Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Opposite_Match5303 t1_jadsuih wrote

Reply to comment by mshelikoff in Don’t drag Boston backward with rent control - The Boston Globe by boston4923

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.

2

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.

1

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.

2

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).

2

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.

2

Opposite_Match5303 t1_jady4yb wrote

Yup, 3e says this explicitly. Cool!

2

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.

1