3 ms·

We do not need a company that makes it easier for landlords to wield power over their tenants, or to harass or expel tenants with a checkered past. This idea is

by rquantz 13y ago

We do not need a company that makes it easier for landlords to wield power over their tenants, or to harass or expel tenants with a checkered past. This idea is a great example of the kind of "efficiency" that the internet produces that gives more power to the powerful.

prostoalex 13y ago
In California it can take up to 6 months to evict a problematic (and frequently non-paying) tenant, so any kind of efficiency would boost the availability of properties to tenants who have no such problems.
- rquantz 13y ago
  Yes, evictions have been made difficult because of the enormous power difference between a landlord and a tenant. You really think that's a bad thing? edit: typo
  - prostoalex 13y ago
    End of the day it's all priced in - other renters pay inflated prices to compensate for a few bad apples. So yeah, it's kinda a bad deal for those who always pay on time - they're measured against the same risk as a rando off the street, which is why a rental application today can involve a background check and employment reference.
    - rdl 13y ago
      Given that the people I (and the startup scene in general) selfishly want in the Bay Area are largely younger, immigrant (from abroad or other parts of the country), or otherwise don't have a long credit history, and haven't been living in rent controlled apartments for a long time, it seems pretty clear where self interest lies, here, too. Of course, Prop 13 screws the same people -- a 55 year old state worker who has lived in his house for 25 years pays ~nothing in property taxes, where a startup person (or really any 23 year old without family property) either pays inflated property tax rates (on a recent purchase; both the percentage rate and dollar value of property are high) directly, or pays them in rent (a person who has owned a house for 40 years can still rent it on the market at the prevailing rate, which is high due to supply constraint and any new supply needing to reflect current purchase and thus tax levels). I'm all for tenants, in general, vs. landlords, and generally for people beginning their careers vs. incumbents, but rent control doesn't help new households.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > either pays inflated property tax rates (on a recent purchase; both the percentage rate and dollar value of property are high) Under Prop 13, property tax rates in California are limited to 1% of assessed value. Its true that a new purchaser will pay this on something like the actual current value, unlike someone who has owned for a long time with real appreciation faster than the limited rate of increase of assessed value, but the rate won't be any higher for the recent purchaser.
        rdl 13y ago
        I meant that for the same total property tax collection, if it were applied to all property at the current value, the rate would be less than 1% for everyone, since "old" properties would have higher assessed values. (although 1% as a property tax isn't inherently bad; I'd prefer 1-2% property tax or a higher rate as LVT, and correspondingly lower income, corporate, and capital gains taxes, and/or better quality state services)
rdl 13y ago
I agree about checkered past -- I'd be upset if someone rented to a tenant, did a background check after movein, and then evicted for historical behavior. Most of this is covered by housing law already -- you probably couldn't evict someone who was already a tenant because you found out he had been evicted 3 years ago for murdering his landlord or less implausible stuff. I'm talking about present things, though -- if someone is actively subletting your property or using it as a hotel, or actively using it to run a drug retail business, etc. Knowing current restraining orders could be useful for security (although arguably the tenant should report those if it's a multi-unit complex) -- there's less of an argument for that. There probably would be for things like the sex offender list, though.

by rquantz 13y ago

prostoalex 13y ago

In California it can take up to 6 months to evict a problematic (and frequently non-paying) tenant, so any kind of efficiency would boost the availability of properties to tenants who have no such problems.

rquantz 13y ago
Yes, evictions have been made difficult because of the enormous power difference between a landlord and a tenant. You really think that's a bad thing? edit: typo
- prostoalex 13y ago
  End of the day it's all priced in - other renters pay inflated prices to compensate for a few bad apples. So yeah, it's kinda a bad deal for those who always pay on time - they're measured against the same risk as a rando off the street, which is why a rental application today can involve a background check and employment reference.
  - rdl 13y ago
    Given that the people I (and the startup scene in general) selfishly want in the Bay Area are largely younger, immigrant (from abroad or other parts of the country), or otherwise don't have a long credit history, and haven't been living in rent controlled apartments for a long time, it seems pretty clear where self interest lies, here, too. Of course, Prop 13 screws the same people -- a 55 year old state worker who has lived in his house for 25 years pays ~nothing in property taxes, where a startup person (or really any 23 year old without family property) either pays inflated property tax rates (on a recent purchase; both the percentage rate and dollar value of property are high) directly, or pays them in rent (a person who has owned a house for 40 years can still rent it on the market at the prevailing rate, which is high due to supply constraint and any new supply needing to reflect current purchase and thus tax levels). I'm all for tenants, in general, vs. landlords, and generally for people beginning their careers vs. incumbents, but rent control doesn't help new households.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > either pays inflated property tax rates (on a recent purchase; both the percentage rate and dollar value of property are high) Under Prop 13, property tax rates in California are limited to 1% of assessed value. Its true that a new purchaser will pay this on something like the actual current value, unlike someone who has owned for a long time with real appreciation faster than the limited rate of increase of assessed value, but the rate won't be any higher for the recent purchaser.
      - rdl 13y ago
        I meant that for the same total property tax collection, if it were applied to all property at the current value, the rate would be less than 1% for everyone, since "old" properties would have higher assessed values. (although 1% as a property tax isn't inherently bad; I'd prefer 1-2% property tax or a higher rate as LVT, and correspondingly lower income, corporate, and capital gains taxes, and/or better quality state services)

rdl 13y ago

I agree about checkered past -- I'd be upset if someone rented to a tenant, did a background check after movein, and then evicted for historical behavior. Most of this is covered by housing law already -- you probably couldn't evict someone who was already a tenant because you found out he had been evicted 3 years ago for murdering his landlord or less implausible stuff. I'm talking about present things, though -- if someone is actively subletting your property or using it as a hotel, or actively using it to run a drug retail business, etc. Knowing current restraining orders could be useful for security (although arguably the tenant should report those if it's a multi-unit complex) -- there's less of an argument for that. There probably would be for things like the sex offender list, though.