Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IronyAndWhine t1_je5eh4m wrote

Reply to comment by KaiDaiz in Passing Good Cause Eviction would NOT make it harder for landlords to evict tenants for non-payment by [deleted]

There is technically no price cap in the Good Cause bill.

There is a cap on rent increases for market-rate units. This soft cap is at either 3% of the previous rent or one-and-a-half times the local rate of inflation. For example: currently, in New York City, the legislation would allow rent hikes up to just under 10% this year.

(Also note that this is not the same thing as rent stabilization; it creates a soft limit on most lease renewals, but landlords would still be able to, e.g., petition to raise rents beyond the inflation limit if they have substantial expenses on a given year.)

As for the "perpetual lease" claim: that's the point. Using a scarier term to describe it doesn't make it any different. Tenants should be able to continue to live in their home as long as they are in good standing per the lease agreement.

If landlords are going to be the barrier between people having and not having homes, the state should step in to ensure that as long as tenants are being good tenants, they should not be forced to leave their communities.

Anyway, my main point in making this post was because a lot of people on this subreddit were commenting on another thread yesterday about how Good Cause would make it impossible to evict tenants who don't pay rent; but that's not the case.

−7

KaiDaiz t1_je5evil wrote

how can you claim no price cap but then tells me there's a soft cap....hows that misinformation spreading

>"perpetual lease"

both parties knew at start and never agreeed....next time you sign up for internet service for a yr and want to switch at end of contract to some other provider but cant because provider been good standing with you and continues contract indefinitely...this is what you are doing. its absurd.

>Tenants should be able to continue to live in their home as long as they are in good standing per the lease agreement.

Nope you signed a 1 yr lease...you get 1 yr. Next time sign a 10 yr or longer and pay appropriately and screened for that term

7

filthysize t1_je5gfi0 wrote

>next time you sign up for internet service for a yr and want to switch at end of contract to some other provider but cant because provider been good standing with you and continues contract indefinitely

This metaphor is weird because you're reversing the subjects here. The landlord is the ISP. It's more like a bill preventing an ISP from terminating or throttling service to a customer who is in good standing.

7

KaiDaiz t1_je5gr8g wrote

works both ways. if subject finds a better deal elsewhere but cant switch due to good standing. end of the day, there is a contract length and it was met. Parties are free to continue not obligated

2

filthysize t1_je5jo2b wrote

>works both ways.

That is not how businesses or contracts work...

4

KaiDaiz t1_je5jvg0 wrote

and yet its fitting we sign a 1 yr contract and we are obligated to offer and continue beyond that length? How contract works again?

1

filthysize t1_je5q0ft wrote

The fact that you were confused by your own simple metaphor about a service provider and a customer says to me that you see landlords and tenants as interchangeable individuals with equal footing in a business relationship. But they are not, because like ISPs and their subscribers, it is not a level relationship that goes in both directions. It is someone running a business and selling it to the public, which tend to come with obligations and restrictions on what they can and cannot do because if affects the public at large. Reversing that makes no sense, which is why the way you used your metaphor resulted in an absurd scenario that is in no way anything like what this bill is doing.

4

OhMySultan t1_je5hngd wrote

Don’t bother with this dude, he’s all over this sub arguing in bad faith. He’s either a seedy landlord or loves defending them.

−4

KaiDaiz t1_je5hyug wrote

same for you ignoring your original contract. You now want the owner to be obligated to continue at cap priced increase indefinitely if you wish to despite the original term length discussed & agreeed

2

IronyAndWhine t1_je5k0lm wrote

A price cap and soft caps on increases are not the same thing at all.

Re "perpetual leases": it's worth noting that Landlords could still deny a lease renewal if they wanted to do something other than host a tenant at the same rate, like occupy a unit themselves or have a family member move in. The term "perpetual lease" does not respect the wording of the bill itself.

Otherwise, all that the current situation permits is for landlords to not renew a lease and increase the rent significantly: the effect of this Good Cause requirement necessitates that the term be extendable; the cap and extend-ability go hand-in-hand; you can't have one without the other.

If a landlord is merely not renewing a lease in order to kick the current tenant out (without good cause), then yes the tenant should 100% have the right to remain in their home.

All that the lease renewal requiring the landlord's consent does is permit them to hold the prospect of renewal over the tenant's heads, which forces tenants to bend over backwards to not bother the landlord. I've lived in terrible living conditions and not reported a critical and very real safety issue because the landlord threatened to not permit me to renew the lease if I kept insisting that they fixed it. That prospect is serious for renters, especially those who are least capable of moving with ease (disabled folks, undocumented folks, poor folks, etc.).

Internet service provision is very different, for a host of reasons, and implying otherwise is pretty disingenuous.

Look, on a more conceptual level: more people are tenants than they are landlords, so in a democratic society in which the government represents the popular will, laws should side with tenants when their rights are in direct opposition to the wishes of landlords.

3

KaiDaiz t1_je5kk8d wrote

the price cap I been referring is the cap on increases. it exist as we both agree just like in rent stabilized units but now making it apply for market units

>If a landlord is merely not renewing a lease in order to kick the current tenant out (without good cause), then yes the tenant should 100% have the right to remain in their home.

the good cause is the end of the term length on the agreed contract...and 100% right to remain at someone property who didn't agree to the extended length possibly that you be there forever? you don't own it. some else does that you agreed to live and vacate by end of the contract

>"perpetual lease" does not respect the wording of the bill itself.

and yet even you agree in practice it is and the point of the bill

8

IronyAndWhine t1_je5m10z wrote

Look, good luck to you, but I just genuinely think you're either trolling or a landlord so I'm done chatting. Cheers!

1

KaiDaiz t1_je5mbyw wrote

Am a LL and ultimately this bill wont impact me but I am noting the absurdity of it and its impact down road. Are we not in agreement we have a contract stating you leave at the end of term? Did you not agreed to that on signing? End of term is a good cause to end the agreement. That's the cruz what this bill violates. The agreed contract.

2

IronyAndWhine t1_je5qulb wrote

> Am a LL

Yeah, well I called that I guess. No working class person in their right mind goes out of their way to defend the privileges of landowners to lord over our ability to house ourselves.

It's bad enough having to pay you a third of my hard-earned income and deal with the prospect of not being able to renew my contract, or have the rent raised 50% in a year.

Let alone have you try to convince me of the righteousness of the current state of our class relations vis-à-vis the state — while you remain in the dominant position.

Maybe get a real job and stop leeching off of our hard work? Cheers.

3

KaiDaiz t1_je5rb05 wrote

> Maybe get a real job and stop leeching off of our hard work? Cheers.

dude I work a day job & side hustles and no LLing is not paying the bills and infact it's a net negative once I calculate all the expense & depreciation. I been a renter way longer been a LL. The real value why I do it not because it makes me money now but it enables me to be eligible for the mortgage to buy the place. Becoming a LL is often the only way one is qualified and able to buy a home in NYC if you don't come from money.

6

OhMySultan t1_je5gt67 wrote

The hell are you talking about man? Tenant isn’t obligated to sign on a lease renewal, they’re just entitled to receive one if they’re in good standing per the lease agreement.

You and a couple others in this sub have been spreading misinformation about Good Cause. Either you’re a shady ass landlord or you love covering for them. You were in another thread saying this will only increase housing discrimination, lmfao. Lack of regulation has never helped vulnerable people, but it’s clear which side you’re on.

1

KaiDaiz t1_je5h3gw wrote

> receive one if they’re in good standing per the lease agreement.

with price caps on the increase....missing that much again? essentially making market unit rent regulated with a perpetual lease

> You were in another thread saying this will only increase housing discrimination, lmfao.

oh it will def

7

grandzu t1_je5huc8 wrote

If you want a place to live forever, buy a place.

6

Darrackodrama t1_je5n3be wrote

Oh yea let me just drop 300k on a down payment and by something right quick

−2

tonka737 t1_je5ot06 wrote

Why would LLs want to lease you an apartment with the proposed bill? They might as well just sell them as condos.

6

Darrackodrama t1_je5pciz wrote

Good then that’ll flood the condo market and make tons of 150-300k 1 beds in Flatbush available. Either way landlords have too much power and this bill is desperately needed. If you like licking landlord boot just say so. But just know if you’re a renter they genuinely detest you deeply.

0

tonka737 t1_je5qjjy wrote

At the moment you are agreeing to borrow said space for X amount of time. The proposal seeks to extend existing contracts whether or not the lender agrees to lend said space. If you're saying that the lender has too much power in that dynamic then duh. They are the ones lending the property. If you're upset at the rates then blame the city for creating the situation.

IDC if they detest me. I know what the relationship is from the jump.

0

Darrackodrama t1_je6zral wrote

Lol the city’s inaction at curtailing landlord gouging ? The city is just as much to blame in a sense because they let greedy landlords charge whatever they want.

But let’s be real here landlords are getting greedier post Covid and it’s our problem now.

And your contractual rights are subject to regulations under current law because you’re putting the space on an open market and we can regulate for the public good which good cause is undoubtedly.

0