Comments
Eagle_Arm t1_iuptdk2 wrote
So you want the state to seize private property?
senorali t1_iupxbg1 wrote
What, you don't?
Eagle_Arm t1_iurd9dy wrote
Fines, sure. Judicial punishment, why not, but going to the extreme of taking property due to application fees, that's a bit much. If they reach such a high level of fines that they have to sell the property, then they probably should have stopped doing charging fees like an idiot.
Should stop the practice of application fees, because well, it's the law, but that punishment of taking properties, what would a realistic threshold be?
senorali t1_iurtm7d wrote
The problem with flat fines is that they disproportionately punish people with less money. Big real estate firms can do a simple cost:benefit to determine if they make more from fees than the pay in court, and continue the practice indefinitely.
On the other hand, fines proportional to the company's net worth? Now we're talking.
meinblown t1_iuqvsyk wrote
If the state seizes it, you sure as fuck ain't getting it, lol
Twombls t1_iupy9w9 wrote
Landlords property, mostly slumlords.
5teerPike t1_iuqpx72 wrote
That is unkempt and not looked after because the slumlord lives in Florida, yeah.
5teerPike t1_iuqqok8 wrote
Ah so the Stone & Browning company has some things to answer for besides the old bait & switch ..
R50cent t1_iur9i3m wrote
Add it to the pile while they gentrify the state for their own profit.
5teerPike t1_iura155 wrote
Apparently they're doing that with ghosts since every apartment you could possibly want is taken before your application "processes"
R50cent t1_iurbkfk wrote
Which speaks more to the larger issue companies like theirs are creating in Vermont. Personally I don't know what level of vacancy they have, but honestly either way the issue still exists.
These companies... they're taking what little affordable housing Vermont has left, buying it, fixing it up a bit admittedly, but then increasing the rent so that potentially the same person who could afford rent previously now can't, and that's a big fuckin problem for a state that refuses to build affordable housing and also has issues with comparable salaries for similar jobs in other states.
Vermont will suffer the same fate a lot of states are going to find themselves in (more than we already are that is): with a few companies that own all the housing, and a middle to lower class of perpetual renters who have no options to buy to escape the process. Stone and Browning and the like are the new landed gentry.
5teerPike t1_iurcxag wrote
Oh yeah all their policies are ridiculous, and even if you fit they'll still bait & switch on you.
We had that happen, we both had a credit score way over what was asked for, we even offered to pay the down payment right then and there for the apartment we wanted. They said we could when our applications were processed & then said it wasn't available as soon as they did!
We also arranged to look at one listing, which they said was unavailable the day of the appointment "but we have these others ( you didn't make an appointment for)" They never took that original listing down too lol
Antifa-The-Hun t1_iusf72a wrote
I just paid an app fee with stone and browning.... I feel dirty now.
5teerPike t1_iusiert wrote
They will say it's to pay them back for the credit check lol
VTgrizz85 t1_iuqyy5o wrote
The following is a petition to the Vermont Legislature targeting members of either the House Committee on General, Housing, & Military Affairs or the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing, & General Affairs.
9 V.S.A. § 4456a states that "A landlord or a landlord's agent shall not charge an application fee to any individual in order to apply to enter into a rental agreement for a residential dwelling unit."
There are competing interpretations of this law on whether or not background check fees or credit check fees are included in this statute. Many argue that passing on the direct cost of a background or credit check is permissible; however, some property managers charge such a fee to put you on their waiting list and never run the check.
Vermont Legal Aid advises that it is their belief that these fees are included in the intent of 9 V.S.A. § 4456a and illegal under Vermont Law, but that challenging them could prevent a landlord from renting to you.
This petition asks that the Vermont Legislature amend 9 V.S.A. § 4456a to clarify its intent:
"A landlord or a landlord's agent shall not charge any fee, including application fees and/or background or credit check fees, to any individual in order to apply to enter into a rental agreement for a residential dwelling unit."
[deleted] t1_iur3gef wrote
[removed]
Eagle_Arm t1_iurdw9r wrote
Great intent, but not allowing the background check fee will just increase rent of the actual units. Landlord loses $1K in fees to rent to new tenant, rent just went up $85 per month.
We need to fix the system as a whole and not just an issue in the system.
Just like you can bring an outside loan to a car dealership or a mortgage pre-approval letter for buying a house, bring an outside credit/background check to renting. Third party gives credit/background check, it's on file and good for however long makes sense. 30, 60, 90 days? I don't know, but credit and background shouldn't tank in that time. All landlords receive a way to verify the details, renters only get charged once, more fees avoided.
VTgrizz85 t1_iust74h wrote
Also if you are a landlord that is doing $1k worth of background checks to rent a unit, you’re doing something wrong. Even the most expensive check I could find from Transunion’s SmartMove Service is $42. You’d be running roughly 24 checks to spend that $1,000.
VTgrizz85 t1_iusrym4 wrote
The intent of the law as stated by its authors is that all fees were included under the statute. Given that the statute is current law, background and credit check fees are already illegal. The point of this petition is not to change the law, but merely to remove the ambiguity in the current language.
Eagle_Arm t1_iussnmi wrote
Okay, so reread my first paragraph. Landlord has upfront cost of background/credit check. That is the included in future rent costs.
It doesn't save renters any money, it moves the issue to another issue rather than solving the problem. Congrat, won the meaningless victory of changing a law that doesn't accomplish anything. It's a win! But the win doesn't solve the problem.
VTgrizz85 t1_iusui7v wrote
As a landlord, I get your point. We eat the cost of the background/credit check every time we turn over a unit. That’s why we do showings first, take applications, and call references before running those checks.
Eagle_Arm t1_iusvfem wrote
The cost isn't eaten. It's passed onto the renter at some point. Not $1K per unit, that hyperbole, but the money is passed on.
For your other comment, you can do all the leg work of references and calls beforehand or you can slap the easy dequal button and have people submit checks and then disqualify based on that data before calling references.
VTgrizz85 t1_iuti57h wrote
Which is exactly the point behind the law. It incentivizes the landlord to do the legwork before running the check.
Eagle_Arm t1_iutjcth wrote
It isn't an incentive though, there isn't something for the landlord to gain. It's a restriction. Don't get me wrong, I agree with app fees being bullshit, but if the referrals are good, but there is shit credit or bad background check, in a market like Burlington, the landlord will move onto the next applicant who for the most part is identical.
The result is just lost time. Not a big deal, but those hours or even a day to clear someone adds up.
That's why I'm saying find a new system like a mortgage pre-approval. It might not be the best idea, but just me shooting from the hip.
A renter gets a background/credit check and it generates a code tied to their license or ID number. That is good for however many days makes sense. I don't know how long someone usually looks for an apartment. Say 1-3 months. The landlord then logs takes that code and verifies it via the same system.
It's a one time charge to the renter for a duration of apartment hunting. Everyone has instant feedback without multiple reports, checks, or charges.
In theory, it should speed up the process because the process is occurring, but only occuring once for the duration of an apartment hunt.
[deleted] t1_iuu6b9a wrote
[deleted]
Twombls t1_iuppfep wrote
We gotta start actually punishing landlords for this. I vote mandatory forclosure for too many violations reported.