[removed]
Comments
IronyAndWhine t1_je5eh4m wrote
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.
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
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.
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
filthysize t1_je5jo2b wrote
>works both ways.
That is not how businesses or contracts work...
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
[deleted] OP t1_je5n2w1 wrote
[deleted]
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.
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
grandzu t1_je5huc8 wrote
If you want a place to live forever, buy a place.
[deleted] OP t1_je5jplr wrote
[deleted]
Darrackodrama t1_je5n3be wrote
Oh yea let me just drop 300k on a down payment and by something right quick
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.
Metapod_Used_Hardon t1_je5qi87 wrote
Great, flood the market. Lower housing prices.
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.
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.
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.
IronyAndWhine t1_je5lek5 wrote
"Why don't homeless people just buy a house?"
Oh I should have thought of that! Nevermind I take it all back. /s
NetQuarterLatte t1_je5hfl4 wrote
Some predatory deep-pocketed landlords love this bill, because it will allow them to gobble up more properties from smaller landlords.
___Waves__ t1_je5sea7 wrote
> it will allow them to gobble up more properties from smaller landlords.
How exactly?
IronyAndWhine t1_je6ewkp wrote
Then why are the biggest landlords' lobbies pouring so much money into preventing Good Cause from passing?
TakenForce t1_je692fb wrote
Let me explain to you why you are incorrect.
Many LLs are using holdover eviction (no cause) proceedings to evict nonpaying tenants because evicting a tenant for nonpayment is a big shit show in today's courts.
The proceedings for a non-payment eviction will stop if the tenant files for an ERAP (which may take several months to a year to process and for you to get payment). At the point you receive the money from ERAP, you would already be another 6 months down the hole and have a tenant still squatting on your property. In addition, accepting ERAP payments means you are not allowed to evict a tenant for ANOTHER YEAR. All of which, the government is essentially giving these squatters 18+ months of rent free living at YOUR expense.
Landlords will be more receptive of a good-cause eviction bill if NYS does something to make the process for evicting non-payments go faster. Currently, the pro-tenant laws in NY make LL absorb the cost of no rent for 1+ year and lawmakers are trying to make it even worse.
IronyAndWhine t1_je6d9qt wrote
I don't care about landlords' interests; they're doing fine.
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.
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.
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!
[deleted] OP t1_je6e75d wrote
[removed]
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.
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.
Shenanigans_forever t1_je6ogi9 wrote
So you need to separate two parts of the law. One is the inability to evict somebody without reason and a long legal fight. The other is price controls on rent.
I am not an economist, but it is pretty easy to see how price controls lower the incentive to create more rental units and could lead to making it uneconomic for landlords to maintain their property. Long term, this is terrible for both new renters and existing renters.
In the short term, it is boon to existing tenants and terrible for new tenants. Because the landlord is entering into a perpetual lease and it is harder to evict people, the bar to clear to get a place and the cost will go up. This is basic risk pricing. The risk of a perpetual lease is higher than a 1 to 2 year lease and that risk will be priced by the market.
Existing tenants should love it in the short term. You just got a perpetual lease renewal right and a price cap for free.
IronyAndWhine t1_je6proh wrote
I agree that price controls on rent need to be coupled with state-backed building construction projects and other policies directed at increasing gross unit supply. These are also major interests of the tenants rights groups pushing for this legislation, and it is also of course opposed by landlord lobbies — and therefore tricky to get political pressure behind, like Good Cause.
While it may be true that "the risk of a perpetual lease is higher than a 1 to 2 year lease," universal regulations like this will not materialize the kind of long-term harms to tenants that you're imagining. Landlords will continue to rent out the units they own given the choice between "perpetual leases" (I do not like this term) and no tenant at all. Because all landlords universally would face this minor increase in risk, competition in the market should maintain prices at there current levels.
Shenanigans_forever t1_je6vl68 wrote
From the landlord perspective it is perpetual. The tenant has an unbound by time option to renew at a cost controlled by the state and the landlord has to accept.
KaiDaiz t1_je6wx99 wrote
Its also the legal term. OP might not like it but it is what it is. Also OP gloss over that the LL will continue to rent or else have no tenant at all while ignoring the LL will now price future rents with a perpetual tenant risk hence higher prices and scrutiny for the next renter who don't have any price cap increase protection until the renew. OR the very real possibility, the units now taken off market
IronyAndWhine t1_je6wrrt wrote
Yes exactly, I don't like the term for two reasons, but the main one is that it is only perpetual for the landlord.
It is also technically not perpetual for even the landlord though because if, for example, a small landlord wanted to start living in the unit they are renting, or wants to house their parent/sibling/child in the unit, the tenant does not have occupancy rights over those granted by the landlord.
Shenanigans_forever t1_je6zu8x wrote
I mean that is a subset of the housing stock in NYC but not really relevant on average. This is a perpetual contract, just only one side really has power to break it.
In practice, this law is giving one side of a contract, the rentor, perpetual rights over somebody else's property and setting price controls to boot, and the other side of a contract, the landlord, no consideration at all. This does not end well at all.
And this isn't really an academic point. It's not hard to see the difference in quality of rent stabilized places vs market rate places on average. A decade plus in NYC makes that one abundantly clear. Now add in less incentive to be a landlord and build additional rental stock, less tax benefits to go along with rent controlled prices, and much more risk. This is an absolute disaster in the making
IronyAndWhine t1_je70obv wrote
> This does not end well at all.
It ends well for working class people who rent.
> rent stabilized places vs market rate places
Are you sure you live here? Everyone of my friends and colleagues have applied for rent stabilized units, often weekly, trying to be one of the lucky few selected by competitive lottery who gets to live in rent-stable housing.
There are obvious problems with the management and funding of rent-stable units, but those problems are solvable vis-a-vis broader policy in the works from tenants rights organization and others. I don't know anyone who would turn down the chance to live in one.
Shenanigans_forever t1_je72nvd wrote
I've lived in NYC since 2005 and have lived in multiple stabilized units and unstabilized units. There was no lottery, it was like finding a normal unit but you signed a stabilized lease. Not sure what the hell you are talking about. I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that the stabilized units were shit holes compared to the other units and that buildings with stabilized tenants were run far worse. Things were not fixed, you had to fight about heat, et cetera. The current proposed law would turn the entire housing stock into this.
As I mentioned above, it is great for existing tenants in the short term, bad in the long term, and a disaster for new tenants and landlords.
ChrisFromLongIsland t1_je5qtwv wrote
Add this to the list of reasons I will never ever lease out my apartment. I give someone a 1 year lease because I don't need the space for a year. Now I have to make sure that if I want it back for my own personal use woops I now have a tenant for life. At the very least I have to hire a lawyer goto housing court and prove my reason is OK.
Once this law passes the next thing will of course be back door rent control. The legislature will invent some reason at some point to make a hard cap. Whether it be fairness, the market rates are unaffordable who knows but once they have a soft cap it will be a hard cap soon enough. I would bet a lot of money on that.
IronyAndWhine t1_je5sdvk wrote
Your objection is 100% premised on a misunderstanding of the bill, which is why I made this post.
People renting out their properties would still be able to deny lease renewals if they wanted to do something other than host a tenant — such as occupy the unit themselves, or have a family member move in.
KaiDaiz t1_je5wrkw wrote
Maybe you not reading either
> At the very least I have to hire a lawyer goto housing court and prove my reason is OK.
Its more hoops to jump to reclaim property after previously agreed upon lengths. You think OP goes to tenants I want to reclaim for own use and they going to 100% agree on the spot or wait it out after they get a court order ordering them? Or tenant request a payout to move or wait till court order from your legal property?
IronyAndWhine t1_je625l1 wrote
Look stop responding to me in this thread mate. As I've said a couple times, I'm not interested in talking with a landlord about this; just trying to inform tenants.
I know you're against the bill, but I'm not going to change your mind because you wish to maintain the interests of the land-owning class; and you're not going to change mine because I want to advance those of working people.
This is a class issue and you're on the other side of the fence.
KaiDaiz t1_je62knn wrote
yawn....I was a tenant longer than a LL. Also I merely pointing out the absurdity how this bill violates the original contract and the unforeseen consequences that will happen when bill pass. There will be losers but sure some LLs but especially future tenants.
IronyAndWhine t1_je63sf2 wrote
This bill does not "violate the original contract" like it's some eternal binding entity imbued with divine power; it modifies the nature of the legal obligations under landlord-tenants contracts.
If Good Cause were so bad for tenants like you claim, then why are all grassroots tenant's rights organizations/ tenant associations supportive of the bill and all landlord lobbying organizations opposed to it?
This can't be any clearer, and gaslighting tenants from the perspective of being an owner into advocating against their interests is quite the disgusting tactic mate.
KaiDaiz t1_je64zsc wrote
>This bill does not "violate the original contract"
Did the original contract had a end date? yes or no. does this bill change that and force one party to perpetually renew if requested and eligible? yes so a change in original contract.
> If Good Cause were so bad for tenants like you claim
bc they view it in the short term and can't see long term. Evebn you cant see it right now
Just like tenant advocates say the 2019 rent reforms were good and ignore the predictions of others that it will simply lead to more vacant units bc the renos wont support the legal rent. Tenant advocates at the time say it wont happen nor huge impact. Guess what it did occur. Where's those tenant advocate that deny this?
IronyAndWhine t1_je6588e wrote
Odd thing to do to spend your time on Reddit advocating for those with economic power to maintain it, but that's what Landlords do with all their time not working I guess.
KaiDaiz t1_je67r02 wrote
I have plenty of free time during day job. Currently compiling. Feel free to ignore my predictions of what will happen. Just like in 2019
ChrisFromLongIsland t1_je7ak7y wrote
The best point is to look at all predictions for the 2018 law. Many of them came true. Landlords are pulling units off the market because they can't afford to renovate. Small landlords are getting crushed and are starting to lose their houses.
[deleted] OP t1_je63rfw wrote
[removed]
[deleted] OP t1_je642fc wrote
[removed]
collegedropoutclub t1_je6snd4 wrote
Rule 11.
Imagine if all 704,446 people here used this sub as their facebook wall.
KaiDaiz t1_je5cmof wrote
Ya you also ignoring the price cap and perpetual lease. The market unit owner and tenant signed lease for finite time, it ended but somehow they deserve perpetual lease at cap prices. If owner knew that was the case from start, the price and screening would have been different.
Owners are simply asking to honor the contract length..,.which this bill ignores and violate. Its not eviction if the lease is up aka the good reason...gasp since you agreed to it the first place but now twisting as if not a good reason
Honestly its dolts like you who can't see the entire forest and why this bill will be terrible for future renters. This bill if pass will backfire terribly