4 ms·

The path forward from this is to stop trying to write laws that are wealth-neutral on these kinds of matters. Small mom-and-pop should be allowed to do many th

The path forward from this is to stop trying to write laws that are wealth-neutral on these kinds of matters. Small mom-and-pop should be allowed to do many things that extremely wealthy landlords and/or corporations are not allowed to do. The penalties for violations should be ruinous for the wealthy and small for the non-wealthy.

jon-wood 2y ago
Why? If I'm renting a place it doesn't matter whether my landlord is a big corporation or some guy and his wife, I still need to know that the rent isn't going to triple next week, I still need to know I won't be evicted without notice, and I still need the heating the work. If mom-and-pop can't cope with the responsibilities of being a landlord they should sell up to someone who can, not expect to be let off the hook when they make someone's life a misery.
- JuniperMesos 2y ago
  That's exactly what the thread OP is complaining about - mom-and-pop homeowners choosing not to increase the housing supply by adding an ADU that they would rent out to someone, even though this is now legal to do, because they can't cope with the responsibilities of being a landlord. Also, if a property did have an ADU in it, and someone was renting it out, a prospective buyer who didn't want the responsibility of being a landlord would find that a huge negative, which would decrease the value of the property to the existing owner, and provide additional incentive to avoid constructing the ADU at all.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    That's a big one, I'm sure. Homes are already illiquid assets. Why on earth would a homeowner choose to add something that would make it even less liquid/valuable? If I were looking to buy a home, then a home with a tenant-occupied ADU is less desirable than an otherwise identical home without the ADU. The hassle and risk outweighs the rental cash flow.
- Lendal 2y ago
  Because that is a short-sighted system where society is incentivized to, over time, concentrate all property and power into the hands of fewer and fewer wealthy individuals and corporations, until eventually one day there is no more mom-and-pop. Mom-and-pop is shrinking and will continue to shrink because of "wealth-neutral" policies. Just like what's happened with agriculture. You can't buy a ranch or farm today if you're not a millionaire, and eventually the same will be true of all property that is resource-constrained.
- tsycho 2y ago
  Because of disproportional risk. Landlords generally can't suddenly increases rents. It happens only at the end of lease, and everyone knows when the lease is going to expire, and you have 1-2 months at a minimum to negotiate the lease renewal. If a landlord suddenly increases the rent by a lot (although most leases, or city laws, cap max rent increases), it will be disruptive to you. But your worst case scenario is to move to another market price rental in 1-2 months. For a landlord, a tenant who stops paying rent, damages the place, etc is a much bigger financial and logistical risk. In most places, it's a lengthy, high-effort process to evict a bad tenant even when you have documented evidence. This is a very difficult scenario for a mom and pop homeowner, hence rules should be different for them at least, compared to large corporations. And in your good (but overzealous) intent to protect the general majority of good tenants, you're not realizing that thenet result of the above is: - Landlords are hesitant to rent their places or ADUs unless they really need the money, which reduces supply, thus increasing rents - Landlords have to charge higher to account for the risk of a bad tenant, as well as for a complex eviction process, thus increasing rents Rent control like laws benefit current renters, in their current properties, while harming both landlords and importantly for your pov, future renters, including current renters in their next rental. But since this cost is diffused to the future, it's easy to ignore and forget.
mschuster91 2y ago
> Small mom-and-pop should be allowed to do many things that extremely wealthy landlords and/or corporations are not allowed to do. The problem is, then you end up with structuring/smurfing. It's already a common thing in real estate to have one LLC per each building in a development to prevent creditors from clawing money back from the actual developer corporation/fund, no need to entice this even more. Besides, small landlords already are notorious for egregious violations of regulations. Creating effectively two classes of renters doesn't solve the problem, at all.
- BrenBarn 2y ago
  There need to be greater transparency requirements around that, and legislation targeted at "beneficial owners", with ruinous penalties for any attempt to conceal beneficial ownership. Anything other than full disclosure of all beneficial ownership would mean that if it is discovered, the penalty is you will lose all the real estate you own.

jon-wood 2y ago

Why? If I'm renting a place it doesn't matter whether my landlord is a big corporation or some guy and his wife, I still need to know that the rent isn't going to triple next week, I still need to know I won't be evicted without notice, and I still need the heating the work. If mom-and-pop can't cope with the responsibilities of being a landlord they should sell up to someone who can, not expect to be let off the hook when they make someone's life a misery.

JuniperMesos 2y ago
That's exactly what the thread OP is complaining about - mom-and-pop homeowners choosing not to increase the housing supply by adding an ADU that they would rent out to someone, even though this is now legal to do, because they can't cope with the responsibilities of being a landlord. Also, if a property did have an ADU in it, and someone was renting it out, a prospective buyer who didn't want the responsibility of being a landlord would find that a huge negative, which would decrease the value of the property to the existing owner, and provide additional incentive to avoid constructing the ADU at all.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  That's a big one, I'm sure. Homes are already illiquid assets. Why on earth would a homeowner choose to add something that would make it even less liquid/valuable? If I were looking to buy a home, then a home with a tenant-occupied ADU is less desirable than an otherwise identical home without the ADU. The hassle and risk outweighs the rental cash flow.
Lendal 2y ago
Because that is a short-sighted system where society is incentivized to, over time, concentrate all property and power into the hands of fewer and fewer wealthy individuals and corporations, until eventually one day there is no more mom-and-pop. Mom-and-pop is shrinking and will continue to shrink because of "wealth-neutral" policies. Just like what's happened with agriculture. You can't buy a ranch or farm today if you're not a millionaire, and eventually the same will be true of all property that is resource-constrained.
tsycho 2y ago
Because of disproportional risk. Landlords generally can't suddenly increases rents. It happens only at the end of lease, and everyone knows when the lease is going to expire, and you have 1-2 months at a minimum to negotiate the lease renewal. If a landlord suddenly increases the rent by a lot (although most leases, or city laws, cap max rent increases), it will be disruptive to you. But your worst case scenario is to move to another market price rental in 1-2 months. For a landlord, a tenant who stops paying rent, damages the place, etc is a much bigger financial and logistical risk. In most places, it's a lengthy, high-effort process to evict a bad tenant even when you have documented evidence. This is a very difficult scenario for a mom and pop homeowner, hence rules should be different for them at least, compared to large corporations. And in your good (but overzealous) intent to protect the general majority of good tenants, you're not realizing that thenet result of the above is: - Landlords are hesitant to rent their places or ADUs unless they really need the money, which reduces supply, thus increasing rents - Landlords have to charge higher to account for the risk of a bad tenant, as well as for a complex eviction process, thus increasing rents Rent control like laws benefit current renters, in their current properties, while harming both landlords and importantly for your pov, future renters, including current renters in their next rental. But since this cost is diffused to the future, it's easy to ignore and forget.

mschuster91 2y ago

> Small mom-and-pop should be allowed to do many things that extremely wealthy landlords and/or corporations are not allowed to do. The problem is, then you end up with structuring/smurfing. It's already a common thing in real estate to have one LLC per each building in a development to prevent creditors from clawing money back from the actual developer corporation/fund, no need to entice this even more. Besides, small landlords already are notorious for egregious violations of regulations. Creating effectively two classes of renters doesn't solve the problem, at all.

BrenBarn 2y ago
There need to be greater transparency requirements around that, and legislation targeted at "beneficial owners", with ruinous penalties for any attempt to conceal beneficial ownership. Anything other than full disclosure of all beneficial ownership would mean that if it is discovered, the penalty is you will lose all the real estate you own.