Centerfield

I'm not entirely clear why rent (as opposed to any other expense) should get this kind of special treatment. I would think that an equally good (or bad) case could be made for the cost of gasoline, for example. It's the same logic, after all, applies to rent control. And it is nonsense.

There is obviously some appeal to trying to revoke the law of supply and demand. But it never works. To see just how badly it can not work, take a look at Zimbabwe's current economic disaster.

No, I agree, tinkering with prices would be a mistake.

I was thinking more along the lines of a month or two's rent if the landlord ends a contract due to selling or renovation, or maybe even just help with getting an apartment finder.

That would, of course, mean a very slight rise in rents, with the advantage that some value has been added. Kind of like how credit cards are required to reimburse buyers for bad merchandise.

"Owners mostly get paid well to move (except for said taking case and some oher rare cases)."

Doesn't any authority executing a taking have to pay fair market value? That would mean that owners would also get paid well to move (although if prices rise everywhere, the value of the "good pay" might be less).

One thing that isn't being discussed is the fact that typically, the zoning has to change in order for landlords to either sell the land or tear down the apartments for something else. The zoning change is done by the city government and to me is in direct conflict with constituents (renters) interests. But as usual in politics, money talks and big developers always find enough votes on the city council to get the zoning changed.

Dallas is in a huge wave of apartment tear downs right now, almost all of which were given the OK by the city council through zoning changes. All of them were cheaper apartments built decades ago on land that is now worth a ton. Those people are basically thrown out on the street with no recourse, having been failed by their own government. I think that's what Jon is referring to if I understand correctly.

I find that to be reasonably despicable, more so because I've seen what it does first hand. Those people have to try to find apartments at around the same rate which typically means moving much farther out of the city. Our city leaders always talk about getting people to move back to the city but they mean "young rich white people" when they say it, not the lower middle class that live here every day, going about their own business. It's sad but I suppose that's why it's called progress.

Whoops, the cynicism genie got out of the bottle.

Tell me about it. I rent in NYC. The only saving grace is that I use part of my place for work. Tear downs aren't the problem, supply and demand for the rich is the problem forcing the Middle Class out of the city. Hear that Mayor Bloomberg? Though Kroch, Dinkins and Rudy did no better. Funny that NYC remains basically Democratic, despite giving little support of the less than rich.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to some tinkering in this area, because the government has long been involved with regulating lease conditions. Most often, the law simply provides for default rules which the parties can change if they want to, but their are also plenty of mandatory provisions, which mostly restrict the actions of landlords.

But I would be uncomfortable in imposing requirements that landlords pay, out of their own pocket, money to the tenant just because the landlord sells their property. It's not big complexes owned by really rich people being condemned to make way for the new retailer or luxury condos, it's individual people who own one or two or three houses they rent out, or at most a handful of small complexes.

Beyond that, if a tenant wants long-term protection, they can negotiate for it. In most states, if you record a lease with the county records, then the lessor can not be evicted until the end of the lease, even if the owner sells the property. Landlords charge extra rent, of course, for doing that because it burdens what they can do with the property. Any buyer of the property will also have to deal with the tenants in that case, paying them off to get them out before the end of the lease term. If the property is expropriated, then the government would also have to expropriate the property rights in the recorded lease directly from the renter.

Even more simply, the renter can simply sign longer lease terms. If you have an unrecorded lease, and the owner sells before the end of the term, then the new owner can kick you out... but if he does, you have a right to damages for the early cancellation of the lease by the landlord you rented from.

That, though, would cut down on the flexibility desired by the renter. Many people prefer month-to-month leases so that, if they decide to move elsewhere, they can afford to do so, without having to pay the landlord for breaking the lease.

If you've been living in a place for 20 or 30 years, just renting, then you should demand a year-to-year lease, not a month-to-month. I suppose one could tinker with the default rules established by law. In Louisiana, if a lease term expires, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the lease automatically becomes month-to-month. A lot of times, you sign a year lease when you first move in, then after that year, it becomes month-to-month. One could change the default rule to provide for the default renewal term to change to year-to-year after the renter has been in the place for more than 5 years, or something like that.

cott pointed out a mistake:
except for said taking case ... Doesn't any authority executing a taking have to pay fair market value?

Yes, of course. Whoopsie!

Yeah, Pat, there might well be too many existing regulations covering rentals for this to make sense. Seems like a pretty good point to me.

Speaking of this topic, the Profesora just brought up the topic of the going late last year of the last rent-controlled apartments. Of course, I remember reading most of said apartments were held down by well-to-do people in the know, with contacts, and enough spare time to take advantage. But the problem it was foolishly hoped the rent control would solve is still with us: the non-well-to-do involved with running the city have to commute farther and farther.

It'd be easier, though, if New Yorkers didn't give widening freeways up as impractical. The argument is that it's a cycle that never ends, there'll always be more people. And, roads already cover half the city, why make it the whole city? Never mind that freeway coverage %ages are as yet tiny. They could stand alot more expansion.

Funny that NYC remains basically Democratic, despite giving little support of the less than rich.

There are more and more rich Democrats each year.

It's regrettable that renters are sometimes suddenly inconvenienced by the whims of landlords and the housing markets. Yet I have my doubts that govt intervention could provide a good solution.

I have to admit that I've come to apoint where I just turn a deaf earb when the complaining turns to "affordable housing." My wife and I had to buy a house well out in the suburbs to get something we could afford to buy. We looked at the options and we made our choice, and that's what everyone else has to do. No one has an inherent right to continue to live where they are or where they want to...if a city thrives and real estate values go up, the market has to change. If you really like where you live and want to stay thyere, you should buy, and if you can't afford to buy, then you sort of have to accept that your position may become unstable.

I would like to point out a notable condition that I think deserves consideration for some sort of exception. IMO, Retires folks and others on fixed incomes due to infirmity deserve some sort of consideration. For example, a longtime resident property owner that is retired really ought not to be forced to move due to skyrocketing property taxes. All localities ought at the very least have some sort of deferral mechanism thast fucntions say as a no-interest deferred lien. IOW, you'd owe what you owe, but the meter runs with no or low interest if you can't pay and is deferrable until death or vacancy or whatever.

One more thing worth adding on the topic of renting vs owning.
Property ownership is not ONLY a function of wealth. It is also an act of faith and committment above that of a renter. a renter retains superior flexibility and often liquidity as well. That's the trade off. If you rent, you enjoy significant benefits from doing so...you don't have to tie up your assets, you have flexibility of location, no maintenance costs or demands on you time, and so on. Given this, property owners such as myself have to wonder why renters think they deserve insulation from the primary drawback.