phoenixmatrix t1_je63dvg wrote
Reply to comment by IronyAndWhine in Passing Good Cause Eviction would NOT make it harder for landlords to evict tenants for non-payment by [deleted]
Because its possible for something to be bad from multiple angles. Shocking, I know.
Did you know tenants aren't a single homogenous group, too?
IronyAndWhine t1_je646kt wrote
Grassroots tenants rights organizations and tenants unions — who advocate for the betterment of their housing conditions — are very supportive of the bill; landlord lobbies are very against this bill.
It could not be clearer.
I don't know what you mean by "for something to be bad from multiple angles," nor do I think that tenants are a homogeneous group; but they do represent a particular cluster of interests that are realized in the aspirations of these tenants organizations, who have fought hard to get Good Cause to even become a bill.
phoenixmatrix t1_je659ho wrote
> It could not be clearer
It couldn't be any clearer that all the reasons to get someone out of a unit that doesn't have to do with economics (and the challenges of doing so) are basically ignored.
> I don't know what you mean by "for something to be bad from multiple angles,"
I'm saying it absolutely would hurt landlords (increasing their cost), which I'm totally fine with. But it would also hurt the quality of life of a portion of good tenants. Because BOTH landlords -and- tenants hate dealing with problematic people. And a bill like this absolutely make it harder to deal with them.
Higher QoL standards and enforcement of QoL rules = less NIMBYism = more supply.
More supply (while retaining QoL) is good for tenants and bad for landlords. This bill is just a shortsighted stopgap patch.
IronyAndWhine t1_je65qfg wrote
Anyone who is a bad tenant and violates their lease terms is not covered by Good Cause eviction at all. This bill would not increase the burden on tenants vis-à-vis their neighbors.
I agree this bill is insufficient to meet the demands of the housing crisis but let's not let let perfect be the enemy of good here.
phoenixmatrix t1_je683lq wrote
>This bill would not increase the burden on tenants vis-à-vis their neighbors.
Yes it would, because we live in the real world, and I explained the reason in the first post. If a tenant is a nuisance, and there's a good cause requirement and they fight it, the landlord (and neighbors) have to prove it in a court of law, whereas right now you can just let the lease expire. That makes the burden exponentially higher.
For example right now if someone smoke in a non-smoking building, its INCREDIBLY difficult to evict them for it unless they straight up admit to it. Even if they do admit to it, they can just go in front of the judge, say "Yeah we stopped yesterday and will never smoke again" (even if its bullshit), and the judge will throw away the case until the landlord has proofs, and it's not like they're allowed to stick cameras in the unit. Basically what goes from "until the lease is done" becomes "until full blown eviction proceedings of the most difficult kind can go through".
That ABSOLUTELY increase the burden of tenants vs their neighbors. Having been in such a situation (as a tenant, not a landlord. Also once as part of a condo association vs someone's tenant) and having had to move mid lease several times in just a few years because of this bullshit, I've got hit first hand. Its not fun.
We live in a world where there's a very complex legal system. Laws exist inside that system, so its important to consider how they impact that system in practice, not just on paper.
IronyAndWhine t1_je6bf2g wrote
OK sure, I'll yield that it might increase the burden of landlords trying to get rid of tenants who are pretty-bad-but-not-clearly-violating-their-lease-bad. Ultimately I don't care about increasing the burden on landlords, but I acknowledge that this can have downstream effects on tenants as well.
But I have to weigh that against the fact that in my tenants union, I know multiple moms whose children would have homes if Good Cause were in place. And even with multiple children, they spend their precious time to show up at meetings and advocate for this legislation.
I think you're prioritizing strictly what's important to you based upon your experience, material comfort, and class position; and this ultimately constitutes a serious lapse of moral judgment. Maybe that's worth thinking about?
And I don't appreciate the "we live in a real world," patronizing rhetoric. Cheers.
KaiDaiz t1_je6cv58 wrote
> I know multiple moms whose children would have homes if Good Cause were in place.
Not really. Increased discrimination for them under this bill. New tenants with families are more likely to stay longer under this perpetual lease plan. So best to not rent to them and target single folks and couples where the space is too small for them to grow. Again faster turn over, faster to reset to market rent. This is what this bill incentivize as a counter and future outcome
IronyAndWhine t1_je6dl6q wrote
Stop replying to me, landlord.
These mothers and their kids would have homes if it weren't for people like you advocating against tenants protections.
No amount of gaslighting is going to convince me that they don't know what's in their interests.
phoenixmatrix t1_je6ft3j wrote
>I think you're prioritizing strictly what's important to you
> No amount of gaslighting is going to convince me that they don't know what's in their interests.
In the end you're a bleeding heart who only considers a subset of people you personally care about, and fuck everyone else.
> material comfort
And many physical and mental health issues people like you don't care for.
Ultimately, you started the argument with (paraphrasing, dramatization) "Lol, it makes landlords squirm so obviously its good for ALL TENANTS!". I wonder who's the one who has things that are "worth thinking about".
IronyAndWhine t1_je6ib54 wrote
The only subset of people I care about are the working people, who deserve the world!
phoenixmatrix t1_je6k2yv wrote
Well, apparently a big chunk of "working people" don't deserve that much. Or did you think you were talking to a big rich investor in this thread?
Well I guess since I was hit by the mass layoffs Im technically not working right now, so I suppose your logic checks out. Nvm.
IronyAndWhine t1_je6mlgg wrote
I don't know why you're being so incredibly hostile (you seem to think something I said was ableist?), but I wish you the best and I'm sorry to here you were hit by the layoffs!
There should be additional protections in place to ensure that tenants who get laid off can continue to live in their homes, free of the worry to make rent.
Edit: By the way, the term "working people" generally refers to the class and its participants, not just those who work traditional jobs, but also those who happen to be unemployed, unable to work, etc.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments