It depends on what your lease says. Does your lease prohibit your landlord from putting up political signs on the property?

Destroy it

This is probably illegal.

Put another sign directly in front of it.

Our leases do not mention sign, for or against.

Yup

Did you know a phallus drawn on a standard white poster board with a thick Sharpie can be seen clearly from 100 yards away? Do what you will with that knowledge.

You lease space in the building and don’t own the property the building sits on. The owner is entitled to put a sign on his own property unless the lease says otherwise.

yeah you can go outside at night and walk around the corner and put on a mask and a hoodie and then go back and fucking throw the sign away. have you tried emailing the landlord and saying something like you dont appreciate having political signage in front of your building because it looks like its YOUR sign?

Well, phalluses have solved every problem I've ever encountered.

So the answer is no.

Nothing like a criminal record to show them!

Phalluses are often a simple, but elegant option for protesting

You could make the argument that to the extent the lease allows the landlord to force expression on you, the lease is unconscionable or against public policy (especially without allowing you to put your own political signage out there).

(Not legal advice)

egg your landlord's house

I would imagine that depends on the terms of your lease. Does your lease specify that you have occupancy of the entire property, including outdoor spaces? You might make a case if you have responsibilities for upkeep of the properties exterior (lawn care, snow removal, etc…), that signage is under that jurisdiction, but that’s probably still a pretty big stretch. At the end of the day, the owner of the property is going to have the ultimate jurisdiction over what is or isn’t permissible. My advice, and keep in mind this is not legal advice, I’m not a legal practitioner, is to not start a fight with the properties owner. My understanding is that at the conclusion of your current lease, the owner can decline to renew/discontinue/ terminate (not sure of the actual legal term) your lease “without cause”, meaning they would not need any reason other than “I don’t want to” to not renew your lease.

If you want ideas Mao had some

You can post your own sign stating your own views. Most properties have a 3 foot easement by the road. You could put it there if not put it in your window. Get the other residents to do the same.

This argument would not hold up. Common spaces are very specific in not allowing tenants to place their own property over that of the landlord or other tenants. Tenants hold the rights inside the unit.

This is the proper action to take that fits in the legal rights of the tenants.

You can cause a scene and not have your lease renewed.

Shitty answer but is the sign worth possible retaliation at this point.

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer.

erect a guillotine in their front yard, that should send a message to them.

I really wish we could give up the old term landlords and call them land hoarders.

Edit: look at the down votes defending English feudalism in New England lol

You’re right- hoarders is too vague; Parasites is far more accurate

You could always accidentally trip over the sign and accidentally kick it into a dumpster... by accident.

Reddit gonna Reddit.

One sign should say "the landlord opposes, the tenants support - this should tell you something"

For thousands of years! There's phallus graffiti on the sphinx from Roman soldiers

Wait till night fall and take it. Pretty simple solution and you most likely won't get caught.

Depends on the terms of the lease. Do you have lease of the premises, including the yard? Read the terms carefully.

That said, is this worth picking a fight over and not having your lease renewed?

Is it illegal for the landlord to do that? No. Asshole move? Yes.

I mean, I get what you are saying, but at the same time the tenant and landlord dynamic is always going to have tension and opposing views.

I'm not sure what eviction measure OP is talking about, but there could be good reason to oppose or to agree. "Landlord doesn't support tenants" doesn't really tell me anything, because they could be a great landlord and the bill could be taking away the ability to remove dangerous or damaging tenants.

I'm biased, due to being a landlord, but I tend to favor tenants rights. I dislike what landlording has become in many regards. However, there are many scenarios where eviction is the right course of action for the landlord, property, and other tenants. That's of course to say, landlords can abuse the eviction process as well.

It's a fucking sign. It can't hurt you.

All of us are on month to month leases as the landlord has declined to renew longer terms after our initial 1 year leases.

>All of us are on month to month leases as the landlord has declined to renew longer terms after our initial 1 year leases.

All of us are on month to month leases as the landlord has declined to renew longer terms after our initial 1 year leases.

When nobody is looking make the sign become unalive.

True, but the renters next door have already asked us why we put it up. We are getting the blame.

Get a different landlord, because they are ready to evict you. Otherwise, you live in their property, they can do with it as they please. First amendment is for everyone, even when you don't agree with what they're saying.

Lmao you’re such a sissy it’s unreal. Definition of cuck, you are the skin that America walks on. “Me no like sign, I don’t own the property the sign sits on. Wahhhhhh what can I do”.

I’m assuming you mean you don’t have a written lease agreement anymore after that first year?

It can't hurt them either, seems like you already cleared it up with them. I hate signs anyways, why do I have to know the political preferences of everyone in the town? They are huge eyesores IMO.

I agree. Eviction is sometimes the necessary remedy.

But I think tenants should have immediate and very real legal recourses for landlords who don't maintain properties to 100% habitable conditions, maintaining the entire property at code.

Tenants should not be forced to bear the risk of a landlords negligence. Ever. For even a moment. Not with shit railings. Not with crumbling steps. Not with loose floorboards. Not with bad plumbing, faulty wiring or a non-functioning boiler.

If I'm being told to understand that sometimes tenants are so horrible they need to be evicted?

Then you can understand that the bar for providing habitable habitation has fallen too low and landlords get away with massive, horrific abuses.

If you want to respect this relationship? Respect it. Because "it's a marketplace" doesn't fly in the modern era of morality when we're talking about basic roof-over-head dynamics in a grossly expensive market that's far outpacing wage growth. Not saying you don't. Maybe you're your town's one good landlord.

From my experiences renting in my youth, over 20 years ago, if landlord wasn't present on the property too that was an immediate massive increase in odds of "I don't fucking care." I cannot imagine its improved and the anecdotal proof I could offer from stories told doesn't support that it has either.

And be sure to look for a new place to live when your lease is up if the landlord finds out who put up the opposing sign. Ugh.

It sounds like you and the other residents of the building disagree with your landlord's stance on the eviction control measure. While your landlord has the right to express their opinion, it may be uncomfortable for you and your fellow residents to see the sign displayed in a shared space.

One option would be to reach out to your landlord and express your concerns about the sign. You could explain how it makes you and the other residents feel, and ask if they would be willing to take it down. It's possible that your landlord may not realize how the sign is affecting you and the other tenants, and they may be willing to remove it to maintain a positive relationship with their tenants.

If your landlord is unwilling to remove the sign, you could also consider reaching out to local elected officials or advocacy groups that support the eviction control measure. They may be able to provide additional guidance or support, and they may also be able to connect you with other tenants who are facing similar issues.

Ultimately, it's important to remember that you and the other tenants have legal rights as renters, and you may be protected under local or state laws. You could consider reaching out to a local tenant's rights organization or legal aid clinic for more information and guidance.

Do you like when folks misrepresent your beliefs to others? Because that is what is happening here.

No it’s not, the property owner is displaying his beliefs, on his property. You don’t go into an Uber and adjust all the seats, change the bumper stickers and control the volume do you? Why as a society have we strayed so far from the facts, and started thinking so emotionally. Detachment from reality is applauded now.

Hilariously enough, this is exactly what the eviction control measure is meant to remedy! The landlord is literally putting up a sign to say, "I want to always be able to evict my tenants if they start a fight with me", and daring the tenants to start shit.

Did you miss the massive housing crisis, or

Did you miss the first amendment?

Could *you* get a different landlord, just like that?

I would if I was so offended by a sign that I was asking on the internet what I can do about my landlord's objectionable views.

That's not what I asked.

Yes, I can move at any time I want.

You're really not answering the question:

Do you lease a house, where you are leasing the entire property?

Or is it a multi unit building where you are leasing your apartments individually, and the "common space" like entryways, stairwells, basement, yard is not exclusively yours?

So my little garbage pail friend, everyone is asking about the terms of the lease, and if it is a single or multi unit building, and if it is in space leased exclusively to OP, because that is the actual reality upon which the answer to this question rests. Go pick the bright orange muppet pubes out from between your teeth you fucking orc.

Considering I know someone with a rental property that took two and a half years without getting a single payment to get those not paying their rent evicted while trying the legal way to just get them to pay their contracted rent for the house. I'm more inclined to think people that oppose fixing this crazy loophole in letting renters have a huge upper hand are gonna welch on their rent and don't deserve housing to begin with.

Is that legal advice? If I rented you a car with a normal rental contract and then I got the car out for you and it had swastikas all over it, would you not have a basis to demand a car without swastikas or at least terminate the contract on that basis? I am not going to tell someone it is frivolous to try or at least make the demand.

(Still not legal advice).

So the housing crisis totally missed you, gotcha. How nice!

Remove the sign. It’s not legal but fuck landlords. They are leaches and nothing more.

This is no different than a plantation owner putting up an anti-abolition sign as far as I’m concerned. Do not respect landlords.

Ahhh suck an opossums d*ck

Tenant-landlord relations will always have opposing views? Yeah. Marx wrote about class conflict. Now which side is the majority, their will matters more

You aren’t being a downer. Landlords must be politically opposed at all turns. Property ownership is not productive labor. They cannot justify their compensation for it. Support class consciousness.

>But I think tenants should have immediate and very real legal recourses for landlords who don't maintain properties to 100% habitable conditions,

Absolutely agree.

>maintaining the entire property at code.

Agreed, but it's far more nuanced than what you are stating. Safety is the top priority, and that's what code is for. The nuance comes with the urgency to repair, the funds to repair, timeline, active tenants disruption, oversight.

I agree, that there are awful landlords that abuse the system and their tenants. I agree that the system needs to be corrected with more quality checks and oversight.

I just also understand that there is way more depth to many of the maintenance issues that you raised and that tenants raise as well. I tend to agree with the tenants, but I also understand that correcting these issues takes time, displaces tenants, and have many more layers.

This is a subject that I'm involved with, but I understand that I'm in no way an expert.

Yeah that’s what I’m thinking. Legally the landlord can put up a sign as long as it isn’t threatening anyone. But if the sign was to come up missing and none of the tenants know anything about it. Then 🤷🏻‍♂️

Just make sure there aren’t any cameras around.

It is, actually.

Does any advice on Reddit qualify as legal advice? Can someone hold me to my comment and sue? Actually asking, because I don't know; I'm leaning towards no.

What if a person states that it is legal advice, would that even hold up from a Reddit comment?

Car rentals are not the same legal standing as home rentals.

>I am not going to tell someone it is frivolous to try or at least make the demand.

They are more than welcome to ignore all Reddit advice, look up the information themselves, ask a lawyer, speak to a tenant representative, or do what ever they please. It has been asked, it has been settled, but they can still try.

Agreed. If they are organized, the majority has the ability to make a change.

I dislike bad landlords; I agree with the vast majority of tenant protections. I hope the majority is organized and knowledgeable enough to inact proper change.

Idk, shovel all your snow onto it

Hey, just saw this!

Shoot me a PM and I can meet you and give you a sign of support to put in your window. Or something you could print off and tape in your car window.

If you'd rather not (the messages here stating that it could lead to your eviction are probably right), help us pass out flyers this weekend or next weekend.

You shouldn’t judge all tenants by the actions of a few bad tenants.

This landlord is being judged without knowing their situation just the same. What if they have another building with people not paying for two plus years?

I think just saying that helps ensure that people will get their own advice if they can. Though in theory attorney client relationships or fiduciary duties could be made and broken anywhere.

I think the landlord here is obnoxious. Instead of viewing them as impenetrable god, I am inclined to find some argument that I think is not frivolous to raise. I understand that you don’t see it.

Not a great option for security in your housing. Ever thought about looking for another place?

>I think the landlord here is obnoxious

Agreed, but he is within his legal rights.

>I understand that you don’t see it.

I do see it. I just disagree that the way you stated would be worth trying. There are proper channels to handle this as a tenant that are legal and would get minimal pushback from the landlord. Such as:

• placing an opposing sign in your window.
• informing the public of the law, such as on Reddit
• speaking with those who can vote in your areas

Maybe property management isn’t for them?

Maybe you only get a roof over your head if you pay for it?

Looks like somebody made a bad investment. If you don't want to take on risk, don't invest in real estate. Your friend could have just invested in index funds and would have been doing fine. If it's not the state's job to make sure that there are safe and affordable places for everyone to live, it is most definitely also not the state's job to make sure that every ding-a-ling that tries to become a real estate investor turns a profit.

Wtf is wrong with you, that you think someone has a right to something for free? Like 30 years ago you'd hire thugs and forcibly disembark freeloaders that didn't pay their bills and it was a largely better time. If you can't pay for the thing you contractually said you would pay for, why exactly should you get to keep that thing no matter if it's food, housing, car work, toys at the store, a car, building supplies, etc? A thief is a thief and there is zero reason someone not paying their agreed upon rent for any extended period of time shouldn't be living in the gutter.

If we're not going to have enough of a social safety net to keep people out of the gutter, then I don't think there should be a social safety net that specifically protects people who make stupid investment decisions and have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

So protecting people that only take advantage of others is ok, but people that try to better themselves, get no safety net, nor are rental contracts legally binding?????

Do you also advocate for thieves because the store owner chose to invest in offering convenience goods at a mark up? If you are stealing anything, no matter what it is you are a thief and at best deserve jail time. Maybe there in lies your solution, after 3 months of no payment to your landlord you go directly to jail and get 3 hot meals a day, a cot and a job to support yourself because it's not my fucking problem to support you. There shouldn't be a social safety net for thieves, if you steal anything you deserve to have your freedom taken from you.

If we're talking about who's taking advantage of who, one of the people in this transaction was trying to profit off of the other person's need to not freeze to death, and the other person was the tenant. If the tenant doesn't have the right to live freely in a safe, warm home regardless of ability to pay, then all bets are off and the landlord is investing in a free market. Sometimes, when you invest in a free market, you lose. That's not the taxpayer's problem, that's your problem.

Hold on, so it's a right for the asshole stealing housing in this scenario, but you as a landlord have no recourse for action and are just fucked if you choose to rent anything to anyone for any reason?

So you own nothing then, post up your address as a free haven for those that can't house themselves, including your food, belongings, and heat. Otherwise accept you are prejudiced against innocent people who want to better themselves in favor of thieves.

Of course not, the existing system provides extensive legal recourse. The state already protects and enshrines your right to buy up an essential resource and rent it out at a profit. I think the state will help you out just fine under the current system, and am not particularly concerned with expanding the extensive set of legal rights you already have as a landlord. Cry me a river, in other words, I think you're going to be just fine.

But we're talking about ideals here. You fantasize about a world where you can have someone live in your little investment scheme until they run out of money, then you can get them thrown in jail.

I would prefer a world where you have a nice, clean, safe house to live in, and so does your "friend's" former tenant. You own your home, and your former tenant owns his. If your former tenant found a way to live a little closer to that world than to your nightmare fantasy, I have only warm thoughts and feelings for him, and only laughter for you.

That's the thing we aren't talking about fantasies you are talking about real people's situations and lives where the law is on the side of the people stealing the homes in question. Housing is not a guaranteed right, no matter where you live in the developed world you have to figure that out, you don't just get to take it from someone else without consequences. It's the same to say someone has a right to my friends rental house that doesn't pay for it as it is to say I have a right to your car and the food in your refrigerator that I don't pay for.

Not really. The right to maintain a real estate investment scheme is worlds apart from the right to have what you need to survive and function in society. You should have one house that is yours, full of stuff that is yours, with a car that is yours in the garage. I don't think you should be able to buy up a bunch of houses and make other people pay a premium for the privilege of paying your mortgage for you.

It's true that most states fail to house all their people. Most developed countries do it better than the U.S., and a big reason for that is because they're smart enough to not leave so much of the country's housing up to any ding-a-ling with a little cash to throw around.

What a myopic view of the renter/ landlord relationship. So one person has a house, they usey their retirement from a market that has proven too unstable to invest in non tangible anything, they invest in a house, suddenly you think they have this imaginary money oozing from their pores because only the ultra rich and privileged can afford a house to rent out. Now in your previous statements a vagrant has more right to that property than the person that worked 20+ years to have the nestegg to have a down payment and was able to finance that house. Why does someone that can't be bothered to save cash and cultivate a credit rating over their entire adult lives have any right to anything resembling a house. Till you understand that the people you are defending and arguing with me about just take and never give back in the first place, you are gonna keep thinking they are the victim. Look at how many people want to help the homeless people and last only one season before they tap out of wanting to help them anymore.

Maybe... This can be thought of for landlords as well.

There are definitely bad landlords, but the are most definitely good landlords as well. I would argue that it appears to be moving towards having more bad as the years go on, but I would also argue that on the internet you will mainly see negative comments for all subjects, including landlords. Lastly, I would argue that tenant protections and oversight over the landlords has been increasing, so that is definitely a good thing.

Reddit and social media are primarily of the younger generation, and it's definitely an echo chamber to an extent. This can bring good change, but it can also bring uneducated overreactions.

Remedy? For what?

You don’t own something if you don’t control authority over it, that’s the definition of ownership.

Younger generation? Check the thread where people list their ages in this subreddit. Lot of older people.

Yes, it is most definitely younger.

• 18-29 36%
• 30-49 22%
• 50-64 10%
• 65+ 3%

https://www.statista.com/statistics/261766/share-of-us-internet-users-who-use-reddit-by-age-group/

Sounds like you just want to dismiss the opinions of those younger than you.

I'm in the younger group...

It just sounds like you don't want to engage in the initial comment I made.

You hear about the bad landlords, you aren't hearing about the good ones. It's not that there aren't good landlords.

How do you feel property ownership compares to owning equities (stocks) in regards to “not productive labor”?

[deleted]

They’re the same. Neither are labor, in any sense. Both are just legalized extortion.

For this:

> My understanding is that at the conclusion of your current lease, the owner can decline to renew/discontinue/ terminate (not sure of the actual legal term) your lease “without cause”, meaning they would not need any reason other than “I don’t want to” to not renew your lease.

Given the obvious entrenchment of power behind capitalism, do you have any expectation that your preferred world view will ever come to be?

Edit: and compound interest?! Is banking an acceptable creator of wealth?

On the banking things, no, obviously its not a creator of wealth. Money != wealth. Our economy should be built to produce things with use value, as Marx termed it. That is, things derive material value from their utility. Money has no utility beyond exchange, which is not ultimately a necessary utility as we proved with the rationing system during the great depression.

In my view, the whole of the financial and property sectors are leeches that stand in the way of a more truly productive economy. They impose a completely unnecessary overhead on all economic activity (Property sale, interest, etc.) And all for what? The strengthening of a class of people who don't aid in the production of useful goods? Send all Landlords, bank owners, and shareholders to the farms and factories. Then they will actually contribute.

As for whether or not I expect my preferred world view to ever come to be, I see 3 possibilities for the future of our society:

1. My world view comes to be, and the working class is empowered to run the world for their benefit.
2. My world view does not come to be, and the Capitalist class is left to dominate. This results in two possibilities itself:
   1. The utter lack of regard that the Capitalist class has for the impending climate crisis leads to an era of constant strife and war over the new Water World's scarce resources.
   2. If somehow the Capitalist class is convinced to give a shit about the Poors drowning, they ultimately are forced into Fascism, the form capitalism takes when the contradictions within it are too glaring and inflamed for the working class to ignore them, and so violent state repression becomes necessary for the continuation of the Capitalist system.

So, I'm not entirely optimistic that my world view comes to pass, but I sure as hell hope it does, because Capitalism is entirely unsustainable.

> if I was so offended by a sign

The sign in question is basically saying "You are not deserving of a roof over your head unless you pay me whatever I want".

These aren't "a landlord's objectionable view". These are a landlords god-complex being pushed into law.

OK Karl Marx.