Oh, and a deposit for damage paid too, which has no bearing on the above rent and late eviction.

That might start to be fair with your logic.

I might add, this is the same logic with pre or post pay things. Prepaid phone vs postpay on credit...

THe way I would envision is that landlord is not allowed to manage any of that. Let's say you have a property, you can go to the government and say: "Hey, I have this property that I want to rent.". With the option of also giving a specific tenant if you want. The government then takes over completely. They get a free for managing the property and you get the rest. Government handles everything from eviction to damages to new tenant search.

It has to be fair for both parties.

And rent paid in advance is only so, if not in arrears.

But understand, my comment was responding to a post claiming that there should be no way to have a choice in whom you rent to.

I've seen units with a years rent in damages. Ripped carpet, holes in walls, smashed appliances and lights, etc.

But people want there to be no way to chose renters, based upon credit and past history?!

edit: your edited post clarifies things a bit. My primary concern is about forcing costs on the landlords, if there are no reliably checks. So I am open to ideas that take this into account.

edit2: more clarity here, that 'year's worth of rent in damages' was gross, not profit. It happens too frequently too. EG if rent is $100, a year of rent is $1200, but it isn't as if the landlord pockets that. Not even remotely close. Some landlords only make 30% on their units, when property tax, upkeep, water and other included things are involved.

So massive damage can take years to recoup!