3 ms·

I believe in strong tenants rights - IF you pay your rent on time and are not damaging property or otherwise misbehaving. If you stop paying, you should be out

I believe in strong tenants rights - IF you pay your rent on time and are not damaging property or otherwise misbehaving. If you stop paying, you should be out within 60 days that your security deposit should cover. There should be mechanisms where through a process tenants can legally withhold rent if basic repairs or maintenance aren't being done. If a landlord can't or won't do it, they shouldn't be a landlord. Evicting a tenant should be hard or expensive for any other reason (selling the property, landlord wanting to move in, etc). I have mixed feelings around rent controls, though. In a healthy, competitive market they should be unnecessary over the long term, but if cities are going to restrict housing construction...

robertlagrant 2y ago
> I have mixed feelings around rent controls, though. In a healthy, competitive market they should be unnecessary over the long term, but if cities are going to restrict housing construction... They're a (terrible-outcome-causing) band aid over a combination of too many people and not enough construction.
- worik 2y ago
  Rent controls work in many cities around the world A simple cap on rent does not work, true. But comprehensive policies to keep rent down and local people housed, can work
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > policies to keep rent down and local people housed, can work For sure - making sure demand doesn't massively for housing exceed supply of housing is all you need.
- simoncion 2y ago
  > They're a (terrible-outcome-causing) band aid... Look into California's state-wide property tax control law commonly known as Proposition 13. Then look into California's anti-rent-control law commonly known as Costa-Hawkins. I do agree that rent control should never, ever have a reason to exist. But sometimes there are super fucked-up situations on the ground that make rent control better than not having it.
simoncion 2y ago
> If you stop paying, you should be out within 60 days that your security deposit should cover. Sure, if you stop paying, and if there isn't some sort of temporary hardship that you could reasonably fight your way through to make good on back and current rent. Given what you've written, I expect that you know that that's part of what the eviction process is for... determining if the landlord is lying about the state of the tenant/landlord business relationship and determining if letting the tenant stay in the place for a while longer would result in a far, far better outcome for the tenant and minimal harm to the landlord. > I have mixed feelings around rent controls... I don't. Rent controls are godawful price distortions that should not have any reason to exist. However, I'm very glad I live in a rent-controlled San Francisco apartment. Why? Because every landowner in the state of California has property tax control, regardless of whether their property is their personal home, a residential rental, or most any other commercial property. It's massively unfair that landowners across the state get to control a huge part of their costs, but it's illegal for all but a very few cities in the state to permit residents to do the same. [0] Get rid of the property tax control across the board, wait a year or four for everything to shake out, then I'd be fine with getting rid of rent control in California. [0] Seriously, Costa-Hawkins can go straight to hell.
- hylaride 2y ago
  I've got a minor in economics, but I'm also not a rabid capitalist, so I do give lots of thought on both sides of any economic argument. Unless it's public housing (which for the record I do support, though I think that in practice it should be at the margins in most jurisdictions), landlords shouldn't be part of the social safety net (unless they have some extra tax advantage in exchange - fun fact is that as much as hospitals whine about the costs of having to treat everybody in the ER regardless of ability to pay, they actually have a very generous tax benefit for it). Having temporary unemployment/hardship vouchers up to some max is one thing, but if you can't pay after a certain amount of time you shouldn't be in private housing. Maybe 60 days is too soon, but in many jurisdictions it can be far, far longer. I am not at all opposed to a due process in withholding rent if the landlord side of the contract is not being upheld, my example was for "I can't or won't pay for some non-housing reasons". I pretty much agree with everything you said about rent controls, which is why I said "mixed feelings". California, arguably the greatest state in the union, is ungovernable due to the fact that the government literally can't govern when it comes to taxation (and even mandated spending). If there is a healthy market where supply and demand can be balanced, there should be no need for it.

robertlagrant 2y ago

> I have mixed feelings around rent controls, though. In a healthy, competitive market they should be unnecessary over the long term, but if cities are going to restrict housing construction... They're a (terrible-outcome-causing) band aid over a combination of too many people and not enough construction.

worik 2y ago
Rent controls work in many cities around the world A simple cap on rent does not work, true. But comprehensive policies to keep rent down and local people housed, can work
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > policies to keep rent down and local people housed, can work For sure - making sure demand doesn't massively for housing exceed supply of housing is all you need.
simoncion 2y ago
> They're a (terrible-outcome-causing) band aid... Look into California's state-wide property tax control law commonly known as Proposition 13. Then look into California's anti-rent-control law commonly known as Costa-Hawkins. I do agree that rent control should never, ever have a reason to exist. But sometimes there are super fucked-up situations on the ground that make rent control better than not having it.

simoncion 2y ago

> If you stop paying, you should be out within 60 days that your security deposit should cover. Sure, if you stop paying, and if there isn't some sort of temporary hardship that you could reasonably fight your way through to make good on back and current rent. Given what you've written, I expect that you know that that's part of what the eviction process is for... determining if the landlord is lying about the state of the tenant/landlord business relationship and determining if letting the tenant stay in the place for a while longer would result in a far, far better outcome for the tenant and minimal harm to the landlord. > I have mixed feelings around rent controls... I don't. Rent controls are godawful price distortions that should not have any reason to exist. However, I'm very glad I live in a rent-controlled San Francisco apartment. Why? Because every landowner in the state of California has property tax control, regardless of whether their property is their personal home, a residential rental, or most any other commercial property. It's massively unfair that landowners across the state get to control a huge part of their costs, but it's illegal for all but a very few cities in the state to permit residents to do the same. [0] Get rid of the property tax control across the board, wait a year or four for everything to shake out, then I'd be fine with getting rid of rent control in California. [0] Seriously, Costa-Hawkins can go straight to hell.

hylaride 2y ago
I've got a minor in economics, but I'm also not a rabid capitalist, so I do give lots of thought on both sides of any economic argument. Unless it's public housing (which for the record I do support, though I think that in practice it should be at the margins in most jurisdictions), landlords shouldn't be part of the social safety net (unless they have some extra tax advantage in exchange - fun fact is that as much as hospitals whine about the costs of having to treat everybody in the ER regardless of ability to pay, they actually have a very generous tax benefit for it). Having temporary unemployment/hardship vouchers up to some max is one thing, but if you can't pay after a certain amount of time you shouldn't be in private housing. Maybe 60 days is too soon, but in many jurisdictions it can be far, far longer. I am not at all opposed to a due process in withholding rent if the landlord side of the contract is not being upheld, my example was for "I can't or won't pay for some non-housing reasons". I pretty much agree with everything you said about rent controls, which is why I said "mixed feelings". California, arguably the greatest state in the union, is ungovernable due to the fact that the government literally can't govern when it comes to taxation (and even mandated spending). If there is a healthy market where supply and demand can be balanced, there should be no need for it.