7 ms·

> It's like no one could agree on happy medium between "landlord can eject you whenever they want for whatever reason" and "no one can make you leave, ever, for

by MiroF 5y ago

> It's like no one could agree on happy medium between "landlord can eject you whenever they want for whatever reason" and "no one can make you leave, ever, for any reason". No place in the US actually has the latter unless you've been letting them squat for half a decade or something, the issue is court delays and landlord's wanting to make their lot out to be worse than it is.

dijonman2 5y ago
It’s very difficult to evict folks in Colorado, according to someone I know who buys and rents homes for a living. I think most landlords are pro tenant until they find someone who knows how to work the system. It costs them so much that they are skiddish to all renters.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  Landlords have chosen to enter an inherently adversarial relationship with the goal of profiting from the other party. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to their personal pains here, but I don't believe "pro tenant" has a useful meaning except in a context where you need to support them in opposition to some force or entity. And that entity is landlords.
  - anchpop 5y ago
    As a widget maker, I'm pro widget-users even though I technically have an adversarial relationship with them. In particular, I'm pro widget-users because without them I would be without money and without me they would be without widgets, so we're both supporting each other against the harsh forces of nature that would leave us all destitute if we didn't work together.
    - giraffe_lady 5y ago
      only comparable if the widget you make is a necessity for life, really straining the meaning of the word "widget" imo.
    - Firmwarrior 5y ago
      > without me they would be without widgets It seems like it'd be obvious, but landlords don't actually produce land or provide housing. They roll in and take housing using their superior resources, then charge rent to access it. In an ideal market, every renter would have the option of being a landlord just like every car lessor has the option of being a car owner. We just need enough housing supply to make investing in housing a risky venture instead of a government-guaranteed winner https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/ https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-e...
      - chii 5y ago
        > landlords don't actually produce land or provide housing of course they do - they provide it by being part of the capital flow, which starts at construction. It might not be the same person, but it's a chain of financing that lead to the landlord purchasing the property. Superior resources is just another name for capital. And you need capital to fund the construction. The landlord is just the last chain on this funding, and without them, the builders would not build (for who would be buying?). Shelter is a cost. Everybody pays it, whether you own your own building or renting. > every renter would have the option of being a landlord they do if they had the capital. No one is stopping anyone from making a bid for a property - unlike back in the old days where people who were slaves were not entitled to own property as a right. The fact that some people have more capital and is willing to bid higher is how the current free market system works to allocate capital.
        Firmwarrior 5y ago
        Man, I'm not saying you're completely wrong, but that's such a ridiculous stretch I bought a few shares of Pfizer, does that make me a healthcare provider?
        chii 5y ago
        no but it makes you a capital provider for healthcare. I'm just trying to correct the mistaken view that providing capital is tantamount to doing nothing.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    How exactly is it inherently adversarial? Isn’t what you’re saying also true to literally any for profit transaction?
    - giraffe_lady 5y ago
      Only things that are absolute needs. You can walk away from a profitable transaction, you can't walk away from one you'll die without. People are willing to take much more extreme action around housing (and food, medicine, ) than they are most other goods. They're also less likely to agree there is moral justification in profiting from these things. So even when entering these transactions (they must, after all), they may not respect the other party's profit goals.
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        Should doctors work for free? Should farmers?
        giraffe_lady 5y ago
        Do landlords labor?
        tomp 5y ago
        Do business owners labor? As someone who's moved around a lot (to London, then to Zürich) I definitely appreciate being able to rent, and hence landowners. Without them, I'd have to live 2-3 year homeless until I saved enough for a downpayment, then be saddled with 30 year monthly commitment (i.e. mortgage) and unable to move anywhere else.
        endisneigh 5y ago
        Yes? Do you think the house magically takes care of itself?
        giraffe_lady 5y ago
  - baq 5y ago
    If there’s return, there’s risk. All markets are adversarial.
    - giraffe_lady 5y ago
      Yeah I don't really disagree with that. I don't believe housing should be a "market" in the sense I think is meant here. But if it is to be, I agree that landlords need to accept the risk of their tenants not paying and not leaving either.
      - Ekaros 5y ago
        Not paying sure. Not leaving no. That never should be the case. They own the property the should be able to get it vacated in reasonable time let's say 3 to 6 month. For any reason. There could also be a fixed time contract binding both sides.
  - jjav 5y ago
    > Landlords have chosen to enter an inherently adversarial relationship with the goal of profiting from the other party. There isn't any reason for it to be adversarial, it's certainly not inherently so. Only if one or both sides want to make it adversarial. It is supposed to be a win-win scenario. Some people prefer to rent instead of buying, so they need a supply of rentals and the owner needs someone to live there so it doesn't sit empty costing them money. Fortunately I've never had one of the adversarial landlords. I paid them on time and took good care of the property and in exchange they have been super flexible and let me do whatever I want. That's a win-win.
    - sobkas 5y ago
      > > Landlords have chosen to enter an inherently adversarial relationship with the goal of profiting from the other party. > There isn't any reason for it to be adversarial, it's certainly not inherently so. Only if one or both sides want to make it adversarial. Landlords compete with their potential tenants for houses to buy. When landlord driven price increase, it prices out people from buying a home/flat, but they still need a roof over their heads. So they rent. This gives landlords cash needed to buy more houses/flats. This also keep rents up as landlords pay more for buildings. So tenants are less likely to accumulate cash for loans/something else. From small owners to big corporations it is a vicious cycle.
      - bawolff 5y ago
        So you're saying that in a capitalistic society, people with capital do better? Colour me shocked. The landlord also takes on risk and responsibility here. Like any business, if they do a shitty job they go broke. If they do a good job, they make bank and expand their business.
        giraffe_lady 5y ago
        No because you can't really decline to have a home if none of the options are good for you. If there are only shitty landlords then you'll be forced to choose a shitty landlord.
jjav 5y ago
> > "no one can make you leave, ever, for any reason". > No place in the US actually has the latter Not technically, no. But there are areas (e.g. San Francisco) where getting a non-paying tenant out is close enough to impossible that it might as well be.
- MiroF 5y ago
  > But there are areas (e.g. San Francisco) where getting a non-paying tenant out is close enough to impossible that it might as well be. You absolutely can evict people in SF, unless you are discussing the recent eviction moratorium, which is not ongoing.
- xenadu02 5y ago
  AFAIK that's not actually true. There are some crazy edge cases but for the most part if a tenant stops paying rent you can absolutely evict them in SF. Most of the horror stories from landlords are attempts to evict for reasons besides non-payment - which SF does make somewhat difficult.
  - refurb 5y ago
    You'd be surprised. SF Rent Board will always seek the solution that keeps the tenant in their home. So a tenant might stop paying rent, a few months later you get an eviction hearing, but then the tenant pays the rent this month and promises to pay the back rent. Your eviction has just been denied. Tenant falls back on rent again, but made a good faith effort to pay some of the back rent. Eviction denied. Finally, tenant stops paying entirely and doesn't respond to you. You stand a pretty good chance of getting an eviction then. Meanwhile, over the past 12 months the tenant made 2 full rent payments and a couple thousand on the $18,000 in back rent owed. They get evicted and you get to clean up the mess. So yes, it's not impossible to evict a tenant, but it's really damn hard (unless it's for something like violence or failure to pay and no response when rent is demanded).
    - flir 5y ago
      Honestly, that sounds great. The risk of being a rentier should be higher than the risk of an index tracker. A lot of our problems can be traced to the fact that bricks and mortar are seen as a better RoI than stocks and shares, and one way to fix that is to change the risk profile of being a landlord by increasing tenants' rights.
nunez 5y ago
covid moratoriums were basically that for a lot of landlords

by MiroF 5y ago

dijonman2 5y ago

It’s very difficult to evict folks in Colorado, according to someone I know who buys and rents homes for a living. I think most landlords are pro tenant until they find someone who knows how to work the system. It costs them so much that they are skiddish to all renters.

giraffe_lady 5y ago
Landlords have chosen to enter an inherently adversarial relationship with the goal of profiting from the other party. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to their personal pains here, but I don't believe "pro tenant" has a useful meaning except in a context where you need to support them in opposition to some force or entity. And that entity is landlords.
- anchpop 5y ago
  As a widget maker, I'm pro widget-users even though I technically have an adversarial relationship with them. In particular, I'm pro widget-users because without them I would be without money and without me they would be without widgets, so we're both supporting each other against the harsh forces of nature that would leave us all destitute if we didn't work together.
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    only comparable if the widget you make is a necessity for life, really straining the meaning of the word "widget" imo.
  - Firmwarrior 5y ago
    > without me they would be without widgets It seems like it'd be obvious, but landlords don't actually produce land or provide housing. They roll in and take housing using their superior resources, then charge rent to access it. In an ideal market, every renter would have the option of being a landlord just like every car lessor has the option of being a car owner. We just need enough housing supply to make investing in housing a risky venture instead of a government-guaranteed winner https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/ https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-e...
    - chii 5y ago
      > landlords don't actually produce land or provide housing of course they do - they provide it by being part of the capital flow, which starts at construction. It might not be the same person, but it's a chain of financing that lead to the landlord purchasing the property. Superior resources is just another name for capital. And you need capital to fund the construction. The landlord is just the last chain on this funding, and without them, the builders would not build (for who would be buying?). Shelter is a cost. Everybody pays it, whether you own your own building or renting. > every renter would have the option of being a landlord they do if they had the capital. No one is stopping anyone from making a bid for a property - unlike back in the old days where people who were slaves were not entitled to own property as a right. The fact that some people have more capital and is willing to bid higher is how the current free market system works to allocate capital.
      - Firmwarrior 5y ago
        Man, I'm not saying you're completely wrong, but that's such a ridiculous stretch I bought a few shares of Pfizer, does that make me a healthcare provider?
        chii 5y ago
        no but it makes you a capital provider for healthcare. I'm just trying to correct the mistaken view that providing capital is tantamount to doing nothing.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  How exactly is it inherently adversarial? Isn’t what you’re saying also true to literally any for profit transaction?
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    Only things that are absolute needs. You can walk away from a profitable transaction, you can't walk away from one you'll die without. People are willing to take much more extreme action around housing (and food, medicine, ) than they are most other goods. They're also less likely to agree there is moral justification in profiting from these things. So even when entering these transactions (they must, after all), they may not respect the other party's profit goals.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      Should doctors work for free? Should farmers?
      - giraffe_lady 5y ago
        Do landlords labor?
        tomp 5y ago
        Do business owners labor? As someone who's moved around a lot (to London, then to Zürich) I definitely appreciate being able to rent, and hence landowners. Without them, I'd have to live 2-3 year homeless until I saved enough for a downpayment, then be saddled with 30 year monthly commitment (i.e. mortgage) and unable to move anywhere else.
        endisneigh 5y ago
        Yes? Do you think the house magically takes care of itself?
        giraffe_lady 5y ago
- baq 5y ago
  If there’s return, there’s risk. All markets are adversarial.
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    Yeah I don't really disagree with that. I don't believe housing should be a "market" in the sense I think is meant here. But if it is to be, I agree that landlords need to accept the risk of their tenants not paying and not leaving either.
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      Not paying sure. Not leaving no. That never should be the case. They own the property the should be able to get it vacated in reasonable time let's say 3 to 6 month. For any reason. There could also be a fixed time contract binding both sides.
- jjav 5y ago
  > Landlords have chosen to enter an inherently adversarial relationship with the goal of profiting from the other party. There isn't any reason for it to be adversarial, it's certainly not inherently so. Only if one or both sides want to make it adversarial. It is supposed to be a win-win scenario. Some people prefer to rent instead of buying, so they need a supply of rentals and the owner needs someone to live there so it doesn't sit empty costing them money. Fortunately I've never had one of the adversarial landlords. I paid them on time and took good care of the property and in exchange they have been super flexible and let me do whatever I want. That's a win-win.
  - sobkas 5y ago
    > > Landlords have chosen to enter an inherently adversarial relationship with the goal of profiting from the other party. > There isn't any reason for it to be adversarial, it's certainly not inherently so. Only if one or both sides want to make it adversarial. Landlords compete with their potential tenants for houses to buy. When landlord driven price increase, it prices out people from buying a home/flat, but they still need a roof over their heads. So they rent. This gives landlords cash needed to buy more houses/flats. This also keep rents up as landlords pay more for buildings. So tenants are less likely to accumulate cash for loans/something else. From small owners to big corporations it is a vicious cycle.
    - bawolff 5y ago
      So you're saying that in a capitalistic society, people with capital do better? Colour me shocked. The landlord also takes on risk and responsibility here. Like any business, if they do a shitty job they go broke. If they do a good job, they make bank and expand their business.
      - giraffe_lady 5y ago
        No because you can't really decline to have a home if none of the options are good for you. If there are only shitty landlords then you'll be forced to choose a shitty landlord.

jjav 5y ago

> > "no one can make you leave, ever, for any reason". > No place in the US actually has the latter Not technically, no. But there are areas (e.g. San Francisco) where getting a non-paying tenant out is close enough to impossible that it might as well be.

MiroF 5y ago
> But there are areas (e.g. San Francisco) where getting a non-paying tenant out is close enough to impossible that it might as well be. You absolutely can evict people in SF, unless you are discussing the recent eviction moratorium, which is not ongoing.
xenadu02 5y ago
AFAIK that's not actually true. There are some crazy edge cases but for the most part if a tenant stops paying rent you can absolutely evict them in SF. Most of the horror stories from landlords are attempts to evict for reasons besides non-payment - which SF does make somewhat difficult.
- refurb 5y ago
  You'd be surprised. SF Rent Board will always seek the solution that keeps the tenant in their home. So a tenant might stop paying rent, a few months later you get an eviction hearing, but then the tenant pays the rent this month and promises to pay the back rent. Your eviction has just been denied. Tenant falls back on rent again, but made a good faith effort to pay some of the back rent. Eviction denied. Finally, tenant stops paying entirely and doesn't respond to you. You stand a pretty good chance of getting an eviction then. Meanwhile, over the past 12 months the tenant made 2 full rent payments and a couple thousand on the $18,000 in back rent owed. They get evicted and you get to clean up the mess. So yes, it's not impossible to evict a tenant, but it's really damn hard (unless it's for something like violence or failure to pay and no response when rent is demanded).
  - flir 5y ago
    Honestly, that sounds great. The risk of being a rentier should be higher than the risk of an index tracker. A lot of our problems can be traced to the fact that bricks and mortar are seen as a better RoI than stocks and shares, and one way to fix that is to change the risk profile of being a landlord by increasing tenants' rights.

nunez 5y ago

covid moratoriums were basically that for a lot of landlords