[AYBABTME]

I didn't say this "make it so tenants can't defend themselves". My argument is that punitive policies against landlord are about the only tool being wielded, and the only tool proposed, along with the only alternative being nuclear options.

I think there's definitely a problem that needs to be addressed, and that many landlords are bad actors in many markets, and that may tenants are bad actors in many other markets. I'm not even sure that landlording makes sense, it's rather feudal. I'm pro realistic rent control. I just think that, short of throwing away the entire system and making a revolution (that would kill millions), we should approach the problem from a carrot and stick perspective, not a stick-only perspective.

If you want to make eviction hard for the average tenant, fine. But if you leave it at that, where's the incentive for renting to riskier tenants? There's nothing re-balancing the risk exposure, nothing that makes up for the risk-adjusted expected loss of renting to a risky tenant. If we want these risky tenants to be housed _while_ preventing undue evictions, we need to fix up the incentive structure so that landlords still have something to gain from renting to risky tenants. Otherwise, why would they do it?

[joe_the_user]

I didn't say this "make it so tenants can't defend themselves". My argument is that punitive policies against landlord are about the only tool being wielded

The only "punitive policy" that's being discussed is giving tenants free lawyers so they can defend themselves in court.

[strawhatguy]

Not the only policy. But it isn’t a good one to provide a lawyer only for one side. Either both or neither.

[drekk]

It’s the only one I’ve seen explicitly mentioned. As for the fairness aspect, tenants and landlords aren’t equal partners in the power dynamic. Should the state stop providing free lawyers to defendants, because it doesn’t provide free lawyers to those wanting to prosecute others?

I don’t know where this image of the “yeoman” landlord is coming from, these people are clearly financially stable enough to speculate on a human necessity but also want to be able 100% shielded from any risk? That’s not how business works, though maybe that is how business works now given how many companies and banks US taxpayers are expected to bail out.

[jjav]

> Should the state stop providing free lawyers to defendants, because it doesn’t provide free lawyers to those wanting to prosecute others?

Well, the state does provide lawyers to the prosecution side, since the prosecutor is the state.

[AYBABTME]

Well, that's not true.