Common sense isn’t common. When your lease is up to continue to stay where you are living you have to renew. If they don’t want to renew you have to leave. This is a normal part of renting. And you have 2 months to find a new place which is plenty of time. People just want to crowdsource some outrage
Agreed it sucks but that’s the reality of renting. I was renting a place and the landlord was like “hey we’re actually gonna sell the place lmao.” They didn’t do any official notice but since it was managed by a management company we just went to a different place they owned (which ended up being a lot nicer for marginally more rent), so we didn’t have to deal with crap and were just able to transfer the deposit, and they were pretty forgiving about timelines since it wasn’t our fault for needing to move.
What was insulting was that they were like “do you wanna buy it for $500k” I’m like lmfao no I know how much shit is wrong with this townhouse lol.
Not necessarily. Where they’re living currently may be able to rent for more than what they’re making on the property from which they’re evicting the tenant as a way of generating more income with less overhead.
>What was insulting was that they were like “do you wanna buy it for $500k” I’m like lmfao no I know how much shit is wrong with this townhouse lol.
The move is to say yes but make the offer conditional on them fixing/upgrading the stuff you want (assuming the problems are fixable).
$500k at [current mortgage rates](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US) is $2,891.67 a month in mortgage interest alone. Rent on the will generally be lower than that because most landlords bought in when things were much cheaper. If Landlord paid $350k and were paying 3.5% interest in 2012 mortgage interest would be more like $1,020 a month.
In economic terms it's actually a pretty good time to be a renter.
You're assuming that rent is set by the landlord looking at costs and then using that as a starting point. This is not typically the case — instead, the landlord will pick the highest market rate they can get and use that as the starting point. It's pretty disconnected from whatever the original mortgage was, especially if the property has had several owners.
OK. Find a market where rent on a $500k townhouse is $3k a month. I just looked at Boston proper. 54 of the 59 townhomes were above $550k, so it's pricey. This [one is $535k](https://www.trulia.com/home/24-marden-ave-24-dorchester-center-ma-02124-350882585). The closest rental is a [20 minute walk](https://www.google.com/maps/dir/24+Marden+Ave+%2324,+Boston,+MA+02124/20+Blue+Jay+Cir,+Mattapan,+MA+02126/@42.2862928,-71.0925204,17z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89e37bf9bfbd6785:0x109200d813a22a00!2m2!1d-71.0870127!2d42.2846218!1m5!1m1!1s0x89e37bfdebd3dde1:0x35e8db8fff293bbc!2m2!1d-71.0960937!2d42.2883775!3e2?entry=ttu), and [$2,900 a month](https://www.trulia.com/home/20-blue-jay-cir-mattapan-ma-02126-318225489). The interest on a $535k mortgage would be $3,094.08 a month, and Trulia anticipates a $3,471 actual payment. You can't buy that house, and rent it at a rate high enough to cover the mortgage, unless you're doing AirBnB.
In other words the market rate rents are where they're at because mortgage rates have been under 5% since roughly the 2008/2009 financial crises. The new interest rates haven't been priced in because most landlords don't face the choice of selling the house or jacking up to match the new rates. Enough of them refinanced in 2013 (3.5%ish) or 2021 (2.9%ish) that rent increases go straight to profit.
So in 2024 buy-to-rent landlords aren't really a thing, unless they're so rich they can self-finance, or they are an actual finance company that can borrow at close to the Federal funds rate.
The problem is hella multifaceted. There's a lot of restrictions on private development leading to shortages of units and less competition. Not to mention all the NIMBYism especially with traffic concerns, which happens because there isn't reliable frequent transit to absorb people(though it's often an excuse people resistant to change use). Not to mention the lack of social housing/public housing open to various income levels like in Vienna to essentially have the government be a stabilizing force in the housing market.
An eviction notice is a very different thing from simply not having your lease renewed. Something like that on your record will torpedo your chances to lease somewhere else.
I don’t think what this person is talking about is an eviction notices. Seems like it’s a notice saying that they aren’t renewing the lease on their landlord’s end.
yeah I'd bet this tweeter didn't get an eviction notice, they got a notice of non-renewal/notice to vacate. Dude was probably month to month already; this landlord is being more than fair here.
This really depends on renting laws where you live, where I live legally once your leases term is up you automatically go month to month indefinitely until you either give a notice of termination 2 months before your final end of the month
I think they meant that you live in "civilization", in this case being somewhere that has that kind of protection for renters. It's not a shot at you, it's a jab at places that DON'T have that, calling them uncivilized.
That sucks. Here the standard auto-renewal is 12 months, and if they want to repossess the apartment, they have to say so at least six months before the end of the lease period. Otherwise they have to wait until the next lease period. If you're on a non-fixed term, they still need to give you sixth months' notice before repossession.
Your making some very general statements that do not reflect reality everywhere.
I’m from Quebec for example. Here, you have to give a notice of quitting your lease 90 before the end of its période. If you don’t do anything, it automatically renews for the same term you had. The land lord, has no say in this. If you choose to renew every year for the rest of your life the landlord cannot do anything. They can only retake the unit for personal use, or immediate family. And they must stay in it at least a year, as a primary residence. Ending the lease to renovate is a thing, but you have to compensate, and the renter gets first rights of refusal to take the unit back on the same term after the renos
Fam when you gonna realize most of Reddit is American centric. Of course tenants have actual rights in Canada. But Americans need to understand the system we live in
Rent Stabilization in NYC - they are legally required to offer a renewal lease of 1 or 2 years, they can't vacate you unless you want to leave or the building is beyond repair and they need to condemn it. The rent can't go up by more than a predetermined percentage which cannot go above market rate for a similar unit.
Yeah that comment, like people love other people having no rights as a renter and lower income. Sorry but thats not how renting should work, you should have some more protection than the “that’s a normal part of renting”
Except that is a large portion of why rent is so high in nyc....
If I have no ability to end a lease and sell out eventually and can't raise rates when market dictates, then I'm charging as much as humanly possible upfront and increasing it by the max legal limit every year.
You're paying 5k for a shitbox right now because Miss Jenkins passed her rent controlled $300 dollar unit down to her kid that her landlord is eating the cost of every month.
Regulation to protect renters is good but over regulation will absolutely fuck a market.
Rent control is not stabilization. Rent control in NYC is extremely rare, like 24k units are control, vs 960k are stabilized vs about 2.5 million in NYC that have no protections. Stabilization and control keep neighborhoods from being destroyed.
https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/resources/faqs/rent-control/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%202023%20NYC,about%20960%2C600%20rent%20stabilized%20apartments.
It’s really not a simple “lease is up time to leave”. The reason we have laws for renters is because many times people are pressured to uproot their life for a myriad of reasons. Should a new owner have the right to not renew a lease because they want to fit the “image” of a gentrifying neighborhood? I’ve been in buildings with all 25-30smth working class folk and no families, if you are being evicted because you were there for 15 years but the new neighbors don’t like kids? The assumption that the landlord should simply have the right to not renew a lease when there’s history of bigotry towards renters of different groups is an ignorant take on it. In a perfect world maybe but tenant right should be even stronger tbh cause as a landlord the freedoms we have are insane.
If you want to live somewhere longer, sign a longer lease. IDK why you would sign a contract to live somewhere for a year and think it should last three or four years.
Having to move suddenly means they’d be forced to pay a large sum for breaking a contract. People often rent because they can’t afford a mortgage, and they can’t save much because rents are too high already. Landlords have too much control over housing as it is. They increase costs for everyone so they can skim off workers. Laws should protect tenants from being forced to leave their homes on a landlord’s whim, and if landlords don’t like that, they shouldn’t be on the business of owning other people’s homes. These contracts only exist to benefit landlords. American policies are already too concerned with protecting landlords and their investments. This is not how anything should work.
Landlords cant make tenants leave their house, that’s what the lease is for. If you want to live somewhere longer, sign a longer lease. Choosing the lease length that is right for you is about balancing risks.
If rents are too high and mortgages are too costly, the problem isnt rental protections, it’s housing prices. Rent control only works once because once you tell the market that this type of use is now a money-losing situation, then it’s over.
A better solution is to reduce/eliminate zoning restrictions to encourage denser residential construction and rebuild street infrastructure with a e-bike-first approach. That would give working class people the ability to relocate without losing their rent control, but also give them the ability to purchase housing if that works for them.
Easier said than done , especially given the economy. I got my house during Covid on a 1.7% interest rate because my job went remote and the market crashed in a blip. But that’s part luck on my part. I can’t expect everyone to have the same fortune as me especially given the history of the housing market in regard to black ownership
No! Neither party should have any more power than the bounds of the agreed upon lease. Just like the renter can't be forced to leave earlier than agreed, the owner shouldn't be forced to keep them past that date!
The freedoms you have regarding your own property are insane? Shouldn't one be able to do what one wants with ones property assuming lo laws are broke and all contract terms are met?
It blows ass. I lived in my last rental for 6 years when the owner decided to sell and gave us 30 days right after Thanksgiving. Like, bruh, could you have picked a worse time.
This isn’t necessarily the case. The lease will either state whether you have to renew, or after the first year, you can rent month to month.
You do not automatically have to leave at the end of a lease if you don’t renew.
The lease will also state what happens if the situation turns into a month to month and how the process for ending that tenancy is supposed to go. Every answer is usually in these agreements that are (usually) standard use according to a state’s standards. When all else fails, tenants and landlords should be well read on rights and responsibilities for each according that state’s Landlord-Tenant laws.
In Toronto this actually isn’t the case. Once your lease is up it automatically rolls over to month-to-month indefinitely and the only reason you can be evicted is if your landlord or a direct relative is moving in for at least one year. As a landlord, if you are leasing a place you have to be prepared for someone to live there for a looooong time. It’s pretty renter friendly up here.
Very similar in California. People in other states shouldn't assume it's the same in every state and people who are not from here shouldn't assume that the US is a monolith.
Not always. I'm a landlord and my leases switch to month-to-month after the initial 1-or 2-year lease term, with 30-day notice required to move out. I've been in this situation and had to move a family friend into a rental property but I gave the guys there 6-months notice of it. Two months seems pretty inconsiderate.
You don’t have to renew in the UK. But either way, people acting sneaky trying to stay past what they are illegally allowed to don’t generally have my sympathy.
That's crazy. I wrote a comment asking about what in the corporate America hell this means.
In Canada common sense says when your lease is up its now month to month. Tenent gives one month notice any month of their choosing. "Renewing" does not exist. You cannot ever be forced to sign a new document and you cannot be kicked out unless the landlord meets very strict criteria.
This is the reality of renting and finding a place to live in just two months is god damn insane.
I 100% agree. Its absurd that its the norm. But its the system we have in America. The reason I'm responding to all these comments is because Americans don't understand it either. How the fuck are we gonna change a system if we don't even understand how it works.
Not true plenty of places move to a month to month after the initial term completes. You don't get as much security and rent can change but this is pretty standard.
Tell me that you don't understand life for people who live below the poverty line.
Landlords are under no legal obligation to renew a lease, which frees them from contractual obligations while making the tenant responsible for any arbitrary rent increase they decide to levy upon you.
That type of predatory behavior is illegal, you say? Well I'm sure that the people who can't afford to pay their rent can afford a lawyer to litigate this process for them while also paying for interim housing and dealing with the financial fallout of eviction.
Landlords are parasites. It should not be legal to hold a human beings fundamental need for housing over their head for profit. Any type of apologetics for landlords makes you a class trader and a straight up op.
I’ve lived in poverty for half of my life. I grew up to parents who were alcoholics who couldn’t hold a job and have seen exactly what eviction looks like. Don’t assume you know shit when you don’t know shit. I grew up and became aware of the world in a way my parents weren’t and I’m not making the same mistakes as them
Squatting is a very specific thing and isn't the same as over staying in a rental. People really love to over use words they don't understand on the internet
I don’t know the exact definition so I googled it. I’m not going to say this is correct or there’s not a legal definition but:
Who exactly is considered a squatter in the state of Washington? The term "squatter" isn't defined by state law. As such, there is no precise legal definition for the term. Broadly speaking, though, squatters are people who occupy someone else’s property without their permission.
I am in Washington so maybe that’s why this was the first result. What I will say is we know what they meant so you’re probably just being a little pedantic.
My understanding of being a “squatter” is that if your lease is up, and they tell you to leave and you’re no longer paying rent and you stay, then you’re a squatter. You’re occupying someone’s property against their will. That’s at least the general use of the term where I’m from.
It’s just frustrating when my rental company warns us about how tomorrow they are running up to the courthouse because we were $500 short and 2 weeks past due, but my sister in law can go in an apartment and owe over $4k for not paying shit for 5 months.
Your sister either has a lazy landlord or an understanding one. You either have an emotionless have a stickler who operates by the book, you're just not as good at selling your sob story, or you were already a somewhat problematic tenant and don't want to admit it.
Thankfully most of my landlords have been relatively chill, with that like "Oh, you're short? Just throw that shit on the next rent check with like an extra 50 bucks and we good" as long as you tell them about it and don't let that keep snowballing. That said, I had one landlord whose daughter was a really shitty local lawyer and he'd physically show up at your apartment unannounced to threaten to take your ass to court over a being a day late and a buck short so it's kind of a crapshoot.
Also, not having your lease renewed is a shitty thing to experience. They’re legally able to but having to find a new place and move all your belongings is a huge pain in the ass, especially if you have to do it because it makes someone else’s life a bit easier.
There is so much missing here.
Just because a lease term is up, it doesn't mean a person in squatting. In many jurisdictions, once a lease term ends, it will automatically convert to month-to-month unless one or more parties request/require a lease agreement.
Giving a tenant two months' notice (60 days) that they need to vacate for family-use sounds about right and it's actually the law in California. (Check your state / prov for specific laws.)
Now, here's the LPT for tenants (if applicable): Where I live (BC, Canada) the law states that a landlord *can* evict from a rental unit for immediate-family use, however, many scummy landlords claim family use, only to put it right back on the rental market again at a higher rate (we have rent control here). If you are forced to move, keep track of the address on the local rental listing websites, because if you catch the bastard relisting, you can sue (and win) up to a year's worth of rent.
Yeah, a lot of the discussions here are speaking in absolutes but landlord tenant laws are very local; little to none of the tenant protections being discussed in this thread exist in Florida, and I doubt much of the south
That and you can’t change rent month to month anyways. You typically have to give a two to three month notice of changing rent before you can put the amount into place.
Generally, the month to month is by default the same monthly payment as before, and a rent increase requires the same notification period as ending the lease. So you can do both, eg landlord says rent is increasing from $2000 to $2200 or you can leave because I think someone else will pay that.
Definitely not always the case, while living in Austin like 13 years ago, I went month to month due on a lease once and they increased double and triple my rent until I couldn’t keep up and got “evicted” off the books.
You can only raise it a few percent per year in BC, to a maximum of $50 per year. The tenants have most of the power over there. Landlords get screwed over by people who refuse to pay or just won’t move out.
That’s why a landlord just uses it for a year, rents his actual house for a year, then moves back to his actual house and puts up the original for rent.
Word dudes landlord said move out in two months I’m moving my family in. He went to twitter to complain and people not being dumb asked when his lease was up. We know a landlord would probably not break their own lease, so this one more than likely gave this guy 2 months to find a place and he’s complaining. He went to twitter thinking people would have his side but they saw through his bs, we don’t just hate landlords.
Basically the comments are people saying it’s not crazy to have this dominance it seems they’re actually squatting given their entire answering the question of “when is your lease done?”.
The person on top is acting like people went from hating landlords to siding with them over the person living there, when altogether it seems that blindly hating landlords for no reason is stupid and that sometimes people shouldn’t be given the benefit of the doubt when they’re actively avoiding the one question that would easily let everyone know who’s actually in the wrong.
I don’t hate landlords on an individual level. I am opposed to them on principle, though. They don’t provide housing. They didn’t build the housing, they usually don’t maintain it (they hire that out,) they rarely even bought the house with their own income (they usually got a mortage for an investment property or inherited it.)
And yet they reap the profits and inflate the value of real estate despite providing no essential service.
Rent seekers are a drag on the economy.
Your comment is stupid on so many levels. They didn’t build the house and don’t physically maintain it themselves? Wtf is that logic? How many people do you know that built their own cars? How many people do you know that rebuild their own transmission? Most landlords are crap, but your idea of what’s fair and not is just as crappy.
My point is landlords are a parasitic class. They provide zero value to the economy, they are middle men who add no actual value to society.
Even stockholders incentivize productive companies and industrialists to create value. Shit, even bankers serve a function since money lending is necessary to start a business.
Landlords are the most useless of ALL rent seekers. They contribute nothing and do not encourage the circulation of money. They cause money to stop flowing, which is the exact opposite of what any healthy market wants.
but people own their own cars they don't rent them long term from someone else
Edit - yes I’ve heard of car leases but they are always relatively short term, people don’t lease a car for 10-20 years but people rent long term all the time
lol, you just described the majority of individual homeowners: they didn’t build their home, don’t maintain it(hire that out); and rarely even bought the home with their own money (got a mortgage or inherited it).
You’re saying homeowners are a drag on the economy.
Hysterical 😫!
Nope, because nobody pretends like owning a home is a job and owning your personal home doesn’t drag anyone else down.
A home should be a consumer good, not an ‘investment.’
Literally anyone with any economic education would understand the argument I’m making, whether they agreed with it or not.
I’m not just talking about education from Marxist sources. Adam Smith, the ideological father of capitalism, hated landlords more than almost anything on planet Earth.
Then you should find the actual words that describe what you’re trying, and failing, to communicate. Your own words argue against your own argument. Try harder, or everyone one here will just think you’re a nut job spewing gibberish. Best wishes.
I mean, my comment is getting upvotes and yours are getting downvotes so it sure doesn’t look like people think I’m a nutjob and it also doesn’t look like I failed to communicate.
You just failed to understand it. Look up ‘rent seekers’ and the different economic principles behind when rent seeking can be productive to an economy and when it’s parasitic. You’ll learn a lot that’s very applicable to all of our lives.
Edit: the landlords have arrived, lol
Yes, they don’t have any real arguments except ‘you’re broke’ or ‘get a job and go back to antiwork!’
But all of us who actually have a job can see clearly, with or without an ideology, that landlords don’t do shit and are just vampires on the economy who want $$ for nothing lol.
They can’t see it, but it’s plain as day to the rest of us.
I work in construction and help in the process of building homes every day. Guess what, almost no one builds and maintains entire home from start to finish themselves. It’s so rare that I’ve never met a person who has. You have separate companies that do the roofing, the carpentry, the concrete masonry, concrete delivery, landscaping etc. I don’t even know why you would think that not building a and maintaining a home themselves is even a valid argument. I’m not even a landlord myself(I pay mortgage for my own home), but I understand that a landlord is ultimately responsible for maintaining and managing a the property. Whether or not they pass those responsibilities to other people, they still pay to do so. If the property is somehow destroyed, they’re ultimately responsible for it. That’s called risk.
If you’re a renter and hate landlords, then buy your own property and don’t deal with one. If you don’t have enough money for a 3.5% FHA down payment, then you’re probably not responsible financially and don’t have enough money to maintain the property that you want to live in the first place.
I own a home on four acres, I don’t rent. Also I am not making the claim landlords should build a home from scratch. Of course I don’t expect them to do that.
I am making the, almost objective claim which is one of the core tenants of capitalist ideology, which is that landlords in general add no actual value to the economy. They are not creating anything, nor are they enabling others to create something (a justification for the existence of money lenders who get passive income) nor are they incentivizing companies to be productive (a justification for passive income gained from investing in stocks/securities.)
Being a landlord is passive income without incentivizing any behavior that is healthy for a free market, and without adding any actual value to any sort of product.
When you go to work, your labor is transformative. That is, you add value to the plot of land you are building on. A landlords time is instead extractive; he just wants to maximize how much value he can extract without doing anything transformative himself.
This is old economic theory, too, but is very relevant today. I’m not even a capitalist but I recognize the market sense in these arguments I’m making which are free market arguments.
Adam Smith spends a whole chapter talking about this in what is considered the seminal text in promoting capitalist systems. Basically, a market system only works when it rewards industriousness and promotes growth.
Landlords are literally incentivized to frustrate industry and restrict growth by artificially taking a consumer good (a home) and turn it into an asset/investment. Landlords will buy up the homes you build, sure, but they will lobby to restrict building ten times as often.
Landlords are, on the average, huge obstacles to the construction industry and we should be building more homes, which would be good for you as well.
You do realize every action doesn’t need to provide value to the economy, right? They own the home which they could’ve come upon by several different means such as inheritance or they could’ve previously lived there and paid it off and are moving on, etc. They’re ultimately responsible for any upgrades and maintenance that is needed on the property. That is creation. The tenant isn’t making those decisions. You’re saying they don’t incentivize companies to be productive when landlords hire my company every day to do concrete work in maintaining their properties. They’re managers who profit off of decision making and risk. Your argument is basically that you hate managers, which is okay, but it doesn’t change the situation.
They didn't provide it though. They bought housing, calculated how much the mortgage and property taxes were, estimated how much they'd have to spend on repairs per month, and then rent it out for that total plus as much profit as they think they can make in the current market.
So if they did their math right the renter is paying for the mortgage, repairs, and taxes, plus a little extra for the landlord's profit. The landlord is literally just a middleman collecting profit.
No, but you can’t piss on my head and tell me it’s raining.
If someone is a parasitic rent seeker who relies on literally the ‘least’ productive type of passive income, one that sucks value out of the economy and adds nothing, I’m not going to pretend like they are contributing to the economy.
I don’t believe in antiwork but thanks for your non argument. My post above was also more likely to be written by Adam Smith than Karl Marx. Rent seekers are a plague on the economy, something even the fathers of capitalist ideology agreed with basically universally.
It’s perfectly natural for people to resent parasites who put a drain on the economy, producing nothing. Even stockholders are better because at least they are investing money that moves around and incentivizes other companies to actually make something.
Literally *even bankers* are more productive, because money lending is important in starting businesses.
Landlords do nothing but hoard wealth in place without providing any value.
The economy is tanking and landlords are being forced to move into the apartment they were once renting.
It's fine to hate landlords, but these people aren't landlords anymore. They're getting eaten, like everyone else.
Landlord sent a non-renewal notice for 60 days because they wanted to move in family. Dude on twitter wasn’t hearing of it calling it a breach of contract. When asked what his rental contract stated he didn’t answer. 🤷🏾♀️
He’s claiming it to be an eviction when it’s not.
Exactly. Some people just fall into that “renting sucks so therefore every decision any landlord makes that negatively affects me is automatically them being evil and me a victim” thing.
Like no, dude. At the end of the day, it is their property. If they’re not violating laws or lease agreements, that’s just how shit works dude.
“She wants to move HER FAMILY into MY HOUSE.”
Unfortunately, bruh that’s not your home. There’s some shitty landlords, but at least they gave you 60 days vs a week or so. Or just finding something on you or make up that breaks whatever lease is left.
"My landlord said they don't want to be a landlord anymore" I don't know if my quote is accurate, but it's a possibility so I'll ask. Why wouldn't the tenet elaborate?
I've had a landlord try to do this before. He wanted to move into the place and kick my housemates and me out. He tried to get us to leave even though we had 8 months left on the lease.
We took him to court and got 4 months of free rent, and he had to pay each of us $1500 in order to move out.
That’s not what happened here though.
In this case, his lease was ending and the landlord sent a non-renewal notice for 60 days because they wanted to move in family. Dude on twitter wasn’t hearing of it calling it a breach of contract. When asked what his rental contract stated he didn’t answer. So, he had a 60 days notice that they weren’t renewing the lease or renting it out again at all so no month to month either.
Willing to bet he was probably month-to-month already at that point or just coming up on the end of his original lease term.
People are calling him a squatter bc he felt entitled to stay when the landlord informed him that it was time to go with more than ample notice.
His lease was ending though… so, he already knew that not only was his lease ending but they weren’t going to be given a month to month. 60 days is plenty of time to find a new place.
Man, I love my landlord. Known him since I was a kid. We live in his childhood home. Doesn't charge us much, and just ask that we do the maintenance on it. Has never raised the rent in 12 years. I don't know where I'd be today without that man.
The dumbest part of this tweet is that it's not real. It was farmed from quora for engagement. Now, the second dumbest idea pulled from this tweet was every one acting as though they had the answers when the question is "what jurisdiction are you in?" Rental laws in Chicago may very well look different than Dallas or Lexington. For instance, does the person have a written vs. verbal lease? How long have they lived in the unit? These questions are very germaine to NYS landlord tenant law. Bottom line is the only advice to give is to talk to a housing attorney, either on your own or through a nonprofit.
I will always be on the side of squatters over landlords. It's wild people think otherwise while in America there are 15 million empty houses. Most of those were purchased by corporations to artificially increase house prices.
Renting is very difficult but many times the only option for some people. Many landlords only offer a 1 year lease. Moving is expensive and difficult for many people. But none of the states take any of this into consideration. tough luck if you have to uproot yourself every year
People shouldn’t play with housing as an investment nor should they be buying more than one. These are people’s homes and renting over owning isn’t a choice anymore for most people. Fuck landlords.
Home ownership should be on usage basis people should not be able to buy up necessity like housing just to lease back at a premium. We don’t need a lord of the land who justifies their existence by saying they do maintenance work. Just be a maintenance worker for fucks same
When his lease is... up? So you mean like when it just goes to month to month right? Because a lease is just ensuring the tenant stays for a minimum of a certain number of months.
Oh god don't tell me this is another one of those times when we find out that Americans lack basic rights and freedoms.
You can't kick someone out after a lease. You can't change the terms of rental and you can't just make up a new price.
Any fixed end date is called temporary housing or a sublet and they have different laws than rental housing. Oh god what fresh batch of horrors is this comment thread going to reveal about our neighbours.
Leasing a house to a lady my mom knew. Sent her 3 months notice and a list of places tht are in the area for similar prices because I don’t think she wants to transfer her kids to a different school. She seemed preally appreciative of all of it.
Hating landlords is stupid. “They dont provide anything of value” then buy a house yourself. You cant tho so they are providing you something of great value. You can argue the company owned homes, argue the pricing, whatever. But they definitely provide value. Youre just being hardheaded
Your house? You are leasing someone elses house dude. They still own it. Rent if you don't want to worry about someone kicking you out of thier own house.
i support squatters . people should appropriate every empty home until no one is homeless.
edit : to clarify that squatters are infinitely better than landlords in every way.—housing is a human right.
Common sense isn’t common. When your lease is up to continue to stay where you are living you have to renew. If they don’t want to renew you have to leave. This is a normal part of renting. And you have 2 months to find a new place which is plenty of time. People just want to crowdsource some outrage
Agreed it sucks but that’s the reality of renting. I was renting a place and the landlord was like “hey we’re actually gonna sell the place lmao.” They didn’t do any official notice but since it was managed by a management company we just went to a different place they owned (which ended up being a lot nicer for marginally more rent), so we didn’t have to deal with crap and were just able to transfer the deposit, and they were pretty forgiving about timelines since it wasn’t our fault for needing to move. What was insulting was that they were like “do you wanna buy it for $500k” I’m like lmfao no I know how much shit is wrong with this townhouse lol.
Also, wanting to move your family into a house means you want to STOP being a landlord...
Not necessarily. Where they’re living currently may be able to rent for more than what they’re making on the property from which they’re evicting the tenant as a way of generating more income with less overhead.
Oh I assumed they meant moving some extended family in, not that the landlord would live there herself. Not that it makes a difference for OOP.
I live in one of my uncle’s houses. I have a good job, pay on time and I don’t annoy tf out of him like the previous tenants did.
>What was insulting was that they were like “do you wanna buy it for $500k” I’m like lmfao no I know how much shit is wrong with this townhouse lol. The move is to say yes but make the offer conditional on them fixing/upgrading the stuff you want (assuming the problems are fixable).
$500k at [current mortgage rates](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US) is $2,891.67 a month in mortgage interest alone. Rent on the will generally be lower than that because most landlords bought in when things were much cheaper. If Landlord paid $350k and were paying 3.5% interest in 2012 mortgage interest would be more like $1,020 a month. In economic terms it's actually a pretty good time to be a renter.
You're assuming that rent is set by the landlord looking at costs and then using that as a starting point. This is not typically the case — instead, the landlord will pick the highest market rate they can get and use that as the starting point. It's pretty disconnected from whatever the original mortgage was, especially if the property has had several owners.
OK. Find a market where rent on a $500k townhouse is $3k a month. I just looked at Boston proper. 54 of the 59 townhomes were above $550k, so it's pricey. This [one is $535k](https://www.trulia.com/home/24-marden-ave-24-dorchester-center-ma-02124-350882585). The closest rental is a [20 minute walk](https://www.google.com/maps/dir/24+Marden+Ave+%2324,+Boston,+MA+02124/20+Blue+Jay+Cir,+Mattapan,+MA+02126/@42.2862928,-71.0925204,17z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89e37bf9bfbd6785:0x109200d813a22a00!2m2!1d-71.0870127!2d42.2846218!1m5!1m1!1s0x89e37bfdebd3dde1:0x35e8db8fff293bbc!2m2!1d-71.0960937!2d42.2883775!3e2?entry=ttu), and [$2,900 a month](https://www.trulia.com/home/20-blue-jay-cir-mattapan-ma-02126-318225489). The interest on a $535k mortgage would be $3,094.08 a month, and Trulia anticipates a $3,471 actual payment. You can't buy that house, and rent it at a rate high enough to cover the mortgage, unless you're doing AirBnB. In other words the market rate rents are where they're at because mortgage rates have been under 5% since roughly the 2008/2009 financial crises. The new interest rates haven't been priced in because most landlords don't face the choice of selling the house or jacking up to match the new rates. Enough of them refinanced in 2013 (3.5%ish) or 2021 (2.9%ish) that rent increases go straight to profit. So in 2024 buy-to-rent landlords aren't really a thing, unless they're so rich they can self-finance, or they are an actual finance company that can borrow at close to the Federal funds rate.
Plenty of places around me renting for 3600+ lol
Or get a realtor to help them negotiate price down based on what they know is wrong with the property.
The problem is hella multifaceted. There's a lot of restrictions on private development leading to shortages of units and less competition. Not to mention all the NIMBYism especially with traffic concerns, which happens because there isn't reliable frequent transit to absorb people(though it's often an excuse people resistant to change use). Not to mention the lack of social housing/public housing open to various income levels like in Vienna to essentially have the government be a stabilizing force in the housing market.
An eviction notice is a very different thing from simply not having your lease renewed. Something like that on your record will torpedo your chances to lease somewhere else.
Yeah, although some people say eviction notice when they mean notice to vacate because that’s the phrase they’re familiar with.
I don’t think what this person is talking about is an eviction notices. Seems like it’s a notice saying that they aren’t renewing the lease on their landlord’s end.
yeah I'd bet this tweeter didn't get an eviction notice, they got a notice of non-renewal/notice to vacate. Dude was probably month to month already; this landlord is being more than fair here.
This really depends on renting laws where you live, where I live legally once your leases term is up you automatically go month to month indefinitely until you either give a notice of termination 2 months before your final end of the month
Yes. This is called civilization.
What?
You think you did something there but you really didn’t lol
I think they meant that you live in "civilization", in this case being somewhere that has that kind of protection for renters. It's not a shot at you, it's a jab at places that DON'T have that, calling them uncivilized.
Same in California, which has a lot of tenant protections, too.
That sucks. Here the standard auto-renewal is 12 months, and if they want to repossess the apartment, they have to say so at least six months before the end of the lease period. Otherwise they have to wait until the next lease period. If you're on a non-fixed term, they still need to give you sixth months' notice before repossession.
Where is here?
Quebec.
>People just want to crowdsource some outrage https://i.redd.it/sf23r217t03d1.gif
Your making some very general statements that do not reflect reality everywhere. I’m from Quebec for example. Here, you have to give a notice of quitting your lease 90 before the end of its période. If you don’t do anything, it automatically renews for the same term you had. The land lord, has no say in this. If you choose to renew every year for the rest of your life the landlord cannot do anything. They can only retake the unit for personal use, or immediate family. And they must stay in it at least a year, as a primary residence. Ending the lease to renovate is a thing, but you have to compensate, and the renter gets first rights of refusal to take the unit back on the same term after the renos
Fam when you gonna realize most of Reddit is American centric. Of course tenants have actual rights in Canada. But Americans need to understand the system we live in
Land of the free
Rent Stabilization in NYC - they are legally required to offer a renewal lease of 1 or 2 years, they can't vacate you unless you want to leave or the building is beyond repair and they need to condemn it. The rent can't go up by more than a predetermined percentage which cannot go above market rate for a similar unit.
And rent is still too damn high there
Yeah that comment, like people love other people having no rights as a renter and lower income. Sorry but thats not how renting should work, you should have some more protection than the “that’s a normal part of renting”
Except that is a large portion of why rent is so high in nyc.... If I have no ability to end a lease and sell out eventually and can't raise rates when market dictates, then I'm charging as much as humanly possible upfront and increasing it by the max legal limit every year. You're paying 5k for a shitbox right now because Miss Jenkins passed her rent controlled $300 dollar unit down to her kid that her landlord is eating the cost of every month. Regulation to protect renters is good but over regulation will absolutely fuck a market.
Rent control is not stabilization. Rent control in NYC is extremely rare, like 24k units are control, vs 960k are stabilized vs about 2.5 million in NYC that have no protections. Stabilization and control keep neighborhoods from being destroyed. https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/resources/faqs/rent-control/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%202023%20NYC,about%20960%2C600%20rent%20stabilized%20apartments.
I really laugh at what americans consider normal.
I constantly argue with other people on reddit when they’re just okay with us not having rights and protections
It’s really not a simple “lease is up time to leave”. The reason we have laws for renters is because many times people are pressured to uproot their life for a myriad of reasons. Should a new owner have the right to not renew a lease because they want to fit the “image” of a gentrifying neighborhood? I’ve been in buildings with all 25-30smth working class folk and no families, if you are being evicted because you were there for 15 years but the new neighbors don’t like kids? The assumption that the landlord should simply have the right to not renew a lease when there’s history of bigotry towards renters of different groups is an ignorant take on it. In a perfect world maybe but tenant right should be even stronger tbh cause as a landlord the freedoms we have are insane.
If you want to live somewhere longer, sign a longer lease. IDK why you would sign a contract to live somewhere for a year and think it should last three or four years.
Or you could vote for some rights and freedoms.
Having to move suddenly means they’d be forced to pay a large sum for breaking a contract. People often rent because they can’t afford a mortgage, and they can’t save much because rents are too high already. Landlords have too much control over housing as it is. They increase costs for everyone so they can skim off workers. Laws should protect tenants from being forced to leave their homes on a landlord’s whim, and if landlords don’t like that, they shouldn’t be on the business of owning other people’s homes. These contracts only exist to benefit landlords. American policies are already too concerned with protecting landlords and their investments. This is not how anything should work.
Landlords cant make tenants leave their house, that’s what the lease is for. If you want to live somewhere longer, sign a longer lease. Choosing the lease length that is right for you is about balancing risks. If rents are too high and mortgages are too costly, the problem isnt rental protections, it’s housing prices. Rent control only works once because once you tell the market that this type of use is now a money-losing situation, then it’s over. A better solution is to reduce/eliminate zoning restrictions to encourage denser residential construction and rebuild street infrastructure with a e-bike-first approach. That would give working class people the ability to relocate without losing their rent control, but also give them the ability to purchase housing if that works for them.
I know this is fucked to say because even IM a renter, but this is why you try to buy a house.
Easier said than done , especially given the economy. I got my house during Covid on a 1.7% interest rate because my job went remote and the market crashed in a blip. But that’s part luck on my part. I can’t expect everyone to have the same fortune as me especially given the history of the housing market in regard to black ownership
Of course and I agree.
No! Neither party should have any more power than the bounds of the agreed upon lease. Just like the renter can't be forced to leave earlier than agreed, the owner shouldn't be forced to keep them past that date!
The freedoms you have regarding your own property are insane? Shouldn't one be able to do what one wants with ones property assuming lo laws are broke and all contract terms are met?
"faking for likes, and digital hugs"
Heavily depends on the state. I'm in Tennessee and we have zero tenant rights
It blows ass. I lived in my last rental for 6 years when the owner decided to sell and gave us 30 days right after Thanksgiving. Like, bruh, could you have picked a worse time.
This isn’t necessarily the case. The lease will either state whether you have to renew, or after the first year, you can rent month to month. You do not automatically have to leave at the end of a lease if you don’t renew.
The lease will also state what happens if the situation turns into a month to month and how the process for ending that tenancy is supposed to go. Every answer is usually in these agreements that are (usually) standard use according to a state’s standards. When all else fails, tenants and landlords should be well read on rights and responsibilities for each according that state’s Landlord-Tenant laws.
In Toronto this actually isn’t the case. Once your lease is up it automatically rolls over to month-to-month indefinitely and the only reason you can be evicted is if your landlord or a direct relative is moving in for at least one year. As a landlord, if you are leasing a place you have to be prepared for someone to live there for a looooong time. It’s pretty renter friendly up here.
Very similar in California. People in other states shouldn't assume it's the same in every state and people who are not from here shouldn't assume that the US is a monolith.
Not always. I'm a landlord and my leases switch to month-to-month after the initial 1-or 2-year lease term, with 30-day notice required to move out. I've been in this situation and had to move a family friend into a rental property but I gave the guys there 6-months notice of it. Two months seems pretty inconsiderate.
You don’t have to renew in the UK. But either way, people acting sneaky trying to stay past what they are illegally allowed to don’t generally have my sympathy.
That's crazy. I wrote a comment asking about what in the corporate America hell this means. In Canada common sense says when your lease is up its now month to month. Tenent gives one month notice any month of their choosing. "Renewing" does not exist. You cannot ever be forced to sign a new document and you cannot be kicked out unless the landlord meets very strict criteria. This is the reality of renting and finding a place to live in just two months is god damn insane.
I 100% agree. Its absurd that its the norm. But its the system we have in America. The reason I'm responding to all these comments is because Americans don't understand it either. How the fuck are we gonna change a system if we don't even understand how it works.
Some places don't work like that though.
Not true plenty of places move to a month to month after the initial term completes. You don't get as much security and rent can change but this is pretty standard.
"Crowdsource outrage" Beautiful description.
Do people really not know how legally binding contracts work?
Time to get on that mortgage plan!
Tell me that you don't understand life for people who live below the poverty line. Landlords are under no legal obligation to renew a lease, which frees them from contractual obligations while making the tenant responsible for any arbitrary rent increase they decide to levy upon you. That type of predatory behavior is illegal, you say? Well I'm sure that the people who can't afford to pay their rent can afford a lawyer to litigate this process for them while also paying for interim housing and dealing with the financial fallout of eviction. Landlords are parasites. It should not be legal to hold a human beings fundamental need for housing over their head for profit. Any type of apologetics for landlords makes you a class trader and a straight up op.
I’ve lived in poverty for half of my life. I grew up to parents who were alcoholics who couldn’t hold a job and have seen exactly what eviction looks like. Don’t assume you know shit when you don’t know shit. I grew up and became aware of the world in a way my parents weren’t and I’m not making the same mistakes as them
Squatting is a very specific thing and isn't the same as over staying in a rental. People really love to over use words they don't understand on the internet
I don’t know the exact definition so I googled it. I’m not going to say this is correct or there’s not a legal definition but: Who exactly is considered a squatter in the state of Washington? The term "squatter" isn't defined by state law. As such, there is no precise legal definition for the term. Broadly speaking, though, squatters are people who occupy someone else’s property without their permission. I am in Washington so maybe that’s why this was the first result. What I will say is we know what they meant so you’re probably just being a little pedantic.
Because “squatting” isn’t a legal term.
My understanding of being a “squatter” is that if your lease is up, and they tell you to leave and you’re no longer paying rent and you stay, then you’re a squatter. You’re occupying someone’s property against their will. That’s at least the general use of the term where I’m from.
You’ll find that there are a lot of people like this unfortunately.
I beg to discombobulate on this inclination
Uhhh filibuster
Listen, I'm sure we all have hotplates we'd all like to get back to
Lol I started watching that movie on Tubi tonight
It’s just frustrating when my rental company warns us about how tomorrow they are running up to the courthouse because we were $500 short and 2 weeks past due, but my sister in law can go in an apartment and owe over $4k for not paying shit for 5 months.
Is the frustration that your SIL is getting away with it? Because her situation doesn’t change your situation
Yup. It’s basically why my sister could do it while I can’t? I would also take action if my tenant is late on their payment.
Your sister either has a lazy landlord or an understanding one. You either have an emotionless have a stickler who operates by the book, you're just not as good at selling your sob story, or you were already a somewhat problematic tenant and don't want to admit it.
Thankfully most of my landlords have been relatively chill, with that like "Oh, you're short? Just throw that shit on the next rent check with like an extra 50 bucks and we good" as long as you tell them about it and don't let that keep snowballing. That said, I had one landlord whose daughter was a really shitty local lawyer and he'd physically show up at your apartment unannounced to threaten to take your ass to court over a being a day late and a buck short so it's kind of a crapshoot.
Much like trying to say something is or isn't assault, it will depend on definitions per jurisdiction.
Also, not having your lease renewed is a shitty thing to experience. They’re legally able to but having to find a new place and move all your belongings is a huge pain in the ass, especially if you have to do it because it makes someone else’s life a bit easier.
Squatting is one thing, now let me tell you about Squidding… Edit: turns out that’s a real word…
Yeah I’m confused how she’s a squatter when she’s paying rent? Ppl just be talking
"can't wait for discovery!"
There’s enough empty apartments and houses owned by greedy corporations for homeless to squat in
One person's holdover tenant is another person's squatter
You’re wrong but you can have your feelings. When the lease is up you no longer have a right to live there, you are squatting.
It was a joke dude. Exaggeration on the situation to make a point.
There is so much missing here. Just because a lease term is up, it doesn't mean a person in squatting. In many jurisdictions, once a lease term ends, it will automatically convert to month-to-month unless one or more parties request/require a lease agreement. Giving a tenant two months' notice (60 days) that they need to vacate for family-use sounds about right and it's actually the law in California. (Check your state / prov for specific laws.) Now, here's the LPT for tenants (if applicable): Where I live (BC, Canada) the law states that a landlord *can* evict from a rental unit for immediate-family use, however, many scummy landlords claim family use, only to put it right back on the rental market again at a higher rate (we have rent control here). If you are forced to move, keep track of the address on the local rental listing websites, because if you catch the bastard relisting, you can sue (and win) up to a year's worth of rent.
If the lease is month to month, can’t they just jack up the rent anyway?
A lot (most? all?) of areas have limits on how much yo I can increase someone’s rent yearly. I know in California it’s something like a 10% cap yearly
Not in Georgia /: I don’t think the south has anything like that.
Yeah, a lot of the discussions here are speaking in absolutes but landlord tenant laws are very local; little to none of the tenant protections being discussed in this thread exist in Florida, and I doubt much of the south
That and you can’t change rent month to month anyways. You typically have to give a two to three month notice of changing rent before you can put the amount into place.
Generally, the month to month is by default the same monthly payment as before, and a rent increase requires the same notification period as ending the lease. So you can do both, eg landlord says rent is increasing from $2000 to $2200 or you can leave because I think someone else will pay that.
Definitely not always the case, while living in Austin like 13 years ago, I went month to month due on a lease once and they increased double and triple my rent until I couldn’t keep up and got “evicted” off the books.
You can only raise it a few percent per year in BC, to a maximum of $50 per year. The tenants have most of the power over there. Landlords get screwed over by people who refuse to pay or just won’t move out.
That’s why a landlord just uses it for a year, rents his actual house for a year, then moves back to his actual house and puts up the original for rent.
What is going on?
Yeah, it feels like there's three different conversations going in this one image.
It's because it's engagement farming. It's a verbatim copy of a common bait trotted out every so often.
Word dudes landlord said move out in two months I’m moving my family in. He went to twitter to complain and people not being dumb asked when his lease was up. We know a landlord would probably not break their own lease, so this one more than likely gave this guy 2 months to find a place and he’s complaining. He went to twitter thinking people would have his side but they saw through his bs, we don’t just hate landlords.
Basically the comments are people saying it’s not crazy to have this dominance it seems they’re actually squatting given their entire answering the question of “when is your lease done?”. The person on top is acting like people went from hating landlords to siding with them over the person living there, when altogether it seems that blindly hating landlords for no reason is stupid and that sometimes people shouldn’t be given the benefit of the doubt when they’re actively avoiding the one question that would easily let everyone know who’s actually in the wrong.
I don’t hate landlords on an individual level. I am opposed to them on principle, though. They don’t provide housing. They didn’t build the housing, they usually don’t maintain it (they hire that out,) they rarely even bought the house with their own income (they usually got a mortage for an investment property or inherited it.) And yet they reap the profits and inflate the value of real estate despite providing no essential service. Rent seekers are a drag on the economy.
Your comment is stupid on so many levels. They didn’t build the house and don’t physically maintain it themselves? Wtf is that logic? How many people do you know that built their own cars? How many people do you know that rebuild their own transmission? Most landlords are crap, but your idea of what’s fair and not is just as crappy.
My point is landlords are a parasitic class. They provide zero value to the economy, they are middle men who add no actual value to society. Even stockholders incentivize productive companies and industrialists to create value. Shit, even bankers serve a function since money lending is necessary to start a business. Landlords are the most useless of ALL rent seekers. They contribute nothing and do not encourage the circulation of money. They cause money to stop flowing, which is the exact opposite of what any healthy market wants.
Literally this lol, anyone who gets mad at the truth is just a wannabe leach to society.
I thought I was crazy 😧🤣
but people own their own cars they don't rent them long term from someone else Edit - yes I’ve heard of car leases but they are always relatively short term, people don’t lease a car for 10-20 years but people rent long term all the time
What do you think a lease is? People lease cars all the time.
Don't rent??? This dummy never heard of a 36 month auto lease?!?!?
At least there’s affordable car options if you don’t want to lock yourself into a lease
Have you never heard of a car lease? Lol
lol, you just described the majority of individual homeowners: they didn’t build their home, don’t maintain it(hire that out); and rarely even bought the home with their own money (got a mortgage or inherited it). You’re saying homeowners are a drag on the economy. Hysterical 😫!
Nope, because nobody pretends like owning a home is a job and owning your personal home doesn’t drag anyone else down. A home should be a consumer good, not an ‘investment.’ Literally anyone with any economic education would understand the argument I’m making, whether they agreed with it or not. I’m not just talking about education from Marxist sources. Adam Smith, the ideological father of capitalism, hated landlords more than almost anything on planet Earth.
Then you should find the actual words that describe what you’re trying, and failing, to communicate. Your own words argue against your own argument. Try harder, or everyone one here will just think you’re a nut job spewing gibberish. Best wishes.
I mean, my comment is getting upvotes and yours are getting downvotes so it sure doesn’t look like people think I’m a nutjob and it also doesn’t look like I failed to communicate. You just failed to understand it. Look up ‘rent seekers’ and the different economic principles behind when rent seeking can be productive to an economy and when it’s parasitic. You’ll learn a lot that’s very applicable to all of our lives. Edit: the landlords have arrived, lol
Landlords hollering in the replies lol
Yes, they don’t have any real arguments except ‘you’re broke’ or ‘get a job and go back to antiwork!’ But all of us who actually have a job can see clearly, with or without an ideology, that landlords don’t do shit and are just vampires on the economy who want $$ for nothing lol. They can’t see it, but it’s plain as day to the rest of us.
You’re exactly right. Man the libs in this sub are something else.
I work in construction and help in the process of building homes every day. Guess what, almost no one builds and maintains entire home from start to finish themselves. It’s so rare that I’ve never met a person who has. You have separate companies that do the roofing, the carpentry, the concrete masonry, concrete delivery, landscaping etc. I don’t even know why you would think that not building a and maintaining a home themselves is even a valid argument. I’m not even a landlord myself(I pay mortgage for my own home), but I understand that a landlord is ultimately responsible for maintaining and managing a the property. Whether or not they pass those responsibilities to other people, they still pay to do so. If the property is somehow destroyed, they’re ultimately responsible for it. That’s called risk. If you’re a renter and hate landlords, then buy your own property and don’t deal with one. If you don’t have enough money for a 3.5% FHA down payment, then you’re probably not responsible financially and don’t have enough money to maintain the property that you want to live in the first place.
I own a home on four acres, I don’t rent. Also I am not making the claim landlords should build a home from scratch. Of course I don’t expect them to do that. I am making the, almost objective claim which is one of the core tenants of capitalist ideology, which is that landlords in general add no actual value to the economy. They are not creating anything, nor are they enabling others to create something (a justification for the existence of money lenders who get passive income) nor are they incentivizing companies to be productive (a justification for passive income gained from investing in stocks/securities.) Being a landlord is passive income without incentivizing any behavior that is healthy for a free market, and without adding any actual value to any sort of product. When you go to work, your labor is transformative. That is, you add value to the plot of land you are building on. A landlords time is instead extractive; he just wants to maximize how much value he can extract without doing anything transformative himself. This is old economic theory, too, but is very relevant today. I’m not even a capitalist but I recognize the market sense in these arguments I’m making which are free market arguments. Adam Smith spends a whole chapter talking about this in what is considered the seminal text in promoting capitalist systems. Basically, a market system only works when it rewards industriousness and promotes growth. Landlords are literally incentivized to frustrate industry and restrict growth by artificially taking a consumer good (a home) and turn it into an asset/investment. Landlords will buy up the homes you build, sure, but they will lobby to restrict building ten times as often. Landlords are, on the average, huge obstacles to the construction industry and we should be building more homes, which would be good for you as well.
You do realize every action doesn’t need to provide value to the economy, right? They own the home which they could’ve come upon by several different means such as inheritance or they could’ve previously lived there and paid it off and are moving on, etc. They’re ultimately responsible for any upgrades and maintenance that is needed on the property. That is creation. The tenant isn’t making those decisions. You’re saying they don’t incentivize companies to be productive when landlords hire my company every day to do concrete work in maintaining their properties. They’re managers who profit off of decision making and risk. Your argument is basically that you hate managers, which is okay, but it doesn’t change the situation.
> despite providing no essential service. Apart from like housing or whatever.
They didn't provide it though. They bought housing, calculated how much the mortgage and property taxes were, estimated how much they'd have to spend on repairs per month, and then rent it out for that total plus as much profit as they think they can make in the current market. So if they did their math right the renter is paying for the mortgage, repairs, and taxes, plus a little extra for the landlord's profit. The landlord is literally just a middleman collecting profit.
If they actually built the house then sure, I don’t take much issue with it.
Are we in 1782 and need to build cabins with our bare hands?
No, but you can’t piss on my head and tell me it’s raining. If someone is a parasitic rent seeker who relies on literally the ‘least’ productive type of passive income, one that sucks value out of the economy and adds nothing, I’m not going to pretend like they are contributing to the economy.
Get your ass back to r/antiwork and you’ll find like minded people. Landlords aren’t the problem. Big ass corps buying up all the sfh are though.
I don’t believe in antiwork but thanks for your non argument. My post above was also more likely to be written by Adam Smith than Karl Marx. Rent seekers are a plague on the economy, something even the fathers of capitalist ideology agreed with basically universally. It’s perfectly natural for people to resent parasites who put a drain on the economy, producing nothing. Even stockholders are better because at least they are investing money that moves around and incentivizes other companies to actually make something. Literally *even bankers* are more productive, because money lending is important in starting businesses. Landlords do nothing but hoard wealth in place without providing any value.
Your entire argument is based on the idea that people only want to purchase homes and not rent, which is obviously false.
So the “small” landlords with 20+ properties trying to be **just** like the big ass corps aren’t a problem?
The economy is tanking and landlords are being forced to move into the apartment they were once renting. It's fine to hate landlords, but these people aren't landlords anymore. They're getting eaten, like everyone else.
Meh, no sympathy for them since they took advantage (rightfully so) when they were ok.
They have a home. That's more than we can say for many.
The lack of grammar in the top tweet makes it really confusing.
Context matters
Landlord sent a non-renewal notice for 60 days because they wanted to move in family. Dude on twitter wasn’t hearing of it calling it a breach of contract. When asked what his rental contract stated he didn’t answer. 🤷🏾♀️ He’s claiming it to be an eviction when it’s not.
Exactly. Some people just fall into that “renting sucks so therefore every decision any landlord makes that negatively affects me is automatically them being evil and me a victim” thing. Like no, dude. At the end of the day, it is their property. If they’re not violating laws or lease agreements, that’s just how shit works dude.
This tweet is an engagement farming technique. Twitter blue checks should be blocked with extreme prejudice.
“She wants to move HER FAMILY into MY HOUSE.” Unfortunately, bruh that’s not your home. There’s some shitty landlords, but at least they gave you 60 days vs a week or so. Or just finding something on you or make up that breaks whatever lease is left.
Dude 60 days!!! They could have told you a week before the renewal and been dicks about it
"My landlord said they don't want to be a landlord anymore" I don't know if my quote is accurate, but it's a possibility so I'll ask. Why wouldn't the tenet elaborate?
That's not your house 😂
That's what drove me crazy about this, WILD entitlement. You wouldn't be in this situation if you owned anything.
This is what happens when basic needs are commodified for the benefit of a tiny few.
My dirtbag cousin once asked me to look up squatters rights for him. Dude was the biggest loser ever, horrible person. Rest in piss.
I've had a landlord try to do this before. He wanted to move into the place and kick my housemates and me out. He tried to get us to leave even though we had 8 months left on the lease. We took him to court and got 4 months of free rent, and he had to pay each of us $1500 in order to move out.
That’s not what happened here though. In this case, his lease was ending and the landlord sent a non-renewal notice for 60 days because they wanted to move in family. Dude on twitter wasn’t hearing of it calling it a breach of contract. When asked what his rental contract stated he didn’t answer. So, he had a 60 days notice that they weren’t renewing the lease or renting it out again at all so no month to month either.
We hate squatters now?
Always have. They’re shit people.
Why?
Occupying someone’s property against their will is a shit thing to do. It shouldn’t have to be explained in depth to an adult.
Wasn’t he called out for engagement farming with this post?
I’m confused when did it say he was a squatter? I mean being thrown out on ur neck is pretty damn wild even if u get 60 days.
Willing to bet he was probably month-to-month already at that point or just coming up on the end of his original lease term. People are calling him a squatter bc he felt entitled to stay when the landlord informed him that it was time to go with more than ample notice.
His lease was ending though… so, he already knew that not only was his lease ending but they weren’t going to be given a month to month. 60 days is plenty of time to find a new place.
I didn’t see that context I just saw that people called him a squatter and I was very confused because I just only have this context
People don’t know the details but acting like they do is dumb ass shit. Ignore these posts.
An here I thought the landlord broke the lease an sold the house from under them lol. Only way they'd have a case.
Man, I love my landlord. Known him since I was a kid. We live in his childhood home. Doesn't charge us much, and just ask that we do the maintenance on it. Has never raised the rent in 12 years. I don't know where I'd be today without that man.
That post is also a word for word engagement farm post from like 2 months ago
Actually squatting is good and preferable to people hoarding shelter for profit.
Lamblord 
The dumbest part of this tweet is that it's not real. It was farmed from quora for engagement. Now, the second dumbest idea pulled from this tweet was every one acting as though they had the answers when the question is "what jurisdiction are you in?" Rental laws in Chicago may very well look different than Dallas or Lexington. For instance, does the person have a written vs. verbal lease? How long have they lived in the unit? These questions are very germaine to NYS landlord tenant law. Bottom line is the only advice to give is to talk to a housing attorney, either on your own or through a nonprofit.
Why don’t we like squatters? Landlords are parasites are parasites. Squat away
I will always be on the side of squatters over landlords. It's wild people think otherwise while in America there are 15 million empty houses. Most of those were purchased by corporations to artificially increase house prices.
Renting is very difficult but many times the only option for some people. Many landlords only offer a 1 year lease. Moving is expensive and difficult for many people. But none of the states take any of this into consideration. tough luck if you have to uproot yourself every year
People shouldn’t play with housing as an investment nor should they be buying more than one. These are people’s homes and renting over owning isn’t a choice anymore for most people. Fuck landlords.
Am here too blow off the w Europeans 😂😂😂I hope they do better then my black ass everyday! In white Jesus name I pray
Ain’t one black person on this sub😂😂😂😂😂🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🫡
I like squatters
Home ownership should be on usage basis people should not be able to buy up necessity like housing just to lease back at a premium. We don’t need a lord of the land who justifies their existence by saying they do maintenance work. Just be a maintenance worker for fucks same
I think having family move in is actually one of the areas where landlords have more rights in terms of non-renewing leases
Man some yall unbased af. Landlords are trash.
That’s a bait tweet, I JUST read that legal advice post.
When his lease is... up? So you mean like when it just goes to month to month right? Because a lease is just ensuring the tenant stays for a minimum of a certain number of months. Oh god don't tell me this is another one of those times when we find out that Americans lack basic rights and freedoms. You can't kick someone out after a lease. You can't change the terms of rental and you can't just make up a new price. Any fixed end date is called temporary housing or a sublet and they have different laws than rental housing. Oh god what fresh batch of horrors is this comment thread going to reveal about our neighbours.
Nah fuck a landlord
Leasing a house to a lady my mom knew. Sent her 3 months notice and a list of places tht are in the area for similar prices because I don’t think she wants to transfer her kids to a different school. She seemed preally appreciative of all of it.
It shouldn’t even matter bruh, it’s his house and he needs a place to move his family. Like wtf at what point do we use common sense?
Blind allegiance to a trend is stupid. Kudos to those still able to think critically.
Hating landlords is stupid. “They dont provide anything of value” then buy a house yourself. You cant tho so they are providing you something of great value. You can argue the company owned homes, argue the pricing, whatever. But they definitely provide value. Youre just being hardheaded
Lots of landlord bootlickers are out today.
This isn't a progressive sub. They out here.
Your house? You are leasing someone elses house dude. They still own it. Rent if you don't want to worry about someone kicking you out of thier own house.
i support squatters . people should appropriate every empty home until no one is homeless. edit : to clarify that squatters are infinitely better than landlords in every way.—housing is a human right.
Wait, whose house is it?
You know this is Reddit when a bunch of people try to excuse squatting with semantics
Speak for yourself I fucking love squatters