Did you know that pets are one of the largest sources of ancillary revenue in the rental-housing industry and yet some operators are leaving potential revenue on the table by charging their future tenants a flat-fee pet deposit? PetScreening, a North Carolina startup that invented a credit score for pets (a FIDO score), wants you to know this. Its risk-assessment algorithm evaluates pets based on data entered by their owners name, breed, weight, sex, age, pictures, vaccination information, micro-chip data, and behavioral information which it claims is more accurate than unsophisticated landlord assessments. Those judgments often include stereotypes about sizes and breeds. This is unfair to both pitbulls and, possibly, the bichon frise.
Pretending to be an operator who is leaving potential revenue on the table, I entered myself into the sites revenue fetcher worksheet as a 20-unit building owner who charges a $200 flat pet fee. My personalized estimate showed I was only making $1,590 in pet revenue when I could be making a potential $6,201 with PetScreenings services. The automated company email signed off with woof regards.
A FIDO score can range from one paw (very bad) to five paws (very good). Landlords can then set a sliding scale; the more risky the pet is (inclined to bark or walk with a patter-patter-patter rhythm detectable to downstairs neighbors, among other sins), the more a building owner can justify charging their tenant pet rent and fees. (The incentive for prospective tenants to be honest about their pet, we assume, is that they will likely get caught trying to minimize Frank Jr.s tendency toward loud whimpering.)
For the honor of entering their pet into a database that will probably prompt their landlords to charge them more money, owners pay PetScreening a $20 fee for their first pet profile and $15 for each additional pet. (Landlords pay nothing to utilize the service.)
We need a law that renters can't disallow pets, if they cause a problem you can kick them out for not controlling their pets but until they actually start causing problems they should be allowed anywhere
Honestly, sign the new lease and just keep your cat, the eviction process is so slow your house should be good by the time he can actually kick you out for it
Honestly, sign the new lease and just keep your cat, the eviction process is so slow your house should be good by the time he can actually kick you out for itThat was my original plan. Just...don't do it and feign ignorance to drag it out.
Why would a libertarian be against tyrannical rules? Is that really the question you're asking?
Ah, landlords. The most disgusting socially normalized parasites.My grandma is a landlord and not like that at all, she always gets stuff fixed right away, and is willing to overlook missed rent, and she's not rich at all so she got really fucked when she had a bad renter, luckily she's had mostly good renters.
Just because I don't want the government oppressing people doesn't mean I want businesses to do it in their place. I want liberty for the individual, letting businesses do whatever they want stands in the way of that. Corporate oligarchy isn't libertarianism.So, if not the government, who is supposed to stop businesses from doing that?
Ah, landlords. The most disgusting socially normalized parasites.For single family homes, I'm all for massive property tax increases that get waived if it's your primary residency, to push scumbag landlords out of the market and lower house prices for people to buy them to own w/ a mortgage.
So, if not the government, who is supposed to stop businesses from doing that?That's what I want the government to do, personally, when it comes to protecting the individual. The government is supposed to protect the people, not impose unjust laws on them. Things like safety codes on construction companies making buildings is good, having a fire department is good, breaking up monopolies is good, having a military is good. They should really just stay out of people's personal lives completely. If you want to do drugs, own a gun, have a medical procedure, or something that only effects yourself then who cares
That's what I want the government to do, personally, when it comes to protecting the individual. The government is supposed to protect the people, not impose unjust laws on them. Things like safety codes on construction companies making buildings is good, having a fire department is good, breaking up monopolies is good, having a military is good. They should really just stay out of people's personal lives completely. If you want to do drugs, own a gun, have a medical procedure, or something that only effects yourself then who cares
My grandmaYes, there are exceptions like this. I am being hyperbolic, but I guess I didn't go over the top enough, lol.
We need a law that renters can't disallow pets , if they cause a problem you can kick them out for not controlling their pets but until they actually start causing problems they should be allowed anywhere
For single family homes, I'm all for massive property tax increases that get waived if it's your primary residency, to push scumbag landlords out of the market and lower house prices for people to buy them to own w/ a mortgage.
and she's not rich at all so she got really f***ed when she had a bad renter, luckily she's had mostly good renters.
That's what I want the government to do, personally, when it comes to protecting the individual. The government is supposed to protect the people, not impose unjust laws on them.yeah, uh, you aren't actually a libertarian LMAO
yeah, uh, you aren't actually a libertarian LMAO
The problem with any cost-increasing approach is that it tends to disproportionately punish good landlords, who aren't nickel-and-diming their tenants enough to absorb the extra costs in their larger margins. That means it's overwhelmingly them who end up selling, either to slumlords who are much less reluctant to jack rent up as far as they need to cover the new taxes (and then some, while also spending less on upkeep), or to developers that also buy up the rest of the neighbourhood to demolish it and build a complex that avoids the new tax while also being able to take advantage of the higher rents the new tax has generated across the market. The renting class - by virtue of having parasites clinging to them for most of their adult lives - generally doesn't have the capital required to take advantage of small housing crashes like that, so most of the buying opportunities that do show up will be snatched up by those that do have the spare capital to win bidding wars.Yeah, it sucks for the few good landlords. But it'd help millions of people trapped in a cycle of endless renting and rent increases.
Any attempt to control rent needs to be comprehensive, not just increasing taxes or putting caps on how much rent can be increased. Every landlord needs to be required to have some percentage of their properties qualify as "affordable," which should in turn be defined based on median local income and not median local rent (my city defines it as 30% less than median rent, which isn't much help when median rent is more than double what median income can afford). Maintenance and livability standards need to be strictly enforced to keep affordable apartments from turning into slums (combined with assistance programs for landlords that genuinely can't afford to maintain their properties without making them unaffordable). Insurance costs and property taxes for rentals need to be based on rent currently being paid, to prevent market fluctuations from forcing rent increases (or forcing landlords who don't want to hurt their tenants to take a loss).Again, the point of an extra tax on non-primary residences is to not increase cost at all for people just living in the one home they own and to severely punish those that buy up entire blocks of housing.
As much as it'd be nice to stamp out landlords altogether, there is in fact a need for renting, and they do provide an essential service. No matter how accessible the housing market is, there's still going to have to be a transitional period between reaching adulthood and having the necessary capital to buy a house, because merely being able to make mortgage payments isn't enough to cover other costs and risks. Landlords effectively provide insurance: By paying a premium over the actual cost of the property, they take responsibility for whatever goes wrong in the house to keep the tenant from having to deal with large, unexpected expenses. As a stepping stone to ownership, that's pretty unavoidable.Yes, and that's what apartments, multi-family homes, etc... can be for.
The problem is that the market has been inflated by overzealous investors such that the capital needed to buy a house is very difficult to attain, made worse by greedy investors driving rent costs so high that amassing any capital is a challenge.Hence my suggestion above to stop it...
This is what really bugs me, because it's something so many landlords use to justify charging high rents, and it's actually a legitimate excuse for many (especially those that generally don't try for excessively high margins and therefore don't have a huge safety net), but it's also really easy to fix:Sure. I insist on a walkthrough w/ the landlord after my first experience moving out of a rental...
* Mandate video walkthroughs with the tenants and landlord at the beginning and end of each lease, with both parties having a copy, to provide concrete evidence of who's responsible for any damages if a dispute arises. If the landlord doesn't do this, side with the tenant by default. If there is evidence of the tenant refusing to allow the walkthrough, side with the landlord by default
* If the tenant is found liable for damages and/or missed rent, the government pays the landlord the amount owing (receipts and some manner of common sense check needed, of course, to avoid paying $400 for a can of paint and 20 minutes of labour)There's already security deposits for this purpose. They withhold it until they verify the property and deduct expenses from it. If anything, the law is too generous for the landlords.
* The government negotiates a repayment plan with the ex-tenant, including garnisheeing wages if necessary
Those "homestead taxes" would stay. Institutional investors wouldn't just jump in to buy things up like other housing crashes -- they'd be the ones causing the crash as they desperately flee their investments that are about to turn into debt traps, trying not to be the last one out the door. If holding a property is gonna cost them 20% (for example) per year in additional taxes, it's no longer attractive as an "investment", which is entirely the point...
Yes, and that's what apartments, multi-family homes, etc... can be for.
There's already security deposits for this purpose. They withhold it until they verify the property and deduct expenses from it. If anything, the law is too generous for the landlords.
Also this. Being a libertarian involves quite a bit more than just picking a couple of issues and saying "this doesn't need to be regulated by the government." At its core, it's a philosophy of minimizing government involvement as much as possible and letting society sort itself out.How is what I said not a philosophy of minimizing the government? Keep a military, and make sure businesses don't turn the country into a lawless corporate oligarchy is all I ask for from them, everything else they can fuck off with
How is what I said not a philosophy of minimizing the government? Keep a military, and make sure businesses don't turn the country into a lawless corporate oligarchy is all I ask for from them, everything else they can fuck off with
How is what I said not a philosophy of minimizing the government? Keep a military, and make sure businesses don't turn the country into a lawless corporate oligarchy is all I ask for from them, everything else they can fuck off with
yeah, uh, you aren't actually a libertarian LMAOUh, big WHOA. Are you saying that Muscles, of all users, might not know what the fuck he's talking about?!