you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 hours ago (5 children)

Landlords hold virtually all the power in the transaction. I can't really blame the tenants for refusing to maintain a property they don't own. That doesn't excuse actual abuse, of course, but over a 10-year period, regular wear and tear starts looking a lot like abuse. Especially with carpets, fixtures, appliances, mechanicals...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (4 children)

    Regular wear and tear is not what I’m talking about. I live in a state where tenants actually hold more of the power. It’s why I was able to threaten a previous landlord with 3x damages for refusing to return a deposit (2 times actually, both resulting in returned deposits). Wear and tear is usually covered in your state laws. That’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about actual abuse. Drilling massive holes in walls. Cutting down trees without permission. Refusing to mow or water the grass (I’ve been on both sides of this). Destroying almost everything of value in the rental (toilet, bath, mirrors, stove, microwave, baseboard heaters, lights, fans, floors).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 29 minutes ago* (3 children)

    The landlord is entering into the agreement for purposes of financial gain. The tenant is entering into the relationship for basic shelter. Failure to enter into such an agreement has far more urgent and dire consequences for the tenant than for the landlord. So when you say:

    I live in a state where tenants actually hold more of the power.

    I can only respond: "There is no such state." The basic concept of "renting" is fundamentally unbalanced. Some states have taken greater steps than others to lighten the landlord's thumb on the scale, but the landlord-bias is intrinsic to the arrangement.

    I’m talking about actual abuse.

    Which is, indeed, a big fucking problem that probably has some market effects. But the unjustified jump in rent and housing prices is primarily due to widespread institutional investment in residential property. Algorithmic pricing collusion is also playing a major role in rental hikes, far exceeding any effect arising from abusive tenants.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 21 minutes ago (2 children)

    Failure to enter into such an agreement has far more urgent and dire consequences for the tenant than for the landlord. So when you say:

    It depends on the state. You will be able to retain housing for over six months without paying a dime before getting evicted in my state. This has implications for both tenant and landlord. Imagine trying to put off paying a mortgage for six months. Of course it’s a business for the landlord, but for small time landlords who only own a few properties it’s a much bigger deal than it is for the rental private equity companies sucking everything up.

    But the unjustified jump in rent and housing prices is primarily due to widespread institutional investment in residential property. Algorithmic pricing collusion is also playing a major role in rental hikes, far exceeding any effect arising from abusive tenants.

    Completely agree.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 minutes ago (1 child)

    You will be able to retain housing for over six months without paying a dime before getting evicted in my state.

    And it's a year in mine.

    Imagine trying to put off paying a mortgage for six months.

    When I try to find someone to rent my property, complete failure means I lose an investment property.

    When I try to find somewhere to live, complete failure means homelessness.

    The parties are not on the same footing. They aren't even on comparable footing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 44 seconds ago

    When I try to find somewhere to live, complete failure means homelessness.

    Only if there are zero other rentals on the market, which is never the case.

    When I try to find someone to rent my property, complete failure means I lose an investment property

    Only if you are not a small time landlord. Big landlords can afford to lose income. Someone with 2 -5 properties cannot. That’s up to 50% of their income for the year. And not only that, a complete job loss if they lose the property, risking homelessness. It’s still a job for small landlords.

    This is once again a battle against billionaires, not your local neighbors. Stop acting like specific jobs are evil. It’s the amount of money a human sucks up that is evil, not the job they do (well to an extent of course).

  • source
  • parent