Your first month’s rent is rent that you otherwise would have had to spend on your old apartment. You’re not double paying it.
You should get your security deposit back from your old apartment when you move out- by law within 14 days.
2-bedroom apartment : 3 local movers working for 5-7 hours at an average of $25 each per hour = $375-$525 to get the job done. That is if you can’t do it yourself. Most young people, like the ones living in the building in the article, do it themselves or with the help of friends.
The gist of the article is that a landlord elected not to extend leases. They didn’t do it out of retaliation or discrimination. What possible government policy could prevent this? Would you suggest that leases have no expiration dates?
I have no lived in an apartment for years, and even I know that it’s not just first month, it’s first AND last month, AND a security deposit. It’s not moving in for $1000.
Unless they decide to fuck you, and in this case, the landlord was going to throw them out on the street with a member of the household was literally dying.
And many people on a fixed income can’t afford that.
This is an 87 year old refugee on a fixed income. Do you honestly think that he can pack up his life, and get all his stuff moved into a new place on his own? Or do you just think he’s being lazy?
I’ve rented entire houses and apartments ever since moving out on my own at 20; I can attest that has been the case for me, everywhere that I’ve lived, in and outside the continental US.
Anyone who thinks it’s easy to rent an apartment in a major city (or even a minor city) in America if you don’t have a nest egg of savings has to be staggeringly ignorant about the struggles that working class people face…
Even the Business Roundtable has changed the definition of a corporation’s purpose to put people over profit. If you find yourself in a position where you’re more ruthless than Jamie Dimon, you need to recalibrate.
Clearly, that’s on you… after all, landlords never take advantage of their tenants or the law in order to defraud them! /s
What gets me about that is that we all just kind of accept that no matter how utterly spotless you leave a rental, you’re more likely than not going to get the deposit back.
So, no policy suggestion, just outrage that a landlord didn’t comply with an unwritten moral obligation for them to subsidize the downtrodden.
Try negotiating that clause into your next lease. “If Lessee shall age, get sick, or cash on hand shall fall below $1,000, then Lessee shall have annual options to extend the lease at the same terms.”
No landlord would agree to that obviously, but if that became a tenant’s right, the asking price for a rental would jump considerably. Options in contracts cost money.
There’s law & policy, and there’s humanity & society.
This greedy asshole may have every legal right to boot an octogenarian tenant with a dying son. They also have the right to wear milkshakes every day for the rest of the year.
Honoring a lease until the end and then not agreeing to extend is ruthless? What a horrible business to get into. Sort of like lending money. There will inevitably be borrowers with difficult circumstances and you’ll be the villain for seeking repayment.
There are only a handful of important terms in a lease. Start date, monthly rent, and expiration are pretty much it. 2 parties sign the agreement.
However, I would say that the landlord in the story above is the exception, which is why it made the news.
Did you read the article? The tenant is a Section 8 tenant, who was being charged $2500/mo, then $3200/mo. The landlord claims she “has a right to make money” on the property. Really? She’s not making money on $3200/mo rent? WTF? It’s an old building, that hasn’t been renovated in decades. The word that applies is simply GREED.
ETA: The landlord also characterized $3200/mo as “free rent.” That’s right, when asked about it, she said “why should someone get free rent just because they’re sick.” She’s a real charmer.
I’m sorry, but at some point people have to actual realize that their actions to line their pockets have real world consequences for real human beings. Evicting everyone to increase the profit margin is pretty shitty, IMHO.
In that case, YES. It very much is.
I think we’re thinking of the other thread about the Holocaust survivor. Fortunately, there is enough ruthless eviction to go around, apparently!