|
Christoph posted:You want us to do an eviction, which involves the sheriff's department, and remove them as opposed to letting an agreed upon contract expire? You think it's preferable to involve the pigs? Your leftist dick is short. I'm confused then I am afraid. What do you define as "no cause eviction". Because I am pretty sure people here think you mean, "get out in a week because the owner feels like it" out of nowhere Vs your description of a notice of non renewal once the rental term is up. They seem like very different things.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
Christoph posted:You want us to do an eviction, which involves the sheriff's department, and remove them as opposed to letting an agreed upon contract expire? You think it's preferable to involve the pigs? Your leftist dick is short. Either they're problem enough to warrant an eviction or you shouldn't be kicking them out of the property.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
Drunk Theory posted:I'm confused then I am afraid. What do you define as "no cause eviction". Because I am pretty sure people here think you mean, "get out in a week because the owner feels like it" out of nowhere Vs your description of a notice of non renewal once the rental term is up. He is working off the right understanding. It's just that this understanding "notice of non-renewal" is bullshit. quote:After the six-month mark, no-cause evictions would be banned. If 90 days' notice is provided, landlords may evict month-to-month tenants for specified reasons, such as repairs, renovations or sale of the property, and they must also pay outgoing tenants one month's-worth of rent to cover relocation costs. http://mailtribune.com/news/government-politics/bill-to-ban-no-cause-evictions-passes-oregon-house
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
Drunk Theory posted:I'm confused then I am afraid. What do you define as "no cause eviction". Because I am pretty sure people here think you mean, "get out in 2 weeks because the owner feels like it." Vs your description of a notice of non renewal once the rental term is up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
"No-cause eviction" is a euphemism for letting a contract expire. It's not an eviction. It's a politically loaded and misleading term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
Ahh. See I learned something. Thanks to you both.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
Christoph posted:"No-cause eviction" is a euphemism for letting a contract expire. It's not an eviction. It's a politically loaded and misleading term. It's a practice that should be banned. And with any luck soon will be. It's only politically loaded because when you dig down to the reasons why people oppose it they really only boil down to "landlords should have all the power"
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
Christoph posted:"No-cause eviction" is a euphemism for letting a contract expire. It's not an eviction. It's a politically loaded and misleading term. It's an accurate one and thank you for helping us all understand why the rental market is by and large an unethical way of distributing housing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
A mandatory extension period in contract for a tenant who doesn't want to leave would make sense. Like, if they could invoke the right to stay an additional 90 days or something like that, that would be fine. Or even 4 or 5 months. But the infinitude of the period seems strange to me, and it makes it seem like the initial contract would have been signed in bad faith by the renter if that was their intention at the time (to claim to accept a one-year term with the intention of actually staying for several years). Or even why not change the minimum period of a contract to two or three years, with a clause to allow them (the renter) to break off the lease any time after 12 months? DrNutt posted:Either they're problem enough to warrant an eviction or you shouldn't be kicking them out of the property. So it's a purely legalistic argument that's being made? You guys are letter-of-the-law leftists?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
Christoph posted:"No-cause eviction" is a euphemism for letting a contract expire. It's not an eviction. It's a politically loaded and misleading term. Christoph, maybe this edit of mine got lost in the page transition, but I'd like to hear what your thoughts are? xrunner posted:Edit: Personal annecdote. My last landlord no-caused me because she wanted to give the house to her 20 year old son to use as a college party house. Now I was ready to move on anyway and was only staying out of inertia and had the resources to move well so even without no-cause I probably would have gone. But LOL if you think that's a justifiable reason to ask a family to vacate a multi-bedroom home and what if my financial and personal situation had been more traumatic/barely hanging on?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
Christoph posted:"No-cause eviction" is a euphemism for letting a contract expire. It's not an eviction. It's a politically loaded and misleading term. edit: quote:Or even why not change the minimum period of a contract to two or three years, with a clause to allow them (the renter) to break off the lease any time after 12 months? twodot fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Feb 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
Christoph posted:But the infinitude of the period seems strange to me, and it makes it seem like the initial contract would have been signed in bad faith by the renter if that was their intention at the time (to claim to accept a one-year term with the intention of actually staying for several years). What?!?!?!?! People don't sign a one year lease with the expectation of moving in exactly a year. It's just the standard initial lease. Most people don't want to move that often. How is that bad faith. What?!?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
Christoph posted:So it's a purely legalistic argument that's being made? You guys are letter-of-the-law leftists? No, dumbass. DrNutt posted:It's an accurate one and thank you for helping us all understand why the rental market is by and large an unethical way of distributing housing. As long as we continue to suffer the rental market as a way of providing housing for people, then renters need much stronger protection then landlords to prevent them from being told to gently caress off after their contract expires because the landlord wants to jack up the rent twenty percent to take advantage of a hot market. The entire system is unethical but yeah, if someone is just trashing a place there are already legal avenues in place to remove them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
Sign a longer lease if you want stabilized rent for longer. A lease is a contract with a specified expiration. Should someone be required to rent to a tenant in perpetuity because they agreed to a one year term? I don't think so because I believe in private property rights, but I understand that hard socialists disagree. I think the solution is massive government housing projects for people who make less than a certain income threshold, because I don't think it's fair to force individuals to dispose of their real property in a specific way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
To clarify: if you want to force a tenant who has done nothing wrong, always paid rent, never hurt anything or anyone, to uproot their life and move for your convenience, you are literal human poo poo, and the exact reason we need these kinds of laws. e: lol therobit posted:Should someone be required to rent to a tenant in perpetuity because they agreed to a one year term? Unless they do something to violate the (reasonable) lease terms? Yes. Don't take the money if you don't want the job. It's not about your personal feelings anymore, it's about the human beings who now depend on your rental for stable housing. therobit posted:I don't think it's fair to force individuals to dispose of their real property in a specific way. Literally nobody is being forced to own multiple dwellings and rent out some of them. If you don't like the deal, sell it so someone who wants to use it correctly can buy it. Javid fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Feb 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
therobit posted:Sign a longer lease if you want stabilized rent for longer. A lease is a contract with a specified expiration. Should someone be required to rent to a tenant in perpetuity because they agreed to a one year term? (edit: And what's up with landlords who are angry about this arrangement? "I hate money, I definitely don't want a tenant that will give me money literally forever, I got into the landlord business to not have tenants") quote:I don't think so because I believe in private property rights, but I understand that hard socialists disagree. I think the solution is massive government housing projects for people who make less than a certain income threshold, because I don't think it's fair to force individuals to dispose of their real property in a specific way. twodot fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Feb 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
therobit posted:Sign a longer lease if you want stabilized rent for longer. A lease is a contract with a specified expiration. Should someone be required to rent to a tenant in perpetuity because they agreed to a one year term? *offer only good to the ownership class How come we never talk about property rights from the perspective of the occupants. Maybe they don't have legal ownership, but they have a whole cartload of other interests in the property that can and should be framed as rights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
therobit posted:Sign a longer lease if you want stabilized rent for longer. A lease is a contract with a specified expiration. Should someone be required to rent to a tenant in perpetuity because they agreed to a one year term? Gosh I wonder why the people suffering under the specter of rent prices perpetually rising faster than wage growth or inflation for the past forty or fifty years never thought of negotiating a better contract? What dummies!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
Creating laws and standards that protect the public welfare of all citizens is what contracts are precluded by and exist under. Private contracts are poo poo that doesn't matter, as the public welfare acknowledges that you can't contract your offspring into slavery.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
If you can't afford market rent, I think the state should be helping you with either rent assistance or government housing. I know that system is lacking and should be expanded, but since we are talking about legislating a solution that should be on the table. I think that is the way forward with needy renters. If you can afford market rent but want to live somewhere for longer periods than you can get a lease for, just buy a place as it's cheaper in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
xrunner posted:*offer only good to the ownership class If they wanted rights, they should have been rich
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
therobit posted:If you can't afford market rent, I think the state should be helping you with either rent assistance or government housing. I know that system is lacking and should be expanded, but since we are talking about legislating a solution that should be on the table. I think that is the way forward with needy renters. You're talking about putting a band aid on a problem that needs to be fixed at the source (ie the market's existence in the first place). Also lol at "just buy a house" like that's not something that can have severe consequences all on its own no matter how carefully you plan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:You're talking about putting a band aid on a problem that needs to be fixed at the source (ie the market's existence in the first place). It also ignores the fact that someone can be affluent enough to rent in an area, but well outside of any ability to buy in that same area.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
therobit posted:If you can't afford market rent, I think the state should be helping you with either rent assistance or government housing. I know that system is lacking and should be expanded, but since we are talking about legislating a solution that should be on the table. I think that is the way forward with needy renters. Please clarify why it's so vital to your livelihood that you not need a justifiable reason to strip people of their housing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:You're talking about putting a band aid on a problem that needs to be fixed at the source (ie the market's existence in the first place). I'd you can afford market rent here, you van afford to buy a home and don't need protection. If you can't afford to rent, I think the state should give you assistance. But I still believe in markets and restrained capitalism. I get that you guys don't, but most of the rest of the electorate does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
therobit posted:Sign a longer lease if you want stabilized rent for longer. A lease is a contract with a specified expiration. Should someone be required to rent to a tenant in perpetuity because they agreed to a one year term? Yeah. Really there should probably be a separate set of laws for people who own a small number of rental units versus megacorporations who build loving hives like they have on the south waterfront in Portland. Joe Blow who rents out his basement or even bought a triplex isn't the mastermind behind the housing crisis and he has what I would say a pretty legit claim to property rights in the case of wanting to control a space after a contract expires. If someone owns two properties, rents one out, and after the expiration of a contract wants to turn it into a "college party house" that's probably okay. It's the people who own dozens of loving properties who are the architects of the crisis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
You believe in state help to assist renters so much you strongly oppose the assistance of the state helping renters. Nice and logical position you completely actually believe in and isn't just a smoke-screen for your class interest!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
Javid posted:Please clarify why it's so vital to your livelihood that you not need a justifiable reason to strip people of their housing. Seriously, I'm still looking for this. So far we have: 1. Evictions are hard work. Response: And? 2. Some tenants need to be evicted for good reasons. Response: We have processes for that. 3. I know a landlord who has a horrible tenant/eviction story. Response: This doesn't seem relevant. Why are you bringing this up except for misdirection purposes? 4. Landlords should have absolute control by virtue of ownership. Response: They start from a more privileged position. Why do we take it for granted that the person in the superior position should also get a handicap?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Christoph posted:Yeah. Really there should probably be a separate set of laws for people who own a small number of rental units versus megacorporations who build loving hives like they have on the south waterfront in Portland. Joe Blow who rents out his basement or even bought a triplex isn't the mastermind behind the housing crisis and he has what I would say a pretty legit claim to property rights in the case of wanting to control a space after a contract expires.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
Javid posted:Please clarify why it's so vital to your livelihood that you not need a justifiable reason to strip people of their housing. Please justify why you think you have a right to someone else's property beyond the scope of the contract you sign with them regarding said property.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
therobit posted:I'd you can afford market rent here, you van afford to buy a home and don't need protection. This might be true on paper if you're looking at a mortgage v monthly rent, but it's not really true at all when you factor in things like down payments and the like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
Christoph posted:If someone owns two properties, rents one out, and after the expiration of a contract wants to turn it into a "college party house" that's probably okay. No, it isn't. That guy is human poo poo. Wait for them to move out on their own, or actually pay them to do so early if you want. Otherwise, shut the gently caress up and enjoy your stable source of income. Housing exists to house humans. Don't get into the "housing humans" business unless you want to house humans. Christ, this isn't some complicated fuckin' political theory, here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
therobit posted:Please justify why you think you have a right to someone else's property beyond the scope of the contract you sign with them regarding said property. Javid posted:Housing exists to house humans. Don't get into the "housing humans" business unless you want to house humans. Christ, this isn't some complicated fuckin' political theory, here. Please answer the question.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
therobit posted:I'd you can afford market rent here, you van afford to buy a home and don't need protection. If you can't afford to rent, I think the state should give you assistance. But I still believe in markets and restrained capitalism. I get that you guys don't, but most of the rest of the electorate does. That's not true for many places and I doubt it's even true where you live. Buying a house is not something just anyone can do, whether the monthly mortgage payment is comparable to monthly rent or not. It requires a substantial down payment and good credit, and it requires you to have either a bunch of savings or a really big credit limit in order to deal with unforseen circumstances that can arise when you own a home. I don't give a poo poo what you or most of the electorate think because capitalism is the root cause of most of these problems and "restrained capitalism" doesn't loving exist in the US. Maybe you could make a case for calling whatever the Nordic countries practice "restrained capitalism."
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
Christoph posted:If someone owns two properties, rents one out, and after the expiration of a contract wants to turn it into a "college party house" that's probably okay. It's the people who own dozens of loving properties who are the architects of the crisis. This was the response I expected. It's more important to you that a property owner be able to seamlessly pass down wealth to the next generation than a member of the community have stable living arrangements.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:How in the world did you wind up here? "Being forced to move out of your home for no reason becomes not onerous if the person forcing you out owns few properties"? The laws aren't being made to spite landlords, it's to protect people from being forced to move out of their home for no reason. Look back at my first post on this whole subject. I said that illegalizing removing people after their contract expires would be harder on small landlords than it is on big developers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
therobit posted:Please justify why you think you have a right to someone else's property beyond the scope of the contract you sign with them regarding said property. Contracts are not granted by a higher power with completely non-negotiable terms. They are, very reasonably for the public welfare by every state in which they exist, limited in ways to prevent coercion and abuse by privileged actors against the underclass they would immediately abuse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
Christoph posted:Look back at my first post on this whole subject. I said that illegalizing removing people after their contract expires would be harder on small landlords than it is on big developers. Yes and you quickly discovered that very few people here give a poo poo about the "small landlords" of the world because they, too, are part of the problem. This is circular.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
Christoph posted:Look back at my first post on this whole subject. I said that illegalizing removing people after their contract expires would be harder on small landlords than it is on big developers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:49 |
|
|
Christoph posted:Look back at my first post on this whole subject. I said that illegalizing removing people after their contract expires would be harder on small landlords than it is on big developers. Good news! You can stop being a landlord right now if you don't like the job! I'm sure someone would love to buy the property from you and continue collecting rent from the tenants who don't want to move. You're actually finding ways to complain about somebody wanting to keep giving you a shitload of money every month for little or no work on your part. Think hard about that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2019 21:36
|
|