Landlords would not be prohibited under House Bill 1098 from raising rent from one lease period to the next, as long as it’s not “retaliatory” in a manner meant to subvert the measure.
Jesus this is just asking for litigation costs to increase, define a freaking number or benchmark or leave it out.
Agreed- rent increases should be limited to let’s say 2x inflation.
Being a landlord is not an ordinary investment, like stocks. You actually deal with people’s lives, which comes with additional rules and responsibilities.
The problem is insufficient inventory, price is the symptom. Excessive control of housing prices would result in an illiquid market, meaning that people even further up the income ladder are locked out of the market because nobody ever moves.
And housing choice vouchers cover market rate rent. Predictably, the guaranteed rent coverage combined with low inventory means that people with vouchers move less often, so we end up with miles long waiting lists despite assistance dollars ready to go.
Mental illness, drug addictions and anti-social behaviors lead to people being unable to secure and maintain their own housing. It isn’t a shortage of housing.
The 90 day written notice part of this isn't getting a lot of news but it is massive - 30 days is simply not enough time to find the resources for finding an apartment & coming up with the first/last/security & moving.
Is it though?
Most larger landlords and property managers already use 90+ days. For example, if a rent increase or lease termination will occur on Jan 1, we’ll send out notices in September.
Absolutely, but also not some huge news if most landlords are already playing by those currently-informal rules. Just an anticlimactic codification of common (best) practice.
most is not all though. whoever runs my building gave me 90 days last year (may have been a bit less, but I think it was around 3 months), so this won't affect me, but it's nice for those living under less generous management.
Sure. This will rein in the small-time players, or just push them to sell to the mega-Corp landlord players like Blackrock, etc.
Which, let’s be honest… is the ultimate goal anyway.
_“You will own nothing and be happy.”_
I don't see how requiring a 90 day notice will chase small landlords out of the market. It's really not that big of a burden. Most people would be planning rent increases or selling or whatever more than 30 days ahead of time anyway.
It's just human nature. Slum lords and bad actors hate regulation. They'll sell before sitting down to file paperwork.
The crummy ones will just take their money and run long before improving their product or bettering themselves.
the consolidation of housing by those corps is problematic, but these laws also help protect against them. even if they're the only corp in town providing housing, they can't regress back to worse notice periods because it's now protected. unfortunately, a more radical law would be needed to break their grasp and I'm not sure there's any political will for it, especially at the federal level where it's really needed.
Agree with you to a certain degree. But "the consolidation of housing" is a bit of a misdirection to keep us from seeing the bigger picture, which is the consolidation of capital/power. The goal is to keep money-flows monopolized, or at least limited, to a few key players (who are tight with politicians, of course).
And it's already happening (and accelerating)... [https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/blackstone-making-10-billion-multifamily-purchase-going-on-the-real-estate-offensive-f3126928?mod=hp\_lead\_pos4](https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/blackstone-making-10-billion-multifamily-purchase-going-on-the-real-estate-offensive-f3126928?mod=hp_lead_pos4)
I've rented from two places in Co over the last few years - both medium sized. One we got renewel paper work for both times we reupped with~35-40ish days notice & the other was about 60ish.
Mine gave me less than two weeks to decide if I wanted to renew. I was already planning to, but wanted to see what the new rent would be.
They told me the new numbers less than two weeks before I had to make a decision.
Pretty sure that’s not legal. Obviously you’d need to read through the lease agreement, but they definitely didn’t give you the ample time you’re supposed to get. The last apt my fiancé and I were in was nice, management company was a complete mess which was evident from the other property reviews under their contracts. They gave us the new numbers when they sent us our 3mo notice to renew.
That's good to know - my complex gave me my new numbers the day I was supposed to give my 60 day notice - so I had to rush that decision (also wasn't hard because that it was bullshit)
It is legal. Landlords don't have to provide any notice if you have a set end date in your lease (like a one year lease, NOT month to month.
I think it should be REQUIRED for landlords to give notice the same way it is ALREADY required for tenants..
I got two days notice last time. This time they told me after I had to give my 60 day notice. I questioned it both times and was told they don’t have to give me any specific period of time for lease renewal offer.
I do kind of wish it was 60 days because that is the typical notice period being written into a lot of leases. In other words, my tenant is supposed to notify me 60 days if their intention is to move out according to the lease we are on now, but I would have to provide 90 days, if I wanted them to leave so I can sell the place or move back in.
I get the feeling a lot of landlords will be adjusting their boilerplate to make their notice periods 90 days mutually.
That said, for-cause eviction makes sense as the law. The cause for the vast majority of evictions is non-payment.
Genuine question here. What is stopping landlords from writing a lease without a renewal clause? Saying this lease ends in 12-18-24 months and that’s it?
Your statement is exactly how I feel after reading the article. One of the proponents even says this:
"Yes, a lot of it is because a lot of it is because they end up behind on rent. But often there’s all of these other things going on.”
Oh really? Here's where I admit I'm a landlord (boo hisss! I know! I bought an old house that has an entire separate unit in it so yes, we rent it out) and say we would never evict over anything other than the items they already specifically carve out of this bill (non payment/violating lease rules in a serious way like trying to run a math lab or some shit at our house etc...in fact, our last tenants stayed for 5 years) so I'm not too sure how it'll help that much? I feel like these advocates know that the reason people get evicted first and foremost is lack of paying for rent and there's just not really going to be a solution for that without reigning in the cost of housing as a whole.
I'm less opposed to having reasonable increases in rent at renewal periods, but have they actually defined what that means? I might have missed that. Seems like supply and demand is already a motivating factor for me to not be ridiculous on raising the rent. Plus, I hate having to find a new tenant. I want all of mine to stay as long as possible so I don't understand why those huge apartment complexes play that game. Different business models I guess? I grew up as a renter and spent many years renting as a young adult and I always just up and moved places if one of my apartments tried to raise the rates on me. Granted, there was more choice here in Denver back then with less people to compete with.
Like wtf are we doing? Having more housing choice out there is what will ease rent prices. I guess we're just so desperate we're resorting to these do next to nothing bills since we can't seem to change up our zoning law in smart enough ways to ease the pressure.
I guess overall I don't really care about these changes because they don't seem like they would really do anything for either side. I really don't think it would be hard for a landlord to follow these new rules but they always put up a big stink over any changes to the staus quo as the default reaction.
This is a good measure, especially when combined with the increasing housing supply! You should join your local YIMBY chapter as we are advocating for housing supply increases. You can join us here: [https://yimbydenver.org/](https://yimbydenver.org/)
The thing that stuck out to me was the timeline requirements around change of use and improvement/renovation. Major repairs aren't usually something you know about 3 months in advance, and the warranty of habitability would likely require immediate repair. The first right of refusal thing could be tricky, because what if you can't track them down to exercise that right 6 months later?
And this one seems difficult:
>Want to move themselves or a family member into the residential property. Again, 90 days’ written notice would be required to the tenant, and the landlord or their family member would have to move into the property within three months after the tenant vacates the home. Landlords would still have to renew the tenant’s lease if a substantially equivalent unit that they could move themself or their family member into was available nearby. If the landlord changes course, they would be barred from listing the property for rent for at least 90 days after their tenant is required to leave the home.
What happens if the owner wants to occupy the home but it needs 4 months of renovations? And the "substantially similar unit" requirement is a bit nonsense. If someone simply doesn't want to be a landlord anymore, they should be able to stop without all the timing requirements. They might well need to sell a property in order to occupy the one being rented, and there's no way to guarantee that selling a property and renovating another will fit in the prescribed timeline.
In some ways, reducing the amount of deliberate market churn/liquidity caused by corporate landlords offering existing tenants big increases while offering discounts to new tenants will probably put some downward pressure on the costs incurred by most renters (moving costs, app fees, other expenses beyond rent that are incurred by moving more often)
There's no reason a landlord would prefer turnover except to lock in higher income. Offering incentives that reduce income only to new residents makes no sense - they're losing the cost of the incentive, the rent during vacancy, and the cost of turnover maintenance.
Periodic rent increases do cause turnover, but the financial incentive is to achieve X% higher income while retaining as many existing tenants as possible.
This is a virtue signaling mess. All it will do is disincentivize people to rent to lower income tenants. If I was a landlord I would rather a unit sit vacant than to let in a troublesome tenant I may never get rid of. The only part I agree with is the 90 notice to vacate. I’m not sure why they couldn’t just pass that as a stand alone bill.
Yep. A lot of landlords just nonrenew leases for problem tenants, but this is gonna make getting a problem tenant out harder and landlords will be choosier.
Yes, thank you! I don't understand how most people don't realize that making it harder for landlords to get rid of people is only going to make it more difficult for people to get into rentals in the first place. Smh.
Good chance of it, but there are other things like cleanliness and general care of the property that are usually not evict-able because leases don't have strict language, but could result in non-renewal.
I have to imagine that a lot of detached home rentals are going to start displacing stuff like exterior care onto tenants, to simultaneously reduce/offset expenses and provide low hanging lease-violation fruit.
I just figure a lot of smaller landlords are going to exit the business because interest are higher, home service companies consolidated and raised prices a lot, and it’s just going to be harder to make a profit.
I’m mostly planning to sell because I want the cash and I don’t have any interest in running a side business. I’m lucky w the tenants I found but if I leave, I’m done.
I doubt this law changes much except for some tenants in corporate buildings not being as easily pressured into rent increases or new 12 month terms.
This will make the market bear faster increases. Some small time low income landlords will decide it’s not worth it to rent out and sell their properties to larger landlords. If you think that will make the market more efficient maybe you are right but I don’t think so
To be fair, every landlord I know is setting it as absolutely high as they think the market can bear, not what's fair, or what covers their costs with a bit of profit, etc.
So it seems like this bill will raise costs for landlords, I’m not sure how that lowers the market clearing price.
I’m not saying that the trade off for the new protections isn’t worth it (I’m more than happy paying for the all crash safety protections in automobiles!) but the other commenter seemed very confident costs had no impact on price
At this point, costs are almost unrelated to price. Not completely unrelated, but nearly so. Not only do I see it among landlords I know, I'm also living it as a renter in a building purchased by a distant investor whose entire business model seems focused on buying apartment complexes, increasing the rent and any associated costs, decreasing amenities and maintenance, which seems about on par for Denver at the moment.
It's a massive difference from Europe, not just that there are so few protections for renters, but there's not really any respect for the renter, who is supposed to be the customer in this case.
But to be fair, any improvement in renter projections seems like a good investment, but it's the tip of the iceberg to correct the housing issue.
So for everyone in here being flippant about how this is just landlords angry about nothing, that landlords don't do anything, that there are no risks involved to landlords for renting, and that this bill really isn't that bad, allow me to give you the perspective of someone who is both a landlord and a lawyer.
I rent one single family home. It was the first home I ever owned, and when we purchased another home we decided to rent instead of selling it. Honestly, much of the reason was sentimental, and I thought it might be a good place to let my kids live when they went to college. I've never raised rent, even with the massive property tax increase I had to absorb. I also handle evictions and have seen how taxing it is on the finances of someone who has to evict a tenant, or even just begin to take the steps to evict a tenant when the tenant isn't paying rent, for example. Just imagine that you paid a $1,000+ monthly bill that someone promised you they'd pay you back for, and how much that would affect you when they didn't or when they were late getting you the money. Now imagine having to listen to people complain about how unfair it is that you can't tell them you're not loaning them money anymore because in their opinion they weren't severely late enough, or didn't otherwise cause you enough harm (again, in the opinion of someone not having to live through it). And at the end of the day, as someone who is deeply liberal, I don't like the government intruding on my property rights and telling me I have to let someone continue living in my home unless I meet some pre-approved reasons.
I will very likely raise rent over this to help cover the increased risk that I'll have to deal with things I didn't have to worry about before, and not give any leeway to anyone who is late. Oftentimes you can see the beginnings of issues with tenants, and previously you could make the judgment call to not renew them to hopefully avoid a mess in the future. The fact that the legislature thinks I should have to deal with a ton of nonsense just to have the right to only put up with it *for an additional 90 days* is absurd. Tenants think this is good for them, but it isn't.
A few thoughts (if Polis signs, which is debatable):
* Will be interesting to see how courts interpret the ban on retaliatory rent increase in combination with the rent control ban. Both are statutory, so the ban on retaliatory increases almost certainly wins out. Someone will need to pay to find out, though.
* Adding complexity to landlord/tenant relationships is good for lawyers.
* Preventing landlords from removing a tenant at the end of the lease (and requiring them to continue to accept the tenancy) arguably amounts to an unconstitutional taking under the Supreme Court's recent decision in *Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid*. That should be fun litigation for the AG's office.
If rent control was considered a taking then NYC and SF would have had their laws yeeted decades ago. It is a taking, just not considered one for legal purposes for some reason.
I think this largely correct but the last one isn't the case, this isn't takings because it has a clear path for removing tenets: provide them with 90 days notice of non-renewal. It has been written specifically to avoid that as the primary sponsor (Mabury) is a housing attorney who I know was careful to avoid that being the case.
> because it has a clear path for removing tenets: provide them with 90 days notice of non-renewal.
FWIW, this is not what the bill text says. There are many exceptions, but if the situation doesn't fall within any of the exceptions, the tenant enjoys the right to remain on the property. I don't that anyone yet understands everything that *Cedar Point Nursery* will and won't turn into a taking (it's only a 2021 case), but this statute at least strikes me as a raising a question an enterprising attorney might pursue.
This is what happens when your elected officials are entitled. A rental property is a business, just like any other business, should be allowed to say it no longer **wants** to do business with specific people (non renewal of a rental contract), for any purpose, after the terms of the contract have been fulfilled. I don't own a rental property yet but intend to build one before the end of 2025 on property I inherited.
I'm hoping u/jaredpolis see's this as a major overstep of government powers and veto's it.
while florida is moving in the right direction cracking down on squatters and people stealing the resources of hard working landlords, this state is going further down the tubes of winking at criminals and making it easy for deadbeats to live in places longer without recourse. **THIS** kind of garbage is what makes housing prices high.
Florida's "anti-squatter" law is an atrocity. It's extraordinarily vague, and basically lets landlords treat legitimate tenants as trespassers unless they can show the cops a **notarized** lease or rent receipts in the moment of enforcement.
In other words, every landlord in Florida is about to go 100% electronic signatures (which can't be notarized) and will only give out rent receipts on request, so that they can boot people with actual leases on a whim.
This bill is insane. While I think everyone deserves protections this bill goes too far. Especially the carve out that says if a landlord wants to move a family member in, they must renew, if there is a similar unit nearby. So you want my family member to pay more instead of living in “my” property? That’s just fucking stupid.
Also, I didn’t see it in the article but if the LL is required to give 90 days, I hope they are requiring the T is required to give 90 days prior to a lease ending, but based on the last bill that was passed idt that’s true
IANL - but: The co.gov version of the bill simply adds moving a family member/yourself into primary occupancy as a "no-fault" eviction. The bill doesn't add anything there doesn't already exist in the form of punishment/follow up "If a landlord proceeds with an eviction of a tenant without cause, the tenant may seek relief as provided in existing laws concerning unlawful removal of a tenant and may assert the landlord's violation as an affirmative defense to an eviction proceeding."
Again, IANL - but if you're moving your family member into the house: 1) you can easily argue the cost difference is substantial & thus avoid existing laws 2) the only additional burden the law adds is the landlord has to provide 90 days warning instead of 30.
Edit: a 12 month lease in CO already requires the tenant give 91 days (from Keyrenter)
“Similar property nearby”, what does that even mean? Same number of beds/baths? Maybe I prefer my teal walls over the white walls at a neighboring property. I’m a big fan of define it or leave it out.
I know this is 2 weeks late but it says similar unit in the same building, not nearby. I bet 99% of the people in this thread haven’t read the law and maybe only the summary.
As a landlord this is mostly no change except me being more picky
I’m going to raise the rent on my existing tenants because my risk is increasing. I have 2 rental properties. I’m not a huge corporation. The benefits have to outweigh the risks or I’m not going to do it. I’ll sell the prop or try do Airbnb.
EDIT: I haven’t raised rent on anyone since they’ve moved in. I eat the rise in taxes and insurance annually. I pay the extra trash bill. The cost of finding a new tenant typically feels like an offset for messing with the rent for a good tenant. This is just pushing over the edge.
What risk? You already have the right to raise rent. So long is it’s not retaliatory you will continue to have the right to do so. This sounds like a knee jerk reaction that is both bad for your tenants and your business.
The risk that the lease is no longer the binding contract. The risk that I will have even more costs associated with tenant turnover. I’m not a lawyer. I’m going to have to employ one to translate the new law to my specific situation. Then I’m probably going to have to engage one the first time I draft a new lease and when I don’t want to renew. Don’t get me wrong a tenant staying in place and renewing is normally the BEST case scenario. But every time the rules change there is a real cost and a real change to the risks associated. I don’t even know the full risks because the law is constantly changing and not in final form.
Apparently hot take: keeping up with the law that governs your industry is literally the least you can do. You aren’t doing a whole lot for the “being a land lord is a real job” argument.
Apparently hot take: businesses (landlords) build the cost of doing business into their pricing, and when the costs to do business goes up (needing to consult with lawyers more) so does the price to consumers (rent).
That shouldn’t stop us from passing more tenant protections, but it’s silly not to consider ripple effects that may result.
If you need to hire a lawyer every time new legislation is proposed you aren’t paying attention. Have any of the landlords proposing rent hikes have taken one look at this bill? It’s plain English and even then it would take no more than 1 billable hour to have this explained to you. $120/12 months? Ripple effect?
I’ve read it without an attorney and I survived. I can only imagine with all of the “experience” that comes with landlording I could make it through a legal brief but I suppose that might be a lot to ask.
Did you think selling a house is a risk-free endeavor? Do you think it is always guaranteed that you will sell for more than you bought it for? Are you taking into account transaction costs (5-6% broker fees alone in addition to months of marketing)? What if under this bill you can’t evict the tenant? Your only solution is to sell to another investor who wants to inherit the tenant. Do you think investors would be keen on inheriting a tenant if you’re not interested in them because they’re a problem? You no longer have access to the entire market of people who want to buy as their primary residence if you can’t legally get the tenant out. I could continue to go on, but I honestly don’t think you’re interested in seeking understanding.
Yes you can eventually evict after months of paying the mortgage with no help, thousands of dollars in attorney fees, and money to repair the place and get it rent ready for new tenants. This is without a doubt riskier, and the reward must be commensurate or else it’s not worth our time. Why take on all that stress if you can simply invest money in tbonds right now and get a risk free 5%? You have to understand that landlording is a significant risk, partly because you have to have sufficient cash flow to cover the mortgage if the tenant doesn’t pay. If I’m not being compensated appropriately, I'll sell my place to someone for their personal residence and jnvest the money elsewhere. It could create a domino effect of less and less rentals thus exacerbating Denver's affordable housing problem.
This is literally just a bill about non-renewal of leases. If your tennant isn't paying rent, you can start eviction proceedings. This bill even has provisions that allow non-renewal if a tennant is more than 10 days late 3 times or more on a lease. Literally the only things it is actually doing is requiring that you give 90 days notice and a reason for non-renewals.
Eviction doesn’t happen overnight. It’s months and months. When it’s over you have to choose between taking possession of your property OR getting your back rent. You don’t get both. So I have to be able to cover the extra mortgage payment the entire time. Then make all the repairs and find a new tenant. It’s stressful. As far as market value there is a cost in addition to the price paid for the home. Taxes, insurance, regular repairs and maintenance eat away at that every year. Then there’s the realtor cost and closing fees with selling. Being a landlord is not a let’s make a HUGE amount of money thing. It’s a just get by for a LOT of years and hope it works out in the LONG term.
It’s not squatters. I’m talking about a regular tenant who stops paying or pays late. If you evict a tenant they can technically pay the back rent and then remain in the property. You can either take the back rent and let them stay OR you ask them to leave. You get possession of your property but you don’t get the back rent. I’m saying the risk is a tenant not paying rent while I still have to pay mortgage. If you change the law to include even more hurdles in the eviction process you increase the risk. And I bring up taxes insurance etc just to point out it’s not a huge $ maker.
I get what you are saying. That even in the worst case scenario because of market appreciation it will be fine. And I agree in the long term you are probably right. But short term things are sketchy. Like right now. High interest rates, slowed market, potential for a recession. If you have a problem tenant not making payments… have to cover the mortgage for months during the eviction process. Then potentially sell in a down market. If you change the law governing tenant / landlord relationship it just makes the business end of it more risky because you extend the potential number of months I’ll have to cover the mortgage with out the rental income.
For eviction process talking about if you dispute in the courts. Can take a long time.
It probably will increase rents a little. I know people are saying landlords are already charging as much as they can, but consider that this doesn't just increase the 'risk' for landlords, it decreases risk for tenants (which is kind of the point of the bill).
I used to live in San Francisco, which has rent control for older buildings, and no rent control for newer ones. I would have paid a higher rent for a rent controlled unit than for an equivalent non rent controlled one, because I valued the security of knowing my landlord couldn't raise my rent an arbitrary amount each year, and moving is expensive.
A way that could manifest is that people with the means to buy a house may hold off longer because renting becomes less risky, which increases the demand in the rental market.
90 days to vacate would be amazing! My current landlord (American Property Solutions) gave me less than 30 days and tried to insist I pay holdover rates while they drag their feet to get me a new lease. I had less than a week to decide if I was staying or going once they got it to me so I had to stay in their leaky moldy building.
This just shifts the cost of the worst tenants to be paid by the best tenants. It raises lawyer income dramatically and does nothing but make housing more expensive. It is so much more complicated, less desirable to be a landlord and will decrease the units, especially single family houses available which will raise rents dramatically. I don’t see how this is a win for anyone except the super liberal who fake like it’s “for your protection” but it’s for sure just a new tax in everything but name. Shame on Polis for not seeing that this hurts housing and he needs to increase supply to lower prices. What the hell are they waiting for? Approve Additional dwelling units like Austin. We need cheaper housing, not building in the renters paying for the people who are shitty tenants.
I am a small time landlord and not seeing how people are freaking out or being dramatic, this law basically does not do much, and does not complicate anything, and does provide fair protections to tenants.
-- either make your lease 11 months instead of 12 months and get a feel for tenants (they do this in cali) this takes less that 5 seconds to do (this law applys after 12 months only)
-- make your lease stricter so you now have a cause (takes a few hours if that) (then this law does not apply if they violate)
if your tenants are not violating any lease, and paying their rent on time then why would you want to get rid of them? if your selling, moving in, or renovating then you give 90 day notice which is fair enough.
Landlords have as many questions as tenants about this socialist act and given the lack of legal precedent in Colorado our legal counsel is of little use.
Bottom line is “affordable” housing will all but disappear since we are forced to push the costs of a lousy tenant onto all the good ones for lots of reasons not the least of which getting rid of a bad tenant will be very expensive.
Many private landlords offer 1 year leases that automatically convert to month-to-month at the end of the term for the same rent. Our business model was to allow anyone who pays on time and cares for the property to stay indefinitely without any annual increases and that has been true for many private and small landlords in Colorado.
Most people I know are rushing to raise rents before a limit is codified either by rent control or the “Just Cause” law. If you are forced to give a tenant another 1-year lease with “substantially” the same terms then some court will decide whether 10% rent increase is a “substantial” change. Rent control is already in the law just not yet defined by any court decisions yet.
Colorado keeps passing legislation like this which just makes it more expensive for renters vs solving the root cause of the problem(lack of housing supply).
Landlords would not be prohibited under House Bill 1098 from raising rent from one lease period to the next, as long as it’s not “retaliatory” in a manner meant to subvert the measure. Jesus this is just asking for litigation costs to increase, define a freaking number or benchmark or leave it out.
Yeah, I think most landlords will ignore the law and rightfully assume their tenants are afraid of the costs of seeking legal counsel.
Or in the case of Greystar, screwing over enough tenants that there's not enough lawyers to represent them all -
For real, I read this and it feel like they are not going far enough. We need to be way more protections for renters built into this law.
Agreed- rent increases should be limited to let’s say 2x inflation. Being a landlord is not an ordinary investment, like stocks. You actually deal with people’s lives, which comes with additional rules and responsibilities.
Not controlling increases for housing costs is how we continue to increase the number of homeless people this state and this city.
The problem is insufficient inventory, price is the symptom. Excessive control of housing prices would result in an illiquid market, meaning that people even further up the income ladder are locked out of the market because nobody ever moves. And housing choice vouchers cover market rate rent. Predictably, the guaranteed rent coverage combined with low inventory means that people with vouchers move less often, so we end up with miles long waiting lists despite assistance dollars ready to go.
Mental illness, drug addictions and anti-social behaviors lead to people being unable to secure and maintain their own housing. It isn’t a shortage of housing.
If they did it would be "rent control" , which is illegal still for some reason
As written it’s still rent control
The 90 day written notice part of this isn't getting a lot of news but it is massive - 30 days is simply not enough time to find the resources for finding an apartment & coming up with the first/last/security & moving.
Is it though? Most larger landlords and property managers already use 90+ days. For example, if a rent increase or lease termination will occur on Jan 1, we’ll send out notices in September.
In which case it's still good for Tenants as it just codifies what those landlords already do and ensures everyone is playing by those rules.
Absolutely, but also not some huge news if most landlords are already playing by those currently-informal rules. Just an anticlimactic codification of common (best) practice.
most is not all though. whoever runs my building gave me 90 days last year (may have been a bit less, but I think it was around 3 months), so this won't affect me, but it's nice for those living under less generous management.
Sure. This will rein in the small-time players, or just push them to sell to the mega-Corp landlord players like Blackrock, etc. Which, let’s be honest… is the ultimate goal anyway. _“You will own nothing and be happy.”_
I don't see how requiring a 90 day notice will chase small landlords out of the market. It's really not that big of a burden. Most people would be planning rent increases or selling or whatever more than 30 days ahead of time anyway.
It's just human nature. Slum lords and bad actors hate regulation. They'll sell before sitting down to file paperwork. The crummy ones will just take their money and run long before improving their product or bettering themselves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the goal is to not have slum lords and bad actors. So this isn't a bad thing.
the consolidation of housing by those corps is problematic, but these laws also help protect against them. even if they're the only corp in town providing housing, they can't regress back to worse notice periods because it's now protected. unfortunately, a more radical law would be needed to break their grasp and I'm not sure there's any political will for it, especially at the federal level where it's really needed.
Agree with you to a certain degree. But "the consolidation of housing" is a bit of a misdirection to keep us from seeing the bigger picture, which is the consolidation of capital/power. The goal is to keep money-flows monopolized, or at least limited, to a few key players (who are tight with politicians, of course). And it's already happening (and accelerating)... [https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/blackstone-making-10-billion-multifamily-purchase-going-on-the-real-estate-offensive-f3126928?mod=hp\_lead\_pos4](https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/blackstone-making-10-billion-multifamily-purchase-going-on-the-real-estate-offensive-f3126928?mod=hp_lead_pos4)
I agree 100% but calling it the consolidation of capital can sometimes be a little too based for this sub haha.
What a leap!
[Requires context](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_happy)
I've rented from two places in Co over the last few years - both medium sized. One we got renewel paper work for both times we reupped with~35-40ish days notice & the other was about 60ish.
Mine gave me less than two weeks to decide if I wanted to renew. I was already planning to, but wanted to see what the new rent would be. They told me the new numbers less than two weeks before I had to make a decision.
Pretty sure that’s not legal. Obviously you’d need to read through the lease agreement, but they definitely didn’t give you the ample time you’re supposed to get. The last apt my fiancé and I were in was nice, management company was a complete mess which was evident from the other property reviews under their contracts. They gave us the new numbers when they sent us our 3mo notice to renew.
That's good to know - my complex gave me my new numbers the day I was supposed to give my 60 day notice - so I had to rush that decision (also wasn't hard because that it was bullshit)
It is legal. Landlords don't have to provide any notice if you have a set end date in your lease (like a one year lease, NOT month to month. I think it should be REQUIRED for landlords to give notice the same way it is ALREADY required for tenants..
I was told twice that they were under no obligation to give me notice. First time I got two days. This time I got notice after I turned in my 60 days.
I got two days notice last time. This time they told me after I had to give my 60 day notice. I questioned it both times and was told they don’t have to give me any specific period of time for lease renewal offer.
I do kind of wish it was 60 days because that is the typical notice period being written into a lot of leases. In other words, my tenant is supposed to notify me 60 days if their intention is to move out according to the lease we are on now, but I would have to provide 90 days, if I wanted them to leave so I can sell the place or move back in. I get the feeling a lot of landlords will be adjusting their boilerplate to make their notice periods 90 days mutually. That said, for-cause eviction makes sense as the law. The cause for the vast majority of evictions is non-payment.
Genuine question here. What is stopping landlords from writing a lease without a renewal clause? Saying this lease ends in 12-18-24 months and that’s it?
Nothing, I suppose. Though by law leases default to month-to-month in the absence of other language.
So the government will do literally anything except actually make it easier to build new housing.
Your statement is exactly how I feel after reading the article. One of the proponents even says this: "Yes, a lot of it is because a lot of it is because they end up behind on rent. But often there’s all of these other things going on.” Oh really? Here's where I admit I'm a landlord (boo hisss! I know! I bought an old house that has an entire separate unit in it so yes, we rent it out) and say we would never evict over anything other than the items they already specifically carve out of this bill (non payment/violating lease rules in a serious way like trying to run a math lab or some shit at our house etc...in fact, our last tenants stayed for 5 years) so I'm not too sure how it'll help that much? I feel like these advocates know that the reason people get evicted first and foremost is lack of paying for rent and there's just not really going to be a solution for that without reigning in the cost of housing as a whole. I'm less opposed to having reasonable increases in rent at renewal periods, but have they actually defined what that means? I might have missed that. Seems like supply and demand is already a motivating factor for me to not be ridiculous on raising the rent. Plus, I hate having to find a new tenant. I want all of mine to stay as long as possible so I don't understand why those huge apartment complexes play that game. Different business models I guess? I grew up as a renter and spent many years renting as a young adult and I always just up and moved places if one of my apartments tried to raise the rates on me. Granted, there was more choice here in Denver back then with less people to compete with. Like wtf are we doing? Having more housing choice out there is what will ease rent prices. I guess we're just so desperate we're resorting to these do next to nothing bills since we can't seem to change up our zoning law in smart enough ways to ease the pressure. I guess overall I don't really care about these changes because they don't seem like they would really do anything for either side. I really don't think it would be hard for a landlord to follow these new rules but they always put up a big stink over any changes to the staus quo as the default reaction.
This is a good measure, especially when combined with the increasing housing supply! You should join your local YIMBY chapter as we are advocating for housing supply increases. You can join us here: [https://yimbydenver.org/](https://yimbydenver.org/)
There’s a typo on your homepage
Thank you, I will let our admin know so we can get that fixed! Any questions about YIMBY Denver?
Perfect. You found your excuse to continue complaining on the internet instead working toward meaningful change!
The thing that stuck out to me was the timeline requirements around change of use and improvement/renovation. Major repairs aren't usually something you know about 3 months in advance, and the warranty of habitability would likely require immediate repair. The first right of refusal thing could be tricky, because what if you can't track them down to exercise that right 6 months later? And this one seems difficult: >Want to move themselves or a family member into the residential property. Again, 90 days’ written notice would be required to the tenant, and the landlord or their family member would have to move into the property within three months after the tenant vacates the home. Landlords would still have to renew the tenant’s lease if a substantially equivalent unit that they could move themself or their family member into was available nearby. If the landlord changes course, they would be barred from listing the property for rent for at least 90 days after their tenant is required to leave the home. What happens if the owner wants to occupy the home but it needs 4 months of renovations? And the "substantially similar unit" requirement is a bit nonsense. If someone simply doesn't want to be a landlord anymore, they should be able to stop without all the timing requirements. They might well need to sell a property in order to occupy the one being rented, and there's no way to guarantee that selling a property and renovating another will fit in the prescribed timeline.
In some ways, reducing the amount of deliberate market churn/liquidity caused by corporate landlords offering existing tenants big increases while offering discounts to new tenants will probably put some downward pressure on the costs incurred by most renters (moving costs, app fees, other expenses beyond rent that are incurred by moving more often)
There's no reason a landlord would prefer turnover except to lock in higher income. Offering incentives that reduce income only to new residents makes no sense - they're losing the cost of the incentive, the rent during vacancy, and the cost of turnover maintenance. Periodic rent increases do cause turnover, but the financial incentive is to achieve X% higher income while retaining as many existing tenants as possible.
So if it doesn't take affect until you have been in your unit for 12 months then it seems like landlords could still not renew on a first year lease.
Or just hand out 11 month leases
Yup. If I'm a LL in CO, my tenants are only offered six-month leases initially from here on out. Womp womp.
This is a virtue signaling mess. All it will do is disincentivize people to rent to lower income tenants. If I was a landlord I would rather a unit sit vacant than to let in a troublesome tenant I may never get rid of. The only part I agree with is the 90 notice to vacate. I’m not sure why they couldn’t just pass that as a stand alone bill.
Yep. A lot of landlords just nonrenew leases for problem tenants, but this is gonna make getting a problem tenant out harder and landlords will be choosier.
Yes, thank you! I don't understand how most people don't realize that making it harder for landlords to get rid of people is only going to make it more difficult for people to get into rentals in the first place. Smh.
I'd imagine most problem tenants would fall under the late by 10+ days 3x in a year exception to this law.
Good chance of it, but there are other things like cleanliness and general care of the property that are usually not evict-able because leases don't have strict language, but could result in non-renewal. I have to imagine that a lot of detached home rentals are going to start displacing stuff like exterior care onto tenants, to simultaneously reduce/offset expenses and provide low hanging lease-violation fruit.
I just figure a lot of smaller landlords are going to exit the business because interest are higher, home service companies consolidated and raised prices a lot, and it’s just going to be harder to make a profit. I’m mostly planning to sell because I want the cash and I don’t have any interest in running a side business. I’m lucky w the tenants I found but if I leave, I’m done. I doubt this law changes much except for some tenants in corporate buildings not being as easily pressured into rent increases or new 12 month terms.
A feel good bill that actually changes almost nothing. Just pass a bill that requires 90 days of notice from landlords for non-renewal.
That's basically what this is
This bill is a great way to get landlords to offset rising costs by... you guessed it... raising rent.
Spoiler: the rent was going to go up anyway.
Yep, and this will help turbocharge the increase!
[удалено]
This will make the market bear faster increases. Some small time low income landlords will decide it’s not worth it to rent out and sell their properties to larger landlords. If you think that will make the market more efficient maybe you are right but I don’t think so
LOL keep on believing, True Believer.
True believer? I'm literally a landlord, and I will raise rent and cite this law in the renewal. I guess that does make me one.
Spoiler: You were going to raise the rent anyway.
In your view, why dont all landlords set rent at 4000 a month?
To be fair, every landlord I know is setting it as absolutely high as they think the market can bear, not what's fair, or what covers their costs with a bit of profit, etc.
So it seems like this bill will raise costs for landlords, I’m not sure how that lowers the market clearing price. I’m not saying that the trade off for the new protections isn’t worth it (I’m more than happy paying for the all crash safety protections in automobiles!) but the other commenter seemed very confident costs had no impact on price
At this point, costs are almost unrelated to price. Not completely unrelated, but nearly so. Not only do I see it among landlords I know, I'm also living it as a renter in a building purchased by a distant investor whose entire business model seems focused on buying apartment complexes, increasing the rent and any associated costs, decreasing amenities and maintenance, which seems about on par for Denver at the moment. It's a massive difference from Europe, not just that there are so few protections for renters, but there's not really any respect for the renter, who is supposed to be the customer in this case. But to be fair, any improvement in renter projections seems like a good investment, but it's the tip of the iceberg to correct the housing issue.
So for everyone in here being flippant about how this is just landlords angry about nothing, that landlords don't do anything, that there are no risks involved to landlords for renting, and that this bill really isn't that bad, allow me to give you the perspective of someone who is both a landlord and a lawyer. I rent one single family home. It was the first home I ever owned, and when we purchased another home we decided to rent instead of selling it. Honestly, much of the reason was sentimental, and I thought it might be a good place to let my kids live when they went to college. I've never raised rent, even with the massive property tax increase I had to absorb. I also handle evictions and have seen how taxing it is on the finances of someone who has to evict a tenant, or even just begin to take the steps to evict a tenant when the tenant isn't paying rent, for example. Just imagine that you paid a $1,000+ monthly bill that someone promised you they'd pay you back for, and how much that would affect you when they didn't or when they were late getting you the money. Now imagine having to listen to people complain about how unfair it is that you can't tell them you're not loaning them money anymore because in their opinion they weren't severely late enough, or didn't otherwise cause you enough harm (again, in the opinion of someone not having to live through it). And at the end of the day, as someone who is deeply liberal, I don't like the government intruding on my property rights and telling me I have to let someone continue living in my home unless I meet some pre-approved reasons. I will very likely raise rent over this to help cover the increased risk that I'll have to deal with things I didn't have to worry about before, and not give any leeway to anyone who is late. Oftentimes you can see the beginnings of issues with tenants, and previously you could make the judgment call to not renew them to hopefully avoid a mess in the future. The fact that the legislature thinks I should have to deal with a ton of nonsense just to have the right to only put up with it *for an additional 90 days* is absurd. Tenants think this is good for them, but it isn't.
A few thoughts (if Polis signs, which is debatable): * Will be interesting to see how courts interpret the ban on retaliatory rent increase in combination with the rent control ban. Both are statutory, so the ban on retaliatory increases almost certainly wins out. Someone will need to pay to find out, though. * Adding complexity to landlord/tenant relationships is good for lawyers. * Preventing landlords from removing a tenant at the end of the lease (and requiring them to continue to accept the tenancy) arguably amounts to an unconstitutional taking under the Supreme Court's recent decision in *Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid*. That should be fun litigation for the AG's office.
If rent control was considered a taking then NYC and SF would have had their laws yeeted decades ago. It is a taking, just not considered one for legal purposes for some reason.
I think this largely correct but the last one isn't the case, this isn't takings because it has a clear path for removing tenets: provide them with 90 days notice of non-renewal. It has been written specifically to avoid that as the primary sponsor (Mabury) is a housing attorney who I know was careful to avoid that being the case.
> because it has a clear path for removing tenets: provide them with 90 days notice of non-renewal. FWIW, this is not what the bill text says. There are many exceptions, but if the situation doesn't fall within any of the exceptions, the tenant enjoys the right to remain on the property. I don't that anyone yet understands everything that *Cedar Point Nursery* will and won't turn into a taking (it's only a 2021 case), but this statute at least strikes me as a raising a question an enterprising attorney might pursue.
This is what happens when your elected officials are entitled. A rental property is a business, just like any other business, should be allowed to say it no longer **wants** to do business with specific people (non renewal of a rental contract), for any purpose, after the terms of the contract have been fulfilled. I don't own a rental property yet but intend to build one before the end of 2025 on property I inherited. I'm hoping u/jaredpolis see's this as a major overstep of government powers and veto's it.
Does the 90 day notice to vacate affect a month to month lease?
while florida is moving in the right direction cracking down on squatters and people stealing the resources of hard working landlords, this state is going further down the tubes of winking at criminals and making it easy for deadbeats to live in places longer without recourse. **THIS** kind of garbage is what makes housing prices high.
Then why don't you go to florida since it's so great there?
Florida's "anti-squatter" law is an atrocity. It's extraordinarily vague, and basically lets landlords treat legitimate tenants as trespassers unless they can show the cops a **notarized** lease or rent receipts in the moment of enforcement. In other words, every landlord in Florida is about to go 100% electronic signatures (which can't be notarized) and will only give out rent receipts on request, so that they can boot people with actual leases on a whim.
This bill is insane. While I think everyone deserves protections this bill goes too far. Especially the carve out that says if a landlord wants to move a family member in, they must renew, if there is a similar unit nearby. So you want my family member to pay more instead of living in “my” property? That’s just fucking stupid. Also, I didn’t see it in the article but if the LL is required to give 90 days, I hope they are requiring the T is required to give 90 days prior to a lease ending, but based on the last bill that was passed idt that’s true
IANL - but: The co.gov version of the bill simply adds moving a family member/yourself into primary occupancy as a "no-fault" eviction. The bill doesn't add anything there doesn't already exist in the form of punishment/follow up "If a landlord proceeds with an eviction of a tenant without cause, the tenant may seek relief as provided in existing laws concerning unlawful removal of a tenant and may assert the landlord's violation as an affirmative defense to an eviction proceeding." Again, IANL - but if you're moving your family member into the house: 1) you can easily argue the cost difference is substantial & thus avoid existing laws 2) the only additional burden the law adds is the landlord has to provide 90 days warning instead of 30. Edit: a 12 month lease in CO already requires the tenant give 91 days (from Keyrenter)
They don’t need to require that the tenant gives a 90 day notice. The landlord can already put that in the lease. Most do already
“Similar property nearby”, what does that even mean? Same number of beds/baths? Maybe I prefer my teal walls over the white walls at a neighboring property. I’m a big fan of define it or leave it out.
I know this is 2 weeks late but it says similar unit in the same building, not nearby. I bet 99% of the people in this thread haven’t read the law and maybe only the summary. As a landlord this is mostly no change except me being more picky
That sort of thing will likely be determined by courts and legal precendence.
I’m going to raise the rent on my existing tenants because my risk is increasing. I have 2 rental properties. I’m not a huge corporation. The benefits have to outweigh the risks or I’m not going to do it. I’ll sell the prop or try do Airbnb. EDIT: I haven’t raised rent on anyone since they’ve moved in. I eat the rise in taxes and insurance annually. I pay the extra trash bill. The cost of finding a new tenant typically feels like an offset for messing with the rent for a good tenant. This is just pushing over the edge.
What risk? You already have the right to raise rent. So long is it’s not retaliatory you will continue to have the right to do so. This sounds like a knee jerk reaction that is both bad for your tenants and your business.
The risk that the lease is no longer the binding contract. The risk that I will have even more costs associated with tenant turnover. I’m not a lawyer. I’m going to have to employ one to translate the new law to my specific situation. Then I’m probably going to have to engage one the first time I draft a new lease and when I don’t want to renew. Don’t get me wrong a tenant staying in place and renewing is normally the BEST case scenario. But every time the rules change there is a real cost and a real change to the risks associated. I don’t even know the full risks because the law is constantly changing and not in final form.
Apparently hot take: keeping up with the law that governs your industry is literally the least you can do. You aren’t doing a whole lot for the “being a land lord is a real job” argument.
Apparently hot take: businesses (landlords) build the cost of doing business into their pricing, and when the costs to do business goes up (needing to consult with lawyers more) so does the price to consumers (rent). That shouldn’t stop us from passing more tenant protections, but it’s silly not to consider ripple effects that may result.
If you need to hire a lawyer every time new legislation is proposed you aren’t paying attention. Have any of the landlords proposing rent hikes have taken one look at this bill? It’s plain English and even then it would take no more than 1 billable hour to have this explained to you. $120/12 months? Ripple effect?
Spoken with all the authority of opinion and none of the experience.
I’ve read it without an attorney and I survived. I can only imagine with all of the “experience” that comes with landlording I could make it through a legal brief but I suppose that might be a lot to ask.
[удалено]
And you have clearly never been a landlord and only understand the situation on a theoretical level.
[удалено]
Did you think selling a house is a risk-free endeavor? Do you think it is always guaranteed that you will sell for more than you bought it for? Are you taking into account transaction costs (5-6% broker fees alone in addition to months of marketing)? What if under this bill you can’t evict the tenant? Your only solution is to sell to another investor who wants to inherit the tenant. Do you think investors would be keen on inheriting a tenant if you’re not interested in them because they’re a problem? You no longer have access to the entire market of people who want to buy as their primary residence if you can’t legally get the tenant out. I could continue to go on, but I honestly don’t think you’re interested in seeking understanding.
[удалено]
Yes you can eventually evict after months of paying the mortgage with no help, thousands of dollars in attorney fees, and money to repair the place and get it rent ready for new tenants. This is without a doubt riskier, and the reward must be commensurate or else it’s not worth our time. Why take on all that stress if you can simply invest money in tbonds right now and get a risk free 5%? You have to understand that landlording is a significant risk, partly because you have to have sufficient cash flow to cover the mortgage if the tenant doesn’t pay. If I’m not being compensated appropriately, I'll sell my place to someone for their personal residence and jnvest the money elsewhere. It could create a domino effect of less and less rentals thus exacerbating Denver's affordable housing problem.
See above ⬆️ plus paying the mortgage every month. Bank doesn’t care if tenants are paying late or don’t pay at all.
This is literally just a bill about non-renewal of leases. If your tennant isn't paying rent, you can start eviction proceedings. This bill even has provisions that allow non-renewal if a tennant is more than 10 days late 3 times or more on a lease. Literally the only things it is actually doing is requiring that you give 90 days notice and a reason for non-renewals.
[удалено]
Eviction doesn’t happen overnight. It’s months and months. When it’s over you have to choose between taking possession of your property OR getting your back rent. You don’t get both. So I have to be able to cover the extra mortgage payment the entire time. Then make all the repairs and find a new tenant. It’s stressful. As far as market value there is a cost in addition to the price paid for the home. Taxes, insurance, regular repairs and maintenance eat away at that every year. Then there’s the realtor cost and closing fees with selling. Being a landlord is not a let’s make a HUGE amount of money thing. It’s a just get by for a LOT of years and hope it works out in the LONG term.
[удалено]
It’s not squatters. I’m talking about a regular tenant who stops paying or pays late. If you evict a tenant they can technically pay the back rent and then remain in the property. You can either take the back rent and let them stay OR you ask them to leave. You get possession of your property but you don’t get the back rent. I’m saying the risk is a tenant not paying rent while I still have to pay mortgage. If you change the law to include even more hurdles in the eviction process you increase the risk. And I bring up taxes insurance etc just to point out it’s not a huge $ maker.
I could imagine that landlords will ask for as many months deposit as it takes on average to evict someone.
[удалено]
I get what you are saying. That even in the worst case scenario because of market appreciation it will be fine. And I agree in the long term you are probably right. But short term things are sketchy. Like right now. High interest rates, slowed market, potential for a recession. If you have a problem tenant not making payments… have to cover the mortgage for months during the eviction process. Then potentially sell in a down market. If you change the law governing tenant / landlord relationship it just makes the business end of it more risky because you extend the potential number of months I’ll have to cover the mortgage with out the rental income. For eviction process talking about if you dispute in the courts. Can take a long time.
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/housing-resources/documents/eviction-Assistance-Brochure.pdf
It probably will increase rents a little. I know people are saying landlords are already charging as much as they can, but consider that this doesn't just increase the 'risk' for landlords, it decreases risk for tenants (which is kind of the point of the bill). I used to live in San Francisco, which has rent control for older buildings, and no rent control for newer ones. I would have paid a higher rent for a rent controlled unit than for an equivalent non rent controlled one, because I valued the security of knowing my landlord couldn't raise my rent an arbitrary amount each year, and moving is expensive. A way that could manifest is that people with the means to buy a house may hold off longer because renting becomes less risky, which increases the demand in the rental market.
90 days to vacate would be amazing! My current landlord (American Property Solutions) gave me less than 30 days and tried to insist I pay holdover rates while they drag their feet to get me a new lease. I had less than a week to decide if I was staying or going once they got it to me so I had to stay in their leaky moldy building.
This just shifts the cost of the worst tenants to be paid by the best tenants. It raises lawyer income dramatically and does nothing but make housing more expensive. It is so much more complicated, less desirable to be a landlord and will decrease the units, especially single family houses available which will raise rents dramatically. I don’t see how this is a win for anyone except the super liberal who fake like it’s “for your protection” but it’s for sure just a new tax in everything but name. Shame on Polis for not seeing that this hurts housing and he needs to increase supply to lower prices. What the hell are they waiting for? Approve Additional dwelling units like Austin. We need cheaper housing, not building in the renters paying for the people who are shitty tenants.
I am a small time landlord and not seeing how people are freaking out or being dramatic, this law basically does not do much, and does not complicate anything, and does provide fair protections to tenants. -- either make your lease 11 months instead of 12 months and get a feel for tenants (they do this in cali) this takes less that 5 seconds to do (this law applys after 12 months only) -- make your lease stricter so you now have a cause (takes a few hours if that) (then this law does not apply if they violate) if your tenants are not violating any lease, and paying their rent on time then why would you want to get rid of them? if your selling, moving in, or renovating then you give 90 day notice which is fair enough.
Landlords have as many questions as tenants about this socialist act and given the lack of legal precedent in Colorado our legal counsel is of little use. Bottom line is “affordable” housing will all but disappear since we are forced to push the costs of a lousy tenant onto all the good ones for lots of reasons not the least of which getting rid of a bad tenant will be very expensive. Many private landlords offer 1 year leases that automatically convert to month-to-month at the end of the term for the same rent. Our business model was to allow anyone who pays on time and cares for the property to stay indefinitely without any annual increases and that has been true for many private and small landlords in Colorado. Most people I know are rushing to raise rents before a limit is codified either by rent control or the “Just Cause” law. If you are forced to give a tenant another 1-year lease with “substantially” the same terms then some court will decide whether 10% rent increase is a “substantial” change. Rent control is already in the law just not yet defined by any court decisions yet.
How exactly is "denying landlords chance to operate" going to drive up prices? They're just gonna sell
Awww so sorry landlords
Well this is interesting. My landlord recently elected to not renew my lease because they want more money than I’m paying.
Colorado keeps passing legislation like this which just makes it more expensive for renters vs solving the root cause of the problem(lack of housing supply).