if this law comes to your town…
Not only must one accept Sec 8 applicants but… will require landlords to rent to the first applicant who qualifies, an effort to offset implicit or explicit bias.
Again, I know people try to work around this, but still, won’t this kind of law just turn even more people from renting places???
It’s just a matter of time before this law comes to the bay area. Imagine this combined with rent control. Landlords will be required to rent to the first qualified tenant that comes through the door, and then be stuck with this tenant for life with limited rent increases. Landlords would have to set the qualification standards sky high in order to have a valid excuse to selectively reject candidates.
Yesterday I saw news that San Monica rent control board has authorized a study to find out why the city keeps losing rent control units year after year. I wonder what there is to be studied. Can’t wait to see the findings. I suppose the purpose of the study was not really to find out why but how the units leave rent control so they can come up with counter measures.
Rent control doesn’t produce more units…just the opposite. …liberals are mostly liberal arts majors…not good at math
Being a landlord is a business. Any business should be able to make decisions that are best for the business. If the landlord is forced to take a tenant they don’t want, then can the sue the city for any financial losses?
I hear ya, but not according to the Supreme Court (has ruled before that rent control for example is legal)…
Maybe one day, just like civil rights or same sex marriage, the Court will see the light…
Yikes! Will never touch the Seattle market now.
Shame on these landlords…
Shame on rent control policy as well
Yes, I agree with you. Most rent control policies can be a bit too one sided but that is no excuse. My place in Oakland rent is controlled and I know I’m definitely way below market on my rents but I still take care of my place.
If all the allegations are true, then this group of people have no business of being landlords.
If you buy a house and rent at market rent, it’s still hardly cash flow positive.
If the landlord has many long term tenants who pay an extremely low rent, it could be an ongoing bleeding for the landlord.
Maybe for the apartment where rent is below 50% of the market rent, we can require tenant to make repairs since they save a lot of money on rent. If the tenant is low income, then city and taxpayers should pay for the repairs. Landlord already made a tremendous sacrifice by renting the property at really low rent, that should be good enough
If they save $1000 on rent per month, can’t they afford to buy a smoke detector or kill the bugs? If they can’t afford, can’t the city and taxpayer give the low income tenant some assistance fund for repairs? Landlord gives them $300k rent subsidy each year, why can’t the city and taxpayers spare $100 for some smoke detectors?
Who is the most disgusting guy exactly?
This is an alternative truth.
I just posted this morning an update on how rent control impacted the SF market on a different thread. It is an interesting read.
Rent-controlled = Dwellings won’t be maintained.
No rent-controlled = Those who can’t afford have to move elsewhere.
Public housing can be rent-controlled and well maintained but who is going to fund them?
Public housing is worse maintained than this Oakland building. Government should sue itself for poorly maintained public housing.
Can’t afford to pay undocumented immigrants? How about letting well behaved prison inmates to do the maintenance?
We can cut the city attorney’s pay by 80%, similar to rent control the landlord, we can salary control the city attorney. And we’ll forbid the city attorney from quitting being a city attorney. In case the city attorney really wants to quit, we can forbid him/her from earning any income for 5 years, similar to Ellis eviction.
Classic…
Because it is not a jury trial, the judge will hand down a verdict next week.
“An attorney for Fallon argued in court that Fallon is not guilty of the charges because he didn’t ejaculate onto the woman’s belongings and had a legitimate reason to be in the apartment — that is, fixing the water tank, the Post-Gazette reports.”
Gold.
I expect a hard sentence and a stiff fine
