One thing I miss about living in Montreal/Quebec (certainly not the fucking winters) was the rent control and rental laws. In my opinion it was a good balance of protecting tenants (who are obviously at a huge disadvantage) without going too far against landlords (the laws here in France are good for nobody, since it makes landlords/agencies afraid to rent to anyone who might one day conceivably not pay rent).
For example, rent increases had to be approved by the rental board (basically cost of living, plus a percentage of repairs, improvements, etc). And what’s more, you could sign a lease and move into a place, and if you found out that the last tenant was paying a lot less, challenge it and get your rent reduced.
I’d say there is far more wrong with this idea than right. Whatever benefits there may be to some housing markets, it’s inevitable that many big metro areas will see increases that will price many out of a home.
[ETA: There’s a discussion to be had here about how this app could be modified to benefit tenants as much as it does landlords. That’s not going to happen as long as we pay attention to a Libertarian who tries to pin the blame for high rents on the bad ol’ state (because landlords are never greedy) or to an anarchist who urges everyone to live in squats and shanties to stick it to The Man.]
It’s a good idea, but I’m sure there’s a (no doubt exorbitant) reserve price the landlord can set, and I’m sure that either the landlord or the site specifies a bidding increment. If the latter is in increments of $1 or $5, one might have a bit of fun before the auction closes.
Landlords (well, generally the letting agencies) round here are quite happy to play prospective tenets off against each other to get higher rents. This service just makes it easier for them.
I’m not sure how it would be possible for this to help tenets out, if I don’t rent somewhere, then I’d have to live out of my car. If a landlord fails to rent a property then they’re not losing out because the property is still worth more at the end of the month. Tenets are basically caretakers who pay for the privilege.
(Property prices are rising by almost 10% per year here, for comparison, my wage has risen by 2% in the last five years)
If you are going to tell people to not “pay attention” to me, then you have some obligation to accurately convey what position they should be avoiding - rather than demonstrating that you weren’t paying attention in the first place. I didn’t say what kind of buildings people live in, what I did say was that people need to be more careful about what kind of economies they implicate themselves in.
I’m not saying people shouldn’t pay attention to you. I’m saying that if there’s a discussion to be had about improving this particular webapp to make it more equitable in the context of a housing economy that many Americans are stuck implicating themselves in* then your position is a distraction from it.
[* because not everyone has the options that allow them to opt out]
Another classic BB headline… So selling something by auction as opposed to a set price makes it “weaponized”? “MEDIC! EVAC! Kowalski took a price signal to the chest!”
Well, I, for one, do not ‘choose’ to invest in rent. Buying is out of my range, and I understand my child greatly enjoyed growing up with an actual roof and four walls over and around him. As a lifelong renter, I definitely think it’s weaponized shelter.
When is friction and asymmetric information in markets good? Why is there an assumption that an auction only benefits the seller? No one would go to auctions or use Ebay if that were true. If this system were in place renters looking in the dead of winter would be able to get great deals, it’s a terrible time for landlords. So where is the “weaponization”? Just the fact that the price is set exactly at market rather than the landlords making their best guess? Sometimes that guess is wrong and the landlord has to lower the rent to get more applications, that process is simply built in here.
It’s already illegal to discriminate against protected classes and this system would make no difference, or even improve the situation since if you’re the high bidder they better have a damn good reason to deny you. The information flows both ways here, and that’s good. The comparison to Martin Shkreli is totally disingenuous, free markets setting a price and a dickhead monopolist setting a price are utterly different.
I have friends (more than two, even) who own their own houses, rent out rooms to tenants, and so have a completely different perspective on this than I do.
Which makes these issues hard to talk about. I can bring up all the times when a landlord has violated my rental contract with impunity, since I don’t have the means or the time or the rage to take them to court over piddly-ass stuff. And these friends will invariably chime in with stories of awful tenants who raise their risk, which is why I can’t get a fair deal. Which… has nothing to do with me.
Bottom line, I don’t think it’s possible to have any sort of fair deal when something essential for life can be commodified and used to extract wealth from people. Medicine is the same way.
Yet somehow, all the people living in tents who can’t afford to play these games, can still be blamed for our cities’ problems, while those at the top of the market quietly shrug and cash their checks.
I’m sure if we scratch the surface of this issue, my homeowner friends are also being victimized by this rapacious economy. It’s just that if they lose the game, they move to a rental. If I lose this game, I’m out on the street. It’s hard to look at any of this in the same way they do, and most especially it’s hard to ask for for reforms that might hurt their resale value.
This makes me wonder how many landlords you actually know. Most I’ve seen would rather have a tooth pulled without anesthesia than let a place sit vacant for a month.
Geez, I know this sounds morbid, but there’s no way I’d have a no-rent/no-house-payment residence if my parents hadn’t bought it outright, and then left it to my brother and I; I live in it with my son because I lived with my mom for the eight years preceding her death last June.
And I’ve rented and tried to buy, but neither worked out for any reasonable length of time, due to circs in and beyond my control.
You must be a Democrat! So am I, and also believe in funding the safety net. The issue I have with your position is the notion that only landlords are responsible for the welfare of the community, which is the idea behind rent controls. It always reminds me of the way, pre-Obamacare, hospitals overcharged the solvent sick to pay for the care of the indigent. Why should only that small sector be responsible for the general welfare? Why should property owners bear the brunt of far wider social and economic issues? Not only that, it’s counterproductive. In places without rent controls or heavy development restrictions there’s no conflict between renters and landlords, renters can vote with their feet. Rent control creates a cage match, and discourages from being landlords all but people willing to be the biggest assholes.
When a housing crisis lasts 72 years it’s no longer a crisis, it’s the new normal, and must be seen that way. If “landlording” is so profitable, then allow them reinvest and build enough housing for the market. But NIMBY forces, often the same people complaining of high rent, won’t let them. In my city there’s “too dense” complaints over a new 108 unit proposal in a part of the city previously ignored by developers to the complaints of the residents. You can’t win, but landlords are somehow always the problem.
