Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

vexingsilence t1_jddwgch wrote

Reply to comment by P0Rt1ng4Duty in NH lawmakers considering bill to make it easier for landlords to evict tenants by tronhammer

I'm surprised this wasn't already the case too. The lease has an end date, both parties agreed to it. Having the state force the property owner to extend the lease with the same tenant seems to violate the rights of the property owner. If they don't want to extend it further, seems to me that should be their choice.

11

P0Rt1ng4Duty t1_jdgac4v wrote

On paper, sure.

However, landlords generally get the less traumatic end of the 'unexpected moveout' than the tenants. Keeping a person away from their property for an extra thirty days isn't as bad as forcing a person to uproot and find an affordable place to live in four weeks.

The laws should really take that into account.

2

ericools t1_jdgfo38 wrote

"landlords generally get the less traumatic end of the 'unexpected moveout' "

Seems like something someone who hasn't been a landlord would say.

I had one lady who after not paying her rent for quite a long time decided rather than leave that she would just burn the building down with everyone else inside. It didn't go to plan, thankfully nobody was harmed. Substantial damage to the unit and some very tenants in the rest of the building who I'm sure would have preferred I was able to get her out sooner.

Having to move unexpectedly is an inconvenience that you were aware was possible when you sign the lease and move in. The property owner being able to immediately get rid of people is absolutely necessary for the safety and well being of everyone involved. The law should take that into account.

3

ifukkedurbich t1_jdhvgcp wrote

You're talking about eviction with cause. That's not what the person you are responding to was talking about.

The person above you was referencing non-renewal without cause. If the tenant is being forced out through no fault of their own, they deserve enough time to find a new place. 90 days is much more realistic than 30 days.

6

ericools t1_jdi62xu wrote

It doesn't appear to me that people are considering cause at all in this thread.

Nobody just kicks out a good tenant for no reason. There are undoubtedly a whole variety of reasons why someone would not renew a lease. We can argue about how justifiable each one might be but it's important for everyone involved to know when and how the agreement can end.

Everyone knows what the terms of the lease are at the beginning. You don't just have 30 days, you have the whole term of your lease. If it's important to you to remain longer than your lease you can request to renew your lease. If you wait until there's only 30 days left to address that issue that's on you as much as anyone else.

2

ifukkedurbich t1_jdlicq0 wrote

Actually, a lot of good tenants are being kicked out. People who always pay their rent, keep the place nice, and don't bother other tenants. Because landlords can and will kick someone out without cause. They're doing this to avoid any possible legal issues that arise from raising the existing tenant rent by $500 or more

2

ericools t1_jdpruwt wrote

That seems like an argument, but you didn't back it up with anything. Do you have some inside knowledge about what legal counsel is telling property managers? If so can you establish that this the common cause across the industry?

0

P0Rt1ng4Duty t1_jdl681x wrote

The law would allow landlords to evict good tenants in order to increase the rent for the next one. This process usually takes 60 days (plus complications.) The new law allows for them to be booted in 30.

This law shaves 30 days off of the process of price-gouging tenants.

0

ericools t1_jdprlc0 wrote

If their lease is up couldn't they raise their rent? Leases I have signed generally state a rate for a given period. Often both parties will choose to just continue past that, but in a high inflation environment you can't really expect that.

Landlords aren't the reason prices are high. Prices are high in part because more people want to be where there is less housing than will house that many people so they bid it up, and in part because of inflation. Both factors are in no small part influenced by the FED.

Housing is not a high margin industry (for most common housing). The cost of everything has been going up a lot. Labor, hardware, power, loans..... You don't want companies waiting until they need the money to try and get the money. That's what happened to SVB, and what will probably happen to a lot of companies in the next couple years. Especially ones with high debt. Can you think of an industry that involves holding a lot of debt?

0

P0Rt1ng4Duty t1_jdl5qjt wrote

Yeah the chances that a person is going to snap and resort to burning something down is directly proportionate to the the amount of options they can see moving forward.

Most evictions don't end that way despite the inherent stress involved. Most people can find a place to go or aren't so entrenched in debt that they simply collapse.

There should be a way for landlords to get these tenants out but give them someplace to go and recover.

Also, people should have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of something beyond that. Life requires shelter.

0