Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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