> Someone can move in and refuse to pay rent, refuse to leave, use your house as a drug den, destroy your property and lots more, and you can do nothing about it.

This is one of those things that really just confuses me. It's like no one could agree on happy medium between "landlord can eject you whenever they want for whatever reason" and "no one can make you leave, ever, for any reason".

And to whoever downvoted you, there are some places in the bay that are demanding 6 months rent up front in order to move in because they can't do much if you stop paying rent.

These laws are hard to get actually correct. The major problem is court delays. There is a very high bar for kicking someone out before they get their day in court about whether it is fair to do so. This seems eminently reasonable but there is also a severe shortage of judicial services that result in court dates over a year out to resolve such issues. In that year of time, it's quite possible for a tenant with maybe $5K to their name to accumulate $500K in damages and debts. For many such tenants it is a cost they could never repay in their lifetimes which means even if the landlord gets the desired verdict they'll never see the capital they wanted.

I agree there are places in the world that are so biased against landlords that they don't even try to get this problem correct but I think for many cases the problem isn't bad laws but rather the delays to being able to execute reasonable actions to limit damages. I'm not sure what a good solution is for many cases because I think it would take fairly extreme evidence to kick someone out without their day in court if they decided to fight it. I do agree with landlords it should be easier to kick someone out if they stop paying rent and that fact is adequately documented. I mean stop paying rent in the sense of an appropriate pattern not a single late payment.

A side effect of tenent friendly laws is that owners get more and more picky about who they rent to in the first place. It's cheaper to have a place empty for a few months than to take a risk on a potentially bad tenant.

Ultimately this is creating a class of people who can't rent. Their track record is poor - or if not them specifically they are in a group with a poor track record.

Not surprisingly this mostly affects the poorest and most vulnerable - those with the least job security - those with health/work issues and so on.

This overlaps with the group least likely to actually be able to purchase a home to begin with.

This issue will not be solved with free-market economics. Either one accepts the need for some layer of free social housing, or one accepts that a decent chunk of society will be homeless.

From what I've heard is a common thing for landlords to do is a "pay to vacate" where they show up at the door with $1k in cash if the tenant will just leave.

if you go onto /r/landlord, you'll learn that "cash for keys" is (a) usually way more than $1k, and (b) not a fool-proof way of kicking someone out (since the squatter still need a place to live, and they know that the cash won't cover it). this was/is a huge HUGE issue with the COVID real estate moratoriums that popped up.

> show up at the door with $1k in cash

In SF, there have been six-figure buyouts to remove tenants from rent-controlled properties.

Sure, because those tenants signed contracts with perpetual leases (as also understood by the landlords who provided the contracts). Evicting in SF means you can't turn your property into a Condo (only a TIC) - so to maintain the value of the condo conversion option, landlords pay tenants to leave. The buyouts are proportional to the rent difference so it's not surprising that someone who's rent is increasing from say $1k/month to $4k/month would need a large sum of money (that's taxable!) to be convinced to leave.

Call the buyout $100k -- best case scenario, it's taxed as capital gains so you'd take home $85k. At $3k/month increase in rent, you'd be looking at a little over two years before you're below water.

Housing in California is broken in 1,000 different ways but the tenant buyouts seem to be pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.

My ex got about $40k cash to vacate her rent-controlled studio. Because turning off the heat during winter, greasy trashbins in the hallway, and holes in the staircase weren't doing it. The building was mostly elderly NYers and she was one of the few millennials so waiting for her to die wasn't going to work either.

How does one accumulate $500K in damages and debt in 1 year? That's like $41k/month.

buy three cats, and zero litter boxes, and zero litter. make sure they aren't neutered. get a single male cat since, hey, he's got needs.

cook lots of greasy ass food and drain that oil straight down the sink. toss condoms, paper towels, hell, ANYTHING, down the toilet, since it's basically a trash dispenser, right?

once you're done having the cats pee their way through the foundation (cat urine DESTROYS houses) and destroying the plumbing, steal some copper on your way out with some friends.

oh, and this is a pre-war establishment where everything is absolutely not up to code.

Some people don't take kindly to being kicked out, even if they're in the wrong, and there's not a lot you can do to stop them from causing hundreds of thousands in damages while you go through the process of evicting them.

The first house I lived at in California was part 2 of that - previous owners destroyed the place during a foreclosure, so we got what was previously an $800k house for $400k in a short sale by a bank. Took ~$50k to fix up because we were willing to do the work ourselves over about a year.

It was disgusting. Glass and other obstructions flushed down the pipes, literal feces on the walls, holes everywhere, missing parts of the ceiling, fixtures ripped out, etc.

Move-in process was essentially move all our stuff to a storage area, continue renting until we'd made the place no longer a biohazard, then we moved in slowly as we fixed up rooms.

But hey, a few hours of work a day for a year essentially saved a year of a FAANG salary on the place.

Damn. Props to you but i would rather be 400k poorer instead of doing that.

Was told by local sherrif who handled judgment related asset seizures as well as foreclosure sales that in our state the original owner can do as they wish, even after a court ordered foreclosure sale, until they day they are required/made to vacate. He had seen all kinds of wanton destruction by the outgoing former owners simply out of spite with repair bills likely in the 10s of thousands, if not more.

That's a little different than a tenant who is renting wrecking someone else's property though, as the sheriff said in the case of foreclosures it's still their property up until the forced vacate date and they can technically do whatever they want and can't be sued for the damages, whereas tenants can but in most cases it's simply not worth it because the people you're suing usually don't have any assets or positive net worth in the first place.

Legally different but still grudge and destruction with no or negligible chance of recourse.

> they can't do much if you stop paying rent.

I'm aware of specific stories where bad-faith tenants have made enforcement difficult, but I'm also aware of enough specific stories from the other side where tenants -- even some who have committed no violations -- have found themselves without housing to know that as a total generalization, these statements are false.

And you don't get to a resident-sourced homelessness crisis if landlords are truly powerless (and sure, coastal homelessness numbers are driven by bus-ticket policies elsewhere, but it's not the whole story).

AFAICT there is in fact a medium between "landlord can eject you whenever they want for whatever reason" and "no one can make you leave, ever, for any reason". Whether or not it's a happy one probably depends more on court outcomes than any apparent shortcomings in statutes, but if anyone has specific complaints about the law, perhaps they should point them out.

> I'm aware of specific stories where bad-faith tenants have made enforcement difficult, but I'm also aware of enough specific stories from the other side where tenants -- even some who have committed no violations -- have found themselves without housing to know that as a total generalization, these statements are false.

I'm aware of hundreds of stories about homicidal cardiologists, but I wouldn't try to make a judgement about cardiologists based on that because I have no reason to think the stories I'm exposed are a representative sample of cardiologists. In your case, tenants who have committed no violations finding themselves evicted make a much more sympathetic story than landlords who want to evict an annoying tenant, so I'd expect the former to be very overrepresented in what you hear.

Sure. As the saying goes "the plural of anecdote is not data." And that goes as much for specific stories about sympathetic landlords suffering from abusive tenants as vice versa.

How would we find out what the systemic pattern is? Maybe we'd compile relevant court records and outcomes. Maybe we'd collect information from tax filings.

Or maybe we'd make bare assertions on HN.

Once you are exposed to one homicidal cardiologist, it’s no longer an anecdote. Landlords who aren’t very thorough in background and credit checks are very very likely to have a bad experience (and they won’t repeat the same mistake twice).

Being a landlord is a hard way at making money.

I had a friend who let someone move in as part of an apartment share. Person NEVER paid them a nickel, never paid landlord anything, claimed they felt unsafe and got a restraining order. It was actually genius.

My (female) friend HAD TO MOVE OUT of the house she was renting, the landlord required she still pay rent on the lease. "self-help" (changing locks) was totally out.

All this would have been fine I think if she could have gone to court in a week or two (the person literally hadn't paid anyone anything).

Instead it was 18 months to the FIRST court date, plenty of drama between A and B, and at that court date it was clear it was going to take a LONG time longer (in fairness COVID came into picture but still).

It turned out of course this person had done this repeatedly. In my friends case the landlord just demanded she keep on paying rent and so was no help on eviction. So she was paying rent on a new place, paying rent on the old place AND paying legal bills vs a tenant getting free community legal help and who was an absolute expert in the rules.

Luckily for her for some reason tenant DID want to move eventually, and they basically arranged a settlement. She paid landlord for some damages, she paid tenant a cash for keys amount (substantial) and was allowed to go on with her life.

You could only afford this on a bay area tech level salary. For normal landlords and people this is insane.

When someone says the eviction has to be "for" a reason, and a court has to review that reason and approve it, in the bay area that easily 1-2 years if someone wants to stretch it out.

So she basically directly sublet part of her apartment, and is surprised the landlord didn't care and still held her responsible? That's exactly the stance the landlord should take in such a situation. Assuming it wasn't just directly a breach of contract of the rental terms to start with, which would even further just protect the landlord.

Did she even bother to draft a contract with the subletter? Or was this all just, "sure, stranger, move right on in to the property for which I am legally obligated? I'm sure this will all work out fine."

Did you miss the part about waiting 18 months for a court date?

A legal contract is only as strong as the incentives to litigate it. Doesn't seem likely a contract would've helped, it may even have existed.

If there was a contract, it probably would have helped a lot in the restraining order hearing. Which apparently had no issues happening faster than 18 months?

A restraining order (at least, a temporary one) can be issued without a hearing.

She had lease with landlord, and was looking to share the place. She was planning on continuing to live in the unit. This is common in a college towns if the apartment is a 2 bedroom, often you would rent the second bedroom out.

Yes, landlord reasonably checked out. They agreed on terms in terms of the monthly amount, utilities etc. New roommate gave some reason to want to get going on getting their stuff moved in or measuring things or something, she gave them a copy of the key for that.

That's all it took.

Yes, sharing an apartment is typical in college. However, when I was in college, it was typical to go to the management and modify the lease to include the extra person. That way they are at least equally legally responsible for everything, and it gives the landlord a reason to care. The landlord may even run a background check, which may have exposed this issue, since you state this was not the first time.

Regardless, tough lesson to learn on not handing out a key to someone without a contract. I mean, that's a level of trust that I don't even have with my friends, much less someone I'm potentially going to room with. No contract, no keys.

I had a feeling there was more to the story. There probably still is, but I'm satisfied now on how this managed to "just happen". I still don't understand how, after the restraining order, this person then claimed legal residence in order to get your friend removed from her legal residence. I also don't understand why this wasn't immediately a phone call to the police to get this person removed from the property.

Seems like the problem was the restraining order. Should have fought that one. Blame the part of the system that was true problem.

My sense was that the living situation was in fact untenable (ie, shared kitchen, accusations of theft etc).

> It's like no one could agree on happy medium between "landlord can eject you whenever they want for whatever reason" and "no one can make you leave, ever, for any reason".

No place in the US actually has the latter unless you've been letting them squat for half a decade or something, the issue is court delays and landlord's wanting to make their lot out to be worse than it is.

> > "no one can make you leave, ever, for any reason".

> No place in the US actually has the latter

Not technically, no. But there are areas (e.g. San Francisco) where getting a non-paying tenant out is close enough to impossible that it might as well be.

AFAIK that's not actually true. There are some crazy edge cases but for the most part if a tenant stops paying rent you can absolutely evict them in SF. Most of the horror stories from landlords are attempts to evict for reasons besides non-payment - which SF does make somewhat difficult.

You'd be surprised. SF Rent Board will always seek the solution that keeps the tenant in their home.

So a tenant might stop paying rent, a few months later you get an eviction hearing, but then the tenant pays the rent this month and promises to pay the back rent. Your eviction has just been denied.

Tenant falls back on rent again, but made a good faith effort to pay some of the back rent. Eviction denied.

Finally, tenant stops paying entirely and doesn't respond to you. You stand a pretty good chance of getting an eviction then.

Meanwhile, over the past 12 months the tenant made 2 full rent payments and a couple thousand on the $18,000 in back rent owed. They get evicted and you get to clean up the mess.

So yes, it's not impossible to evict a tenant, but it's really damn hard (unless it's for something like violence or failure to pay and no response when rent is demanded).

Honestly, that sounds great. The risk of being a rentier should be higher than the risk of an index tracker. A lot of our problems can be traced to the fact that bricks and mortar are seen as a better RoI than stocks and shares, and one way to fix that is to change the risk profile of being a landlord by increasing tenants' rights.

> Honestly, that sounds great.

You're saying that it's totally fine for a renter to pay like one month out of every six months and keep doing that forever, just enough to defer evictions each time?

> The risk of being a rentier should be higher than the risk of an index tracker.

Risk and return should roughly correlate, or people will not do it. There is already very little return in renting out a house, so the risk needs to be fairly low, if society cares to have rental properties available.

> change the risk profile of being a landlord by increasing tenants' rights

What would you expect to happen as a result?

If the risk is too high to compared to the return, these rental units are simply removed from the market. Are you convinced that less available units make renters better off?

> If the risk is too high to compared to the return, these rental units are simply removed from the market. Are you convinced that less available units make renters better off?

Yes. We'll need an LVT too. Adjust the market so selling is the rational choice, not hoarding.

Markets are just tools, and right now the market for property isn't serving the needs of society. So we stick our collective thumb on the scales until it does.

It’s actually a great way to shrink rental stock and increase rent prices.

> But there are areas (e.g. San Francisco) where getting a non-paying tenant out is close enough to impossible that it might as well be.

You absolutely can evict people in SF, unless you are discussing the recent eviction moratorium, which is not ongoing.

It’s very difficult to evict folks in Colorado, according to someone I know who buys and rents homes for a living.

I think most landlords are pro tenant until they find someone who knows how to work the system. It costs them so much that they are skiddish to all renters.

Landlords have chosen to enter an inherently adversarial relationship with the goal of profiting from the other party. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to their personal pains here, but I don't believe "pro tenant" has a useful meaning except in a context where you need to support them in opposition to some force or entity. And that entity is landlords.

> Landlords have chosen to enter an inherently adversarial relationship with the goal of profiting from the other party.

There isn't any reason for it to be adversarial, it's certainly not inherently so. Only if one or both sides want to make it adversarial.

It is supposed to be a win-win scenario. Some people prefer to rent instead of buying, so they need a supply of rentals and the owner needs someone to live there so it doesn't sit empty costing them money.

Fortunately I've never had one of the adversarial landlords. I paid them on time and took good care of the property and in exchange they have been super flexible and let me do whatever I want. That's a win-win.

> > Landlords have chosen to enter an inherently adversarial relationship with the goal of profiting from the other party.

> There isn't any reason for it to be adversarial, it's certainly not inherently so. Only if one or both sides want to make it adversarial.

Landlords compete with their potential tenants for houses to buy. When landlord driven price increase, it prices out people from buying a home/flat, but they still need a roof over their heads. So they rent. This gives landlords cash needed to buy more houses/flats. This also keep rents up as landlords pay more for buildings. So tenants are less likely to accumulate cash for loans/something else. From small owners to big corporations it is a vicious cycle.

So you're saying that in a capitalistic society, people with capital do better? Colour me shocked.

The landlord also takes on risk and responsibility here. Like any business, if they do a shitty job they go broke. If they do a good job, they make bank and expand their business.

They will go broke if they do bad job at extracting money from their renters, not bad job at providing value to them. Also: https://www.wsj.com/articles/landlords-were-never-meant-to-g... , privatization of profits and socializing losses.

Yes, same as any business. If you provide it for free you go bankrupt, if you charge too much you also go bankrupt.

No because you can't really decline to have a home if none of the options are good for you. If there are only shitty landlords then you'll be forced to choose a shitty landlord.

I can't decline to eat. Food still costs money.

Yes almost there keep going.

Instead of being condescending, can you just make whatever point it is you are trying to make?

As a widget maker, I'm pro widget-users even though I technically have an adversarial relationship with them. In particular, I'm pro widget-users because without them I would be without money and without me they would be without widgets, so we're both supporting each other against the harsh forces of nature that would leave us all destitute if we didn't work together.

> without me they would be without widgets

It seems like it'd be obvious, but landlords don't actually produce land or provide housing. They roll in and take housing using their superior resources, then charge rent to access it.

In an ideal market, every renter would have the option of being a landlord just like every car lessor has the option of being a car owner. We just need enough housing supply to make investing in housing a risky venture instead of a government-guaranteed winner

https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-e...

> landlords don't actually produce land or provide housing

of course they do - they provide it by being part of the capital flow, which starts at construction. It might not be the same person, but it's a chain of financing that lead to the landlord purchasing the property.

Superior resources is just another name for capital. And you need capital to fund the construction. The landlord is just the last chain on this funding, and without them, the builders would not build (for who would be buying?).

Shelter is a cost. Everybody pays it, whether you own your own building or renting.

> every renter would have the option of being a landlord

they do if they had the capital. No one is stopping anyone from making a bid for a property - unlike back in the old days where people who were slaves were not entitled to own property as a right. The fact that some people have more capital and is willing to bid higher is how the current free market system works to allocate capital.

Man, I'm not saying you're completely wrong, but that's such a ridiculous stretch

I bought a few shares of Pfizer, does that make me a healthcare provider?

no but it makes you a capital provider for healthcare.

I'm just trying to correct the mistaken view that providing capital is tantamount to doing nothing.

only comparable if the widget you make is a necessity for life, really straining the meaning of the word "widget" imo.

How exactly is it inherently adversarial? Isn’t what you’re saying also true to literally any for profit transaction?

Only things that are absolute needs. You can walk away from a profitable transaction, you can't walk away from one you'll die without.

People are willing to take much more extreme action around housing (and food, medicine, ) than they are most other goods. They're also less likely to agree there is moral justification in profiting from these things. So even when entering these transactions (they must, after all), they may not respect the other party's profit goals.

Should doctors work for free? Should farmers?

Do landlords labor?

> Do landlords labor?

Yes they absolutely do. Sometimes quite a lot, and often invisibly to tenants.

But other landlords suck, yes definitely. Just like some business owners neglect their customers, and some parents neglect their children.

The problem is that the RE market is so distorted right now that it's difficult to select a new equivalent housing provider at a reasonable price. This is also what enables the bad landlords in the first place.

The blame for that situation is very well-distributed. The best response as a buyer might be to seek out other markets.

Do business owners labor?

As someone who's moved around a lot (to London, then to Zürich) I definitely appreciate being able to rent, and hence landowners. Without them, I'd have to live 2-3 year homeless until I saved enough for a downpayment, then be saddled with 30 year monthly commitment (i.e. mortgage) and unable to move anywhere else.

No, but they certainly have provided or paid for previously paid capital that allowed housing to be build.

Ofc, it might be better if everyone build their own houses like some slums around the world.

Yes? Do you think the house magically takes care of itself?

This comment made me see red, seriously the maddest I've been in weeks. You couldn't have known that and I'm not upset at you.

_I_ take care of the house in this situation. The landlord doesn't shovel snow or mow grass, I do.

They do carry some of the burden specifically in taxes and liability, yes I know. I also know the maintenance responsibilities aren't inherently and legally mine, and so I can be blamed for entering a contract that requires me to do this.

Anyway though it even more shows that landlords don't inherently do anything. If they stopped maintaining it, the tenant is the one who has to live in the shitty house and will wind up fixing it.

What the landlord does is control access to housing. I don't respect or value that and you're not going to change my mind about it today.

> I also know the maintenance responsibilities aren't inherently and legally mine

Yes, that's right, they are legally the landlord's. And if they stopped maintaining it, they are breaking the law, and you can sue them. If, instead, you choose to live with it, or deal with it yourself and pay for everything, then that's a horrible mistake.

It's fine for that comment to make you see red, but it should be the slumlord you are angry at, not the guy who pointed out that you're being a doormat.

Landlords are one option for people who cannot afford to buy a home. Some of them are bad, some are good. They offer a service for a price, and if the price is too high or the service is too poor, then they are taking advantage. Plenty of them aren't like that. Your anger seems a little irrational.

If you honestly believe being a landlord is such a slam dunk you should take out a mortgage, buy a property somewhere in United States (there are places as cheap as $50K) and rake in the cash.

There are landlords who absolutely take care of all of the maintenance - and of course there are landlords who are absentee landlords as well.

To say a landlord inherently doesn't do anything is the most ridiculous thing I've read today. Thanks for the laugh. As for your situation, stop doing work the landlord should be doing.

> If you honestly believe being a landlord is such a slam dunk you should take out a mortgage, buy a property somewhere in United States (there are places as cheap as $50K) and rake in the cash.

I'm sorry, but I am not sociopathic enough to profit from other people misfortune (not being able to to buy a roof over their heads). Not everything is about making as much money as you can squeeze from other people.

You don’t personally need to be. If it’s free money why hasn’t someone done it? Why are there houses sitting there vacant?

I also disagree with the silly assertion that landlords are sociopaths would you rather people be homeless? If someone is unable to afford to buy a house what should they do?

Also - are business owners sociopaths? Doctors? Farmers? Medical device makers?

> You don’t personally need to be. If it’s free money why hasn’t someone done it? Why are there houses sitting there vacant?

I have seen some articles that it starts happening there too. For example buying houses in Detroit, through web of shell firms and sitting on them like some kind of slumlord dragon.

>I also disagree with the silly assertion that landlords are sociopaths would you rather people be homeless? If someone is unable to afford to buy a house what should they do?

I'm sorry, if you are using your economical advantage to outbid people in house market and then propose this people a rent that is higher than mortage on same house? With bonus points for squeezing them on rent so they can't save money to buy their own house(with or without mortage). Then use all that money to buy even more houses? So even more people can't afford them? Yes that a sociopathic behavior. Also word slumlord exists for a reason.

>Also - are business owners sociopaths? Doctors? Farmers? Medical device makers? Are you trying to make argument for me?

Because under capitalism only function of business is to make money for shareholders(aka. owners, this include companies not publicly traded). It's as sociopathic as it can be. If your only goal is to make more money, you are not a good person. There are owners that don't do that, but in the end they will have more disadvantages when competing with ones that do. It involves breaking the law/shady behavior if you think you can get away with that. Leaving money on the table is a sure way to get yourself a competitor that will take it and use it against you.

Farmers: there are decent ones, but if they want to squeez as much money they can from animals/crops they have, they will do some horrific stuff. Just ask yourself why there are laws popping all over the US that make it illegal to film whats going on farms(including factory ones)

Doctors: there are decent ones, as always. But there are doctors that will just come by during medical procedures in, in-network hospitals as out of the network doctor and then slam patient with horrendous bill, just for being there(or helping in some small way). Shilling to pharma companies by prescribing/overprescribing their drugs? To have a fun trip to Hawaii/other perks? Dr. Wakefield, crooks that sell bleach as cure all drug, other scam artist in white gowns? Selling dewormer as a cure for anything but worms? As I said before there are decent doctors, but also a bad ones. It's only a problem if we allow them to do this stuff and don't take any actions to stop them.

Medical device makers: Have you read anything about EpiPen? P-value hacking? Pushing your do nothing failed drug as hope for sick people through FDA/etc.? This entities are businesses, their goal is to make money. Accidentally they can save some people, but it's not their goal. It's money. I have wrote some words about it earlier.

So sociopathy isn't who you are, it's what you do.

I'm not saying I'm a good person, I'm definitely not, but even I sometimes raise an eyebrow seeing things some people do.

> The landlord doesn't shovel snow or mow grass, I do.

I've rented places where that was my responsibility, enumerated in the lease. Also taking out the trash, keeping porches and exterior areas clean, etc.

These are common expectations when you're renting a full single-family house. I've also seen arrangements where a single tenant of a multi-unit property will accept grass & snow responsibilities in exchange for reduced rent.

I understand that you don't want those jobs though. If they are not in your lease, you are not required to perform them. (Don't take legal advice from me, but that's true everywhere I've lived). You might have trouble finding a SFH lease that doesn't include them, but multi-unit buildings will be easier.

The law will require that grass mowing and snow removal happens. The property owner will be fined if they do not happen. These services cost money, so if the tenant is unable or unwilling to do them as part of the lease contract, the owner will purchase these services and increase the rent correspondingly.

> you're not going to change my mind about it today

Probably not worth asking the question in the first place, then.

If the roof need replacing do you replace it? How about if the sewer line collapses?

If there’s return, there’s risk. All markets are adversarial.

Yeah I don't really disagree with that. I don't believe housing should be a "market" in the sense I think is meant here. But if it is to be, I agree that landlords need to accept the risk of their tenants not paying and not leaving either.

Not paying sure. Not leaving no. That never should be the case. They own the property the should be able to get it vacated in reasonable time let's say 3 to 6 month. For any reason. There could also be a fixed time contract binding both sides.

covid moratoriums were basically that for a lot of landlords

There is a happy medium, and many cities are in it, it's just that landlords love painting that happy medium as tyranny.

They also never make any distinction between letting a basement or a room in a home, a private landlord letting a detached home, and a corporate landlord letting hundreds of units.

Not arguing, but there are also many people who do not rent their vacant property because they are too rich to be bothered and are content with the capital gain appreciation.

Perhaps there needs to be a higher tax rate for vacant property that is not a primary residence.

The problem is ultimately how well the courts handle liars.

The middle ground is to investigate the situation and establish facts. And do it quickly.

That costs money, and poor tenants can’t afford it.

So many courts adopt the position of believing one side over the other.

This isn’t limited to liars … it applies to all bad faith actors. For example, in parts of the Midwest, it’s really hard to evict someone in winter.

So bad faith tenants will sign a lease in September, pay for a month or two, then stop. Can’t be evicted until spring.

And by “can’t be evicted” I mean can’t begin eviction proceedings. If the proceedings can be stretched out (“I’m in the hospital and can’t appear in court”) you can get to the next winter.

> It's like no one could agree on happy medium between "landlord can eject you whenever they want for whatever reason" and "no one can make you leave, ever, for any reason".

Renters vote. Prospective renters don't vote, because they don't live there.

Landlords vote too, but there aren't enough of them to counteract the renters.

Could you not put ejection conditions in the lease itself? (SF resident here, but with no experience in landlording). I'm wondering why can't a landlord put in the lease a term like "if tenant does not pay rent for 30 days, tenant gives up all of his rights and landlord has the right to eject tenant within 15 days".

You generally can't put illegal terms in a contact like that.

No. It’s pretty common for tenancy laws to make all other condition “void and unenforceable”.

>landlord can eject you whenever they want for whatever reason

I don't understand. Why aren't landlords able to do this? Isn't it seen as immoral to steal property from an owner?

> Why aren't landlords able to do this? Isn't it seen as immoral to steal property from an owner?

Well, for one, the government should enforce contract neutrally - so if you sign a contract leasing your property, you can't unilaterally break this without cause.

Second, we as a society have an interest in giving people time to move their stuff out and find a new place to live.

Thanks for the response! Honestly, I was going to delete my comment, I felt like I was asking in bad faith, but can't since it had a reply.

I guess I see your point. I tend to side a bit harder with the landlords, but I don't want people tossed out on the streets without any sort of warning either.

> I tend to side a bit harder with the landlords, but I don't want people tossed out on the streets without any sort of warning either.

I expect that that hardly ever happens. Landlords aren't in the business to make life unnecessarily bad for renters, they're there to make money.

A tenant who stayed in the same place for 3 years, always pays on time and never damages the property is preferably to an unknown. Landlords know that starting an eviction can cost them up to a year of income, plus there is always the risk that the new tenant is going to be even costlier.

Why on earth would a landlord roll the dice on someone new? My guess is that many of those sob stories you are hearing from tenants are their side of the story.

They aren't going to tell you that the miss rent sometimes (and they'd have to miss a lot of months before a landlord will start the eviction process).

They aren't going to tell you that the landlord had to make substantial repairs to damages that they caused.

They aren't going to tell you that they sublet to "their cousins", and have 4 people to a room in a 3 room house.

When you listen to a landlord's side of the eviction story, it always comes down to money: "that house is my income and I wasn't getting it anymore".

No landlord is cutting off their income stream for several months just because they want to throw tenants onto the street.

Doesn't matter if they have missed rent, they still need 30 days notice. These laws exist for a reason, they weren't created to address a problem that didn't exist at the time.

I said:

> they'd have to miss a lot of months before a landlord will start the eviction process

And you replied with:

> Doesn't matter if they have missed rent, they still need 30 days notice.

I can't tell if you are attempting to disagree with that statement of mine or not.

Landlords rarely kick people out without notice because society has made it illegal for them to do so.

Your take is naive. Historically there was a lot of money to be made being a "slum lord" and renting in poorer communities where people have bad credit so can't get mortgages , there's a reason the term exists.

> Your take is naive.

Oh really? What is my "take"?

> Historically there was a lot of money to be made being a "slum lord" and renting in poorer communities where people have bad credit so can't get mortgages , there's a reason the term exists.

Yeah, but that's not under discussion.

The point I made was that because evictions are so expensive (wiping out years of profit) and long for landlords, they are only ever a last resort.

When you hear right now, as in today, under current laws, sob stories from people who've been evicted successfully, it's highly probable that they're leaving out the actual reason that the landlord just wiped out up to a year of profit just to get them out the door.

No one is wiping out years of income and going into the red just because they want to be mean.

The poster upthread called registeredcorn questioned why we have any tenant protection laws at all.

I guess you wrote something intended to have nothing to do with that. While I see that wasn't your intent in context I read you as saying tenant protections don't matter.

That's just a lease. Leases have fixed terms. When the lease is up either side can give 30 days notice that they will not be renewing. That is true even in places with minimal to no tenant protection laws.

In a tenant protection environment, the tenant has the option to cancel when the lease ends, but the landlord does not. Regardless of where you are in the contract cycle, the landlord's only way to end the contract is through an eviction, and he will have to prove in court that the situation meets one of the lawful bases for eviction.

> In a tenant protection environment, landlords cannot just decline to renew leases.

Unless we're talking about some rent controlled context, where in the US is this law?

For example, the entire state of California, including municipalities that don't have rent control and properties that aren't covered by existing rent controls.

https://sfrb.org/article/summary-ab-1482-california-tenant-p...

What are the bounds of that though? No place that I have lived in California gives me the option of continuing my lease under the current terms (never once did they not increase my rent)

AB1482 is statewide and covers most rental stock. Units built in the last 15 years are exempt. Single family homes are exempt, but only if explicitly included in the lease (plenty of landlords got bit by this in 2020 - no notice to tenant, automatically covered by rent control/eviction control).

This is both rent control and eviction protection. You cant be evicted without “just cause” - all leases automatically roll over to "month to month".

It only applies to homes owned by a corporation, you are incorrect that most properties are not exempt.

Most properties aren't exempt.

Any multi-family older than 15 years falls under rent control and eviction control. Considering how little housing is built in CA, that's a huge number of housing units.

When it comes to single family homes, you are correct that they are eligible to be exempt if they aren't owned by a corporation. However, landlords had to give notice back in 2020 to current tenants for that property to be exempt. Notice can't be retro-active, so a wide swath of single family homes that were rented at the time are under rent and eviction control now.

Of course if the tenant leaves, there is an opportunity for the property to be exempt again.

That said, if you don't think the screws will slowly be tightened on AB1482, you're out of your mind. Just like in the major cities they'll be a bunch of "updates" to the law to the point San Francisco style rent control is state wide.

> Any multi-family older than 15 years falls under rent control and eviction control. Considering how little housing is built in CA, that's a huge number of housing units.

Nope, only if it is owned by a corporation. AB1482 exemption is standard in leases.

I think the large majority of units in CA are not covered by any sort of just cause eviction law. This law has several very large exemptions.

There's the whole "house as a human right" angle that is sometimes used to explain why tenant friendly laws exist, but it's not the only angle you have to approach the problem from. It's also true that a cities economy needs a lot of "minimum wage" or whatever workers, and for example if San Francisco didn't have tenant friendly laws like rent control then the hospitality industry would also suddenly need to pay a lot more to get bodies for their people-heavy business. After some deep conversations with a friend about this I now see this from his angle where cities are just state-sponsored big HOAs. If you get property in the HOA you have to abide by their rules and one of their rules is that for certain types of property if you rent it you can't easily kick out the tenants. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to buy the property and even less to rent it, it's your call.

Because it's not just someone's property, it's also someone's home. The place they live. Society has collectively deemed kicking someone out of their home with no notice to be undesirable, even if they are currently struggling to pay rent.

You have to keep in mind the vast majority of tenancies are in good faith.

True. I was reexamining the way I worded my question and I certainly could have put things better. There is more nuance there than I had given at first thought.

Having grown up in rentals, and having had close family member kicked out of a rental with something like 1 weeks notice, I am very conflicted over the issue. Thank you for not responding in kind to the way my question was worded.

> prefer to keep their condos/houses empty rather than rent them out at market rate because of 100% tenant friendly city and state laws. Someone can move in and refuse to pay rent, refuse to leave, use your house as a drug den, destroy your property and lots more, and you can do nothing about it.

I'm in this situation right now. The only way I'll rent it out is if I personally know the tenant and their personal character. Otherwise, I'd rather leave the property empty. I didn't buy it as a rental, rather I paid off my primary residence and then had to move, so just kept it. I don't want to go outside the law, but that would be my only option as a landlord if someone tried to abuse me/my property, since the law offers me no meaningful protection. To avoid that liability, I simply don't rent.

This is so alien to me. Why don’t you sell the place? Staying the owner of this place makes it so that you can’t spend your money tied up in this house, and this house can’t provide its roof to someone. Seems like both of you loose.

I had to move, but I want to come back. I already have a paid off house in this city after living here for 14 years. Selling it doesn't net me enough profit to meaningfully change things for myself in the new city after taxes, so it's better to hold onto it for when I eventually return.

Presumably value appreciating more than selling it and investing in other assets that are as safe.

Also, houses can allow you to lever up with non callable loans.

> This is so alien to me. Why don’t you sell the place?

Selling might trigger a very large tax liability, depending on original cost vs. current price. When that is the case, it's better to keep it in case you might want to return to the area in the future.

The first $500k of appreciation is tax free. The rest is long term capital gains. If you want to minimize taxes, you should sell your house every time it appreciates in value by 500k and buy a new one. As long as you don't do so more than once every 2 or 3 years, which is how long it takes to reset the tax free increase.

A home 2 doors down from myself had been empty since the neighborhood was built in 2016 until 2020 when rental prices in our neighborhood blew through the ceiling.

I always assumed their financial calculus was such that the appreciation alone, on an empty home, was a better prospect to them than what they could've gotten in rent in those earlier years (weighted against upkeep/maintenance vs. leaving the place empty and coming by every 6 weeks to inspect the place -- which is what they were doing). Now that these homes are renting out for nearly 2x the mortgage price they have a tenant. I'm unsurprised to hear that it's commonplace. It's just... upsetting.

For someone renting out a single home, I think it’s the risk of a bad tenant much more than the basic calculations — as GP said, there’s really nothing you can do about it.

I personally know a case of a misbehaving tenant not paying rent beyond the first two months pre-payment, submitted a fraudulent check for the first actual payment, had neighbor complaints endlessly with repeat HoA fines (fines given to owner, of course) — and 1.5 years to evict..

It also turned out he had started subletting it out for the same rent that he himself wasn’t paying.

That kind of thing can get you into a deep hole pretty quickly, and there’s not even much filtering you can do ahead of time, even with third party verification

Like another commenter mentioned, you'd real think that in the interest of addressing the housing shortage that there be some better solutions for these problems on both ends of the spectrum.

> I'm unsurprised to hear that it's commonplace. It's just... upsetting.

Law of unintended consequences.

Make it almost so expensive to evict that an eviction can wipe away years of profit, and landlords will rather have the place empty while it appreciates.

A friend bought a duplex in Berkeley. Due to the tenant-friendly laws there, she will only rent to international university affiliates whose roles/visas will require them to leave after a year or two.

Interestingly, she is very YIMBY and liberal, and even has a PhD in urban planning. But no one wants a forever tenant!

You're not a liberal if you're casually violating fair housing law :)

Everyone wants to call themselves a liberal or progressive nowadays, it's bizarre. These things are about actions, not self-assigned labels.

Just curious as an outsider, what laws are she breaking by doing that?

Civil Rights Act of 1968, Unruh Civil Rights Act, ... there are a few other California specific legal statutes around civil rights/housing discrimination.

If you are sharing your own house vs renting out an autonomous unit, the rules are different (at least here in Seattle), you can discriminate a lot more legally than you could otherwise. So someone who rents room in their home only to Chinese international students is completely ok (as long as they share living space with the landlord). Not sure what the laws are in California, but federally it’s kosher.

> If you are sharing your own house vs renting out an autonomous unit

A duplex by definition is a building with two separate dwelling units.

You are right, here are the seattle FAQ on first qualified applications:

> Yes. The first-in-time requirement applies to duplexes and triplexes even if the owner resides in one of the units. The non-owner occupied units are considered separate dwellings, and therefore are subject to the Seattle Open Housing Ordinance, which includes the first-in-time provisions.

The other two points where exceptions exists are for accessory dwelling units and (as I stated previously) when the owner lives in the same spaces being rented out, see http://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/CivilRights/Fai...

Now if the lady in question was renting out the basement, that might count as an accessory dwelling unit, and she would be exempt under Seattle rules (but this is in SF, so the rules would be different).

My guess is that as long as she doesn't advertise the unit (in the sense that she put it up for application), she can simply mention its availability to a small network that conveys it by word of mouth. It is impossible to legislate that kind of discrimination, there are tons of units that don't officially go on the market (via advertising on zillow, for example) but still get rented out.

The Fair Housing Act (the part of the 1968 Civil Rights Act you are referring to) exempts owner-occupied buildings with less than five units, so it wouldn't apply to the other unit in an owner-occupied duplex.

I didn't understand the GP to mean they were occupying the duplex. But in that context, it still violates california fair housing law.

Oh sure, rather flagrantly. I count at least four protected traits it discriminates on. (Mentioned in a post in another branch of the thread.)

What part of the civil rights act does it violate?

It's discussed on other parts of the thread. Also, I was assuming that this was not an owner-occupied duplex. It falls to state law if it is.

Is visa status a protected class for rentals in CA/Berkley?

Citizenship and national origin are, as is immigration status (under different laws.) Also source of income.

Renting only to international university affiliates on particular kinds of visas is directly discrimination on the basis of all of citizenship, national origin, immigration status, and source of income, and might also constitute disparate impact discrimination (which California FEHA also covers as well as direct discrimination) on other protected grounds if the direct discrimination wasn't enough.

Yes it is, but it's impossible to enforce because landlords can ask for your drivers license/ID with the application and if you are on a visa your ID says "LIMITED TERM" on it. So they can always say yes or no based on that but pretend it was something else that made them make the choice.

Looks like immigration status is protected. I wonder if a plaintiff could win a case on the grounds that they were discriminated against because they weren't on a temporary visa.

As a former lawyer, I realize it's possible to make the argument, but it's probably clear from the legislative history of the law that it's meant to protect people who are on visas, not people who aren't.

Also, she would probably say that her rule is that she only rents to people who have an extremely compelling reason to leave after 1-2 years. Compelling reasons include time-limited positions (postdocs) or visa restrictions.

Answering my own question- it appears that yes, it is- https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Housing/#whoBody

>Everyone wants to call themselves a liberal or progressive nowadays, it's bizarre.

Thats just the scam the corporate left likes to play. They love to be super "progressive" while actually performing nothing progressive other than performance art.

It costs nothing to call yourself "progressive". Hell I bet Trump has probably called himself "progressive" ha ha.

Like you said, its actions that matter. If you look at that, essentially the elected progressives in this country trend towards 0.

> the corporate left

This thing does not exist.

Haha… all those woke Silicon Valley CEOs would prove you wrong.

I read this more as an indication that "liberal" philosophy is at best hypocritical (liberals "want things" (e.g. free education/housing) as long as they don't have to pay/work for it themselves) and at best contradictory (e.g. "open borders" while at the same time "social security").

Liberals can break laws just like conservatives can. Free country

Sure they can!

But ongoing intent to break certain categories of law will also mean that certain political labels are incorrect.

Nah labels are based on how you want others to behave not how you behave yourself

I know a landlord with a 4 unit rent controlled building in SF. As tenants leave, the units are left empty. Some units have been empty for 3+ years now.

Why? Because she is retiring and an empty building will sell for several hundred thousand more than one with tenants - giving up $300k in rent over a few years is an easy trade off when she can sell the whole building for $600k more.

> Interestingly, she is very YIMBY and liberal

Do you mean “liberal” the way progressives use it (i.e., center-right pro-corporate capitalist) or “liberal” the way conservatives use it (i.e., left of the Republican Party, with more liberal = more left)?

The parent you’re replying too has no problem with tenant-friendly laws: rather, these occupation limits are both tenant and owner unfriendly, because you can’t live together in non-family arrangements that you might prefer (as a tenant or as owner). I sympathize.

With regards to your example, if you’re rich enough to be able to afford leaving a property you own empty, then I have little sympathy. It seems like their cities and states should introduce a sizeable vacancy tax. Or, as they did in Amsterdam in the 1980ies, tolerate squatting. And yes, maybe see if there’s something that can be done about backlogs in eviction court, but the baseline for me is that it should never be feasible for an owner to leave their house empty.

Sounds like those places need a land value tax, too.

Why should we use this as an example? You’re talking about people who are throwing away money by leaving assets idle - and implying that they obviously don’t know how to operate in this market.

> You’re talking about people who are throwing away money by leaving assets idle

No, they are watching their assets shoot up in value every day without any operational burden.

> and implying that they obviously don’t know how to operate in this market

When did I say that? In fact what they are doing the most logical thing.

> > You’re talking about people who are throwing away money by leaving assets idle

> No, they are watching their assets shoot up in value every day without any operational burden.

It's not either/or. They might be watching the property value go up every year, but they are simultaneously throwing money away by leaving it empty. They could have been profiting from both sources but chose to profit only from one.

(Often rationally, since a bad tenant can destroy the property and never pay, but still.)

As a potential landlord who is doing this very thing right now, it isn't really "throwing money away", because of asset appreciation. If you get stuck with a bad tenant it's way more hassle than if you had just let it sit and AirBnB'd it every once in a while. Especially for properties where the rent is less than the appreciation per month.

How do you feel about the ethical aspect? Now the home is not useful, except as an investment to you, but if you sold it there’s lots of ways you could make money instead (and in ways that provide value to others!). And the place would be someone’s home. Seems weird to let it be stay empty like that.

I had hoped to not wade too deep into this discussion for privacy reasons, but essentially I have quasi-rented it to someone close to me who I trust, and isn't in need of the place. They cover the utilities they use, and I don't charge them rent. Still, you have a valid point. I honestly don't like the AirBnBification of neighborhoods across the world. But, the time commitment I need right now to get licensure and then to interview rental candidates/hire a management just isn't worth the time commitment. Besides that, I like the optionality of visiting the city, and I did live in the house last year ( saved a ton on rent by buying in another state and working remotely there for my employer in California during the pandemic ). Hope that adds some clarity. I'm not part of the global elite!

You may not be part of the global super elite billionaires, but you certainly sound like a member of the global elite.

You are neglecting opportunity costs: if you could earn double (appreciation + rent) instead of just appreciation, you're leaving money on the table.

But also avoiding a very real possibility of significant costs (property destruction, litigation to remove bad tenants, etc.)

Think about this: land value appreciation is so crazy that you can not charge rent and still make enough money that a property has a good return on investment.

That extra money comes with additional risks, which the parent has judged to be not worth it.

> you can do nothing about it

lies, damn lies, and landlord lies..

The obvious solution is to just expropriate them and turn them into public housing. It's working in Berlin.

Or tolerate squatting, which used to be the case in the Netherlands.