Submitted by boston4923 t3_11edmp5 in boston
Opposite_Match5303 t1_jadigd6 wrote
Reply to comment by mshelikoff in Don’t drag Boston backward with rent control - The Boston Globe by boston4923
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.
mshelikoff t1_jadkmho wrote
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.
Opposite_Match5303 t1_jadlybi wrote
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.
mshelikoff t1_jadnph2 wrote
> 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
Opposite_Match5303 t1_jadny64 wrote
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.
mshelikoff t1_jadosob wrote
> 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.
Opposite_Match5303 t1_jadrlu8 wrote
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."
mshelikoff t1_jadskxg wrote
> 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.
Opposite_Match5303 t1_jadt2lz wrote
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!
[deleted] t1_jadqyo8 wrote
[deleted]
SkiingAway t1_jadpfjb wrote
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.
Opposite_Match5303 t1_jadq3c2 wrote
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."
mshelikoff t1_jadrd9m wrote
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.
Opposite_Match5303 t1_jadsuih wrote
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.
mshelikoff t1_jadttsq wrote
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.
Opposite_Match5303 t1_jadue5g wrote
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.
Opposite_Match5303 t1_jadvl0y wrote
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).
mshelikoff t1_jadwikj wrote
> 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.
Opposite_Match5303 t1_jady4yb wrote
Yup, 3e says this explicitly. Cool!
mshelikoff t1_jadz73v wrote
> ...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.
SkiingAway t1_jadyetq wrote
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.
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.
jojenns t1_jaed9pf wrote
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
mshelikoff t1_jaeoh75 wrote
> 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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments