4 ms·

> Rentals are for a limited time by definition. I know people (in fact, every branch of my family, along with many of my friends) who have rented their entire

> Rentals are for a limited time by definition. I know people (in fact, every branch of my family, along with many of my friends) who have rented their entire lives, because they can't own - they've never been able to amass enough capital or convince someone else to lend them it. Should they be uprooted every year (or more often) because someone wants to make a bit more money? Rentals are whatever the combination of the contract and the local law say they are, by definition.

mod 12y ago
> Should they be uprooted every year (or more often) because someone wants to make a bit more money? No, they shouldn't be, but that's not really the issue. The issue is: should landlords be legally allowed to uproot them? My answer is a decisive yes. For whatever the reason, they should be able to not renew a contract once it expires. I don't see why laws should be in place to restrict how much someone makes. Nobody has to have that particular apartment, or live in that particular place, etc. There's always options.
- vertex-four 12y ago
  > No, they shouldn't be, but that's not really the issue. Yes, it really is. Which does the most harm - uprooting people and families every year, forcing them to deal with the stress of moving and finding new life patterns which match wherever they live now, or disallowing landlords from making a bit more money? EDIT: s/allowing/disallowing/
  - mod 12y ago
    I guess you mean "disallowing landlords to make more money." Again I think that's a red herring. There are plenty of reasons an owner might want to remove a tenant outside of profit. But again, it's not the issue--this is really straight to the heart of property rights. Someone owns a property, and by and large, should be able to do what they want with that property. Living on someone else's property is part of the risk of renting. Similar to working for someone else--would you also argue an employer should have to keep paying a worker who is underperforming (or any of a litany of legitimate reasons), because if they didn't that worker might have to deal with the stress of moving & finding new life patterns?
    - vertex-four 12y ago
      Property rights only exist because of the law, otherwise, in general, property amounts to "what you can personally protect from people using force". It makes sense that alternate property models from "full ownership" can be implemented without the world crumbling. As I say in another comment, when you rent out a house to a tenant, you already lose certain property rights, at least while the tenant is living there. You can't write a contract which allows you to keep them, by law. You usually even have certain duties to the tenant, as much as landlords like to shirk these. This is the same in many developed countries, and the world's yet to fall apart for it.
    - comex 12y ago
      In many countries it's quite difficult for an employer to fire a worker, and if they do, they have to provide some financial support to help them, as you say, move and find new life patterns. I do not live in one of those countries, so I cannot vouch for the advantages and disadvantages of this system, but it's hardly unthinkable.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Ah, but the most harm to who? There are more people affected here than just the landlord and the tenant.
- kelnos 12y ago
  My answer is a decisive yes. For whatever the reason, they should be able to not renew a contract once it expires. And therein lies some of the disconnect: my answer is a decisive no. I think there are some reasons for which a landlord should be able to kick out a tenant, but I do not believe that any reason will suffice. And that's why we have (imperfect) laws such as the Ellis Act, and a raft of other things that protect tenants from capricious, rent-seeking landlords.
cookiecaper 12y ago
>Should they be uprooted every year (or more often) because someone wants to make a bit more money? If they are living on someone else's property, and that person wishes to sell the property, and the lease and any other contractual or statutory guarantees have lapsed, then yes? This is really not a new thing. You can't do away with property ownership as a concept just because San Francisco is ridiculous.
- vertex-four 12y ago
  Property ownership is an abstract concept enforced by law in the first place. There are theoretical economic models which do away with it to varying extents, or implement alternative ownership models. Why is it so mind-boggling to modify how it works in one specific instance? Actually, almost everywhere, when you have a tenant, you lose some ownership rights already, by law. For example, except in an emergency, you generally can't enter the building without prior notice.
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    The issue is not that acquiring a tenant restricts some rights that the owner would otherwise have; this is a compromise that the landlord knowingly makes when he rents. That control is relinquished for a pre-agreed, limited period of time, after which control will be returned to the owner, is the essence of renting. The issue is that some people seem to believe that once they are on someone's property, that person loses the future ability to determine how that property is used; i.e., it's not that they have to wait until the current contract expires, but rather that you seem to be arguing that the landlord should never be able to remove a tenant from his property if the tenant does not consent, even at points when the lease on the property has lapsed. That's a permanent deprivation of the core of ownership -- the ability to determine and direct the utilization or exploitation of the property, even if you have to fill existing contractual obligations first, like an active lease.
    - simoncion 12y ago
      > The issue is that some people seem to believe that once they are on someone's property, that person loses the future ability to determine how that property is used... Here's the thing, though. It's not as if existing rent control regulation catches landlords by surprise. If a prospective landlord is so unprepared as to be unaware of the rent control status of a property that he's planning on purchasing, then he's likely to do very poorly with pretty much all of the tasks that being a landlord requires of him. In short, the fact that landlords rent out rent-controlled units is proof positive that they understand and accept the restraints imposed on them by rent control regulations. The fact that rent controlled apartments continue to be rented in SF (rather than withdrawn from the market for five years and converted into condos, as the law allows) is proof that rent control is not draining the lifeblood out of landlords. The insane rents in SF are not due to rent control (how could they be?), but due to the pathological lack of new residential construction.

mod 12y ago

> Should they be uprooted every year (or more often) because someone wants to make a bit more money? No, they shouldn't be, but that's not really the issue. The issue is: should landlords be legally allowed to uproot them? My answer is a decisive yes. For whatever the reason, they should be able to not renew a contract once it expires. I don't see why laws should be in place to restrict how much someone makes. Nobody has to have that particular apartment, or live in that particular place, etc. There's always options.

vertex-four 12y ago
> No, they shouldn't be, but that's not really the issue. Yes, it really is. Which does the most harm - uprooting people and families every year, forcing them to deal with the stress of moving and finding new life patterns which match wherever they live now, or disallowing landlords from making a bit more money? EDIT: s/allowing/disallowing/
- mod 12y ago
  I guess you mean "disallowing landlords to make more money." Again I think that's a red herring. There are plenty of reasons an owner might want to remove a tenant outside of profit. But again, it's not the issue--this is really straight to the heart of property rights. Someone owns a property, and by and large, should be able to do what they want with that property. Living on someone else's property is part of the risk of renting. Similar to working for someone else--would you also argue an employer should have to keep paying a worker who is underperforming (or any of a litany of legitimate reasons), because if they didn't that worker might have to deal with the stress of moving & finding new life patterns?
  - vertex-four 12y ago
    Property rights only exist because of the law, otherwise, in general, property amounts to "what you can personally protect from people using force". It makes sense that alternate property models from "full ownership" can be implemented without the world crumbling. As I say in another comment, when you rent out a house to a tenant, you already lose certain property rights, at least while the tenant is living there. You can't write a contract which allows you to keep them, by law. You usually even have certain duties to the tenant, as much as landlords like to shirk these. This is the same in many developed countries, and the world's yet to fall apart for it.
  - comex 12y ago
    In many countries it's quite difficult for an employer to fire a worker, and if they do, they have to provide some financial support to help them, as you say, move and find new life patterns. I do not live in one of those countries, so I cannot vouch for the advantages and disadvantages of this system, but it's hardly unthinkable.
- Kalium 12y ago
  Ah, but the most harm to who? There are more people affected here than just the landlord and the tenant.
kelnos 12y ago
My answer is a decisive yes. For whatever the reason, they should be able to not renew a contract once it expires. And therein lies some of the disconnect: my answer is a decisive no. I think there are some reasons for which a landlord should be able to kick out a tenant, but I do not believe that any reason will suffice. And that's why we have (imperfect) laws such as the Ellis Act, and a raft of other things that protect tenants from capricious, rent-seeking landlords.

cookiecaper 12y ago

>Should they be uprooted every year (or more often) because someone wants to make a bit more money? If they are living on someone else's property, and that person wishes to sell the property, and the lease and any other contractual or statutory guarantees have lapsed, then yes? This is really not a new thing. You can't do away with property ownership as a concept just because San Francisco is ridiculous.

vertex-four 12y ago
Property ownership is an abstract concept enforced by law in the first place. There are theoretical economic models which do away with it to varying extents, or implement alternative ownership models. Why is it so mind-boggling to modify how it works in one specific instance? Actually, almost everywhere, when you have a tenant, you lose some ownership rights already, by law. For example, except in an emergency, you generally can't enter the building without prior notice.
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  The issue is not that acquiring a tenant restricts some rights that the owner would otherwise have; this is a compromise that the landlord knowingly makes when he rents. That control is relinquished for a pre-agreed, limited period of time, after which control will be returned to the owner, is the essence of renting. The issue is that some people seem to believe that once they are on someone's property, that person loses the future ability to determine how that property is used; i.e., it's not that they have to wait until the current contract expires, but rather that you seem to be arguing that the landlord should never be able to remove a tenant from his property if the tenant does not consent, even at points when the lease on the property has lapsed. That's a permanent deprivation of the core of ownership -- the ability to determine and direct the utilization or exploitation of the property, even if you have to fill existing contractual obligations first, like an active lease.
  - simoncion 12y ago
    > The issue is that some people seem to believe that once they are on someone's property, that person loses the future ability to determine how that property is used... Here's the thing, though. It's not as if existing rent control regulation catches landlords by surprise. If a prospective landlord is so unprepared as to be unaware of the rent control status of a property that he's planning on purchasing, then he's likely to do very poorly with pretty much all of the tasks that being a landlord requires of him. In short, the fact that landlords rent out rent-controlled units is proof positive that they understand and accept the restraints imposed on them by rent control regulations. The fact that rent controlled apartments continue to be rented in SF (rather than withdrawn from the market for five years and converted into condos, as the law allows) is proof that rent control is not draining the lifeblood out of landlords. The insane rents in SF are not due to rent control (how could they be?), but due to the pathological lack of new residential construction.