spoil_of_the_cities t1_je5nlh4 wrote
I would like the right to pay for a 1 or 2 year lease rather than pay more for a perpetual one
IronyAndWhine t1_je5rdpu wrote
If you're a tenant, you stand only to gain from this bill.
There's a reason landlords are in such vehement and deep-coffered opposition to this bill: it stands to benefit tenants.
Tenants are not forced to stay longer than they wish under Good Cause legislation, nor are landlords forced to rent it out; it just permits tenants to renew their lease every year or two regardless of the whims of their landlord (unless they are a bad tenant). The term "perpetual lease" is not appropriate to describe the changes promised under the wording of the bill.
phoenixmatrix t1_je620en wrote
>If you're a tenant, you stand only to gain from this bill.
Nope. Not even close. Mentioned in the other thread, but the issue is that a bill like this makes it that evictions or eviction like procedures become the only way to get rid of a nuisance tenant (the "good cause"). Evicting someone for nuisance is extremely difficult. Right now a landlord can just wait out the lease and then kick them out. With a good cause requirement, they now have to go through hoops and prove it. Things like nuisance dogs, people smoking in non-smoking buildings, tenants harassing other tenants, etc. All those go from "until the lease expires" to "until the landlord decides to go through the court", essentially.
In an environment where quality of life is eroding everywhere and every day, adding another one isn't on my wish list. You already have the issue that landlords can't evict for non-payment of penalty fees (eg: penalties for smoking), so their only teeth is eviction and non-renewal of leases. Moving that to just eviction isn't a win. Nope nope nope.
You're going to skyrocket the amount of NIMBY sentiment, which in turns make it harder to build for density and increase price of single family housing, which then increase the housing problem.
I've live in countries where QoL issues were taken seriously and easier to address. NIMBY sentiment is waaaaaaay down when people don't have to be afraid of their neighbors.
IronyAndWhine t1_je62wr9 wrote
If tenants stand to lose so much, why are landlord lobbies spending so much money on getting this bill stopped?
phoenixmatrix t1_je63dvg wrote
Because its possible for something to be bad from multiple angles. Shocking, I know.
Did you know tenants aren't a single homogenous group, too?
IronyAndWhine t1_je646kt wrote
Grassroots tenants rights organizations and tenants unions — who advocate for the betterment of their housing conditions — are very supportive of the bill; landlord lobbies are very against this bill.
It could not be clearer.
I don't know what you mean by "for something to be bad from multiple angles," nor do I think that tenants are a homogeneous group; but they do represent a particular cluster of interests that are realized in the aspirations of these tenants organizations, who have fought hard to get Good Cause to even become a bill.
phoenixmatrix t1_je659ho wrote
> It could not be clearer
It couldn't be any clearer that all the reasons to get someone out of a unit that doesn't have to do with economics (and the challenges of doing so) are basically ignored.
> I don't know what you mean by "for something to be bad from multiple angles,"
I'm saying it absolutely would hurt landlords (increasing their cost), which I'm totally fine with. But it would also hurt the quality of life of a portion of good tenants. Because BOTH landlords -and- tenants hate dealing with problematic people. And a bill like this absolutely make it harder to deal with them.
Higher QoL standards and enforcement of QoL rules = less NIMBYism = more supply.
More supply (while retaining QoL) is good for tenants and bad for landlords. This bill is just a shortsighted stopgap patch.
IronyAndWhine t1_je65qfg wrote
Anyone who is a bad tenant and violates their lease terms is not covered by Good Cause eviction at all. This bill would not increase the burden on tenants vis-à-vis their neighbors.
I agree this bill is insufficient to meet the demands of the housing crisis but let's not let let perfect be the enemy of good here.
phoenixmatrix t1_je683lq wrote
>This bill would not increase the burden on tenants vis-à-vis their neighbors.
Yes it would, because we live in the real world, and I explained the reason in the first post. If a tenant is a nuisance, and there's a good cause requirement and they fight it, the landlord (and neighbors) have to prove it in a court of law, whereas right now you can just let the lease expire. That makes the burden exponentially higher.
For example right now if someone smoke in a non-smoking building, its INCREDIBLY difficult to evict them for it unless they straight up admit to it. Even if they do admit to it, they can just go in front of the judge, say "Yeah we stopped yesterday and will never smoke again" (even if its bullshit), and the judge will throw away the case until the landlord has proofs, and it's not like they're allowed to stick cameras in the unit. Basically what goes from "until the lease is done" becomes "until full blown eviction proceedings of the most difficult kind can go through".
That ABSOLUTELY increase the burden of tenants vs their neighbors. Having been in such a situation (as a tenant, not a landlord. Also once as part of a condo association vs someone's tenant) and having had to move mid lease several times in just a few years because of this bullshit, I've got hit first hand. Its not fun.
We live in a world where there's a very complex legal system. Laws exist inside that system, so its important to consider how they impact that system in practice, not just on paper.
IronyAndWhine t1_je6bf2g wrote
OK sure, I'll yield that it might increase the burden of landlords trying to get rid of tenants who are pretty-bad-but-not-clearly-violating-their-lease-bad. Ultimately I don't care about increasing the burden on landlords, but I acknowledge that this can have downstream effects on tenants as well.
But I have to weigh that against the fact that in my tenants union, I know multiple moms whose children would have homes if Good Cause were in place. And even with multiple children, they spend their precious time to show up at meetings and advocate for this legislation.
I think you're prioritizing strictly what's important to you based upon your experience, material comfort, and class position; and this ultimately constitutes a serious lapse of moral judgment. Maybe that's worth thinking about?
And I don't appreciate the "we live in a real world," patronizing rhetoric. Cheers.
KaiDaiz t1_je6cv58 wrote
> I know multiple moms whose children would have homes if Good Cause were in place.
Not really. Increased discrimination for them under this bill. New tenants with families are more likely to stay longer under this perpetual lease plan. So best to not rent to them and target single folks and couples where the space is too small for them to grow. Again faster turn over, faster to reset to market rent. This is what this bill incentivize as a counter and future outcome
IronyAndWhine t1_je6dl6q wrote
Stop replying to me, landlord.
These mothers and their kids would have homes if it weren't for people like you advocating against tenants protections.
No amount of gaslighting is going to convince me that they don't know what's in their interests.
phoenixmatrix t1_je6ft3j wrote
>I think you're prioritizing strictly what's important to you
> No amount of gaslighting is going to convince me that they don't know what's in their interests.
In the end you're a bleeding heart who only considers a subset of people you personally care about, and fuck everyone else.
> material comfort
And many physical and mental health issues people like you don't care for.
Ultimately, you started the argument with (paraphrasing, dramatization) "Lol, it makes landlords squirm so obviously its good for ALL TENANTS!". I wonder who's the one who has things that are "worth thinking about".
IronyAndWhine t1_je6ib54 wrote
The only subset of people I care about are the working people, who deserve the world!
phoenixmatrix t1_je6k2yv wrote
Well, apparently a big chunk of "working people" don't deserve that much. Or did you think you were talking to a big rich investor in this thread?
Well I guess since I was hit by the mass layoffs Im technically not working right now, so I suppose your logic checks out. Nvm.
IronyAndWhine t1_je6mlgg wrote
I don't know why you're being so incredibly hostile (you seem to think something I said was ableist?), but I wish you the best and I'm sorry to here you were hit by the layoffs!
There should be additional protections in place to ensure that tenants who get laid off can continue to live in their homes, free of the worry to make rent.
Edit: By the way, the term "working people" generally refers to the class and its participants, not just those who work traditional jobs, but also those who happen to be unemployed, unable to work, etc.
spoil_of_the_cities t1_je5xrkb wrote
A lease that can be renewed perpetually is more valuable than a lease that doesn't come with that benefit. If I were to move under this law, I will have to pay that extra
IronyAndWhine t1_je62au1 wrote
Even if this were the case, the bill also caps rent increases relative to inflation.
KaiDaiz t1_je690mc wrote
>Even if this were the case, the bill also caps rent increases relative to inflation.
Only for the holdover tenant that has the perpetual lease. The new one has no such protection at start. Its back to market rate and then they get protection if they choose to stay. So again, it will have impact on the turn over rate and turn over is actually good in an housing environment when we don't have enough units.
See how its beneficial to not have a long term tenant under this bill from LL view
IronyAndWhine t1_je6cvbb wrote
The presence of the perpetual lease will drive down costs relative to the value of any purported increase. Yes, it will probably decrease turnover; no, I don't think — nor do the many hundreds of tenant's rights organizations in NYC think — that this will ultimately hurt tenants. Your advocates in the landlord lobbies, however, seem to also think this bill will really help tenants.
I'm not interested in chatting anymore with you, please stop replying to my comments here mate.
For context, this person is a landlord who like to show up on threads like this to advocate against tenant protection policy. Seems a bit strange to me. 🤷♂️
tonka737 t1_je5st9t wrote
It only stands to benefit existing contracts. Similar to when Unions sellout future worker benefits in exchange for boosting existing worker benefits.
IronyAndWhine t1_je5swpi wrote
In what way would this not benefit new tenants?
[deleted] OP t1_je5wach wrote
[deleted]
KaiDaiz t1_je5u14t wrote
New tenants will face higher scrutiny on their application, more discriminations especially families, units be smaller and less available units since turn over will drop dramatically bc the old tenant not leaving past their original contract term. You are lowering the turn over but still not building enough units hence screwed inventory. Not to mention owners will start to pull units from market to avoid bill to rent only word of mouth. Plus no will will want to rent to someone who may be a potential long term tenant bc the faster that person move out, faster owner can return to market and raise rent price since price increase cap don't apply. So nil incentive to have long term tenants or large units bc they outgrow faster in smaller units nor non near perfect candidates under this bill.
You know the entire forest you not seeing...
IronyAndWhine t1_je6190d wrote
> units be smaller and less available units since turn over will drop
You're just listing off a bunch of things tenants wouldn't like with no supporting information whatsoever.
Like how would good cause eviction decrease the size of apartments???
And why on earth would it cause fewer units to be available? Turnover does not mean that new units magically become available.
Edit: I just realized that you're the landlord I was talking to earlier. I'm not interested in chatting with you more here, just trying to inform tenants that this bill is in their interest. Cheers!
KaiDaiz t1_je61u5w wrote
>Like how would good cause eviction decrease the size of apartments???
New rental construction will simply be smaller to avoid long term tenants. Existing may be chop up. The faster you outgrow the unit, faster you move out. Faster move out ,higher the rent increase under this bill It's the same how new rental constructions and renos come with all electrical. The owners don't have to pay for any of those utility expenses since it can be separately metered. Saving them money. You don't think they want units configured in a way that will save them and generate more money
Yes turn over does mean unit is available for rent. It's the definition.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments