[pixelatedindex]

Doesn’t help that the landlords want to squeeze the renter for what they are worth. It’s weird to me that shitty landlords are normalized but shitty tenants get a (rightfully) bad rap.

These laws become the way they are because landlords brought it upon themselves for the most part - they’re keeping assets that have massively increased in price and want to extract more and more out of the tenant.

If you have a home that’s paid off your expenses are basically just property taxes, maybe they should do what they can to keep good tenants instead of chasing profits.

[jjav]

> These laws become the way they are because landlords brought it upon themselves for the most part

These laws seem quite unrelated to the problems.

There needs to be laws to protect the renter against bad landlords and there needs to be laws to protect the landlord against bad tenants.

Nowhere there it implies there should be insane laws that make no sense. Such as creating a system where someone can skip paying rent for many years and continue to live there.

Landlords need laws that hold their feet to the fire to maintain the properties to a livable standard (the state/county should define) and fulfill any other obligations of the lease. At the same time there need to be laws that force the renters to pay on time and not destroy the property. It's not a case of one or the other.

[pixelatedindex]

I’m not denying any of that. If you don’t pay rent it makes sense that you’re evicted. This is completely okay with me, and the city should change their rules around it.

The issue is that housing is a necessity, and the relationship isn’t an equal one. A landlord can usually absorb vacancy, repairs, or a bad investment decision; a renter can’t easily absorb losing their home or a sudden 20% rent increase.

[jjav]

> a renter can’t easily absorb losing their home or a sudden 20% rent increase

Right, so let's pass laws (where not already in place) that prevent sudden eviction (e.g. nobody should be able to be evicted if they are a few days late or even a few weeks) and prevent sudden 20% rent increases.

No need to pass laws that prevent eviction for years. We can solve all these problems without causing other problems.

[oatmeal1]

I'm not sure what you mean by "squeeze the renter," but it's hard to find any person that invests substantial money (risk) in a business that doesn't want to maximize profits and charge what the market will bear.

Laws became the way they are because policy created a housing shortage, and renters are a bigger voting block than landlords.

[bombcar]

Rental prices stay surprisingly steady even when house prices go insane - compare similar apartments/houses in major expensive cities and cheaper ones.

[pixelatedindex]

Sure but the rent will follow the increased purchase price. They also don’t go down, or at least they’re extremely sticky.

[bombcar]

They're limited by what people will pay - and "techbro" cities have people with insane salaries willing to fork over big bucks. But there are similarly expensive areas that don't support the income necessary, and there often you find huge rental inversions.

[halfxing]

Totally wrong. A home has a lot of expenses beyond taxes, especially maintenance/upkeep. If the landlord just breaks even, where does the money to repair the roof come from?

Also, providing housing is a service that should be done at market rates, and as an investment must yield a return to make sense. Or do you expect stock investments to yield nothing and just retain their value too? Should companies not raise their prices for goods? Do you realize that this also means that you would never get a salary increase? Are you never asking for a raise because you'd be "chasing profits" for yourself?

There's a huge lack of financial literacy in some of these comments.

[pixelatedindex]

Homes do have a lot of expenses but it depends on when you bought your home. If you have a cheap mortgage then rents can quite easily cover repair costs. Landlords also minimize the maintenance costs by cutting costs wherever they can. I also never said they shouldn’t make money - they absolutely should, otherwise nobody would want to be a landlord.

But, I think you are overly harsh and your comparisons misplaced. Homes are quite inelastic and a necessity for everyone. They are very unique category of assets. Financial impacts to a landlord vs a renter is also quite lopsided - a landlord has far more “financial padding” to account for macroeconomic shocks compared to a renter, so you end up with some protections in case of sudden job loss. They have morphed into something worse now, but the intent makes a lot of sense.

[casefields]

Nonsense. We came up with a name for those terrible landlords they are called slumlords. NYC even has a whole website dedicated to them: https://www.landlordwatchlist.com/