Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IronyAndWhine t1_je5k0lm wrote

Reply to comment by KaiDaiz in Passing Good Cause Eviction would NOT make it harder for landlords to evict tenants for non-payment by [deleted]

A price cap and soft caps on increases are not the same thing at all.

Re "perpetual leases": it's worth noting that Landlords could still deny a lease renewal if they wanted to do something other than host a tenant at the same rate, like occupy a unit themselves or have a family member move in. The term "perpetual lease" does not respect the wording of the bill itself.

Otherwise, all that the current situation permits is for landlords to not renew a lease and increase the rent significantly: the effect of this Good Cause requirement necessitates that the term be extendable; the cap and extend-ability go hand-in-hand; you can't have one without the other.

If a landlord is merely not renewing a lease in order to kick the current tenant out (without good cause), then yes the tenant should 100% have the right to remain in their home.

All that the lease renewal requiring the landlord's consent does is permit them to hold the prospect of renewal over the tenant's heads, which forces tenants to bend over backwards to not bother the landlord. I've lived in terrible living conditions and not reported a critical and very real safety issue because the landlord threatened to not permit me to renew the lease if I kept insisting that they fixed it. That prospect is serious for renters, especially those who are least capable of moving with ease (disabled folks, undocumented folks, poor folks, etc.).

Internet service provision is very different, for a host of reasons, and implying otherwise is pretty disingenuous.

Look, on a more conceptual level: more people are tenants than they are landlords, so in a democratic society in which the government represents the popular will, laws should side with tenants when their rights are in direct opposition to the wishes of landlords.

3

KaiDaiz t1_je5kk8d wrote

the price cap I been referring is the cap on increases. it exist as we both agree just like in rent stabilized units but now making it apply for market units

>If a landlord is merely not renewing a lease in order to kick the current tenant out (without good cause), then yes the tenant should 100% have the right to remain in their home.

the good cause is the end of the term length on the agreed contract...and 100% right to remain at someone property who didn't agree to the extended length possibly that you be there forever? you don't own it. some else does that you agreed to live and vacate by end of the contract

>"perpetual lease" does not respect the wording of the bill itself.

and yet even you agree in practice it is and the point of the bill

8

IronyAndWhine t1_je5m10z wrote

Look, good luck to you, but I just genuinely think you're either trolling or a landlord so I'm done chatting. Cheers!

1

KaiDaiz t1_je5mbyw wrote

Am a LL and ultimately this bill wont impact me but I am noting the absurdity of it and its impact down road. Are we not in agreement we have a contract stating you leave at the end of term? Did you not agreed to that on signing? End of term is a good cause to end the agreement. That's the cruz what this bill violates. The agreed contract.

2

IronyAndWhine t1_je5qulb wrote

> Am a LL

Yeah, well I called that I guess. No working class person in their right mind goes out of their way to defend the privileges of landowners to lord over our ability to house ourselves.

It's bad enough having to pay you a third of my hard-earned income and deal with the prospect of not being able to renew my contract, or have the rent raised 50% in a year.

Let alone have you try to convince me of the righteousness of the current state of our class relations vis-à-vis the state — while you remain in the dominant position.

Maybe get a real job and stop leeching off of our hard work? Cheers.

3

KaiDaiz t1_je5rb05 wrote

> Maybe get a real job and stop leeching off of our hard work? Cheers.

dude I work a day job & side hustles and no LLing is not paying the bills and infact it's a net negative once I calculate all the expense & depreciation. I been a renter way longer been a LL. The real value why I do it not because it makes me money now but it enables me to be eligible for the mortgage to buy the place. Becoming a LL is often the only way one is qualified and able to buy a home in NYC if you don't come from money.

6