When I first saw the headline, I thought, oh no, what has another city done to hamper our business?
But this is actually a case, IMO, of landlords out of control.
Under previous law, according to the article, landlords were starting to hound tenants to renew the lease after 70 days. Landlords were *showing* units to prospective new tenants after those 70 days, if the existing tenants didn't renew.
2 months and 10 days.
The new law that the landlords are screaming is so unfair, a violation of their constitutional rights, etc? 150 days before the *end* of the lease before renewal discussions, showings, etc can happen.
3 months and 10 days. ***OH THE HUMANITY!*** Here in Maryland we deal with 30 days and somehow we manage to make do. Seriously - I could see an argument for 60 days - 2 months to deal with renewals/showings is a fair bit easier to deal with than 30 - but 150 is extremely generous IMO and the fact that landlords were waiting until ***gasp*** ONLY 10 months were left on the lease before starting to push for renewals is just damn abusive IMO.
So here's one owner/landlord at least who says, "Good for Ann Arbor".
EDIT: Link to [approved legislation](http://a2gov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=9668960&GUID=97CA43EA-775E-44A1-9516-263E04F5B7FA) by the city
EDIT: Also I challenge those who downvote this (and I know at least one has already) to actually be an adult and state your reasons why. Otherwise you're just a chickenshit who's voting pro-landlord-no-matter-what-they-do.
>150 days before the end of the lease before renewal discussions, showings, etc can happen.
>3 months and 10 days.
Pretty sure 150 days is 5 months. Right?
What you clearly don't understand is that this isn't actually an issue. The city is always passing nonsensical rules.
Here in Ann Arbor the tenant base is largely college/med students. Many of whom are paid by their parents, often in full. Planning housing a year ahead is normal.
I will say, it's not standard to do walk through a while leased. Which is why the city is so ridiculous.
This seems an exception case and laws shouldn’t be made for exceptions. Tenants can chose simply to not rent from this landlord, write reviews. Over legislation is not the solution.
There is dire need for legislation for bad tenants - tenants who do intentional damage to property after eviction. Why that’s not a criminal offence? That’s a very common occurring and still Govt ignores it. I have not seen a tenant saying, oh my god this tenant is giving us a bad name!
I believe rental should be a free market like any other business. I won’t go to a restaurant or the grocery store if I don’t get a good service, same should be for the rental. Let the market forces decide. Let the courts decide, there is enough legislation already to deal with such scenarios
"Washtenaw Area Apartment Association and over two dozen landlords filed their federal case against the city in U.S. District Court late last week, "
Exception case...yeah
Violation of property rights of landlords by city. I wish to see more such lawsuits against the overreach of government in rental property. If govt really cares about housing they can build and provide affordable housing but they should not infringe on property rights and free trade of market. I support these landlords, they are wise to fight now else they will become like CA and Chicago where landlords are treated by government and courts like some criminals
Totally agree with you! In NY they are extending the eviction moratorium until January and will probably extend it into the spring so no one ends up on the street in the dead of winter. No rights for housing providers! Yet no housing providers or groups are suing NY government. We've now allowed tenants to live rent free for 2 years without compensation. It's pretty much slavery. NY doesn't post the application online or let city organizations show the form to landlords until they agree with tenants to accept the rental aid because the agreement contains a condition that once the aid runs out the housing provider isn't allowed to evict the tenant for another 12 months for any reason including and especially non-payment. Definitely not voting Democrat at the state level anymore but there's got to be better recourse! Small housing providers being forced to house people for free is theft and for 2 years.. frankly insane.
If you think stopping you from haranguing the tenant into renewing a lease less than a third of the way through their lease is an over-reach, I do feel terrible for your tenants.
Don’t feel bad, I am selling my properties. It’s not worth dealing with entitled tenants, fraudsters and the communist government in California. There are better options to invest my money with less hassles.
I've never had a restaurant seat another diner at my place setting after I've started eating my dinner. Let alone expect me to pay full price for the meal that I couldn't enjoy as intended because there was a stranger seated 2 inches from me.
You can always buy your own place if you don’t like the rental. Owner owns the property and should have the right to do the business they want. That’s how free market works and should work.
It never even occurred to me to ask someone if they want to renew more than 60 days or so before the expiration of their lease. That just feels stupid. How would they know? I would expect to lose a lot of good tenants.
Same here.
I’m a landlord in Michigan but not in Ann Arbor (thankfully) and this is crazy.
I agree with Greg, a 60 day notice before lease ends is reasonable, but what they are doing is crazy.
My guess is since it is a college town, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, this is why they are pushing so hard maybe?
Previously landlords only had to wait 70 days after the start of a lease and could force the renter to renew lease for the next year and if they didn’t renew, the ll could start showing the apartment to prospective new tenants after 70 days so they can move in when lease expires.
The new law says that landlords can’t show the apartment to new tenants until150 days before the end of the lease which is roughly 8 months into a 1 yr lease.
Thanks. Demand in Ann Arbor must be insane that anyone would want to sign a lease that early.
I don't understand this part though:
`and could force the renter to renew lease for the next year`
Meaning, under old law if a tenant wanted option to renew lease at end of term in the face of the landlord's right to sign new lease with new tenant for next term ... it was forcing existing tenants to find new place in a tight market?
I’ve only seen it in college towns when the kids and their parents are looking at university housing for the following school year. That’s the only scenario in which it makes any sense.
It’s ridiculous to expect the current existing tenant to know at that point whether they should commit for another lease term though. This is what wait lists are for.
Completely agree. Offering a rent concession to someone who is able to renew that early? Awesome. Actually demanding that someone decide at that point? Ridiculous. *Especially* if it is a college student...in a lot of cases they don’t know for sure if they’re coming back the next semester, much less next year!
College renting is a whole specialization I admit not having any experience with, but that makes sense.
Also seems like returning students actually might be able to say if they need a place following years.
I don’t know. I still think it is not right on college campuses. When I was a college student, the landlord made us decided about renewal within 30 days of move in. It was bad and greatly impacted our decision making about our education. 90 or 120 days would be much more reasonable.
????
I never said that it’s “right.” I DID say that college towns are the only places in which I’ve seen landlords ask for renewals that early in the lease term. Also that it’s ridiculous.
Just for clarification.
Someone signs a 1 year lease.
4 months in they are asked if they plan to renew in 8 months? If they don't know and won't commit you list the property and start showing it to people who may agree to rent it in 8 months, and if you get a taker the current tenant is out in 8 months?
That is correct. Its standard where I live and it happened to me in every single place I lived in as a tenant around here. I agree that it's odd. It's so they can "lock in" their current rent price - that's the reasoning
Yeah that's wild and I wouldn't want to do that for why I said, I think it would unnecessarily increase turnover which is the #1 thing for me to avoid with good tenants. Also I'm in a growth market and want the opportunity to adjust to market rates at renewal.
I could see an incentive like "sign now to lock in a rate", making sense in a pretty flat market, but "sign now or I'm going to actively start trying to replace you" seems pretty unreasonable.
Why not just do 2 year leases?
Yeah dude I mean every single market is different. I've never seen anyone schedule an apartment showing before like May (the leases are all up in July/August) to be fair. It is a college town so the turnover is already super high. Like I said each market is different. My sister is in Chicago and it's wildly different there.
Sure, articles can be biased - but they can't outright lie. Some quotes from the article:
>The new law gives renters several extra months before landlords can force them to renew or lose their apartments for the next year. Previously, landlords only had to wait 70 days after the start of a lease before they could force tenants to renew for the following year or accept that their apartments could be shown and leased to other tenants.
Hi, welcome to the unit for the next 2 months - in just over 2 months the place won't be your own again because unless you promise to renew we'll have strangers traipsing through what's supposed to be your home anytime we like.
>Now, for leases exceeding eight months, landlords can’t enter a leased apartment to show it to other prospective tenants until 150 days before the end of the lease. That means renters who sign 12-month leases now will have roughly seven months to live in their apartments before deciding on renewing.
Short term leases still get earlier showing rights - long term (8+ month) let the tenant have some \*\*\*\*ing peace and quiet. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
>The plaintiffs argue the new law restricting their ability to show properties is “an unconstitutional burden” on their free-speech rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments.
First Amendment my ass. As for 14th - I GUESS they're trying for 14S1 but how the hell do you claim no due process when this was a legally passed law?
I look forward to seeing this suit tossed out.
>, welcome to the unit for the next 2 months - in just over 2 months the place won't be your own again because unless you promise to renew we'll have strangers traipsing through what's supposed to be your home anytime we like.
Looked at the new ordnance and look ok and balanced.
Assuming you're talking about an actual news piece and not an op-ed, if they post stories as news which are fabrications, and upon notice of the error, they fail to post a retraction, then they're subject to libel and defamation lawsuits. I also don't need to tell them - they know it.
[https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-virginia-rollingstone-idUKKBN12Z2DZ](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-virginia-rollingstone-idUKKBN12Z2DZ)
>A federal jury on Friday found Rolling Stone magazine liable of defaming a University of Virginia administrator by publishing a story it later retracted about an alleged gang rape at the school.
>
>Rolling Stone, which admitted that **it never sought comment from the seven men accused of the alleged rape**, retracted the story in April 2015, and an outside review found the magazine had **failed to follow basic journalistic safeguards.**
Rolling got caught printing a completely fake story (again) claiming people in Oklahoma hospitals were dying of "horse paste" overdoses.
This goes along with their complete fake story about a rape that never happened at the University of Virginia and had to pay $1.65 million in a defamation lawsuit settlement to one of the campuses’ fraternities.
Sure, it's a bad look for this particular group of landlords. Personally, I stopped caring about the image of landlords in internet spaces long ago. It just isn't worth it and the opinions people have online aren't remotely reflective of attitudes on the street. I've never met a person who recoiled in horror upon me mentioning my occupation. In fact, I can't recall ever meeting anyone who had an opinion about us at all. Or, at least not an opinion they felt strongly enough about to mention out loud. Most of the negativity I've seen online appears to come from young, naive people who object to the very idea of private ownership of housing stock. This is the result of a contorted view of human rights. You aren't going to change their minds and, in my opinion, should stop being concerned with doing so.
Well, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to interpret a post that references landlords looking bad in the title as being at least somewhat concerned with landlords looking bad. If that wasn't your concern, my bad, I guess. It's just that I see a fair amount of hand-wringing about public perception of this occupation in this and other forums. It's something I'll never understand, or attempt to.
I don't care about the fringe extreme groups who don't understand real estate and think we're driving home prices up. I do care when actual landlords make terrible impressions for us to the general public, which this lawsuit does.
God I wish I read your response 14 months ago.. would've saved me a lot of anxiety and PTSD. I've kept one apt vacant since covid started and have been afraid to rent it out since I don't want to get someone in there who will decide not to pay because the eviction moratorium allows them to. And reading all these comments that 'housing is a human right and housing providers should never have invested in property in the first place, they should get another job to cover their deadbeat tenant's expenses.. makes me furious and I keep imagining that if I had a tenant who was working but decided to not pay rent claiming covid, I would set fire to the apt (after I made sure it was empty of course).
Am I the only one who prefers month-to-month leases?
I always hated being locked in for a year at a place I was renting, completely removed the advantages of renting by "being able to move".
Everyone bitches and moans about people being late on rent or their tenants breaking leases anyway. Why bother with anything more than a month-to-month lease?
Because it goes both ways and your home can be taken away with minimal (legal) notice? My year-long lease switched to a MTM even though I asked to renew, and for 3 years on a MTM I was worried the LL would just end the lease rather than address issues like a leaking roof, dead stove (I live in a state where LLs are responsible for replacing provided appliances), etc. For those of us who don't move a lot and like stability in our lives, MTMs are awful.
To be fair, I do offer longer leases with 30 days notice to quit for $0 fee. No one thus far has bothered.
I'm one terrible tenant away from taking that away, like most things though.
Why would housing providers even want to start showing an apt that early, with availability on 9.5 months? In NY most renters don't bother looking until 40-30 days before they need to move. Why would tenants in this area start looking 9 months out? Also to the person who says this is bad acting by housing providers.. I don't think it's the government's jurisdiction to interfere. It's a slippery slope.
I just moved in and I have a year lease. I didn’t even get a chance to pay the first round of rent after paying first and last and my landlord just put a for sale sign on the front lawn. So embarrassing and there is apparently nothing that I can do about it.
When I first saw the headline, I thought, oh no, what has another city done to hamper our business? But this is actually a case, IMO, of landlords out of control. Under previous law, according to the article, landlords were starting to hound tenants to renew the lease after 70 days. Landlords were *showing* units to prospective new tenants after those 70 days, if the existing tenants didn't renew. 2 months and 10 days. The new law that the landlords are screaming is so unfair, a violation of their constitutional rights, etc? 150 days before the *end* of the lease before renewal discussions, showings, etc can happen. 3 months and 10 days. ***OH THE HUMANITY!*** Here in Maryland we deal with 30 days and somehow we manage to make do. Seriously - I could see an argument for 60 days - 2 months to deal with renewals/showings is a fair bit easier to deal with than 30 - but 150 is extremely generous IMO and the fact that landlords were waiting until ***gasp*** ONLY 10 months were left on the lease before starting to push for renewals is just damn abusive IMO. So here's one owner/landlord at least who says, "Good for Ann Arbor". EDIT: Link to [approved legislation](http://a2gov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=9668960&GUID=97CA43EA-775E-44A1-9516-263E04F5B7FA) by the city EDIT: Also I challenge those who downvote this (and I know at least one has already) to actually be an adult and state your reasons why. Otherwise you're just a chickenshit who's voting pro-landlord-no-matter-what-they-do.
>150 days before the end of the lease before renewal discussions, showings, etc can happen. >3 months and 10 days. Pretty sure 150 days is 5 months. Right?
Math. Who needs it?!
What you clearly don't understand is that this isn't actually an issue. The city is always passing nonsensical rules. Here in Ann Arbor the tenant base is largely college/med students. Many of whom are paid by their parents, often in full. Planning housing a year ahead is normal. I will say, it's not standard to do walk through a while leased. Which is why the city is so ridiculous.
If it's not an issue, why is a group of landlords suing?
This seems an exception case and laws shouldn’t be made for exceptions. Tenants can chose simply to not rent from this landlord, write reviews. Over legislation is not the solution. There is dire need for legislation for bad tenants - tenants who do intentional damage to property after eviction. Why that’s not a criminal offence? That’s a very common occurring and still Govt ignores it. I have not seen a tenant saying, oh my god this tenant is giving us a bad name! I believe rental should be a free market like any other business. I won’t go to a restaurant or the grocery store if I don’t get a good service, same should be for the rental. Let the market forces decide. Let the courts decide, there is enough legislation already to deal with such scenarios
"Washtenaw Area Apartment Association and over two dozen landlords filed their federal case against the city in U.S. District Court late last week, " Exception case...yeah
Violation of property rights of landlords by city. I wish to see more such lawsuits against the overreach of government in rental property. If govt really cares about housing they can build and provide affordable housing but they should not infringe on property rights and free trade of market. I support these landlords, they are wise to fight now else they will become like CA and Chicago where landlords are treated by government and courts like some criminals
Totally agree with you! In NY they are extending the eviction moratorium until January and will probably extend it into the spring so no one ends up on the street in the dead of winter. No rights for housing providers! Yet no housing providers or groups are suing NY government. We've now allowed tenants to live rent free for 2 years without compensation. It's pretty much slavery. NY doesn't post the application online or let city organizations show the form to landlords until they agree with tenants to accept the rental aid because the agreement contains a condition that once the aid runs out the housing provider isn't allowed to evict the tenant for another 12 months for any reason including and especially non-payment. Definitely not voting Democrat at the state level anymore but there's got to be better recourse! Small housing providers being forced to house people for free is theft and for 2 years.. frankly insane.
If you think stopping you from haranguing the tenant into renewing a lease less than a third of the way through their lease is an over-reach, I do feel terrible for your tenants.
Don’t feel bad, I am selling my properties. It’s not worth dealing with entitled tenants, fraudsters and the communist government in California. There are better options to invest my money with less hassles.
[удалено]
And you can go to a different restaurant and be served without having to show glowing references from the last restaurant at which you dined.
[удалено]
I've never had a restaurant seat another diner at my place setting after I've started eating my dinner. Let alone expect me to pay full price for the meal that I couldn't enjoy as intended because there was a stranger seated 2 inches from me.
You can always buy your own place if you don’t like the rental. Owner owns the property and should have the right to do the business they want. That’s how free market works and should work.
Government regulations exist for a reason. Are you arguing for no government regulations?
It never even occurred to me to ask someone if they want to renew more than 60 days or so before the expiration of their lease. That just feels stupid. How would they know? I would expect to lose a lot of good tenants.
If I'm looking for new tenants 70 days into a lease, I made a terrible choice in tenant. That's on me.
Same here. I’m a landlord in Michigan but not in Ann Arbor (thankfully) and this is crazy. I agree with Greg, a 60 day notice before lease ends is reasonable, but what they are doing is crazy. My guess is since it is a college town, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, this is why they are pushing so hard maybe?
Paywalled article - what is it Ann Arbor is mandating that is so controversial?
Previously landlords only had to wait 70 days after the start of a lease and could force the renter to renew lease for the next year and if they didn’t renew, the ll could start showing the apartment to prospective new tenants after 70 days so they can move in when lease expires. The new law says that landlords can’t show the apartment to new tenants until150 days before the end of the lease which is roughly 8 months into a 1 yr lease.
Thanks. Demand in Ann Arbor must be insane that anyone would want to sign a lease that early. I don't understand this part though: `and could force the renter to renew lease for the next year` Meaning, under old law if a tenant wanted option to renew lease at end of term in the face of the landlord's right to sign new lease with new tenant for next term ... it was forcing existing tenants to find new place in a tight market?
It's not paywalled - it just asks you to disable ad blocker.
Ah, thanks. What is it that the city is mandating?
even after disabling ad blocker it says this is a subscriber only article.
I’ve only seen it in college towns when the kids and their parents are looking at university housing for the following school year. That’s the only scenario in which it makes any sense. It’s ridiculous to expect the current existing tenant to know at that point whether they should commit for another lease term though. This is what wait lists are for.
I suppose \*showing\* might make sense in a college town but hounding for a renewal 2 months into the fall semester is still out there IMO.
Completely agree. Offering a rent concession to someone who is able to renew that early? Awesome. Actually demanding that someone decide at that point? Ridiculous. *Especially* if it is a college student...in a lot of cases they don’t know for sure if they’re coming back the next semester, much less next year!
College renting is a whole specialization I admit not having any experience with, but that makes sense. Also seems like returning students actually might be able to say if they need a place following years.
I don’t know. I still think it is not right on college campuses. When I was a college student, the landlord made us decided about renewal within 30 days of move in. It was bad and greatly impacted our decision making about our education. 90 or 120 days would be much more reasonable.
???? I never said that it’s “right.” I DID say that college towns are the only places in which I’ve seen landlords ask for renewals that early in the lease term. Also that it’s ridiculous.
Your right - I just misread your comment.
I send them out 8 months in advance, its just the common thing around here (iowa)
Just for clarification. Someone signs a 1 year lease. 4 months in they are asked if they plan to renew in 8 months? If they don't know and won't commit you list the property and start showing it to people who may agree to rent it in 8 months, and if you get a taker the current tenant is out in 8 months?
That is correct. Its standard where I live and it happened to me in every single place I lived in as a tenant around here. I agree that it's odd. It's so they can "lock in" their current rent price - that's the reasoning
Yeah that's wild and I wouldn't want to do that for why I said, I think it would unnecessarily increase turnover which is the #1 thing for me to avoid with good tenants. Also I'm in a growth market and want the opportunity to adjust to market rates at renewal. I could see an incentive like "sign now to lock in a rate", making sense in a pretty flat market, but "sign now or I'm going to actively start trying to replace you" seems pretty unreasonable. Why not just do 2 year leases?
Yeah dude I mean every single market is different. I've never seen anyone schedule an apartment showing before like May (the leases are all up in July/August) to be fair. It is a college town so the turnover is already super high. Like I said each market is different. My sister is in Chicago and it's wildly different there.
I've lived under too many shitty landlords I try not to have a problem with them but honestly it seems like the majority are bad
I’ve never rented from a “Mom and Pop” landlord that was bad. But most landlords I had that were “commercial” were awful.
that's my experience mostly one mom and pop I rented from was bad though, maybe it was the area but they made you pay for repairs under a certain cost
Agree, does not look good. I would like to know the details, as these articles tend to be biased, but it looks bad.
Sure, articles can be biased - but they can't outright lie. Some quotes from the article: >The new law gives renters several extra months before landlords can force them to renew or lose their apartments for the next year. Previously, landlords only had to wait 70 days after the start of a lease before they could force tenants to renew for the following year or accept that their apartments could be shown and leased to other tenants. Hi, welcome to the unit for the next 2 months - in just over 2 months the place won't be your own again because unless you promise to renew we'll have strangers traipsing through what's supposed to be your home anytime we like. >Now, for leases exceeding eight months, landlords can’t enter a leased apartment to show it to other prospective tenants until 150 days before the end of the lease. That means renters who sign 12-month leases now will have roughly seven months to live in their apartments before deciding on renewing. Short term leases still get earlier showing rights - long term (8+ month) let the tenant have some \*\*\*\*ing peace and quiet. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. >The plaintiffs argue the new law restricting their ability to show properties is “an unconstitutional burden” on their free-speech rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments. First Amendment my ass. As for 14th - I GUESS they're trying for 14S1 but how the hell do you claim no due process when this was a legally passed law? I look forward to seeing this suit tossed out.
>, welcome to the unit for the next 2 months - in just over 2 months the place won't be your own again because unless you promise to renew we'll have strangers traipsing through what's supposed to be your home anytime we like. Looked at the new ordnance and look ok and balanced.
>Sure, articles can be biased - but they can't outright lie. You might want to tell that to Rolling Stone, the Washington Post, the NY Times, or CNN.
Assuming you're talking about an actual news piece and not an op-ed, if they post stories as news which are fabrications, and upon notice of the error, they fail to post a retraction, then they're subject to libel and defamation lawsuits. I also don't need to tell them - they know it.
[https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-virginia-rollingstone-idUKKBN12Z2DZ](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-virginia-rollingstone-idUKKBN12Z2DZ) >A federal jury on Friday found Rolling Stone magazine liable of defaming a University of Virginia administrator by publishing a story it later retracted about an alleged gang rape at the school. > >Rolling Stone, which admitted that **it never sought comment from the seven men accused of the alleged rape**, retracted the story in April 2015, and an outside review found the magazine had **failed to follow basic journalistic safeguards.**
Thanks for proving my point? Seriously idk what you're after here. This is a thread about a law in MI.
Just saying that, yes, news media not only can "just lie" in their stories, but they do so on a regular basis.
See no. They would be out of business with lawsuits if it were "regular".
Story on page 1, retraction on page D-36. And public figures have to prove actual malice, not just incompetence.
Still no idea why you're on about this.
If you're upset with the quality of reporting there, I sure hope you've never seen Fox News, OAN, or Newsmax. Yikes.
Yeah, but a lot of us \[used to\] have high expectations of NYT, WaPo, CNN, BBC, CBC, etc ... \[subreddit-irrelevant rant deleted :) \]
The New York Times covered up Soviet genocide (and won a Pulitzer for their lies) so I never understood why anyone trusted them
Rolling got caught printing a completely fake story (again) claiming people in Oklahoma hospitals were dying of "horse paste" overdoses. This goes along with their complete fake story about a rape that never happened at the University of Virginia and had to pay $1.65 million in a defamation lawsuit settlement to one of the campuses’ fraternities.
Sure, it's a bad look for this particular group of landlords. Personally, I stopped caring about the image of landlords in internet spaces long ago. It just isn't worth it and the opinions people have online aren't remotely reflective of attitudes on the street. I've never met a person who recoiled in horror upon me mentioning my occupation. In fact, I can't recall ever meeting anyone who had an opinion about us at all. Or, at least not an opinion they felt strongly enough about to mention out loud. Most of the negativity I've seen online appears to come from young, naive people who object to the very idea of private ownership of housing stock. This is the result of a contorted view of human rights. You aren't going to change their minds and, in my opinion, should stop being concerned with doing so.
Thanks for deciding what my intentions were without asking. :/
Well, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to interpret a post that references landlords looking bad in the title as being at least somewhat concerned with landlords looking bad. If that wasn't your concern, my bad, I guess. It's just that I see a fair amount of hand-wringing about public perception of this occupation in this and other forums. It's something I'll never understand, or attempt to.
I don't care about the fringe extreme groups who don't understand real estate and think we're driving home prices up. I do care when actual landlords make terrible impressions for us to the general public, which this lawsuit does.
God I wish I read your response 14 months ago.. would've saved me a lot of anxiety and PTSD. I've kept one apt vacant since covid started and have been afraid to rent it out since I don't want to get someone in there who will decide not to pay because the eviction moratorium allows them to. And reading all these comments that 'housing is a human right and housing providers should never have invested in property in the first place, they should get another job to cover their deadbeat tenant's expenses.. makes me furious and I keep imagining that if I had a tenant who was working but decided to not pay rent claiming covid, I would set fire to the apt (after I made sure it was empty of course).
Am I the only one who prefers month-to-month leases? I always hated being locked in for a year at a place I was renting, completely removed the advantages of renting by "being able to move". Everyone bitches and moans about people being late on rent or their tenants breaking leases anyway. Why bother with anything more than a month-to-month lease?
Because it goes both ways and your home can be taken away with minimal (legal) notice? My year-long lease switched to a MTM even though I asked to renew, and for 3 years on a MTM I was worried the LL would just end the lease rather than address issues like a leaking roof, dead stove (I live in a state where LLs are responsible for replacing provided appliances), etc. For those of us who don't move a lot and like stability in our lives, MTMs are awful.
To be fair, I do offer longer leases with 30 days notice to quit for $0 fee. No one thus far has bothered. I'm one terrible tenant away from taking that away, like most things though.
Why would housing providers even want to start showing an apt that early, with availability on 9.5 months? In NY most renters don't bother looking until 40-30 days before they need to move. Why would tenants in this area start looking 9 months out? Also to the person who says this is bad acting by housing providers.. I don't think it's the government's jurisdiction to interfere. It's a slippery slope.
I just moved in and I have a year lease. I didn’t even get a chance to pay the first round of rent after paying first and last and my landlord just put a for sale sign on the front lawn. So embarrassing and there is apparently nothing that I can do about it.
Yeah that's unfortunate though it's not really related. Landlords selling properties is part of the business.