4 ms·

This is ideal if you're a landlord, but hell if you're a tenant.

baggy_trough 2y ago
That is quite an overstatement.
lotsofpulp 2y ago
The courts should be speedy at forcing landlords to rectify problems just as the courts should be speedy at forcing out squatters. There is no reason either should take 6 months+ to litigate (real world example). I even had an email from the tenant stating they would start paying again if we would reduce the rent. No damage, no question about the facts, just someone who knew that worst case scenario is 6 months free housing for them, simply because that’s how long paperwork apparently takes. End result? I’m even more selective to who I rent out to, and the costs are borne by innocent people who just don’t happen to have sufficient history.
- TimorousBestie 2y ago
  I’m all for higher property taxes to increase courtroom bandwidth, but I doubt most landlords are.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    I am. I say hit everyone with a marginal land value tax rate too, so the more land value you own (even via partnerships), the higher your tax rate is.
  - vondur 2y ago
    Those higher property taxes will be passed on directly to the renters.
    - TimorousBestie 2y ago
      Landlords typically despise property taxes (and land value taxes, c.f. sibling comment) because they have to pay them even if their property is unoccupied. They’d much rather pass on the cost of higher rental insurance, or failing that an income tax hike. But anyway, generally speaking, I think they benefit on average more from a slow and inefficient judicial system. The occasional 6+ month eviction battle is a rare negative outcome that comparatively few landlords have to deal with.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      Prices are not solely a function of the seller’s cost of goods sold. Supply and demand determine price, so if there is sufficient supply, then rents will be too low for large landlords to recoup their tax costs, so they will be incentivized to sell the property. This means less rent seeking, and higher supply of housing for buyers.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  > The courts should be speedy at forcing landlords to rectify problems just as the courts should be speedy at forcing out squatters. This raises an interesting point. In the United States, in the last 30 years, many states have introduced a voluntary "family court" system. If both sides opt-in during divorce proceedings, then the process can be much faster, cheaper, and lower friction. What if there was something similar for renters and landlords? I think it is worth a try.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    I see no reason to add multiple tracks to a legal/justice system, except to add avenues for corruption.
rdm_blackhole 2y ago
Why would it be hell? In France it can take years to evict people who stop paying rent. So now 90% of all rental contracts have an insurance for non-payments included in the contract. A few bad apples forced every other tenant to pay more in rent just because politicians decided that squatters had more rights than the owners. And god have mercy on your soul if you decide to take back what is yours when you get tired of waiting for the justice system to do it's job. If you do, you'll be the one the cops will come for, not the squatters.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  > now 90% of all rental contracts have an insurance for non-payments included in the contract. This is interesting. I never knew about it. I am surprised that it has never come up on HN before. In Japan, it is similar, but I don't know the history. (If I had to guess, it is probably related to the destroyed economy after the war.) If you have a "rich uncle" or work for a famous company, they can be your rental contract guarantor, but most people pay for third party insurance. I'm not sure how I feel about it. Mostly, it feels like a regressive tax on the poorest.
  - rdm_blackhole 2y ago
    You also sometimes need a guarantor and you need a CDI (indefinite work contract) to be able to rent in the first place. If you are on a short term contract (1 year or less) or if you are a student or out of work, then good luck to you. Then what happens in practice is that the owner will contract an insurance policy via the real estate agency that manages the rental property. As a result of this, in the end if the insurance company deems you to be too high risk, then they won't insure you and the owner will not take the risk to rent his dwelling without it even if they like you and want you to live in their rental. So what we have is a de-facto rental market that is controlled by a few insurance companies who decide the fate of the tenants. The owner, the real estate agency don't really have much power in terms of decision. For the owner it makes things easier, they don't really have to think too much. Their rent is guaranteed by the insurance company and for the real estate agency, they can always turn down "undesirable" tenants by claiming that the insurance company rejected their application. The tenants most of the time have no idea about this stuff. As you put it, it is a hidden tax on the tenants because the price of the insurance is now baked in the rent that is paid by everyone, good tenants or bad tenants alike. When I was working in RE 11 years ago, the insurance cost something like 2 to 3% of the monthly rent and then another 5 to 7% got paid to the real estate agency managing the rental. Today, I reckon, after all the inflation from the past few years, most likely 15% of the rent is gone before the owner sees a dime each month. As you can imagine this is not a very good incentive to put your apartment on the market. And that is not even touching on the various rent control policies that have been rolled out in the last few years in certain cities which have exacerbated the rental crisis.
ReptileMan 2y ago
How is me being untouchable as long I pay on time a hell?
bluecalm 2y ago
Limiting tenants' rights is good for vast majority (95%+ at least) of tenants. The way it is there are more and more obstacles (insurance, requiring proof of contract/work, very high deposits etc.) to just rent an apartment or a house. If the government thinks everyone deserves a roof then the government should build cheap, simple housing of last resort instead of forcing the property owners to take the risk.
- sir0010010 2y ago
  Tenants rights are not only about how long you get to stay without paying rent. Not being able to compel your landlord to remove pests, mold or fix noisy steam radiators is not something that would benefit the vast majority of tenants.
  - bluecalm 2y ago
    Yeah, sure those are needed but they are not the reason you have to jump through hooves and pay ridiculous deposits just to rent an apartment. I know quite a few landlords. None of them would complain about stricter rules and obligations when it comes to maintenance. What they think about every day is non paying or otherwise problematic tenants. This affects the process they use to decide who to rent to and the demographic they are willing to rent to as well. The effect is that honest people find it difficult to rent an apartment because abusers run rampant and the system protects them. In some European countries you need to prove you have stable job and get recommendation from the previous landlord to even be in the consideration and then you basically have to go for an interview. It's a ridiculous and humiliating process which wouldn't exist if landlords could throw out abusers without much hassle.
- singpolyma3 2y ago
  Ban deposits and proof of work requests like we have here

That is quite an overstatement.

The courts should be speedy at forcing landlords to rectify problems just as the courts should be speedy at forcing out squatters. There is no reason either should take 6 months+ to litigate (real world example). I even had an email from the tenant stating they would start paying again if we would reduce the rent. No damage, no question about the facts, just someone who knew that worst case scenario is 6 months free housing for them, simply because that’s how long paperwork apparently takes. End result? I’m even more selective to who I rent out to, and the costs are borne by innocent people who just don’t happen to have sufficient history.

TimorousBestie 2y ago
I’m all for higher property taxes to increase courtroom bandwidth, but I doubt most landlords are.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  I am. I say hit everyone with a marginal land value tax rate too, so the more land value you own (even via partnerships), the higher your tax rate is.
- vondur 2y ago
  Those higher property taxes will be passed on directly to the renters.
  - TimorousBestie 2y ago
    Landlords typically despise property taxes (and land value taxes, c.f. sibling comment) because they have to pay them even if their property is unoccupied. They’d much rather pass on the cost of higher rental insurance, or failing that an income tax hike. But anyway, generally speaking, I think they benefit on average more from a slow and inefficient judicial system. The occasional 6+ month eviction battle is a rare negative outcome that comparatively few landlords have to deal with.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Prices are not solely a function of the seller’s cost of goods sold. Supply and demand determine price, so if there is sufficient supply, then rents will be too low for large landlords to recoup their tax costs, so they will be incentivized to sell the property. This means less rent seeking, and higher supply of housing for buyers.
throwaway2037 2y ago
> The courts should be speedy at forcing landlords to rectify problems just as the courts should be speedy at forcing out squatters. This raises an interesting point. In the United States, in the last 30 years, many states have introduced a voluntary "family court" system. If both sides opt-in during divorce proceedings, then the process can be much faster, cheaper, and lower friction. What if there was something similar for renters and landlords? I think it is worth a try.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  I see no reason to add multiple tracks to a legal/justice system, except to add avenues for corruption.

rdm_blackhole 2y ago

Why would it be hell? In France it can take years to evict people who stop paying rent. So now 90% of all rental contracts have an insurance for non-payments included in the contract. A few bad apples forced every other tenant to pay more in rent just because politicians decided that squatters had more rights than the owners. And god have mercy on your soul if you decide to take back what is yours when you get tired of waiting for the justice system to do it's job. If you do, you'll be the one the cops will come for, not the squatters.

throwaway2037 2y ago
> now 90% of all rental contracts have an insurance for non-payments included in the contract. This is interesting. I never knew about it. I am surprised that it has never come up on HN before. In Japan, it is similar, but I don't know the history. (If I had to guess, it is probably related to the destroyed economy after the war.) If you have a "rich uncle" or work for a famous company, they can be your rental contract guarantor, but most people pay for third party insurance. I'm not sure how I feel about it. Mostly, it feels like a regressive tax on the poorest.
- rdm_blackhole 2y ago
  You also sometimes need a guarantor and you need a CDI (indefinite work contract) to be able to rent in the first place. If you are on a short term contract (1 year or less) or if you are a student or out of work, then good luck to you. Then what happens in practice is that the owner will contract an insurance policy via the real estate agency that manages the rental property. As a result of this, in the end if the insurance company deems you to be too high risk, then they won't insure you and the owner will not take the risk to rent his dwelling without it even if they like you and want you to live in their rental. So what we have is a de-facto rental market that is controlled by a few insurance companies who decide the fate of the tenants. The owner, the real estate agency don't really have much power in terms of decision. For the owner it makes things easier, they don't really have to think too much. Their rent is guaranteed by the insurance company and for the real estate agency, they can always turn down "undesirable" tenants by claiming that the insurance company rejected their application. The tenants most of the time have no idea about this stuff. As you put it, it is a hidden tax on the tenants because the price of the insurance is now baked in the rent that is paid by everyone, good tenants or bad tenants alike. When I was working in RE 11 years ago, the insurance cost something like 2 to 3% of the monthly rent and then another 5 to 7% got paid to the real estate agency managing the rental. Today, I reckon, after all the inflation from the past few years, most likely 15% of the rent is gone before the owner sees a dime each month. As you can imagine this is not a very good incentive to put your apartment on the market. And that is not even touching on the various rent control policies that have been rolled out in the last few years in certain cities which have exacerbated the rental crisis.

ReptileMan 2y ago

How is me being untouchable as long I pay on time a hell?

bluecalm 2y ago

Limiting tenants' rights is good for vast majority (95%+ at least) of tenants. The way it is there are more and more obstacles (insurance, requiring proof of contract/work, very high deposits etc.) to just rent an apartment or a house. If the government thinks everyone deserves a roof then the government should build cheap, simple housing of last resort instead of forcing the property owners to take the risk.

sir0010010 2y ago
Tenants rights are not only about how long you get to stay without paying rent. Not being able to compel your landlord to remove pests, mold or fix noisy steam radiators is not something that would benefit the vast majority of tenants.
- bluecalm 2y ago
  Yeah, sure those are needed but they are not the reason you have to jump through hooves and pay ridiculous deposits just to rent an apartment. I know quite a few landlords. None of them would complain about stricter rules and obligations when it comes to maintenance. What they think about every day is non paying or otherwise problematic tenants. This affects the process they use to decide who to rent to and the demographic they are willing to rent to as well. The effect is that honest people find it difficult to rent an apartment because abusers run rampant and the system protects them. In some European countries you need to prove you have stable job and get recommendation from the previous landlord to even be in the consideration and then you basically have to go for an interview. It's a ridiculous and humiliating process which wouldn't exist if landlords could throw out abusers without much hassle.
singpolyma3 2y ago
Ban deposits and proof of work requests like we have here