Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HumpSlackWails t1_j9tapi1 wrote

Reply to comment by huskers2468 in Landlords and political signs? by [deleted]

One sign should say "the landlord opposes, the tenants support - this should tell you something"

13

huskers2468 t1_j9tcfxh wrote

I mean, I get what you are saying, but at the same time the tenant and landlord dynamic is always going to have tension and opposing views.

I'm not sure what eviction measure OP is talking about, but there could be good reason to oppose or to agree. "Landlord doesn't support tenants" doesn't really tell me anything, because they could be a great landlord and the bill could be taking away the ability to remove dangerous or damaging tenants.

I'm biased, due to being a landlord, but I tend to favor tenants rights. I dislike what landlording has become in many regards. However, there are many scenarios where eviction is the right course of action for the landlord, property, and other tenants. That's of course to say, landlords can abuse the eviction process as well.

−4

HumpSlackWails t1_j9tmqjt wrote

I agree. Eviction is sometimes the necessary remedy.

But I think tenants should have immediate and very real legal recourses for landlords who don't maintain properties to 100% habitable conditions, maintaining the entire property at code.

Tenants should not be forced to bear the risk of a landlords negligence. Ever. For even a moment. Not with shit railings. Not with crumbling steps. Not with loose floorboards. Not with bad plumbing, faulty wiring or a non-functioning boiler.

If I'm being told to understand that sometimes tenants are so horrible they need to be evicted?

Then you can understand that the bar for providing habitable habitation has fallen too low and landlords get away with massive, horrific abuses.

If you want to respect this relationship? Respect it. Because "it's a marketplace" doesn't fly in the modern era of morality when we're talking about basic roof-over-head dynamics in a grossly expensive market that's far outpacing wage growth. Not saying you don't. Maybe you're your town's one good landlord.

From my experiences renting in my youth, over 20 years ago, if landlord wasn't present on the property too that was an immediate massive increase in odds of "I don't fucking care." I cannot imagine its improved and the anecdotal proof I could offer from stories told doesn't support that it has either.

−1

huskers2468 t1_j9uoff2 wrote

>But I think tenants should have immediate and very real legal recourses for landlords who don't maintain properties to 100% habitable conditions,

Absolutely agree.

>maintaining the entire property at code.

Agreed, but it's far more nuanced than what you are stating. Safety is the top priority, and that's what code is for. The nuance comes with the urgency to repair, the funds to repair, timeline, active tenants disruption, oversight.

I agree, that there are awful landlords that abuse the system and their tenants. I agree that the system needs to be corrected with more quality checks and oversight.

I just also understand that there is way more depth to many of the maintenance issues that you raised and that tenants raise as well. I tend to agree with the tenants, but I also understand that correcting these issues takes time, displaces tenants, and have many more layers.

This is a subject that I'm involved with, but I understand that I'm in no way an expert.

4

JodaUSA t1_j9uj4hv wrote

Tenant-landlord relations will always have opposing views? Yeah. Marx wrote about class conflict. Now which side is the majority, their will matters more

−1

huskers2468 t1_j9uucbv wrote

Agreed. If they are organized, the majority has the ability to make a change.

I dislike bad landlords; I agree with the vast majority of tenant protections. I hope the majority is organized and knowledgeable enough to inact proper change.

1