> This does not end well at all.

It ends well for working class people who rent.

> rent stabilized places vs market rate places

Are you sure you live here? Everyone of my friends and colleagues have applied for rent stabilized units, often weekly, trying to be one of the lucky few selected by competitive lottery who gets to live in rent-stable housing.

There are obvious problems with the management and funding of rent-stable units, but those problems are solvable vis-a-vis broader policy in the works from tenants rights organization and others. I don't know anyone who would turn down the chance to live in one.

Yes exactly, I don't like the term for two reasons, but the main one is that it is only perpetual for the landlord.

It is also technically not perpetual for even the landlord though because if, for example, a small landlord wanted to start living in the unit they are renting, or wants to house their parent/sibling/child in the unit, the tenant does not have occupancy rights over those granted by the landlord.

As I think I said in the initial post, many in this subreddit have insisted that passing Good Cause Eviction would make it harder for landlords to evict tenants for non-payment.

I am just trying to point out that this particular claim many pro-landlord people make is not true!

I agree that price controls on rent need to be coupled with state-backed building construction projects and other policies directed at increasing gross unit supply. These are also major interests of the tenants rights groups pushing for this legislation, and it is also of course opposed by landlord lobbies — and therefore tricky to get political pressure behind, like Good Cause.

While it may be true that "the risk of a perpetual lease is higher than a 1 to 2 year lease," universal regulations like this will not materialize the kind of long-term harms to tenants that you're imagining. Landlords will continue to rent out the units they own given the choice between "perpetual leases" (I do not like this term) and no tenant at all. Because all landlords universally would face this minor increase in risk, competition in the market should maintain prices at there current levels.

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.

The only subset of people I care about are the working people, who deserve the world!

Then why are the biggest landlords' lobbies pouring so much money into preventing Good Cause from passing?

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.

I don't care about landlords' interests; they're doing fine.

The presence of the perpetual lease will drive down costs relative to the value of any purported increase. Yes, it will probably decrease turnover; no, I don't think — nor do the many hundreds of tenant's rights organizations in NYC think — that this will ultimately hurt tenants. Your advocates in the landlord lobbies, however, seem to also think this bill will really help tenants.

I'm not interested in chatting anymore with you, please stop replying to my comments here mate.

For context, this person is a landlord who like to show up on threads like this to advocate against tenant protection policy. Seems a bit strange to me. 🤷‍♂️

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.

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.

Odd thing to do to spend your time on Reddit advocating for those with economic power to maintain it, but that's what Landlords do with all their time not working I guess.

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.

This bill does not "violate the original contract" like it's some eternal binding entity imbued with divine power; it modifies the nature of the legal obligations under landlord-tenants contracts.

If Good Cause were so bad for tenants like you claim, then why are all grassroots tenant's rights organizations/ tenant associations supportive of the bill and all landlord lobbying organizations opposed to it?

This can't be any clearer, and gaslighting tenants from the perspective of being an owner into advocating against their interests is quite the disgusting tactic mate.

If tenants stand to lose so much, why are landlord lobbies spending so much money on getting this bill stopped?

Even if this were the case, the bill also caps rent increases relative to inflation.

Look stop responding to me in this thread mate. As I've said a couple times, I'm not interested in talking with a landlord about this; just trying to inform tenants.

I know you're against the bill, but I'm not going to change your mind because you wish to maintain the interests of the land-owning class; and you're not going to change mine because I want to advance those of working people.

This is a class issue and you're on the other side of the fence.

> units be smaller and less available units since turn over will drop

You're just listing off a bunch of things tenants wouldn't like with no supporting information whatsoever.

Like how would good cause eviction decrease the size of apartments???

And why on earth would it cause fewer units to be available? Turnover does not mean that new units magically become available.

Edit: I just realized that you're the landlord I was talking to earlier. I'm not interested in chatting with you more here, just trying to inform tenants that this bill is in their interest. Cheers!

In what way would this not benefit new tenants?

Your objection is 100% premised on a misunderstanding of the bill, which is why I made this post.

People renting out their properties would still be able to deny lease renewals if they wanted to do something other than host a tenant — such as occupy the unit themselves, or have a family member move in.

If you're a tenant, you stand only to gain from this bill.

There's a reason landlords are in such vehement and deep-coffered opposition to this bill: it stands to benefit tenants.

Tenants are not forced to stay longer than they wish under Good Cause legislation, nor are landlords forced to rent it out; it just permits tenants to renew their lease every year or two regardless of the whims of their landlord (unless they are a bad tenant). The term "perpetual lease" is not appropriate to describe the changes promised under the wording of the bill.

> 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.

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

"Why don't homeless people just buy a house?"

Oh I should have thought of that! Nevermind I take it all back. /s