The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Renters (squatters) rights: tenants (landlord) are jerks
rockrnger
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Split from fiscal cliff.
Renters are stakeholders in property that they rent.
Think of it like this. When a person looks at an apartment the prospective tenant and the landlord are in a balanced negotiating position. Landlord wants to rent but isn't out anything if the tenant goes somewhere else renter wants to rent but can always go somewhere else. Now go down the road when the contract is up and the situation is different. At the very least the tenant has the cost of moving their belongings and being in a worse bargaining position with with their next landlord and most likely numerous other ways that the invested in the property while the landlord's position hasn't changed. Renters rights exist to fix this imbalance.
Example:
(Disclaimer: this is Illinois law.)
(Disclaimer 2: I am a landlord)
Renters have huge opportunity cost when renting real estate, just like workers. They have huge consequences to not having something to fall back on, like workers. They are stake holders, like workers.
When you sign a lease the very second that that lease expires the renter and the landlord are now in a month to month tenancy regardless of the desires of either party. The landlord is required to give tenants 30 days written notice, during which the terms of the original lease are still enforced, to terminate the tenancy. After that the landlord is required to give three days notice and get an eviction notice from a judge, who is then expected to give the tenants time to find a new place and move before the landlord can take possession of the property. And all that is just kicking someone out, there are tons of other rules that exist to protect the renters rights as stake holders to the property.
The point is that the law recognizes that tenants have extended resources to enter into the contract with the landlord and that gives rights as to the way that the property is run.
One thing to note is that at no point in this process is the tenant living in a property for free. They are responsible for the rent, collection cost (lawyers court fees) and any pre-negotiated late penalties.
As a landlord, these laws restrict me but I still think they are important and are needed to protect tenants rights as stakeholders in my property.
What do you think?
How does it work in your state?
As a tenant do you think these laws don't go far enough to protect your interests?
As a landlord do these laws encroach too much into your rights to your personal property?
Renters are stakeholders in property that they rent.
Think of it like this. When a person looks at an apartment the prospective tenant and the landlord are in a balanced negotiating position. Landlord wants to rent but isn't out anything if the tenant goes somewhere else renter wants to rent but can always go somewhere else. Now go down the road when the contract is up and the situation is different. At the very least the tenant has the cost of moving their belongings and being in a worse bargaining position with with their next landlord and most likely numerous other ways that the invested in the property while the landlord's position hasn't changed. Renters rights exist to fix this imbalance.
Example:
(Disclaimer: this is Illinois law.)
(Disclaimer 2: I am a landlord)
Renters have huge opportunity cost when renting real estate, just like workers. They have huge consequences to not having something to fall back on, like workers. They are stake holders, like workers.
When you sign a lease the very second that that lease expires the renter and the landlord are now in a month to month tenancy regardless of the desires of either party. The landlord is required to give tenants 30 days written notice, during which the terms of the original lease are still enforced, to terminate the tenancy. After that the landlord is required to give three days notice and get an eviction notice from a judge, who is then expected to give the tenants time to find a new place and move before the landlord can take possession of the property. And all that is just kicking someone out, there are tons of other rules that exist to protect the renters rights as stake holders to the property.
The point is that the law recognizes that tenants have extended resources to enter into the contract with the landlord and that gives rights as to the way that the property is run.
One thing to note is that at no point in this process is the tenant living in a property for free. They are responsible for the rent, collection cost (lawyers court fees) and any pre-negotiated late penalties.
As a landlord, these laws restrict me but I still think they are important and are needed to protect tenants rights as stakeholders in my property.
What do you think?
How does it work in your state?
As a tenant do you think these laws don't go far enough to protect your interests?
As a landlord do these laws encroach too much into your rights to your personal property?
rockrnger on
0
Posts
The renter is absolutely a stakeholder.
Yeah, exactly.
"Stakeholder" doesn't necessarily mean "shareholder" and it's easy to get those ideas confused.
Regarding the OP, I largely agree with it, and the following is really a minor quibble:
Part of the reason that renter's rights exist is because they're often not in a balanced negotiating position. If the landlord walks away from the negotiation, assuming there are no other possible takers, they miss out on income and will lose some money on maintenance and taxes (but they by definition have an asset they can mortgage to pay for those costs in the short term if need be). If the renter walks away from the negotiation, assuming there are no other possible takers, then there's a good chance the renter is homeless, or is paying through the nose for a hotel.
Of course, this imbalance is much worse in crowded rental markets like big cities, which is where laws tend to be most biased in favor of renters (which might have a cyclical effect - better renter's rights laws lead to more incentive for people to rent and less incentive for people to be landlords; which causes more demand for rentals; which tips the balance further...)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes, I should have said assuming a equal supply and demand of rental property. An imbalance of either rentals (new York) or renters (2004-2008) changes the negotiating positions.
It would also suck if either were destroyed by someone being an asshole, something you do have input in.
I don't catch your meaning. Could you provide an example?
In this premise a stakeholder is anyone affected by the situation, specifically the renter and the land lord. They both have an interest in the renter renting, one residential and the other financial.
People have a claim to their residential situation. Renter's rights exist for exactly that. And while there would indeed be little to no recourse for a major natural disaster or whatever, there's generally plenty of legal recourse if the land lord tries to go against whatever the local law is.
And yeah, landlords obey local law and the terms of the lease, but oftentimes local law allows landlords to not renew leases at their discretion, or in the event the landlord wants to use the property himself, or if he wants to just burn the building to the ground and sell it to a developer.
But I also think some people are ignoring the fact that there is a value or interest invested into things by people other than the owners of those properties.
Statements like this keep people from taking you seriously.
If it's so damn important to the land lord that they be able to do whatever they want with their property then they should not have turned it in to a rental.
Why? Fuck squatters.
The bolded.
There are plenty of things in our legal system worse than laws regarding squatters but this is not the thread for it. And at this point I'm already done with space being a goose.
Some old people need to either move or just fucking die. Browsing apartments I encounter too many "investment opportunities" where the renter is paying a fraction of maint/taxes.
That shit ain't right
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Except it turns out that whoops, the rent check just got left in the drop box. Or the landord's bank encoded the check wrong causing an erroneous returned check. Or the landlord just wants the tenant out and "loses" the rent payment. Or a whole bunch of other scenarios.
Granting a landlord the ability to have the cops show up the day after rent is due is an utterly terrible idea.
As a renter in Illinois, most of the leases that I have seen charge a higher month-to-month rate once the lease has ended and the month-to-month period begins, usually an extra couple hundred dollars. The loophole that they use is that the lease entitles you to a discount over the period of the lease, with the rent returning to the "regular" amount after the lease ends. This solves the potential problem of not being able to increase the rent once the month-to-month period has begun.
The unlawful detainer process ensures that people have a modicum of due process before they're made homeless.
Presumably, the landlord has taken a security deposit; they can wait the 30-ish days for eviction if they absolutely have to.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
society has an interest in keeping people from becoming homeless. It's beneficial for everybody if a tenant that misses a rent payment has reasonable time to either make the landlord whole or make other arrangements. 30 days for which the tenant is still liable is not some gigantic infringement on the landlord (especially since the landlord can, in advance, require a deposit to wholly cover this liability.)
to really get into adverse possession we have to have a discussion of what property 'is.' It makes more sense (imo) to recognize a longstanding pattern of uncontested use as being the legal truth as well as the de facto one than it does to upset it because somebody discovered the property line (as surveyed 20 years ago) is different from the property line in practice.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Ultimately, being a property owner in your scenario literally would give you power over the lives of whoever lived on your property. They would be at your mercy. This is not equitable and it is certainly not moral.
That's a pretty abhorrent and societally destructive viewpoint that would make millions of people homeless monthly
I mean realistically it wouldn't because the vast majority of landlords know you'll be late from time to time if you're living in a low income area, many even make extra money off it by charging late fees. I've lived with landlords that have the kind of "you're my tenant until you're one second late then FUCK YOU", including one that took my mom's unemployment check and still evicted her because it was $100 short, and frequently broke in and harassed us. Thankfully, Illinois is (or was?) great in this area, and the judge ordered him to pay sooooo much to my mom for violating a half dozen laws
Right, it's crazy to think that in a civilized society that a renter shouldn't have rights to something they rent
The 30 day window is straight up the cost of doing business, if a property holder doesn't like it they can use their property for something else because throwing children on the street because their parents are late on the rent by a few days with no warning is monstrous and if you're only looking at it from the point of view of a sociopath, it's bad for society and would dramatically increase crime
Oh, no, I know it's not something that can happen under current law and I'm absolutely in agreement with that being how it is
I was just responding to the bolded part of the quote specifically because I'm kind of stunned by how terrible of an idea that is. I literally had to reread it a few times because I was convinced I was reading it wrong.
My post was meant to agree with you. I was lending you my support.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Clearly, the landlord has a lot of risks, but as far as advantage in initial negotiation, and maximum capitilazation of the relationship the average landlord is in a much stronger position, due to the natural 'union' of sorts that forms in communities (or lack thereof, resulting in an erratic and opaque market)
Did you mend the shirt's holes and redye it from how faded it got by sitting on my roof for five years?
That is not what squatter's rights mean in Florida.
And yes, fuck it, I think that if you fall behind in rent you should be able to have time to find a place more in budget or get a payment worked out.
These are all parts of the bet you take when you decide to become a landlord.
If you can't take the heat, fuck off out of the kitchen.