You're viewing a single thread.
I have to agree with those others who suggest that banning landlords is not the way to go.
However, the power dynamics should be significantly shifted. And if those shifts mean some landlords decide to exit the market? So be it.
- Tenants should not be able to be evicted for any reason other than: damaging the property, being significantly (maybe 6 months?) behind on rent, the owner or an immediate family member wants to move in, significant renovations are needed (with strong enforcement to ensure these last two are actually done, and not used as a fake excuse). No ability to use evictions as a reprisal for complaining about the conditions.
- Tenants should be entitled to treat the place basically as their own. That means any minor reversible modification should be permitted, including painting and hanging up photos.
- No restrictions on pets other than those which would normally come with local ordinances and animal welfare laws.
- Rental inspections every 3 months is absurd. Maybe the first after 3 months, then 6 months, then annually after that at best.
- Strict rules about landlords being required to maintain the property to a comfortable condition. Harsh penalties if they fail to do so, as well as the ability for the tenant to get the work done themselves and make the landlord pay for it, if the landlord does not get it done in a reasonable time.
And tangentially, to prevent property owners just leaving their homes without a long-term tenant: significantly increased rates/taxes for homes that are unoccupied long-term, or which are used for short-term accommodation (e.g. Airbnb). Additionally, state-owned housing with highly affordable pricing should make up a substantial portion of the market, on the order of 30%. This provides a pretty hard floor below which privately-owned housing cannot fall, because people should be reasonably able to say "this place isn't good enough, I'll move".
If a property owner is willing to deal with the fact that a home's first and foremost purpose should be to provide a safe and secure place for a person to live, then I have no problem with them profiting.
the owner or an immediate family member wants to move in
Abso-fucking-lutely not. A lease is a contract. You don’t get to shove someone out into being homeless because Cousin Lou needs a place to stay. Either rent/sell the property, or keep it for personal use. Not both.
Where i live if the owner needs the space for immediate family use, they must give three months written notice to the tenant.
Additionally the property cannot be legally rented again for three months after the tenant has moved out.
Oh, and the tenant doesn't have to pay rent for the last of those three months. And if they move out before the end of the three months, the landlord must pay the tenant an amount equalling the rent. So if you move out after 1.5months from the notice, the landlord must pay you 1.5 months rent.
And our tenancy board, usually finds in favor of the tenants in disputes.
Where I live, there are two types of leases. Periodic and fixed-term. Fixed-term is where you sign a lease saying you can stay for 6 months or 12 months. Theoretically longer, but those are the normal lengths. Periodic leases are indefinite, but can be broken with some notice.
That term would not be available in the middle of fixed-term leases, only on periodic. Where I live, our state government passed laws preventing "no grounds evictions", but they allowed a number of exceptions for what counts as "grounds", and one of those causes is "end of fixed-term lease". The main difference between my current state laws and the proposal above is to specifically outlaw that grounds. In fact, what's commonplace right now where I live is that you get your 6 month lease, and at the same time you get a "notice to vacate" (an eviction notice, effectively) dated 6 months from now. And if, after 4-ish months, both you and the landlord want you to stay, they cancel the notice to vacate and get you a new lease to sign. My main intent here is to outlaw this practice.
I think allowing this use in some form is important because I've seen cases where it comes up. People move elsewhere for a period of time that's long enough that it would be a bad idea (both for their personal finances and for supply of housing) to leave it empty, but not long enough that they want to sell. Think 2–5 years or so. I want to make sure that these people are as strongly incentivised to rent out their place as possible, which means removing obstacles such as "you might not be able to move back in once you return if you do rent it".
(Also, cousins are not immediate family members.)
Ok, that makes more sense. Periodic I think would be the same as what I’ve heard called “month-to-month,” which does make sense to be a more tentative arrangement. I gotcha now.
Yeah month-to-month is another name for the same thing. Generally, you fall back onto a periodic lease if your fixed-term lease expires and you aren't given another fixed-term lease to sign. With our current laws where I am, a period lease is actually incredibly secure, thanks to the relatively recent "no grounds evictions" ban. The two types of leases have the same "grounds" apply to each, except that "end of fixed-term lease" is one which obviously doesn't apply to a periodic lease. So the current situation is that you get that immediate day-one "notice to vacate" because landlords desperately want to avoid you ending up on a periodic lease where you're better protected.
My changes were basically "hey, fixed-term leases shouldn't be less secure than periodic leases are".
While I hate the current state of affairs around housing, some people do lose the plot and forget that some people prefer/need to rent and that rent cant just be the mortgage payment because they're on the hook for repairs, not you.
Landlords aren't inherently the problem, they're a symptom of ALL property owners completely shutting down new development for over 50 years.
I agree with these ideas but we also need to fund development of new housing, and if anyone wants to complain instead of shutting it down extend an offer to buy their house so they can leave.
we also need to fund development of new housing
Hells yeah. That's why one of the ideas above was that the government should be a significant force in housing. Part of that might be buying up existing homes, but a lot would be funding the construction of new homes.
I didn't mention it above because while related, I considered it out of scope for that comment. But I'm also a fierce advocate for abolishing low-density zoning entirely. What my city calls "LMR" (low-medium residential) should be the bare minimum zone for residential areas. That still permits single-family separated homes to be built, but it also automatically permits 2–3 storey townhouses and apartments. Plus zoning areas near (say, within a 400 m walk of) train stations for medium-density residential. (All mixed-use, of course.)
But this isn't !fuckcars@lemmy.world or !notjustbikes@feddit.nl, so I'll leave it at that for now.
We also need to look at how mortgage applications are handled. Like if you can pay 3k a month in rent for 2 years (not saying 2 years should be the requirement, just that if you happen to have that history) and can prove it, you should qualify for a mortgage that costs 3k a month.
The idea that affording $3k also means you can afford a $3k mortgage falls under what I'm saying about people swinging too far in the other direction - affording $3k in rent =/= affording a $3k mortgage plus taxes/insurance plus upkeep etc etc.
That being said our credit system is 100% busted. Engaging in predatory lending to build a credit score should not be the only way to "prove" financial fitness. Just because I pay my credit cards off every month doesn't mean I don't still waste like $300/mo on doordash 🤣
Agree with everything but HARD disagree with #3. Pets are not a right and so many people are HORRIBLE pet owners. And when people are bad pet owners the damage they can do it unreal, like ripping the house down to the studs type of damage. Also anything that prevents people from being bad pet owners is a win in my book. That addition to the law would be AWFUL for animal welfare and it's just not needed.
like ripping the house down to the studs
If the damage they are causing is more than superficial, that would be covered under "damaging the property" (in #1).
The point of #3 is that it shouldn't be the landlord's business how someone lives their life. Their only role is the fact that they own a house. If it's bad for the animal's welfare, that's the State's job to deal with, not someone purely with a profit motive.
When you write legislation you must look at the consequences of that legislation, not just the principals of the legislation. Otherwise you end up with horrible unintended side effects.
With your rules on not allowing access for inspection an animal could have an entire year to do damage before the owner could discover it. And then what? They make a claim against their insurance? Who will then try and go after the renter who probably doesn't have the assets to pay for the damage. As a result insurance policies will increase and that cost will get passed onto innocent renters who are paying for the crappy pet owners.
Also what do you think the enforcement mechanism for this is for "The State"? How are they going to be able to look into the living conditions of these animals? There is no good way to enforce that and it will just end up with thousands and thousands of animals being neglected. You can't just ignore the issues legislation will cause because you only care about principles. That's just ignorant and neglectful.
It's also not unreasonable for apartment buildings to ban larger pets that would be cruel to keep in a small apartment.