4 ms·
It seems like half this discussion thread is trying to pin the problem on "tenants rights" while the other half is saying "SROs are bad because they house undes
by jordanb 11mo ago
It seems like half this discussion thread is trying to pin the problem on "tenants rights" while the other half is saying "SROs are bad because they house undesirables."
If it were tenants rights, you'd expect SROs to go away in the parts of the country with the strongest tenants rights, subsidies or no. Instead, SROs disappearing seems mostly correlated with gentrification and nimbys.
As an aside I've known several smallish residential landlords (20-50 units) and they are, in general, strongly biased towards higher-income tenants and totally unequipped to manage an SRO or any building with substantial shared space. For them the perfect property is a walkup with no shared indoor spaces to maintain, and the perfect tenant is a yuppie without a lot of price sensitivity.
- stackskipton 11mo ago>If it were tenants rights, you'd expect SROs to go away in the parts of the country with the strongest tenants rights Tenants rights can make existing SROs harder to get rid of since evicting everyone so you can refurb into apartments or whatever is too costly. >As an aside I've known several smallish residential landlords (20-50 units) and they are, in general, strongly biased towards higher-income tenants That's every landlord. Higher income tenants tend to bring less problems overall.
- Matticus_Rex 11mo ago> That's every landlord. Higher income tenants tend to bring less problems overall. Even moreso in states with expansive eviction protections. High-income tenants rarely squat. But at least for bigger landlords squatting isn't an existential risk.