The linked source has opted to use a paywall to restrict free viewership of their content. As alternate sources become available, please post them as a reply to this comment. Users with a Boston Public Library card can often view unrestricted articles here.

Boston Globe articles are still permissible as it's a soft-paywall. Please refrain from reporting as a Rule 5 violation. Please also note that copying and posting the entire article text as comments is not permissible.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Written by a landlord:

> Greg Vasil, President & CEO, Greater Boston Real Estate Board

Translation: F#@K YOU!! PAY ME!!!

Nice job Globe. Nothing like telling your readership to go f@#k itself.

Just because he's a landlord, doesn't mean he's wrong. It just means he's right for the wrong reason.

The opinion section of newspapers used to be used to publish a variety of opinions that intelligent readers could compare with their own. I hope you can imagine going backwards in time to a different era and respond as if you lived in that era instead of writing "Nice job Globe. Nothing like telling your readership to go f@#k itself." I understand that the media you might be used to reading no longer does that.

The old timers will tell you: say no to rent control. It doesn’t work the way you hope it will. Why not institute price controls across the board? Why not medical and educational price controls?? It’s a valid question: why not just decree everything has to be affordable? The cascading consequences of price controls are complex and ripple through real people. Those with knowledge, money and power will ultimately benefit most, while the rest will bear the cost. Look at how rent control has played out everywhere in the US, including Boston. It was an unmitigated disaster here.

Many look at Singapore as a good example of government fixing a housing problem but after decades, this is also being reexamined as there have been lots of unintended consequences.

I feel like the price of just about everything is downstream from the price of real estate (we need to exist somewhere)... so doing something to drive down/control the housing costs would be great.

Perhaps the best move would be removing some of the red tape associated with redevelopment, enforcing transit oriented development in/outside of Boston, and then expanding the reach of the trains even further.

The NYT has published opinion pieces by the Taliban. Doesn't mean they're on their side.

What are you talking about?! Newspapers have been using shock or misleading headlines since their inception in order to manipulate/mislead. Additionally, there has been no dearth of material explaining and detailing reasons that rent control would be a bad thing. I would expect that the timing of this article with the timing of Wu publicly pushing back against critics is not coincidental.

>The opinion section of newspapers used to be used to publish a variety of opinions that intelligent readers could compare with their own. I hope you can imagine going backwards in time to a different era and respond as if you lived in that era instead of writing "Nice job Globe. Nothing like telling your readership to go f@#k itself."

So you believe that I am somehow incapable of summarizing not only the position of the author but the position of the Globe who has been a bit more vocal when it comes to positions against rent control. I am somehow devoid of critical thought in your eyes due to my word choice. You hang on to the prejudice. It should serve you well I am sure, not that you would ever know one way or another.

> Rent stabilization will only make housing challenges worse.

Not for the people who have stabilized rents. Vasil seems to admit this when he wrote:

> While the policy may provide relief to those lucky enough to land a rent-controlled apartment, it does nothing to build the housing stock the area so desperately needs.

Boston and the cities nearby should be able to do both things. They are different, but they are not mutually exclusive.

I used to volunteer with the group monitoring E Coli levels in the Charles River at the same time that my upstairs neighbor volunteered for the group that fed the white geese near the BU Bridge. I'd see him with huge bags of birdseed and joke with him about how his volunteer work impacted mine.

He would talk about individual geese. He would say, "Each one has its own personality, and we can follow them and their families and stories over time." I was thinking statistically. I'm a human, not a goose, and I want a measurably cleaner river for my own species.

I see a similar difference in mindset between people like Greg Vasil and Mayor Wu, but I take the side of individuals over the broad statistical outcomes when it comes to rent control. Even if every statement in Vasil's opinion piece is correct and every prediction comes true, he cannot argue that rent stabilization will only make housing challenges worse for those who have it. If I were a goose thinking about displacing human families instead of a human thnking about displacing human families, then I might have a more detached, objective, and statistical view and agree with Vasil.

> ...I would expect that the timing of this article with...

It's an opinion piece. It's not an article.

> I am somehow devoid of critical thought in your eyes due to my word choice.

I don't think you're devoid of critical thought. But based on your words, you don't seem to recognize the distinction between an opinion piece appearing in the Globe by the CEO of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board and the opinion of the Globe.

If rent stabilization at a max of 10% per year is implemented and in fact incentivizes all landlords to raise rents by 10% per year, that will make things a lot worse for even people in stabilized apartments. 10% is substantially higher than the mean year-on-year rent increase.

So the timing of this article, especially given its author has nothing to do with the timing of this article from yesterday? Gotcha.

I disagree with your premise and I disagree with your conclusion even if your premise is correct.

As for your premise, just because the government allows something to happen "up to 10%" does not mean that those who make the decisions will make it happen "at 10%."

As for your conclusion even if your premise is correct, the goals involved are not statistical—relating to the mean—in my view. Instead, the goals are based on preventing individual acts of (what seems to be) housing injustice where families have their rent increased by 100% or more by new owners.

It doesn't guarantee that landlords will increase by the max, but it meaningfully incentivizes them to. Since rent increases compound, not increasing rent this year limits their ability to increase next year under stabilization. That is a direct incentive to increase rent even if they wouldn't otherwise.

If a new owner wants to increase rent by 100%, in all likelihood they just wouldn't renew the existing lease regardless and find new tenants. Rent stabilization would just add another reason to push the existing tenants out.

What. Of course its very directly a response to that. Newspapers are going to publish pieces related to topical events. That's what news is. That's why people buy newspapers. This still doesn't mean the newspaper is endorsing the viewpoint in the opinion piece. That's a fundamental misunderstanding on what an opinion piece is.

> Rent stabilization would just add another reason to push the existing tenants out.

That's why a rational approach by the city would combine rent stabilization with tenant eviction protection. Well look at that:

A hearing in two days to discuss

> a home rule petition to the General Court Re: A Special Law Authorizing the City of Boston to Implement Rent Stabilization and Tenant Eviction Protections.

It's not an eviction if the lease is over. That's what we're discussing, since that's when landlords would be raising rents.

According to Freakanomics he's not wrong.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-rent-control-doesnt-work/

> It's not an eviction if the lease is over

Maybe you're confused about terminology? A legal Notice To Quit can be given when a lease is about to be over. That's related to the timing of an eviction, but it's not an eviction.

Evictions are needed to legally displace tenants in this state, regardless of whether the lease is over or not. So...yes...it is an eviction if the lease is over.

Policies like these generally require cause for an eviction or for you to be removing the unit from the market entirely long term (such as moving into it, converting it to a condo and selling it, etc).

Otherwise, the existing tenant is allowed to renew their lease forever as long as they can pay the rent w/the yearly increases.

Which is to say - you can't evict or otherwise force out the current tenant just to go get a new one at a higher rent or one you like better.

Note that you have identified one of the other aspects - landlords may get more selective about tenants (legally or not) when they have fewer tools to get rid of annoying ones.

Not true. https://www.tenantresourcecenter.org/nonrenewal_reasons

"Generally (with a few notable exceptions, below), landlords and tenants do not have to give a reason for choosing not to renew a lease."

Oh fuck off. Please continue to drag us "forward" with rents spiraling out of control. 1 bedroom for $4k when??

I can't stand this fucking argument. As someone looking for an apartment to rent, it is fucking ridiculous to get mad that people who already have an apartment will have their rent stabilized. such a dogshit attitude. Yeah, this make it harder for me to find an apartment but at least people get to currently afford theirs without having to always look over their shoulder waiting for an insane rent increase.

[deleted]

A notable exception is what we're discussing for the future in Boston.

> The petition would also provide new tenant protections, including certain provisions protecting tenants from no fault evictions, which landlords have commonly used to clear out buildings for higher-paying renters.

This is not really true: a Notice to Quit is not required when a lease ends. https://masslegalhelp.org/housing/lt1-chapter-12-receiving-proper-notice "If your lease has an option to renew and you fail to renew it, your landlord does not need to send you a notice to quit if she wants you out at the end of your lease. In this case, the day after your lease ends, your landlord can immediately file papers in court and begin an eviction case without giving you a notice to quit."

> a Notice to Quit is not required when a lease ends.

Good point. A Notice to Quit can be given, but it doesn't need to be when a lease ends.

> your landlord can immediately file papers in court and begin an eviction case

But beginning an eviction case is not the same as an eviction that can actually legally displace someone. An eviction is still required to legally displace a tenant if the lease is over, so the legal protections from no fault evictions (that would be part of a sound rent stabilization plan) would apply.

Interesting, but I don't think failure to renew is a no-fault eviction: as I linked above, no notice to quit is needed in the case of failure to renew.

Ok, let's consolidate in the other thread - I'm having trouble keeping track of both. To be clear, I would love if tenants couldn't be forced out when their leases ended!

I'm not sure what you're writing. Tenant protections require that tenants be protected.

My guess is that it would be the case that landlords would not be forced to sign a new lease. But without the option to legally evict under the new tenant protections, the tenancy would become a tenancy-at-will and continue that way until a fault is found. Still, I'm not a lawyer or a professional housing advocate, and I haven't read the proposal yet. That's just a guess based on what the law is now.

Yeah I have a more general issue with opinion pieces often leaning towards platforming the already powerful and self-interested, but being against them being topical is a little silly. If there is a crash on the T or a policy proposal in the works, expect an influx of related content in the editorial page.

I just don't see any evidence that that is the case: I see that a landlord accepting a rent payment after the lease ends converts the tenancy to at-will (and then protection from no-fault eviction applies), but nothing that suggests that that happens automatically and without the consent of the landlord.

I don't understand why the law here is so esoteric and it's impossible to find clear answers to simple questions (to be clear, not at all the fault of the other commentors engaging on these threads).

Linda’s family is so proud.

[deleted]

> I just don't see any evidence that that is the case

It's not the case now. It is currently the case for section 8 housing.

As for the proposal, here it is. Just cause protections are in Section 3.

Yup, 3e says this explicitly. Cool!

You've linked a site that is tenant resources for Wisconsin.

Wisconsin does not have rent control or rent stabilization (to my knowledge), and is completely inapplicable to the discussion at hand.

Unlike Wisconsin, Oregon does have laws regarding rent stabilization and passed rules about lease renewals as part of that.

Here is a brief summary

In short, if you've lived somewhere for 12 months or more, your landlord can't choose to non-renew your lease + can't evict you unless they can show repeated lease violations, the unit is being demolished, extensive renovations, the landlord is moving into the unit, or they've sold it to someone who is going to move in.

Otherwise, your LL can give you a 7% + inflation rent hike per year, but they can't get rid of you.

> ...a written extension or renewal thereof or lease for a further term of like duration...

Looks like my guess that the landlord had the option to force a tenancy-at-will was wrong.

Rent control and additional barriers to evict problem tenants on top of the already huge barriers. Sound like A recipe to invest/build to me

[removed]

> additional barriers to evict problem tenants

Section 3 of the proposal has statements about who is and who is not a problem tenant. Landlords can still evict tenants who:

a) don't pay rent

b) violate legal parts of the lease

c) are a nuisance or cause damage

d) use or permit the use of the unit for any illegal purpose

e) refuse to renew their lease of like duration at a rent permitted by the city.

f) refuse reasonable access to the owner

g) are unapproved subtenants

I've had landlords who were some of the sweetest people on Earth, and I've had landlords who were braindead lying control freaks.

A recent landlord thought I was a "problem tenant" for pointing out during the COVID pandemic that without a full screen window instead of a cheap sliding insert, my bedroom did not meet the minimum ventilation standards of the building code. How dare I want ventilation during that time?

Other than a through g, what might you consider to be a "problem tenant?" To many new owners, any tenant with an insufficient income is "a problem tenant." That's dehumanizing in my view.

I am also incapable of recognizing the timing of this piece. Well, thanks for the insults.

Out of curiosity, what is it you do?

Timing: There will be a public hearing about Wu's proposal in two days. I imagine that the Greater Boston Real Estate Board wanted to make its opinion known before that hearing. Hence the timing.

Not an argument