Submitted by boston4923 t3_11edmp5 in boston
SkiingAway t1_jadpfjb wrote
Reply to comment by Opposite_Match5303 in Don’t drag Boston backward with rent control - The Boston Globe by boston4923
Policies like these generally require cause for an eviction or for you to be removing the unit from the market entirely long term (such as moving into it, converting it to a condo and selling it, etc).
Otherwise, the existing tenant is allowed to renew their lease forever as long as they can pay the rent w/the yearly increases.
Which is to say - you can't evict or otherwise force out the current tenant just to go get a new one at a higher rent or one you like better.
Note that you have identified one of the other aspects - landlords may get more selective about tenants (legally or not) when they have fewer tools to get rid of annoying ones.
Opposite_Match5303 t1_jadq3c2 wrote
Not true. https://www.tenantresourcecenter.org/nonrenewal_reasons
"Generally (with a few notable exceptions, below), landlords and tenants do not have to give a reason for choosing not to renew a lease."
mshelikoff t1_jadrd9m wrote
A notable exception is what we're discussing for the future in Boston.
> The petition would also provide new tenant protections, including certain provisions protecting tenants from no fault evictions, which landlords have commonly used to clear out buildings for higher-paying renters.
Opposite_Match5303 t1_jadsuih wrote
Interesting, but I don't think failure to renew is a no-fault eviction: as I linked above, no notice to quit is needed in the case of failure to renew.
mshelikoff t1_jadttsq wrote
I'm not sure what you're writing. Tenant protections require that tenants be protected.
My guess is that it would be the case that landlords would not be forced to sign a new lease. But without the option to legally evict under the new tenant protections, the tenancy would become a tenancy-at-will and continue that way until a fault is found. Still, I'm not a lawyer or a professional housing advocate, and I haven't read the proposal yet. That's just a guess based on what the law is now.
Opposite_Match5303 t1_jadue5g wrote
I just don't see any evidence that that is the case: I see that a landlord accepting a rent payment after the lease ends converts the tenancy to at-will (and then protection from no-fault eviction applies), but nothing that suggests that that happens automatically and without the consent of the landlord.
Opposite_Match5303 t1_jadvl0y wrote
I don't understand why the law here is so esoteric and it's impossible to find clear answers to simple questions (to be clear, not at all the fault of the other commentors engaging on these threads).
mshelikoff t1_jadwikj wrote
> I just don't see any evidence that that is the case
It's not the case now. It is currently the case for section 8 housing.
As for the proposal, here it is. Just cause protections are in Section 3.
Opposite_Match5303 t1_jady4yb wrote
Yup, 3e says this explicitly. Cool!
mshelikoff t1_jadz73v wrote
> ...a written extension or renewal thereof or lease for a further term of like duration...
Looks like my guess that the landlord had the option to force a tenancy-at-will was wrong.
SkiingAway t1_jadyetq wrote
You've linked a site that is tenant resources for Wisconsin.
Wisconsin does not have rent control or rent stabilization (to my knowledge), and is completely inapplicable to the discussion at hand.
Unlike Wisconsin, Oregon does have laws regarding rent stabilization and passed rules about lease renewals as part of that.
In short, if you've lived somewhere for 12 months or more, your landlord can't choose to non-renew your lease + can't evict you unless they can show repeated lease violations, the unit is being demolished, extensive renovations, the landlord is moving into the unit, or they've sold it to someone who is going to move in.
Otherwise, your LL can give you a 7% + inflation rent hike per year, but they can't get rid of you.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments