As Democrats, we believe ending homelessness is a priority, and requires a sufficient stock of affordable housing and job training programs which support parents in regaining access to the workplace.
Including not just low-income housing, but also “starter homes” for young middle-class families.
<
p>Protection for renters in these crisis times…perhaps requiring landlords to provide mortgage updates/title status along with the signed lease.
nopoliticiansays
I will admit that I have no experience with tenants, but I hear a lot of stories that suggest that the balance is a bit too tilted towards tenants as it is.
<
p>I hear a lot of people either swearing off ever being a landlord again, or stating that they would never attempt to enter that field.
<
p>Springfield seems to not have very many people wanting to owner-occupy its multi-family housing (51% of the stock), and because of that there are many out-of-town “investor” landlords, or owners who own dozens of properties.
<
p>I get the impression that the basic problem is that it is somewhat difficult to evict tenants, particularly if they have children, and that many tenants know this and take advantage of it. From what I have heard, unless you get lucky and find the right tenants, there is a fairly good chance that you’re going to wind up with headaches and unpaid rent — particularly among the lower-income crowd.
<
p>Again, this is hearsay, I have absolutely no experience in this area, I just hear people complaining. Perhaps someone here has experience in being a landlord and could give some first-hand information?
I agree that it is very hard for landlords to evict renters for good cause, much less recoup the money owed. We’re of the same mind on that.
<
p>However, I also believe that many renters are getting tossed out because the landlords was unable/willing to keep up the mortgage to the property, and said renters were summarily turfed out with little warning. I just thing that’s something worth avoiding.
nopoliticiansays
Yes, that is happening to a friend of mine. He was notified by the bank that his landlord no longer owns the house they were renting. He is scrambling to try and find another place.
<
p>However, he told me that he is not paying rent to the bank either.
<
p>I think that in a foreclosure, the bank should honor leases, however a lot of people (my friend included) were on month-to-month leases. I think that in such a situation, the tenants shouldn’t get much protection because they haven’t put up very much. I guess I’m saying that in an “at will” tenancy, neither party should have an upper hand — the tenant should be able to move out with 30 days notice, and the landlord should be able to request the tenant move out with 30 days notice.
<
p>Maybe I don’t fully understand the issues, it just seems to me that the lease is the vehicle that protects both parties, and it should protect each party equally.
stomvsays
if I have a 10 months left on a lease with my landlord, I get to live in the home for another 10 months. That’s precisely what a lease allows.
<
p>But, if my landlord goes bankrupt, the bank can kick me out tomorrow*. That’s just loony. There’s absolutely no reason why the bank can’t either (a) turn over the home to a rental management company for the remainder of the lease, charge me the rent on the lease, and then not renew, or (b) turn over the home to a rental management company until the bank is able to sell the home at auction, where the new owner is also bound by the lease.
<
p>Now, there is a potential problem here. Let’s say I know I’m going to lose the house. What’s to stop me (the landlord) from signing up my brother/friend/whoever to a lease at $50/month for the next 10 years? Clearly, the law must protect the bank from that sort of chicanery… and clearly this could be worked out in a way that offers a more balanced playing field for renters of homes lost to bankruptcy.
Obviously, the answer would be to allow corporations to build housing for their employees, make it mandatory that their employees live in this housing, and then deduct the cost of this housing directly from the workers paychecks.
<
p>Putting corporate America first — now THAT’S the American Way!
As Democrats, we believe ending homelessness is a priority, and requires a sufficient stock of affordable housing and job training programs which support parents in regaining access to the workplace.
Including not just low-income housing, but also “starter homes” for young middle-class families.
<
p>Protection for renters in these crisis times…perhaps requiring landlords to provide mortgage updates/title status along with the signed lease.
I will admit that I have no experience with tenants, but I hear a lot of stories that suggest that the balance is a bit too tilted towards tenants as it is.
<
p>I hear a lot of people either swearing off ever being a landlord again, or stating that they would never attempt to enter that field.
<
p>Springfield seems to not have very many people wanting to owner-occupy its multi-family housing (51% of the stock), and because of that there are many out-of-town “investor” landlords, or owners who own dozens of properties.
<
p>I get the impression that the basic problem is that it is somewhat difficult to evict tenants, particularly if they have children, and that many tenants know this and take advantage of it. From what I have heard, unless you get lucky and find the right tenants, there is a fairly good chance that you’re going to wind up with headaches and unpaid rent — particularly among the lower-income crowd.
<
p>Again, this is hearsay, I have absolutely no experience in this area, I just hear people complaining. Perhaps someone here has experience in being a landlord and could give some first-hand information?
I agree that it is very hard for landlords to evict renters for good cause, much less recoup the money owed. We’re of the same mind on that.
<
p>However, I also believe that many renters are getting tossed out because the landlords was unable/willing to keep up the mortgage to the property, and said renters were summarily turfed out with little warning. I just thing that’s something worth avoiding.
Yes, that is happening to a friend of mine. He was notified by the bank that his landlord no longer owns the house they were renting. He is scrambling to try and find another place.
<
p>However, he told me that he is not paying rent to the bank either.
<
p>I think that in a foreclosure, the bank should honor leases, however a lot of people (my friend included) were on month-to-month leases. I think that in such a situation, the tenants shouldn’t get much protection because they haven’t put up very much. I guess I’m saying that in an “at will” tenancy, neither party should have an upper hand — the tenant should be able to move out with 30 days notice, and the landlord should be able to request the tenant move out with 30 days notice.
<
p>Maybe I don’t fully understand the issues, it just seems to me that the lease is the vehicle that protects both parties, and it should protect each party equally.
if I have a 10 months left on a lease with my landlord, I get to live in the home for another 10 months. That’s precisely what a lease allows.
<
p>But, if my landlord goes bankrupt, the bank can kick me out tomorrow*. That’s just loony. There’s absolutely no reason why the bank can’t either (a) turn over the home to a rental management company for the remainder of the lease, charge me the rent on the lease, and then not renew, or (b) turn over the home to a rental management company until the bank is able to sell the home at auction, where the new owner is also bound by the lease.
<
p>Now, there is a potential problem here. Let’s say I know I’m going to lose the house. What’s to stop me (the landlord) from signing up my brother/friend/whoever to a lease at $50/month for the next 10 years? Clearly, the law must protect the bank from that sort of chicanery… and clearly this could be worked out in a way that offers a more balanced playing field for renters of homes lost to bankruptcy.
<
p>
<
p> * Except, IIRC, for NJ and DC
Obviously, the answer would be to allow corporations to build housing for their employees, make it mandatory that their employees live in this housing, and then deduct the cost of this housing directly from the workers paychecks.
<
p>Putting corporate America first — now THAT’S the American Way!