Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjav | Hacker News Reader

> These laws become the way they are because landlords brought it upon themselves for the most part

These laws seem quite unrelated to the problems.

There needs to be laws to protect the renter against bad landlords and there needs to be laws to protect the landlord against bad tenants.

Nowhere there it implies there should be insane laws that make no sense. Such as creating a system where someone can skip paying rent for many years and continue to live there.

Landlords need laws that hold their feet to the fire to maintain the properties to a livable standard (the state/county should define) and fulfill any other obligations of the lease. At the same time there need to be laws that force the renters to pay on time and not destroy the property. It's not a case of one or the other.

View on HN

I’m not denying any of that. If you don’t pay rent it makes sense that you’re evicted. This is completely okay with me, and the city should change their rules around it.

The issue is that housing is a necessity, and the relationship isn’t an equal one. A landlord can usually absorb vacancy, repairs, or a bad investment decision; a renter can’t easily absorb losing their home or a sudden 20% rent increase.

> a renter can’t easily absorb losing their home or a sudden 20% rent increase

Right, so let's pass laws (where not already in place) that prevent sudden eviction (e.g. nobody should be able to be evicted if they are a few days late or even a few weeks) and prevent sudden 20% rent increases.

No need to pass laws that prevent eviction for years. We can solve all these problems without causing other problems.

the obvious middle ground is preventing eviction until a new tenant is found. if you owe 3 months of back rent your landlord can put up your apartment but you can stay there as long as nobody takes it. if you pay back your debt they have to cancel the listing and keep your lease. that way theres less empty apartments and homeless people putting pressure on support systems.

People who want to rent a flat want to tour it first, this makes sense. But in your situation the tenant in arrears has an incentive to make the unit look uninhabitable preventing it from renting.

Additionally, if they are behind on rent, the deposit will not be enough to handle both.

> the obvious middle ground is preventing eviction until a new tenant is found.

Not sure that's obvious (is it done that way anywhere?), but it is an intriguing idea.

On the positive side it does decrease the inefficiency of places sitting empty while a tenant is found, which is good.

On the downside, it kind of goes back to being a sudden eviction, since the current tenant can't predict when a new one will be found, so whenever it happens they'll have a short-notice to move out.

Also, unfortunately there exist people who will take this time to destroy the place, making it un-rentable, to perpetuate staying there. Need to handle this edge case somehow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com