4 ms·

>> "I can raise my rent or evict my tenant any time I darn well like because it's my fricking property" Of course you're going to think that - it's in your bes

>> "I can raise my rent or evict my tenant any time I darn well like because it's my fricking property" Of course you're going to think that - it's in your best interest. But it's not fair to a tenant. Without regulations on evicting people asshole landlords could make families homeless for no reason. I don't think you should have to pay to evict someone but if you rent your property out there should be regulations in place to protect the tenant. If there weren't I think you find the market for rental properties start to diminish. People who could afford to buy (and that's true of a lot of renters) would to avoid the risk of their lives being turned upside down overnight.

harryh 12y ago
Your hypothesis about rental markets diminishing in areas without rent control isn't supported by empirical evidence. Quite the opposite in fact. Essentially all studies have found that markets without rent control have much more robust and stable housing stocks.
- bronbron 12y ago
  > Your hypothesis about rental markets diminishing in areas without rent control You should re-read what he wrote. That's not his hypothesis.
jcrites 12y ago
How is it unfair to tenants? Tenants sign a lease for a period of time with a fixed price. The lease's fixed price protects both parties. When that lease is up, the landlord and tenant should be free to negotiate a new price. If tenants want stable prices over a longer period of time, then they should negotiate a multi-year contract with the landlord. All of the protections you're discussing are already built into the concept of a lease. If either the tenant or landlord is not willing to agree to a longer contract, then that should be their right. (Why should anyone be forced to lock in the rental price of their property for years, even while the circumstances of the city are changing -- e.g., receiving investment or decaying; people moving into the area or out of it.) If one party wants a longer contract and the other does not, then the party who desires the longer contract should offer something in exchange for lowering the other party's flexibility. It all plays into the price of the contract. I personally prefer to rent month-to-month because I value my ability to pick up and leave any time more than I worry about the uncertainty of being randomly evicted. Someone who wants a five year lease should negotiate differently and get a different price than I do (whether higher or lower depends on the circumstances).
- bitJericho 12y ago
  Every lease I've ever seen is on a take it or leave it basis.
  - jcrites 12y ago
    Plenty of properties will advertise "no pets", but you can negotiate with the landlord about that. For example, you might offer an additional deposit against pet damage, or offer to pay a cleaning fee when you leave. I have pets and I have always been able to talk landlords out of their "no pets" policy. If you offered the landlord double the lease price in exchange for a 2 year contract, will they take it? Almost certainly. Few contracts of that type are truly take it or leave it. My point is not that 2x would be fair, just that you have the ability to negotiate, which means the question of whether you can get a contract with the terms you want depends on your ability to negotiate a price for those terms. Many landlords value stability and will be happy with a longer term lease at the same price, or even a lower price. And that's where the negotiation comes in. If the landlord believes prices in the area will rise steadily, then he may or may not want to offer a fixed price over a 3 year lease. Perhaps he will offer a longer lease, but with a stipulation of 3% price increase per year. You don't believe prices will rise that much, so you counter with 1% YoY. It's like buying a housing future. You're locking in the price of housing now as insurance against it changing in the future. That should properly have a different price than a lease with no such provision. If a person believed in rent control, why not go further? Fix the price of property itself so that it may not rise more than 1% per year. If you buy a house from someone, the sale price may not be greater than the last sale price increased by 1% YoY. Would this be desirable? A law like this will have all sorts of negative consequences on the economy. For example, imagine a house owner who no longer wishes to live in the city. If prices were allowed to rise, then he's incentivized to sell his house, cash out on the increased price, and move somewhere else, enabling a person who wants to live in the city can do so. But if prices are not allowed to rise, then he's stuck selling is house for the same price he bought it; he has no incentive to move. Someone is willing to pay him much more for that house, but they can't. This is what it means for resources to be allocated efficiently, and it depends on the ability of prices to change over time. Fixing prices also affects investment. For example, if I believed that prices were likely to rise in some area, then I'm incentivized to buy property there, build housing or fix it up, and sell or rent it to capitalize on that price increase. The rising prices bring investment: I might build an apartment building to take advantage of rising rents. By comparison, if I know that my property will be rent controlled, then that limits my financial upside from investment, and removes my incentive to invest, which is also bad for the economy if it would otherwise happen naturally.
baddox 12y ago
In my opinion, the "fairness" would depend on the terms of the rental contract.
theatraine 12y ago
That's why you sign a lease. You can't raise rent for the duration of the lease. Your landlord should give you notice that the rent will be going up, thus giving you ample time to find a new place. If a tenant wants more stability, then they should consider buying a place. Also, as a counterpoint, Seattle has no rent control, and the fastest growing population of any large American city yet is able to provide good housing options to people of all incomes. This of course may be due to more liberal zoning laws allowing new housing to be built.

harryh 12y ago

Your hypothesis about rental markets diminishing in areas without rent control isn't supported by empirical evidence. Quite the opposite in fact. Essentially all studies have found that markets without rent control have much more robust and stable housing stocks.

bronbron 12y ago
> Your hypothesis about rental markets diminishing in areas without rent control You should re-read what he wrote. That's not his hypothesis.

jcrites 12y ago

How is it unfair to tenants? Tenants sign a lease for a period of time with a fixed price. The lease's fixed price protects both parties. When that lease is up, the landlord and tenant should be free to negotiate a new price. If tenants want stable prices over a longer period of time, then they should negotiate a multi-year contract with the landlord. All of the protections you're discussing are already built into the concept of a lease. If either the tenant or landlord is not willing to agree to a longer contract, then that should be their right. (Why should anyone be forced to lock in the rental price of their property for years, even while the circumstances of the city are changing -- e.g., receiving investment or decaying; people moving into the area or out of it.) If one party wants a longer contract and the other does not, then the party who desires the longer contract should offer something in exchange for lowering the other party's flexibility. It all plays into the price of the contract. I personally prefer to rent month-to-month because I value my ability to pick up and leave any time more than I worry about the uncertainty of being randomly evicted. Someone who wants a five year lease should negotiate differently and get a different price than I do (whether higher or lower depends on the circumstances).

bitJericho 12y ago
Every lease I've ever seen is on a take it or leave it basis.
- jcrites 12y ago
  Plenty of properties will advertise "no pets", but you can negotiate with the landlord about that. For example, you might offer an additional deposit against pet damage, or offer to pay a cleaning fee when you leave. I have pets and I have always been able to talk landlords out of their "no pets" policy. If you offered the landlord double the lease price in exchange for a 2 year contract, will they take it? Almost certainly. Few contracts of that type are truly take it or leave it. My point is not that 2x would be fair, just that you have the ability to negotiate, which means the question of whether you can get a contract with the terms you want depends on your ability to negotiate a price for those terms. Many landlords value stability and will be happy with a longer term lease at the same price, or even a lower price. And that's where the negotiation comes in. If the landlord believes prices in the area will rise steadily, then he may or may not want to offer a fixed price over a 3 year lease. Perhaps he will offer a longer lease, but with a stipulation of 3% price increase per year. You don't believe prices will rise that much, so you counter with 1% YoY. It's like buying a housing future. You're locking in the price of housing now as insurance against it changing in the future. That should properly have a different price than a lease with no such provision. If a person believed in rent control, why not go further? Fix the price of property itself so that it may not rise more than 1% per year. If you buy a house from someone, the sale price may not be greater than the last sale price increased by 1% YoY. Would this be desirable? A law like this will have all sorts of negative consequences on the economy. For example, imagine a house owner who no longer wishes to live in the city. If prices were allowed to rise, then he's incentivized to sell his house, cash out on the increased price, and move somewhere else, enabling a person who wants to live in the city can do so. But if prices are not allowed to rise, then he's stuck selling is house for the same price he bought it; he has no incentive to move. Someone is willing to pay him much more for that house, but they can't. This is what it means for resources to be allocated efficiently, and it depends on the ability of prices to change over time. Fixing prices also affects investment. For example, if I believed that prices were likely to rise in some area, then I'm incentivized to buy property there, build housing or fix it up, and sell or rent it to capitalize on that price increase. The rising prices bring investment: I might build an apartment building to take advantage of rising rents. By comparison, if I know that my property will be rent controlled, then that limits my financial upside from investment, and removes my incentive to invest, which is also bad for the economy if it would otherwise happen naturally.

baddox 12y ago

In my opinion, the "fairness" would depend on the terms of the rental contract.

theatraine 12y ago

That's why you sign a lease. You can't raise rent for the duration of the lease. Your landlord should give you notice that the rent will be going up, thus giving you ample time to find a new place. If a tenant wants more stability, then they should consider buying a place. Also, as a counterpoint, Seattle has no rent control, and the fastest growing population of any large American city yet is able to provide good housing options to people of all incomes. This of course may be due to more liberal zoning laws allowing new housing to be built.