That's not uniformly true, and often only applies if it's due to citation after an inspection. Regardless, the tenants are often not aware of these regulations. Besides, my point was mainly that the tenants I have are so used to landlords taking advantage of them that they are shocked when one shows basic human decency to them.

I could barely believe this story when a pretty big youtuber had his upstairs neighbor flood his entire apartment, mold started growing everywhere and all his landlord offered was signing a new long-term lease on a different unit he didn't want.

He ended up somewhat deliberately staying after he got it out of them that they couldn't legally kick him out quickly, and he was trying to finish the purchase of a house at the time. But it seemed nuts that the landlord wouldn't be on the hook to provide him housing through the term of his lease without signing a new contract, or pay some large amount to break the contract that could have helped him cover a temporary mold-free option.

https://youtu.be/2R-KDji7tGE

Petty landlords are the vast majority, unfortunately. All they care about is extracting rent. They don't see tenants as human beings who can struggle, but rather as a source of income to exploit and ignore as much as they can.

yeah i lived in one that got in trouble (after i had moved out) for not telling their tenants about the lead paint or asbestos. they also had the elevator out of order for nearly two years during which period they raised the rent three times. have fun moving out of a fifth floor apartment when you have to carry furniture down the narrow stairs with four right angle turns every floor.

Are you sure that wasn't just the backdrop of the Big Bang Theory?

yes quiet. It sucked, especially because we had a baby at the time and trying to carry groceries and a child up those stairs to a unairconditioned apartment mid summer was not something deserving of a laugh track.

I am sorry to have made a comedy reference at your expense.

I hope you are dealing with less stress these days!

The reverse can also be true, tenants don’t care about landlords.

That’s not equivalent in any reasonable way. Tenants can’t put a landlord on the street.

Tenants can definitely bankrupt a landlord.

This isn’t how power, unjust hierarchies, surplus value, or capitalism in general works.

Tenants don't have to be thinking about any of those things to maliciously destroy a property. None of them come into play when you have, for example, a tenant who hasn't paid rent in months, or who runs illegal businesses out of the property, etc.

Nothing you said makes a difference. I’m unsure why it matters what the tenant is thinking? I don’t think it matters.

It’s a similar deal in the UK, where not to long ago parliament voted down an attempt to require rented accommodation be fit for human habitation. Apparently that’s too high a demand from landlords.

Just curious, what does it mean "fit for human habitation"?

The backgrounds is a boy's dead from a moldy place he and his family had to live in: https://propertyindustryeye.com/coroner-describes-toddlers-d....

As an example of this kind of rule from a place that currently has them, the basic coverage of California’s implied warranty of habitability are covered on pp 48-50 of this document:

https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/California-Tenants-Guide...

In many jurisdictions there are habitability requirements that, if not met, make it unlawful for the landlord to collect rent for the period during which they are not remedied, but there I am not aware of any that requires the landlord to supply substitute lodging (the presumption generally being that the withheld rent can instead be used for that purpose, though that’s dubious, in general.)

It’s a simple breach of contract. A rental agreement basically states that the tenant will pay rent and the landlord will provide a habitable apartment. The most common breach occurs when the tenant doesn’t pay their rent. However, when the apartment isn’t habitable, it’s the landlord who is in breach. The damages in such a case are the cost of substitue comparable accommodations, even if that cost is higher than the rental amount.

I think it depends on the state as well as contractual agreements. It's amazing how many rights you can legally sign away or minimize via contract law, largely to the benefit of those writing the contracts and not those signing contracts.

Simply relabeling or reclassifying the use of something and having agreement to those uses to pass liability of "misuse" when both parties are aware of actual and intended use goes a long way as well.

So many ways to pass liabilities and rights. The more society evolves, the less business is about providing or creating any sort of new value and more about optimizing away risk, costs, and any other potential liabilities while capturing as much actual value from the deal as possible in the process.

In theory, competition "regulates" this away. Some other landlord who provides a better value or service will clearly succeed over less value-add services to the consumer. In practice, the amount of choice, finite limitations of the best service providers, and often sheer complexity anymore of determining which amongst a set of options is actually best to the consumer seems to make this a non-starter. It allows a lot of abuse on the provider side to provide little-to-nothing and a continuous supply of new consumers to abuse should previous consumers become wiser and move on.

Being legally required to do something as a landlord, seldom translates into something convenient or even in one's favor, as a renter. Most landlords I've ever had use "legally required to do so" as a way to do the bare minimum and let you initiate contact with a lawyer or court, thus dragging out whatever it is you think they're legally required to do.

The case in UK as well.

It's like multi-millionaire CEOs congratulating themselves for creating so many jobs for the poors