homes if eviction were simply illegal? What about 1 year grace period? 30 days? None? Clearly there will be differences in the propensity to rent given the ease to undo mistakes or reclaim possession.
- MrLeap 2y ago
  If it were completely illegal to evict, it would be riskier to rent your property out for sure! I think I like this suggestion more. If that law were passed tomorrow a lot of landlords would want out of the business. Flooding the market with cheap housing seems more likely to reduce homelessness than making it easier to evict tenants.
  - amazingamazing 2y ago
    No, they would just stop accepting poor people, as renting is inherently useful. Oh, this is already what happens. Also, I’m not sure why people continuously believe that getting rid of property owners will somehow be good for renters, or that the price would be reduced to an amount where poor people can buy it. Empirically never has happened.
    - MrLeap 2y ago
      > No, they would just stop accepting poor people, as renting is inherently useful. Not at all? Not a single landlord would want out of the business? If you couldn't even evict if somebody never paid a single dime of rent, I think that would cascade and destroy the whole industry. An extreme measure that I didn't suggest, you did. > I’m not sure why people continuously believe that getting rid of property owners will somehow be good for renters. I don't want to get rid of property owners. I inherently believe it's better to own a home than rent. I do believe converting renters into home owners is good for the ex-renter. > Renter, property owner. We're all people.
      - amazingamazing 2y ago
baggy_trough 2y ago
California has made it much easier to build ADUs partially with the intent that some would be rental housing. I'll be damned if I'm going to rent an ADU to somebody else in my backyard without an ironclad guarantee that I can get rid of them quickly if they turn out to be a nightmare. So yes, making it hard to evict people reduces the supply of rental housing and that will raise rents and increase homelessness.

by MrLeap 2y ago

bdangubic 2y ago

if we were to provide sensible landlord/tenant laws this idea could be helpful. BUT (big BUT) I lost faith than a senisble laws can be enacted in the USA. In more liberal places the laws are written so extreme that it makes you question your sanity if you are a landlord. in other more conservative places - the landlords are true Lords! I am a landlord in a place which is liberal. I will keep my place vacant for months against a mountain of applications until I find someone which I feel comfortable with signing a lease (that bar is HIGH). My place is dirt cheap, I have 3% interest on a place I bought after real estate crash and I only charge enough to cover my mortgage and condo fees (could easily charge additional $1.5k/month). I would be 100% more open to signing a lease with someone who needs an afforable place A LOT more than my current and former tenants but with the present laws I have to deal with there is absolutely no way that will ever happen

tossandthrow 2y ago
> I will keep my place vacant for months against a mountain of applications until I find someone which I feel comfortable with signing a lease. This should be illegal. If you want zero effort assets to put your money into, then real-estate really is not you. This behavior is highly immoral.
MrLeap 2y ago
The perspective is understandable to me. It's easy to imagine rationally leaving a place vacant for longer if you're very picky about who you rent to. It's a timed binding commitment you make with your tenants, that puts you both on the same raft at least a little. That said, you're saying that you could charge 1.5k more for the place, but don't because you value other qualities in a tenant more, right? On mass, I'd bet dollars and donuts that what we'd find is people being evicted, or threatened with eviction, in order to raise rents. Situations like "property values have gone up 10% this year and I was too low to begin with. they've got 6 months left on their lease, but if I evict them I bet I have more cache to keep the deposit and I can ~fix my prices~. Business!" Maybe your principles wouldn't have you do that, but people statistically make self interested decisions like that more often than compassionate ones. Balance compassion for self and others oughta be the guide.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  100% agree with everything you said! Yea, I didn’t really want to be a landlord, my wife got pregnant and requested a mandatory move to the suburbs. Bought a place and while I was moving two high school teachers approached me about renting it (this was in 2012). My wife and I decided to let them rent. we never wanted to make any money from it, the place itself, as you can imagine appreciated in value over the years, and we just take whatever money we need to cover the mortgage and condo fees. several friends that are landlords have had horror stories and I would rather not make more money I don’t need for a extra headache. what you are saying though is a core problem with writing sensible laws, if they are landlord-leaning the landlords will be evicting left and right to make a few extra bucks. if they are tenant-leaning you get families moving from minnesota do east coast that pay sec deposit and first month’s rent and then live in your place for 18 months without possibility of eviction (some covid laws are still in place…)
mmooss 2y ago
> In more liberal places the laws are written so extreme that it makes you question your sanity if you are a landlord. And yet, despite the complaints, the evidence says otherwise: There is no shortage of landlords. Property is in very high demand - prices are extreme.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  I am speaking from personal experience. there may not be a shortage of landlords somewhere (say ATL where rental properties have been fully taken over by large corps) but this isn’t true on the whole. additionally, even if there isn’t a shortage of landlords the prices are skyhigh pricing out large percentage of population, especially in urban areas
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Where is there a shortage of landlords? I've never heard of it, but it would be an interesting phenomenon!
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  A shortage of landlords is not possible - the properties scale with management the way construction happens in the USA There could be a shortage of rental property - oh that’s exactly what the article is talking about.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    I believe there seldom could be a shortage of rental property but often shortage of afordable rental property

amazingamazing 2y ago

Yes. Do you think more or less people would rent out homes if eviction were simply illegal? What about 1 year grace period? 30 days? None? Clearly there will be differences in the propensity to rent given the ease to undo mistakes or reclaim possession.

MrLeap 2y ago
If it were completely illegal to evict, it would be riskier to rent your property out for sure! I think I like this suggestion more. If that law were passed tomorrow a lot of landlords would want out of the business. Flooding the market with cheap housing seems more likely to reduce homelessness than making it easier to evict tenants.
- amazingamazing 2y ago
  No, they would just stop accepting poor people, as renting is inherently useful. Oh, this is already what happens. Also, I’m not sure why people continuously believe that getting rid of property owners will somehow be good for renters, or that the price would be reduced to an amount where poor people can buy it. Empirically never has happened.
  - MrLeap 2y ago
    > No, they would just stop accepting poor people, as renting is inherently useful. Not at all? Not a single landlord would want out of the business? If you couldn't even evict if somebody never paid a single dime of rent, I think that would cascade and destroy the whole industry. An extreme measure that I didn't suggest, you did. > I’m not sure why people continuously believe that getting rid of property owners will somehow be good for renters. I don't want to get rid of property owners. I inherently believe it's better to own a home than rent. I do believe converting renters into home owners is good for the ex-renter. > Renter, property owner. We're all people.
    - amazingamazing 2y ago

baggy_trough 2y ago

California has made it much easier to build ADUs partially with the intent that some would be rental housing. I'll be damned if I'm going to rent an ADU to somebody else in my backyard without an ironclad guarantee that I can get rid of them quickly if they turn out to be a nightmare. So yes, making it hard to evict people reduces the supply of rental housing and that will raise rents and increase homelessness.