Help us take down slumlords!

Submitted by MrArkAngel11 t3_11bmitm in RhodeIsland

Hello everyone! I am part of a group called Reclaim Rhode Island. We are working on helping people who are taken advantage of by bad landlords. We have recently brought to light the awful stuff Pioneer Investments has been doing(lead poisoning children, rats in walls, sewage leaking in kitchens) and we are taking it this Tuesday to the statehouse in providence! If you or anyone you know has ever been hurt by a slumlord we would really appreciate the support. So come join us Tuesday to fight for better living conditions!

https://preview.redd.it/26us16tijcka1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=a8f2c6c9debb450e074ab6965664f87d9da59329

https://preview.redd.it/7nufp6tijcka1.jpg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=2551f44b95bb66c4b0a87c231c5772092f72bb60

https://preview.redd.it/ybw9c7tijcka1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=658b580cd9c2a31ea5962cdea59d74a4b94fc212

157

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Ijustlookedthatup t1_j9yq4it wrote

A way to fight this is to highlight good landlords so that they may set the example for the slumlords of the state. Hold up those that protect and nurture the community instead of sucking it dry for profit.

45

klasbatalo t1_ja01h8j wrote

If good landlords want to make some examples out of themselves and take action against slumlords that’s great, they should request the state bring the heat to the slumlords who you think make them look bad.

20

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja01yvw wrote

Well I don’t see it as a “looking bad” situation but more of “you should be ostracized by your community for taking advantage.” And others setting the silent standard by just not being a bad person.

−4

klasbatalo t1_ja024nb wrote

I’m just saying good landlords should fight to get slumlords out of existence.

3

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja02thl wrote

I could support that 100%, I just know that the best way is to lead by example as it’s more likely to get results. To clarify, I mean if 5 people are sitting in a room of all the same standing and one is taking advantage where the others are not then the others continue to do business as usual and choose to not do business or associate, support, or interact at all with the other individual. This would set the standard of what is accepted and if an individual wishes to interact with their community at any level they must adhere to the cultural business norms. Further, the tenant side should steer clear of those individuals and spend their time and money with the fair members. This would bleed the others resources only allowing those who follow the community to prosper.

1

klasbatalo t1_ja04wdg wrote

Yes we are calling for a boycott of this landlord and investigation by the state of Rhode Island.

4

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja05qc4 wrote

I think that’s fantastic and I support this. Expose, investigate, and prosecute.

3

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja00965 wrote

even "good" landlords aren't worth highlighting cos they still function to commodify essential human needs

−5

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja01l01 wrote

Houses don’t just come into being. It’s thousands of hours of craftsmanship to build safely and properly. This take time and money, being that there’s a housing shortage I would say that having the people who can’t afford to own homes have an option is better than not or public housing(that’s barely available) which people have the right to chose not to live in.

Unless you’re out there volunteering your time and money digging foundations, setting plates, and constructing free housing for strangers I don’t think you have a place to say that someone who provides a service to the community and also their family is inherently not good. Asking others to give and judging them for not giving up all they’ve possibly worked for is throwing stones from glass house type thinking.

17

420foreverandalways t1_ja0ouo0 wrote

Landlords don't provide housing. They horde it, and hold it hostage. They are parasites.

−4

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja0ral4 wrote

Who builds homes?

0

420foreverandalways t1_ja3bjy5 wrote

Construction workers, obviously. Landlords only know how to paint things with that thick white paint. Did you think landlords build the houses they own? LMFAO.

1

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja3cpd6 wrote

Being as I build homes for a living now, I’m familiar with the process. And funny enough YES! They in fact do!!

Here’s how it works!

Person A has money to build a single family or multi-family structure. The construction firm isn’t going to finance it themselves, they wait usually for someone to approach with a project after securing financing. Then the firm builds it! Isn’t it exciting to learn!! After the build is complete the landlord/owner either rents or lives in the property themselves, although likely with multi-unit structures it goes straight to rental. Hence the landlords are in fact the ones that build homes!! Wasn’t that fun?! I sure had fun :)

2

420foreverandalways t1_ja3dqx9 wrote

If you pay me to have sex with your wife, are you having sex with your wife?

1

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja3dw2k wrote

Well without you paying me, you wouldn’t have sex with my wife. So ultimately I am the one who makes it happen. She’s very happen with you and I’s arrangement btw.

1

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja044b8 wrote

First of all, landlords have nothing to do with the construction of homes. They come in after the building is up. Second, the housing shortage in the US exists for the most part due to the prices of available housing (particularly in relation to median income), zoning issues, and housing allowed to sit idle due to a lack of profitability. Landlords don't provide housing, they hoard it and ransom it out.

−5

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja05bmz wrote

Who do you believe finances the construction of multi-family homes or complexes, the construction firms? They are individuals who then rent out those units after final construction.

I would agree with everything you said about the housing shortage. Yet you state that zoning as one of them which is a limit put on primarily the financiers and future landlords of properties they aren’t allowed to build.

When solving an engineering problem you cannot just wish the constraints of the environment were different. You accept the constraints and work as best as you can around them, meaning if you want to help the most people don’t fight the system but make the system work for you and your goals for your community. As the idea of housing as a commodity being inherently wrong is a communistic ideal and not inherently wrong in any way. Except for that it is not within the parameters of the environment that is the modern US. Instead of changing the overall system, work to do your best within the system. That’s using your energy most efficiently and effectively.

2

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja05r6n wrote

I don't care about finance, it's a spook. It only exists to perpetuate these systemic problems. I'm not saying we should wish away the constraints of the environment, but that we must change the environment itself. the system doesn't work and only serves to maintain these issues.

−2

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja0683n wrote

See that’s where we disagree, I feel the best and most effective way to control this problem and lead to minimizing human suffering is to utilize capitalism however faulted it may be. The problem I see is a lack of accountability at the local and state level. I believe changing the environment at this point is wishful thinking, that the best foot forward is to utilize a balance of social netting and community advocacy that’s near compulsory by its nature.

6

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja06n6l wrote

Capitalism and the state are the source of the problem and not a means to a solution. I wish it were that easy but it really isn't. this is the same thought process that Lenin used and we all know how that ended

7

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja079zi wrote

Well I do know that capitalism has singly increased the average age of expiration, quality of life, healthcare, than any other form of communal structure we’ve seen yet. So instead of burning down the house to fix a few rotted beams maybe support them then replace as needed.

I guess I’m too much of a realist to even consider any national restructuring of government with a population of ~330m people without massive bloodshed or natural disaster.

5

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja07td3 wrote

those accomplishments were made by society and the work of people as a whole and not by capitalism. by that same line of logic, marxist-leninism in the USSR was equally successful. This also has nothing to do with realism but go off.

4

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja09aus wrote

They were made by individuals and teams that would otherwise not have had the environment to do what they did. Otherwise it would have happened previously. Comparing the USSR and and their healthcare with the general quality of life of the west is example enough. Barring phage therapy the Soviet’s just didn’t have the drive to push the R&D that capitalism provided for healthcare alone.

If you truly believe the US could switch government types as you say then explain a possibly socioeconomic avenue for that to happen without the two factors I described previously.

5

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja0a3a1 wrote

that's not at all true. I'm not gonna go into a rant about the USSR and why they were very marginally different from the US but suffice it to say capitalism actually stifles research in the name of profitability. It's a matter of risk v reward where research that has limited or no short term potential for profit and commercialization is neglected almost completely. It's a huge problem in academia. I'm also not advocating a change in government types. I'm an anarchist. I advocate for self-direction, free association, and an end to the state.

1

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja0c4cf wrote

Well after 15 years on an ambulance I learned that limiting government resources where they’re needed has fatal consequences. That there a position for a limited government at the local level that includes healthcare and housing as a supported necessity. I doubt anarchy will help solve more human tragedy than create it.

Academia may have a problems, but thousands of people locally have serious problems. it’s not theory, it’s on every corner.

3

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja0hh1a wrote

The limit on medical resources is also a factor but I mentioned academia specifically because it was an example in a book I just finished. Privatization is an enemy of medicine and only makes EMT work harder due to budget cutting and costs of care.

3

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja0r9av wrote

I was municipal 911 paramedic and still saw it, so I’m not sure where private came in. In some cases private companies provide the only 911 service due to lack of government resources so that’s what would happen in an anarchical system.

If someone can’t explain to me in simple terms a 9 y/o can understand how this system and it’s problems would be solved effectively, then it has no possibility of becoming reality without force or major natural disaster. People wouldn’t adopt it or understand it, so it has no probability of becoming a reality. So to solve these problem working within the system is necessary.

1

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja0sl82 wrote

It can't be explained in 9 year old terms because the world is far more complex than that. And no, privatization wouldn't happen with anarchy cos there's no private property or corporations to privatize anything

1

Ijustlookedthatup t1_ja0tmnu wrote

If you cannot explain relatively simply how you would even approach a problem then you don’t understand it enough to truly have a discussion on it. Even more so have a passionate conversation about it. You have to have some idea on the steps required or else it’s all academic, meaning theoretical and not in reality.

2

degggendorf t1_ja061hk wrote

>Second, the housing shortage in the US exists for the most part due to the prices of available housing

What's the logic there, prices going up makes demand go up too? Usually it's the other way around.

1

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja0674a wrote

prices going up creates a rise in evictions and homelessness so yeah.

2

degggendorf t1_ja0a1xx wrote

>evictions

Then there's no net change to housing shortage. One party kicked out makes the unit available for an equivalent party to move in.

>homelessness

That's a reduction in demand if someone who would be living in a unit isn't.

0

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja1fp5r wrote

It's not about supply vs demand. People need housing and are being pushed out by rising costs of living. that's the housing crisis.

1

degggendorf t1_ja1m3oe wrote

You said "housing shortage" in the comment I replied to.

0

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja1nbkp wrote

semantics

1

degggendorf t1_ja1o5fu wrote

Okay, words have no meaning to you, noted.

1

[deleted] t1_ja1uvlj wrote

[removed]

0

degggendorf t1_ja2ren3 wrote

It kinda seems like your inability to explain your logic, then falling back onto saying that words have no meaning is you coping. I'm just trying to understand what you're trying to say, I'm not sure what coping I would be doing.

1

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja2vtpy wrote

The breakdown is just the fact that I misused a single word so in good faith I'll just take that L. I was also very very tired at the time.

2

[deleted] t1_ja03dv4 wrote

[deleted]

3

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja03pgt wrote

yes

−1

[deleted] t1_ja04dgt wrote

[deleted]

1

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja04m7s wrote

just because it's the world we live in doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't change it.

1

[deleted] t1_ja04tq8 wrote

[deleted]

2

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja04zgx wrote

yes we should get rid of capitalism. if we don't rid ourselves of capitalism and the state, the world will turn into a desert

3

[deleted] t1_ja061o7 wrote

[deleted]

1

ConquestOfPizzaTime t1_ja069e1 wrote

you a member of DSA?

1

PeachesFromTulsa t1_j9ziic0 wrote

I own a 2-family home in PVD. I live in one unit and my tenants help me cover the cost of the mortgage. I keep my rent below market value and address any repairs or issues ASAP. It’s a good situation for everyone involved. I know this movement is meant to fight back against “slumlords” but some of these things will negatively affect those of us who are not part of the larger problem. I charge an application fee because it’s costs money to run a background check. It’s not a ton of money (I believe around $35 last time), but someone has to pay it. If I am reviewing multiple applications, it adds up. It makes the most sense for each applicant to cover their own background check. My biggest concern is sealing eviction histories. I try to be sympathetic to everyone’s unique situation in life but paying my mortgage each month requires my tenants to contribute. If someone has an eviction on their record, I believe that’s my right to know as a property owner. Housing in RI should be more affordable and safe, but these initiatives are not the way to do it.

37

Brodyftw00 t1_j9zrfl6 wrote

I don't understand a cap on deductions for repairs. If the tenants actually damaged the premises, they should be held accountable. I'm with you 100%

14

PeachesFromTulsa t1_j9zvdtv wrote

Owners have to depreciate the replacement cost anyway. If a carpet is 3 years old and is damaged to the point of replacing, you cannot charge for the full replacement. I think a lot of people are naive to what the laws actually are.

10

godmode33 t1_ja2k84g wrote

Agreed, furthermore I don't understand the sealed eviction records either. If you have been evicted 3 times in the last five years, that's crucial information to have before I enter into any agreement with you. Some of these sound good. But some of them sound like a total scam waiting to happen. Just imagine how the capping of deductions could be used to hurt someone if things go sour. Seems foolish to build this into the process.

3

klasbatalo t1_ja01mdo wrote

The point is to allow tenants to get essential repairs done without being sent to eviction court for it.

1

Brodyftw00 t1_ja01yof wrote

Retaliatory evictions are already strictly prohibited. A landlord cannot evict a tenant for demanding essential repairs are made.

4

klasbatalo t1_ja021s6 wrote

They happen all the time. The law and courts in RI are a joke.

2

PeachesFromTulsa t1_ja06lo5 wrote

Tenants can withhold rent until essential services are repaired. There is already a lever they can pull.

−1

klasbatalo t1_ja08r1i wrote

Actually when they do that slumlords bring them to fourth for non-payment evictions. It’s illegal to withhold unless you pay into the court registry apparently.

5

PeachesFromTulsa t1_ja09jrk wrote

It does not to be sent to a court registry, it just needs to be set aside in some other account.

1

klasbatalo t1_ja09vd6 wrote

Go ahead try it. Our lawyers tell us this just ends in non payment evictions every time.

4

klasbatalo t1_ja0a8hu wrote

In particular this is what happens with slumlords like Pioneer Investments LLC who disregard the laws.

3

klasbatalo t1_ja0acte wrote

Also this is why lawmakers are discussing raising deductions from $125 to $500 or even the full rent.

1

klasbatalo t1_ja2szum wrote

I’ve heard it from the best lawyers in the state who handle evictions cases every day, every week and they have told me if you haven’t given proper notice (20 days) and / or deduct more that the legal $125 then you are likely seeing an eviction filed against you for non-payment of rent. It doesn’t matter that it’s probably an illegal retaliatory eviction they still happen and sometimes judges grant them if tenants don’t have enough documentation etc

1

tilario t1_ja11uh1 wrote

is a landlord allowed to get references from previous landlords like employers get references for potential employees? if so, would that abate your concerns?

5

PeachesFromTulsa t1_ja16qxd wrote

I’m mostly concerned with an arrest record… assault, domestic violence, etc. I live on the premises so it’s important to me to do that kind of check.

3

tilario t1_ja18hmb wrote

do you get that from an eviction history? not trying to be difficult. just thinking of it like a hiring. eg, 15 people come see your apartment, you choose your top 3 candidates and do background checks and previous landlord references for them.

1

PeachesFromTulsa t1_ja19rd0 wrote

The system I use gives a comprehensive criminal background check and eviction history. I personally do not rely on references because some property owners will give favorable references to problem tenants in order to get them out. Also, just like hiring for a job, a lot of people feel they open themselves up to potential litigation if they give any more information beyond rental dates. There is no perfect process but I feel more comfortable having the facts that a $35 background check provides.

8

anxiousinfotech t1_ja54ayl wrote

I feel that it is perfectly fair for you to charge an application fee to cover your expenses.

The issue is both slumlords and large commercial landlords alike will take in application fees for potential tenants that they have no intention of renting to. In hot markets they may take in 100 applications or more for a single unit with fees of ~$75 per person (not per application) and pocket a large chunk of change. If you as an individual landlord get charged $35 for a background check a high volume landlord is going to have a much better deal negotiated.

I think allowing actual costs with a limit of how many can be charged the fee on a given unit would be fair to all sides. Costs are covered, no one gets gouged, and no one pays an application fee for an application that's never going to get processed anyway.

2

PeachesFromTulsa t1_ja56i1m wrote

This is completely valid and understandable. I think my point in commenting here is to show that blanket demands about things like application fees hurt some of people that they aren’t meant to target. Many of my neighbors are in the same boat as me — owner-occupied 2+ family homes with good people who care about our tenants and the neighborhood. There are a lot of corporate investors in the city but there are also a lot of property owners that are not getting rich off our tenants, and are simply trying to find a sustainable way to own property. I cannot afford to own a single family home in the city, I rely on my tenants to help me pay my mortgage and I pay that back with reasonable rents and a safe, clean space. I don’t think it’s too much to ask to have my tenants cover the cost of a background check when we share a living space together.

2

anxiousinfotech t1_ja5wvvv wrote

If more landlords were like you these changes would never need to be proposed.

Also, with any legislation you have to try for more than what you actually want, as everything will almost always be weakened before any passable legislation makes its way through the system. A proposal prohibiting application fees should wind up becoming a fair compromise in the end.

1

thatderp9 t1_ja1cxko wrote

The problem of not sealing evictions is there is no time limit. You got an eviction in 2015 then you have an eviction in 2023. If you had a case on you and it was dismissed you still have an eviction on your public records. I can understand if your a repeat offender like 2 or 3 evictions but right now 1 is a lifetime penalty.

I guess what I’m trying to say is even if bills get passed it should be amended to make them more fair cause yes you as a property owner shouldn’t be penalized for just wanting to make sure you have a good tenant but at the same time peoples finances change and people in there 40’s and 50’s shouldn’t be penalized for something they did in there early 20’s.

5

klasbatalo t1_ja2tp0o wrote

Not just time limit, but it isn’t that you have an eviction if you get kicked out, it’s you have an eviction if any landlord ever just simply filed for one, like you said.

2

JustSomeoneLikeYou t1_ja0een8 wrote

We are literally in the exact same boat and I question the “changes” this is trying to put in place. It’s almost as if they’re specifically highlighting the changes that make people write this off.

I’m wondering if most of my concerns would be covered in the registry. I would gladly remove the application fee if it can be a one time upload I can see. For potential tenants. Like you said those checks aren’t free. This only helps big players because they probably pay a much lower rate to check with the volume they get.

For sealing eviction, I think it could be good to not have an eviction be a death sentence on ever renting a decent place for almost a decade. I know people go through some rough times. Maybe a 3-5 year “I paid rent correctly” removes the eviction from your record. It hurts us smaller guys cuz big time slumlords have lawyers that will just look up the court records to see if the potential tenant shows up in court. I can’t do that with every tenant.

That said a small landlord isn’t better or worse than the big ones it’s all dépendant on situation. I’m all for more laws that keep both parties in check.

1

cowperthwaite t1_ja0bocy wrote

Links to Providence Journal stories about Pioneer Investments.

Pioneer tenants organized against their landlord. Now they say they're being pushed out: Renters have faced sewage stench, leaks and structural issues. Now they say they may lose their homes.

https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/local/2023/02/06/pioneer-tenants-say-they-are-being-forced-out-after-organizing-against-landlord/69871075007/

Tenants band together against RI landlord as they face deplorable conditions

https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/local/2022/09/30/pioneer-investments-anurag-sureka-tenants-say-apartments-deplorable-condition/8081442001/

A Central Falls couple's twins were struggling. Then a blood test showed high lead levels: Pioneer Investments left two young children at risk in a Central Falls property. Now, the parents may take action.

https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/local/2022/12/15/childhood-lead-poisoning-central-falls-rhode-island-pioneer-properties/69683975007/

Edit: Two of the three stories require a subscription. We're still running a sale for President's Day, one of the best of the year. Please consider subscribing. And consider reading these important stories.

https://subscribe.providencejournal.com/offers?gps-source=CPDIGARTICLE&utm_medium=onsite&utm_source=article&utm_campaign=DIGITALARTICLE&utm_content=CPDIGARTICLE

18

Greeneydgemini t1_ja100ui wrote

https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/local/2023/02/06/pioneer-tenants-say-they-are-being-forced-out-after-organizing-against-landlord/69871075007/

https://upriseri.com/landlord-pioneer-investments-sureka-retaliation-unionization/

Please read this is my personal story! I have tried over and over again to get minimum standards of maintenance at my home since 2017.. 2018 I have been living with a hole in my roof in my bathroom that has no heat and mold.. never repaired.. we have rats.. mold… sewage issues.. literally the house is falling apart.. all he does is raise the rent and not fix anything..

I pay my rent all the time all I ask is for the home to be safe and it’s not and unfortunately because I have gone against this man he has ruined my chances to rent now but black balling me and not giving a new landlord a good reference.

All we want is a safe home not somewhere we feel unsafe and sick and stressed we are trapped and it’s hard…

We want this landlord held accountable and all landlords to be accountable for their homes to listen to their tenants and fix issues and not having us live in conditions that are not safe or healthy!! Please stand with us!!

10

climb-high t1_j9zzky9 wrote

I got fuuuucked by a slumlord who took my whole security deposit because I didn’t deep deep deep clean her place. Nothing broken except one cracked bathroom tile.

This bitch charged herself $50/hr to deep clean the unit on my dime since my pro cleaners didn’t do it up to her standards. Unfortunately the predatory lease allowed her to do that and multiple lawyers said it wasn’t worth my time. I had to sign it tho, I was literally “homeless” (living with friends).

7

follyrob t1_ja01wlj wrote

This is one of the most common ways that landlords fuck over tenants. If this ever happens in the future, you can file claims to get your deposit back without an attorney.

The landlord tenant handbook tells you exactly how to go about it:

The Rhode Island Landlord-Tenant Handbook - Courts.RI.gov https://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/districtcourt/PDF/Handbook.pdf

5

LuckyStriker86 t1_ja0d6tp wrote

Why seal eviction records? This doesn't make sense to me.

5

MrArkAngel11 OP t1_ja0ql5n wrote

An example would be what this slumlord is doing. Evicting people because they are suing him and getting the authorities involved. These even though unjust and illegal evictions are still on peoples records.

6

klasbatalo t1_ja0iima wrote

Many evictions are “no fault” evictions where the landlord just wanted their place back and gave tenant no choice.

−1

Substantial_Maybe_67 t1_ja2poyx wrote

That’s untrue. You can’t evict someone unless they are behind on their rent or refuse to leave the premises after getting notice. You can certainly terminate the rental agreement- which is legal with 30 days notice. But unless the person refused to leave, they wouldn’t have an eviction on their record.

5

klasbatalo t1_ja2stsd wrote

Termination of tenancy is also known as “no fault” evictions.

2

klasbatalo t1_ja2t3w3 wrote

In this economy who can just up and leave in 30 days? Most people face immediate homelessness and aren’t going to just hit the streets, they overstay because they can’t find another apartment.

2

Substantial_Maybe_67 t1_ja2tt5w wrote

If you can’t leave within 30 days a judge will almost always give you a stay provided you keep paying rent. The reality is when you sign a month to month rental agreement, you agree to those conditions and know you can be put in a situation where you need to be out within a month. If that’s not doable it is probably worth requesting a year long agreement so you can get three months notice.

5

klasbatalo t1_ja2u3hx wrote

People don’t sign month to month leases they are just told if you don’t do this I’ll terminate your tenancy. Most are economically compelled into that position. And yea maybe if you are a white or middle class tenant with a lawyer you’ll get a stay, but if you are a POC mom with no lawyer who doesn’t know her rights etc sorry but we see a lot of these evictions go down. We have a crisis of the abuse and misuse of these laws.

−1

Substantial_Maybe_67 t1_ja2uaku wrote

Absolutely wrong. If you don’t sign a lease, then you know you have basically no rights to that property. I have been to dozens of eviction hearings. You don’t need a lawyer to ask the judge for leniency. I’ve seen additional time given for tenants who were 3+ months behind on rent and didn’t have an attorney representing them.

4

klasbatalo t1_ja2ux2m wrote

This whole past year has been a crisis of landlords price gouging giving a months notice of unaffordable rent increases and then when tenant can’t agree cuz they don’t get a raise at work or can’t find a second, third job they get a 30 day notice of termination of periodic tenancy telling them sorry but you are too poor I’d prefer a richer tenant get out in the street please.

3

LuckyStriker86 t1_ja2y55b wrote

Actually I'm pretty sure there is a law in place already limiting the amount rent can increase in a given period of time. Like 5 or 10% or something

1

klasbatalo t1_ja2y8k7 wrote

There is not. In some states there is rent control but RI doesn’t have rent control.

0

Silly_Brilliant868 t1_ja49q6s wrote

I mean the whole time during Covid was tenants not paying because there was an eviction moratorium … it goes both ways. Tenants take advantage of things they same way landlords do

0

klasbatalo t1_ja4bq5f wrote

Nah most landlords found a way to evict people for reasons other than non payment also most tenants who did use the moratorium got rent relief which was a landlord bailout.

0

klasbatalo t1_ja2uojc wrote

Listen I’m not saying stays of eviction never happen. All I’m saying is most tenants don’t have a choice if they will sign a lease or not. They are too poor to say no to landlords who either don’t offer them at all or won’t offer a new year to year as standard practice and tell tenants after the first year is over they will move to month to month. I mean god most leases used in Rhode Island it’s practically standard at this point have a clause or provision which signals an automatic switch after a year, to only month to month. Just like many are forced to work at jobs they despise, jobs that abuse them, out of sheer economic desperation many many tenants (the same workers) are basically forced to rent from slumlords and other slimy landlords who don’t provide fair rental contracts. These tenants need to unionize just like workers unionize.

1

AttackonRetail t1_ja1fxh2 wrote

Why are these always on a weekday at hours that don't reflect someone who works? Homie, I've got a job and this doesnt work for either shift I can swing.

5

MrArkAngel11 OP t1_ja1ipgx wrote

It sucks but politicians are there at these hours. We protest during their time at work so they hear us

7

klasbatalo t1_ja2th29 wrote

It does suck. One politician is introducing a virtual testimony bill because of how inaccessible they are. Otherwise write or call your politicians and tell them you care about these issues and that you and your friends vote.

1

deathsythe t1_ja8j8t4 wrote

Because the people who generally support these things don't work for a living.

0

Longjumping_Song6822 t1_ja0ntp2 wrote

He was my old landlord a year ago and oh the stuff I could tell you about, the biggest slumlord. Then turns around and takes me to eviction court when I was going through something and he told me he understood and then turn around and did that to me.

4

Ok-Mess-2729 t1_ja14nh6 wrote

Slumlords actually suck, Agree completely. Do you think some of these tactics will deter good landlords? Especially those who own smaller multi families? At some point it would be easier to just rent to people you know or family further narrowing the availability of rentals

4

Jmac3366 t1_ja1eic9 wrote

That’s exactly what will happen and all the available options will be corporate apts

5

frigobarOFC t1_ja3bkbk wrote

Lmao look at these renroids complaining with a full plate, so ungreatfull for the humble Landchads that provide homes for you all, all they ask is for a small tip fpr their services and you try to ruin them? Absolute rent🤮id behavior

1

Pleasant_Cat2286 t1_ja2r1js wrote

I’m a property manager that works for multiple landlords… and I have had some awful landlords which I normally have to drop this clients with in three months. We always take a deposit upfront from new clients so we don’t find ourselves with a bunch of repairs and unable to fix them. There is no applications for landlords unfortunately. But, there is good and bad tenants and good and bad landlords. Often landlords can’t afford repairs due to people not paying their rent and it turns into a vicious cycle. Desperation will turn the best of landlords in to slum lords.

0

cowperthwaite t1_ja3bjfs wrote

Stories in this issue:

Pioneer tenants organized against their landlord. Now they say they're being pushed out: Renters have faced sewage stench, leaks and structural issues. Now they say they may lose their homes.

https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/local/2023/02/06/pioneer-tenants-say-they-are-being-forced-out-after-organizing-against-landlord/69871075007/

Tenants band together against RI landlord as they face deplorable conditions

https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/local/2022/09/30/pioneer-investments-anurag-sureka-tenants-say-apartments-deplorable-condition/8081442001/

A Central Falls couple's twins were struggling. Then a blood test showed high lead levels: Pioneer Investments left two young children at risk in a Central Falls property. Now, the parents may take action.

https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/local/2022/12/15/childhood-lead-poisoning-central-falls-rhode-island-pioneer-properties/69683975007/

1

follyrob t1_j9zdct5 wrote

While I can appreciate the overall objectives in what the group is trying to do, I prefer evidence based legislation that is not just a "feel good" solution, but one that actually achieves the goals set out.

Rent control, or rent stabilization has had an overall negative effect on housing affordability in places where it has been implemented. It sounds good on the surface, but it effects the housing stock in some unexpected ways. There are numerous studies that highlight this fact. This one for example, concludes the following:

>Rent control appears to help affordability in the short run for current tenants, but in the long-run decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative externalities on the surrounding neighborhood. These results highlight that forcing landlords to provide insurance to tenants against rent increases can ultimately be counterproductive. If society desires to provide social insurance against rent increases, it may be less distortionary to offer this subsidy in the form of a government subsidy or tax credit. This would remove landlords’ incentives to decrease the housing supply and could provide households with the insurance they desire. A point of future research would be to design an optimal social insurance program to insure renters against large rent increases.

I would encourage anyone to read the study in it's entirety or seek out your own resources, the conclusions are always the same.

−1

jsaugust t1_j9zgon5 wrote

Great, so what’s your solution?

9

[deleted] t1_j9zhe8z wrote

[deleted]

3

follyrob t1_j9zvlol wrote

I do care, and do want affordable housing, I just don't believe rent control is the way to get it because the data shows that it is harmful to housing costs in the long term.

Instead of making a negative assumption about me and writing off what I have to say why not engage in a productive discussion and share your own ideas?

−1

follyrob t1_j9zuw0o wrote

More subsidies and housing vouchers, property tax relief for properties where rent is under a threshold, tax increases for properties where rent is over a threshold, encouragement for developers to build more housing stock at reasonable rental rates, and plenty more.

The truth is, I don't have a single solution, but am against rent control because data simply shows that it doesn't work in the long term and exacerbates the problem of a lack of affordable housing.

1

radarmy t1_j9zieen wrote

Stop renting from the slumlords?

−8

kendo31 t1_j9zpkal wrote

They don't have money for choices

5

kendo31 t1_j9zpmex wrote

You need evidence of lead and mice??

3

No_Rule_9059 t1_ja10rak wrote

If you don't like we're you live just move. How is that just not so simple.

−2

MrArkAngel11 OP t1_ja134ev wrote

Bro I literally went through like 80 landlords trying to find someone a place. They had great credit, 20k in savings, worked as a trucker making 80k a year. NO ONE would take the guy because his wife is a stay at home housewife

1

No_Rule_9059 t1_ja158lm wrote

I can't really believe that. Why didn't they buy a house. Only need 3% down with FHA /first time buyer. Could easily gotten own place

−2

[deleted] t1_ja16u9g wrote

[deleted]

3

No_Rule_9059 t1_ja1740h wrote

I bought my first house when I made less than 50k and 5k in cash. If you want something you go for it, not whine about it.

0

[deleted] t1_ja17fh2 wrote

[deleted]

2

Killjoy4eva t1_ja1rfcl wrote

> Why would you want to buy a house at 3% down.

Why wouldn't you want to buy a house at 3% down if you have limited funds? I personally purchased with ~5% down on FHA with the $7.5k grant for first time homebuyers. Nabbing a good rate when interest rates are low, it's more beneficial to throw the money in a 401k. The rate of return is higher on a simple index than the interest savings over the course of the note when putting more down even when accounting for PMI.

2

No_Rule_9059 t1_ja17s36 wrote

That's the minimum you need with FHA loan. I had 5k to put down when I bought my first house 🏠

−1

[deleted] t1_ja18g7z wrote

[deleted]

3

No_Rule_9059 t1_ja18u6b wrote

Well if you can clear a 2mil loan, you must make a lot of money. I don't think any on this thread is close to that

2

Previous_Floor t1_ja1vbj8 wrote

>Why would you want to buy a house at 3% down.

If your monthly mortgage payment is similar to what you've been paying for rent, why not? I get that you'd also now have property taxes and maintenance costs, but don't forget that rent goes up.

−1

MrArkAngel11 OP t1_ja16xh7 wrote

They have been looking for a home. Currently renting from Pioneer. Join reclaim and got told they need to leave march 1st or be evicted. Its hard to have a comfortable situation while being told you might be homeless for wanting water that isnt full of lead.

3

[deleted] t1_j9yzadw wrote

[deleted]

−4

klasbatalo t1_ja01r4a wrote

Yes they do, every code enforcement department in RI has multiple violations against this company / slumlord.

2

Wide_Television_7074 t1_j9znzcq wrote

enough of the protesting on the statehouse lawn, use the power of the pen! I feel for this cause, but this is not how you do it

−9

klasbatalo t1_ja01ykj wrote

They are protesting inside the statehouse and writing their politicians, councilors, reps, senators already. Nothing is being done about these slum conditions!!

5

pmk0286 t1_j9yzbkk wrote

I cannot believe the discrimination in this sub against PoL like this landlord. Poor fella travels here from India 🇮🇳, becomes a citizen, saves his pennies to buy income property…and these priveliged white folks who drink Starbucks all day whine about his properties.

Maybe they should pool their cash and buy their own property

−41