13 ms·

The yes/no in some cases could allow fixed-income people to be approved when they are short of the required income or credit history because they've never had a

The yes/no in some cases could allow fixed-income people to be approved when they are short of the required income or credit history because they've never had a rental problem. A lot of fixed-income seniors pay a large portion of their income to rent but have done so reliably for decades, for example.

dont__panic 4y ago
That would also be addressed by a more detailed explanation of court records, or a binary yes/no of whether the tenant was ultimately found guilty of a transgression against previous landlords, no? The previous comment is pointing out that this could be a problem if you've been sued by an unscrupulous landlord in the past. That problem exists for fixed income people as well.
- kragen 4y ago
  BTW, you were right that Pebble used those memory LCDs in their smartwatches. Unfortunately I can't reply to your comment from that time. Thanks for letting me know!
kazinator 4y ago
The point is that this yes/no datum is going to be interpreted as a black stain, regardless of what it means. A landlord reviewing 50 applications for a place isn't going to go into the particulars. Depending on the landlord's approach, anything with a yes won't make the short list. Credit reports should not have suspicious stains whose meaning could be that there is in fact nothing wrong (there was a dispute which was caused by someone else, and resolved in the applicant's favor).
- jeffbee 4y ago
  The obvious solution is the one I've long advocated in this forum and elsewhere: a housing market where landlords can pick and choose tenants should not be permitted to exist. Build housing until the median number of applicants for a vacant home becomes 1 or 0. Make landlords desperate again.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Wouldn't that increase the rents even further? Specially if we were go below 1 on long term. As the existing renters must also cover the building and maintenance cost for the empty units... General prices would drop, but renters would end up paying for something they are not using or even have access to...
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    > The obvious solution is the one I've long advocated in this forum and elsewhere: a housing market where landlords can pick and choose tenants should not be permitted to exist. Do you leave your domicile unlocked for anyone to visit, while you are elsewhere? No? A landlord doesn't want to do that, either.
  - trashcan01 4y ago
    If landlords aren’t allowed to pick tenants, then: 1. Bad tenants will have no incentive not to harm the property and the neighborhood. 2. Landlords will be forced to pay for insurance to cover all the bad things that tenants are now free to do. 3. Rents will rise to cover the costs of the insurance. Conscientious tenants will be penalized. 4. Even otherwise conscientious tenants will start to cut corners since they are having to pay for the insurance anyway and it’s clearly unfair. What a nasty situation for conscientious tenants landlords and neighbors you are advocating. Only the least conscientious people win.
    - gpderetta 4y ago
      You can make the exact symmetrical argument if tenants are not allowed to pick landlords (which is what happen in practice). Well, except about rent increase that happens anyways.
      - kazinator 4y ago
        Tenants cannot pick an arbitrary landlord L for a given, fixed rental unit U. They can pick a different rental unit with a different L.
- Simon_says 4y ago
  An apartment with 50 applicants is underpriced.
function_seven 4y ago
So now that I know about these records, I better think twice before asserting my rights as a tenant. If my landlord decides to steal my deposit, ignore the leaky roof, and refuse to fix the furnace, I'll just roll over and take it. Can't have a "Yes" on my permanent record; won't be able to rent in the future!
- phil21 4y ago
  This has been the advice for quite some time. Just having court cases on your record can be seen as a black mark for both housing and some employers regardless of you winning them or their merit. It's not a majority yet, but it's been slowly eating it's way into these sectors for the past couple decades. Similar "scores" are being silently enacted for such trivial things like returning merchandise to retail stores. Stores now share information and will outright reject returns if you are deemed to have done too many returns in the past at a totally unrelated business. Leave town with a $2 bank balance and forget to close the account out? Good luck getting a new bank account for the next 7 years with the "minimum account balance" fees drawing it into the negative regardless of fixing the oversight when notified. Same for chargebacks on your credit card - chargeback more than then the calculated long-term EV of your account and you will find the process all of a sudden becomes very difficult and your account is likely closed shortly thereafter. Same goes with Amazon - have a high value account that does $50k/yr in purchases? Returns are always granted no questions asked. Low value? You will start seeing pushback from customer service very quickly and account closure regardless of the validity or reasons for return. The above are all examples I've personally experienced or witnessed. Airline mileage programs that turned into revenue programs are likely where most of this ends up. Companies simply will stop servicing low EV customers altogether on an individual vs. the group basis as it's done now.
  - taylortrusty 4y ago
    Honest question: what's wrong with any of these examples?
    - CogitoCogito 4y ago

dont__panic 4y ago

That would also be addressed by a more detailed explanation of court records, or a binary yes/no of whether the tenant was ultimately found guilty of a transgression against previous landlords, no? The previous comment is pointing out that this could be a problem if you've been sued by an unscrupulous landlord in the past. That problem exists for fixed income people as well.

kragen 4y ago
BTW, you were right that Pebble used those memory LCDs in their smartwatches. Unfortunately I can't reply to your comment from that time. Thanks for letting me know!

kazinator 4y ago

The point is that this yes/no datum is going to be interpreted as a black stain, regardless of what it means. A landlord reviewing 50 applications for a place isn't going to go into the particulars. Depending on the landlord's approach, anything with a yes won't make the short list. Credit reports should not have suspicious stains whose meaning could be that there is in fact nothing wrong (there was a dispute which was caused by someone else, and resolved in the applicant's favor).

jeffbee 4y ago
The obvious solution is the one I've long advocated in this forum and elsewhere: a housing market where landlords can pick and choose tenants should not be permitted to exist. Build housing until the median number of applicants for a vacant home becomes 1 or 0. Make landlords desperate again.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Wouldn't that increase the rents even further? Specially if we were go below 1 on long term. As the existing renters must also cover the building and maintenance cost for the empty units... General prices would drop, but renters would end up paying for something they are not using or even have access to...
- IncRnd 4y ago
  > The obvious solution is the one I've long advocated in this forum and elsewhere: a housing market where landlords can pick and choose tenants should not be permitted to exist. Do you leave your domicile unlocked for anyone to visit, while you are elsewhere? No? A landlord doesn't want to do that, either.
- trashcan01 4y ago
  If landlords aren’t allowed to pick tenants, then: 1. Bad tenants will have no incentive not to harm the property and the neighborhood. 2. Landlords will be forced to pay for insurance to cover all the bad things that tenants are now free to do. 3. Rents will rise to cover the costs of the insurance. Conscientious tenants will be penalized. 4. Even otherwise conscientious tenants will start to cut corners since they are having to pay for the insurance anyway and it’s clearly unfair. What a nasty situation for conscientious tenants landlords and neighbors you are advocating. Only the least conscientious people win.
  - gpderetta 4y ago
    You can make the exact symmetrical argument if tenants are not allowed to pick landlords (which is what happen in practice). Well, except about rent increase that happens anyways.
    - kazinator 4y ago
      Tenants cannot pick an arbitrary landlord L for a given, fixed rental unit U. They can pick a different rental unit with a different L.
Simon_says 4y ago
An apartment with 50 applicants is underpriced.

function_seven 4y ago

So now that I know about these records, I better think twice before asserting my rights as a tenant. If my landlord decides to steal my deposit, ignore the leaky roof, and refuse to fix the furnace, I'll just roll over and take it. Can't have a "Yes" on my permanent record; won't be able to rent in the future!

phil21 4y ago
This has been the advice for quite some time. Just having court cases on your record can be seen as a black mark for both housing and some employers regardless of you winning them or their merit. It's not a majority yet, but it's been slowly eating it's way into these sectors for the past couple decades. Similar "scores" are being silently enacted for such trivial things like returning merchandise to retail stores. Stores now share information and will outright reject returns if you are deemed to have done too many returns in the past at a totally unrelated business. Leave town with a $2 bank balance and forget to close the account out? Good luck getting a new bank account for the next 7 years with the "minimum account balance" fees drawing it into the negative regardless of fixing the oversight when notified. Same for chargebacks on your credit card - chargeback more than then the calculated long-term EV of your account and you will find the process all of a sudden becomes very difficult and your account is likely closed shortly thereafter. Same goes with Amazon - have a high value account that does $50k/yr in purchases? Returns are always granted no questions asked. Low value? You will start seeing pushback from customer service very quickly and account closure regardless of the validity or reasons for return. The above are all examples I've personally experienced or witnessed. Airline mileage programs that turned into revenue programs are likely where most of this ends up. Companies simply will stop servicing low EV customers altogether on an individual vs. the group basis as it's done now.
- taylortrusty 4y ago
  Honest question: what's wrong with any of these examples?
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago