3 ms·

Are you kidding me? Most laws in liberal cities where this might be true are so tenant skewed that I downright don't want the risk of them doing the "squat and

Are you kidding me? Most laws in liberal cities where this might be true are so tenant skewed that I downright don't want the risk of them doing the "squat and take 6+ months to be evicted but not before trashing the place" routine. No thank you. I'll be a landlord in some red state where I can rely on the power of rich capitalists to make sure that squatters spend their time in jail/prison instead of moving onto yet another owner to fleece. That's just adorable - to think that landlords have power in a place like Seattle or Portland or SF. https://www.reddit.com/r/LoveForLandchads/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LoveForLandchads/

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Most tenants negotiating renewal aren't going to squat. The leverage a renewing tenant has is the information asymmetry in the new-tenant market (landlord might sub out an on-time rent payer for a squatter) and friction of establishing a new lease. That's preserved in red states and blue.
kube-system 2y ago
You both are talking about two different types of power. You're talking about tenancy rights, the parent was talking about contract negotiation power. In many big cities, tenants have a good number of rights after they've signed a contract and become a tenant. But they still have little power to negotiate the contract before they have become one.
kmeisthax 2y ago
And this is why I don't touch the real estate market. Renting out housing is an inherently adversarial relationship; you either screw over your tenants or they screw over you. There's no fair exchange of value, there's just the scalper (e.g. Blackrock) who bought all the Pokemon cards^W^Whousing units and thus controls the supply, versus the tenant who wants to kick them in the shins. Personally, I don't think any of the "tenants rights" laws are actually fit for purpose. That is, they're designed to bribe the peasants into accepting their landlords. My ideal would be cities with complete bans on housing rental - i.e. a 100% owner-occupancy mandate - along with "HOUSING PRINTER GO BRRRR" strategies to completely obviate most demand for renting housing units.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  Institutions only own some half a million single family homes. Blackstone only owns some 300k units in total. The supply is constrained by locals who want to "preserve community character" and environmentalists who want to "prevent gentrification" and "preserve views".
- happyopossum 2y ago
  > Renting out housing is an inherently adversarial relationship; you either screw over your tenants or they screw over you. Hasn’t been my experience on either end of the relationship.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- rcxdude 2y ago
  There are reasons for rental apart from "can't afford to buy". If you don't want to/can't commit to staying in one place for >5 years then rental is often a better option from sheer practicality. And if house prices aren't going through the roof because there's adequate supply, it's not necessarily a better financial option either. (basically, renting isn't the problem, lack of supply of housing is, and abusive rental markets are a symptom)
michaelmrose 2y ago
Wherein it takes 6 months is is virtually always the case that it is because the court is too overburdened to handle the affair in a timely fashion. This is likely the case because the system must allocate resources that it should likely prefer handle criminal matters of vastly greater import which is already criminally slow. The result getting a fraction of a singular county judges time and joining a months long queue. This slowness of process is in fact a self reinforcing loop. Wherein it's possible to join a 6 month queue it makes sense for poor folks to do so. They might be able to get caught up or find adequate housing elsewhere. It can also even makes sense that that point to stop paying. If you fall $1000 behind and it is expected to take $3000 to move. If you should find it unlikely to be able to make up the $1000 in 30 days time and eviction should become inevitable but 6 months down the line. At that point what is the logical thing? Should you continue to pay monthly as before but never catching up and find yourself living in a cardboard box in 6 months OR should you stop paying now and use the money to move in a few months. The best resolution possible is to incentivize landlords to accept payment plans to bring tenants up to date whilst allowing resolution in 30-90 days wherein this isn't possible or reasonable. For instance when the tenant is damaging the property or otherwise violating the lease and can't be brought into compliance. This aligns incentives. By agreeing to a payment plan the tenant is incentivized to make the landlord whole and the landlord is incentivized not to thrust the tenants family into the street lest he lose the expectation of repayment of the funds. Because it isn't entirely objectionable from either side unlike losing 6 months of rent or homelessness we needn't fight a pointless legal battle over it. If it be the inevitable result of legal action the landlord will simply present it to the tenant as an option rather than pay a lawyer a substantial sum to find themselves on the same road. The alternative imposes a very high cost on society in terms of human suffering and in fact monetarily because it spends a tidy sum per homeless person. Lastly a squatter is someone who breaks into a property and sets up shop. Someone who lawfully enters into an agreement to live somewhere and ultimately fails to live up to their side of the obligation isn't a squatter and even in the red states hasn't committed a crime. They are a lawful resident until the eviction is fully processed and even should they outstay the judges order they will be removed by the police not processed into prison.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

Most tenants negotiating renewal aren't going to squat. The leverage a renewing tenant has is the information asymmetry in the new-tenant market (landlord might sub out an on-time rent payer for a squatter) and friction of establishing a new lease. That's preserved in red states and blue.

kube-system 2y ago

You both are talking about two different types of power. You're talking about tenancy rights, the parent was talking about contract negotiation power. In many big cities, tenants have a good number of rights after they've signed a contract and become a tenant. But they still have little power to negotiate the contract before they have become one.

kmeisthax 2y ago

And this is why I don't touch the real estate market. Renting out housing is an inherently adversarial relationship; you either screw over your tenants or they screw over you. There's no fair exchange of value, there's just the scalper (e.g. Blackrock) who bought all the Pokemon cards^W^Whousing units and thus controls the supply, versus the tenant who wants to kick them in the shins. Personally, I don't think any of the "tenants rights" laws are actually fit for purpose. That is, they're designed to bribe the peasants into accepting their landlords. My ideal would be cities with complete bans on housing rental - i.e. a 100% owner-occupancy mandate - along with "HOUSING PRINTER GO BRRRR" strategies to completely obviate most demand for renting housing units.

renewiltord 2y ago
Institutions only own some half a million single family homes. Blackstone only owns some 300k units in total. The supply is constrained by locals who want to "preserve community character" and environmentalists who want to "prevent gentrification" and "preserve views".
happyopossum 2y ago
> Renting out housing is an inherently adversarial relationship; you either screw over your tenants or they screw over you. Hasn’t been my experience on either end of the relationship.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
rcxdude 2y ago
There are reasons for rental apart from "can't afford to buy". If you don't want to/can't commit to staying in one place for >5 years then rental is often a better option from sheer practicality. And if house prices aren't going through the roof because there's adequate supply, it's not necessarily a better financial option either. (basically, renting isn't the problem, lack of supply of housing is, and abusive rental markets are a symptom)

michaelmrose 2y ago

Wherein it takes 6 months is is virtually always the case that it is because the court is too overburdened to handle the affair in a timely fashion. This is likely the case because the system must allocate resources that it should likely prefer handle criminal matters of vastly greater import which is already criminally slow. The result getting a fraction of a singular county judges time and joining a months long queue. This slowness of process is in fact a self reinforcing loop. Wherein it's possible to join a 6 month queue it makes sense for poor folks to do so. They might be able to get caught up or find adequate housing elsewhere. It can also even makes sense that that point to stop paying. If you fall $1000 behind and it is expected to take $3000 to move. If you should find it unlikely to be able to make up the $1000 in 30 days time and eviction should become inevitable but 6 months down the line. At that point what is the logical thing? Should you continue to pay monthly as before but never catching up and find yourself living in a cardboard box in 6 months OR should you stop paying now and use the money to move in a few months. The best resolution possible is to incentivize landlords to accept payment plans to bring tenants up to date whilst allowing resolution in 30-90 days wherein this isn't possible or reasonable. For instance when the tenant is damaging the property or otherwise violating the lease and can't be brought into compliance. This aligns incentives. By agreeing to a payment plan the tenant is incentivized to make the landlord whole and the landlord is incentivized not to thrust the tenants family into the street lest he lose the expectation of repayment of the funds. Because it isn't entirely objectionable from either side unlike losing 6 months of rent or homelessness we needn't fight a pointless legal battle over it. If it be the inevitable result of legal action the landlord will simply present it to the tenant as an option rather than pay a lawyer a substantial sum to find themselves on the same road. The alternative imposes a very high cost on society in terms of human suffering and in fact monetarily because it spends a tidy sum per homeless person. Lastly a squatter is someone who breaks into a property and sets up shop. Someone who lawfully enters into an agreement to live somewhere and ultimately fails to live up to their side of the obligation isn't a squatter and even in the red states hasn't committed a crime. They are a lawful resident until the eviction is fully processed and even should they outstay the judges order they will be removed by the police not processed into prison.