Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IronyAndWhine t1_je6d9qt wrote

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

I don't care about landlords' interests; they're doing fine.

−3

TakenForce t1_je6ej0n wrote

It's obvious what your interests are. I'm also explaining to everyone reading this thread why your title is incorrect propaganda.

5

Melodic-Upstairs7584 t1_je6opzz wrote

Why not just present the argument that way if that’s how you feel? The entire post could be deleted and replaced with: “Support good cause eviction because it helps tenants. We shouldn’t care about property owners.” Your original post reads like your claiming the regulation will have a neutral impact on property owners.

4

IronyAndWhine t1_je6qbx8 wrote

As I think I said in the initial post, many in this subreddit have insisted that passing Good Cause Eviction would make it harder for landlords to evict tenants for non-payment.

I am just trying to point out that this particular claim many pro-landlord people make is not true!

−1

williamwchuang t1_jeajxxe wrote

The downside to shitting on landlords is that they will make sure that shit rolls onto tenants. Limiting security deposits to one month, for instance, has forced tenants with bad credit histories into shittier housing stock where the landlords have no choice but to accept lower credit scores. Before, they could put up two or three months of security so the landlord would look past their credit scores. (If you're asking why someone would have a shitty credit score but three months of security deposits, the answer is generally undocumented persons or persons working under the table.)

Making it harder to evict non-paying tenants will only exacerbate the effect. With only one month of security deposit and a one-year minimum for evictions, landlords will require stricter credit scores and income qualifications.

1