65 votes

Tenant unions are coming. US landlords aren't ready.

110 comments

  1. [80]
    gary
    Link
    Rent control is one of those topics where the majority of experts that study it conclude one thing but people want the opposite. Whatever. Here's why unionized tenants sucks. There's no good...

    Rent control is one of those topics where the majority of experts that study it conclude one thing but people want the opposite. Whatever.

    Here's why unionized tenants sucks. There's no good equalizing factor. If the union at Big Company pushes for unrealistic demands, Big Company fails and the union loses overall. So both sides are incentivized to come to a sustainable, and fair, equilibrium. If tenants unionize and withhold rent, the landlord goes bankrupt but the tenants continue living there because the state is not heartless enough to evict them. This article gives an example, sort of:

    We had a two and a half year campaign now where we actually organized the site, 400 units. Got the private landlord to pull out. The Housing Authority took over full ownership of the site

    There's no balancing factor there and what ends up happening will be a system that's inefficient yet works for tenants (who wants to pay rent when they could.. not pay rent?). Taxpayers will end up subsidizing the artificially reduced rent for tenants because the spenders (politicians) are too far removed from the payers (citizens) yet also stand to benefit from a voting bloc.

    Similar to how shitty police officers are protected by their union because unions derive power through membership and solidarity, tenant unions will also protect shitty tenants. Again, shitty members is not an issue when there's a balancing factor, but there is none here.

    35 votes
    1. [15]
      Fiachra
      Link Parent
      Seems that that situation would in turn create a more direct incentive for the government to solve the actual issue by increasing housing supply. Rather than the current equally unsustainable...

      Seems that that situation would in turn create a more direct incentive for the government to solve the actual issue by increasing housing supply. Rather than the current equally unsustainable situation where the burden of the system's failure is falling disproportionately on the lower end of the income scale.

      43 votes
      1. [13]
        qob
        Link Parent
        I don't think more housing would really solve the issue. Rent is high in popular areas (usually big cities) because everone wants to live there. If you increase available housing, the rent drops,...

        I don't think more housing would really solve the issue. Rent is high in popular areas (usually big cities) because everone wants to live there. If you increase available housing, the rent drops, so more people can afford to live there and drive up rents again. There is no equilibrium because there are millions upon millions waiting in line. This cycle continues until the city is eventually completely plastered with houses, making the whole place unlivable because the impervious surface kills the microclimate with heat waves and flooding. Now everyone wants to live in another densely-but-not-too-densely populate area. Rinse and repeat. And if we ever want to win against climate change, building hundreds of millions of new homes is impossible.

        In my opinion, the issue is private property ownership. Popular land is a very scarce resource and it should not be subject to market forces. Housing should be rented to cover the costs of housing, not to increase profits for investors. One such solution that I really like is the model where everyone who lives in a house partially owns that house, and when they move out, they lose it. Here in Germany, this keeps rents very low even in high-rent cities. Together with city-owned houses that are also rented at cost but managed by the city should drop rents dramatically.

        Of course, this is a pipe dream and will probably never happen on large scales, but I don't see any real reason why this shouldn't work.

        16 votes
        1. [2]
          boxer_dogs_dance
          Link Parent
          There are many zoning changes that could potentially increase housing supply in my city. Cracking down on air BNB would help in many locations

          There are many zoning changes that could potentially increase housing supply in my city.

          Cracking down on air BNB would help in many locations

          29 votes
          1. qob
            Link Parent
            Air BNB is essentially just another manifestation of private property ownership being the basic issue. If you own a house for profit, Air BNB is a great way to increase your rent per square meter...

            Air BNB is essentially just another manifestation of private property ownership being the basic issue. If you own a house for profit, Air BNB is a great way to increase your rent per square meter per time. Remove the ability to profit (excessively) from owning a house, and that issue is gone.

            19 votes
        2. [2]
          public
          Link Parent
          Where should people live, then?

          And if we ever want to win against climate change, building hundreds of millions of new homes is impossible.

          Where should people live, then?

          16 votes
          1. qob
            Link Parent
            In existing homes. I don't know about other countries, but the average space per person has been doubled in my country in the last 50 years or so. And I'm not saying no housing should be...

            In existing homes. I don't know about other countries, but the average space per person has been doubled in my country in the last 50 years or so.

            And I'm not saying no housing should be constructed. I'm saying building new houses in popular places is a losing battle, because popularity moves and houses don't.

            8 votes
        3. [8]
          aeolitus
          Link Parent
          Genossenschaftswohnungen keep the rent low for people in them; and like any below rate rental object, the prices around them just keep going up anyways. I think it's a great idea, it works well if...

          Genossenschaftswohnungen keep the rent low for people in them; and like any below rate rental object, the prices around them just keep going up anyways. I think it's a great idea, it works well if you are in a Genossenschaft, but unless a majority of housing is in a Genossenschaft it doesn't really solve the issue for the majority of the population. Now if we are talking "push out private landlords to establish more Genossenschaften", im all for it!

          7 votes
          1. [7]
            qob
            Link Parent
            Yes, of course. Housing cooperatives should be the default for multi-tenant housing and owning a house you don't use yourself but rent to someone should be weird. I even think owning land should...

            Yes, of course. Housing cooperatives should be the default for multi-tenant housing and owning a house you don't use yourself but rent to someone should be weird.

            I even think owning land should be weird, at least in cities, and the norm should be to lease it from the local government. If you die, the land goes back to the community and your kids get dibs on leasing it again.

            10 votes
            1. [6]
              semsevfor
              Link Parent
              I disagree with the second part of that. I'm all for not allowing people to own multiple homes period. That's fine. But for people not to own their home and land and lease it from the government?...

              I disagree with the second part of that. I'm all for not allowing people to own multiple homes period. That's fine.

              But for people not to own their home and land and lease it from the government? No. This is heading in the direction of everything these days as a subscription model and fuck that noise. I want to buy my stuff once and own it as long as I want it. I don't care what it is. Movies, software, video games, a house. I don't want to subscribe to owning a home, I want to just own a home.

              5 votes
              1. [2]
                MimicSquid
                Link Parent
                99 year land leases from the government are not a new concept. It means that people don't extract eternal wealth because their grandfather bought the right chunk of land. It's eternal from your...

                99 year land leases from the government are not a new concept. It means that people don't extract eternal wealth because their grandfather bought the right chunk of land. It's eternal from your perspective, but also pushes back on wealth inequality on a national level.

                8 votes
                1. kollkana
                  Link Parent
                  That's how leasehold properties work in England. You "own" the property (usually a flat, usually with a normal mortgage), but still pay (usually miniscule) rent to the freeholder. Except a few...

                  That's how leasehold properties work in England. You "own" the property (usually a flat, usually with a normal mortgage), but still pay (usually miniscule) rent to the freeholder.

                  Except a few years back there was a heap of new-build houses where they sold them leasehold with the promise that buyers could buy the freehold later, then the developers sold off the freehold to shitty companies who jacked up the rent and refused to sell, trapping the homeowners/tenants.

                  No way I'd trust a government not to do the same as soon as they need to find some quick cash.

                  6 votes
              2. [3]
                qob
                Link Parent
                The difference is that you would lease it from the local government, which should ideally be run like a community, not as a business, and definitely not for profit. Your lease wouldn't go to...

                The difference is that you would lease it from the local government, which should ideally be run like a community, not as a business, and definitely not for profit. Your lease wouldn't go to shareholders, it would go to the local community, like a property tax.

                But yeah, that was a shower thought and I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about. I'm just tired of neofeudalism, and making it impossible to invest in land is one way to fight it.

                5 votes
                1. Minori
                  Link Parent
                  Alternatively, we could institute a land value tax to disincentive speculative land investment and fully replace regressive property taxes.

                  Alternatively, we could institute a land value tax to disincentive speculative land investment and fully replace regressive property taxes.

                  6 votes
                2. semsevfor
                  Link Parent
                  This just sounds like paying property tax without owning the property...

                  This just sounds like paying property tax without owning the property...

                  2 votes
      2. mayonuki
        Link Parent
        There are already many reasons for the government to improve housing availability. (The notion of “solving” it is not really a reasonable goal. Just like you can’t solve health.). It’s hard for me...

        There are already many reasons for the government to improve housing availability. (The notion of “solving” it is not really a reasonable goal. Just like you can’t solve health.). It’s hard for me to imagine this would push the government much further.

        7 votes
    2. [5]
      ogre
      Link Parent
      Could you link some expert studies on rent control? Clearly they conclude rent control sucks, I’d like to see specifics about why. Can you elaborate Can you explain this too? I don’t understand...

      Could you link some expert studies on rent control? Clearly they conclude rent control sucks, I’d like to see specifics about why.

      tenants (who wants to pay rent when they could.. not pay rent?)

      Can you elaborate

      Taxpayers will end up subsidizing the artificially reduced rent

      Can you explain this too? I don’t understand how the rent is artificially reduced as opposed to just regularly reduced. A private landlord is renting out a 400 units at a profit, and the housing authority without a profit incentive is charging taxpayers? Maybe if the rent is reduced below the cost of upkeep. I’m not educated on the subject, so I’d appreciate it if you could help me understand.

      24 votes
      1. [2]
        Minori
        Link Parent
        I don't have the studies handy, but I can explain the economics. Rent control is a price control which benefits existing renters that want to stay in their current home while hurting everyone...

        I don't have the studies handy, but I can explain the economics. Rent control is a price control which benefits existing renters that want to stay in their current home while hurting everyone else.

        Imagine housing supply and demand in a city where all the housing stock is supply and any existing or potential residents is the demand. In a perfect market, price is based on supply versus demand (this is where supply-side progressives come in and argue for housing abundance). Under rent control, we don't change the supply, but we force lower prices which actually raises the demand because housing is now artificially cheap. Rent control also doesn't reflect the cost of running housing, so it can paradoxically reduce supply if renting a unit is more of a headache than the potential profit. As an example, in Argentina the supply of housing in Buenos Aires increased when rent control was removed because people started renting out spare units again.

        Because rent control disincentives moving, the housing market also becomes less efficient due to people staying in homes that aren't the right size for them. A common example is a couple staying in a large unit after their children move out because their rent is cheap, and they'd pay more after a move. That home isn't available for a new young couple to move into. This same situation also plays out in many countries with social housing due to supply shortages because renters don't pay enough to support more housing construction.

        Rent control also massively reduces incentives to build more housing and increase the supply, so all the supply shortage problems just get worse. It's just another policy that's a hidden wealth transfer from the young to the old.

        19 votes
        1. PuddleOfKittens
          Link Parent
          It hurts the renters too - if the renter is paying below market rates, then the landlord actively wants them to leave and has zero incentive whatsoever to e.g. repair appliances unless legally...

          which benefits existing renters that want to stay in their current home while hurting everyone else.

          It hurts the renters too - if the renter is paying below market rates, then the landlord actively wants them to leave and has zero incentive whatsoever to e.g. repair appliances unless legally mandated to do so (and only if the law is enforced). If the renter has a request (e.g. solar panels on rooftops), the renter doesn't just have zero leverage, the renter has negative leverage.

          7 votes
      2. [2]
        gary
        Link Parent
        I'm traveling for the next few weeks and only have a phone, so longer form discussions with good sources is hard, but here's a podcast I listened to a few months ago on rent control. I can link...

        I'm traveling for the next few weeks and only have a phone, so longer form discussions with good sources is hard, but here's a podcast I listened to a few months ago on rent control. I can link any study and I'm positive someone could object that it's biased or poorly researched because this topic gets emotional, but I hope this one is palatable since it discusses the topic with several economists that have published papers you can look up, and even includes a brief discussion of Sweden's tenants union and the housing problem in Sweden. I will drop a few highlights so you have something you can refer to and then my thoughts.

        In 1997, Ed Glaeser did his own analysis of rent control in New York City, trying to determine just how economically inefficient it was. He and his co-author, Erzo Luttmer, found that “this misallocation of bedrooms leads to a loss in welfare which could be well over $500 million annually to the consumers of New York, before we even consider the social losses due to undersupply of housing.”

        DUBNER: Furthermore, you write that landlords who are susceptible to rent control “reduce rental housing supplies by 15 percent either by converting to condos, selling to owner-occupants, or redeveloping buildings.”

        DIAMOND: So, when you think about those initial tenants, that’s the best bet you’re going to get for the benefits of rent control to low-income tenants: the people that are already in the housing. But even though we find that those tenants are much more likely to stay in their apartment, when we look 10, 15 years later, the share of those 1994 residents that are still there is down to 10 percent or so. So 90 percent of them no longer live in that initial apartment.

        And it’s that next low-income tenant that wants to live in the city, that low-income tenant is going to have a very hard time finding an affordable option, because now there’s going to be less rental housing, the prices that that low-income tenant are going to face when they want to initially move in are going to be higher than they would have been absent rent control.

        GLAESER: Sweden, of course, is the place where Assar Lindbeck, the famous economist — and although he was market-oriented, he certainly skewed to the left — Assar famously said that, “short of bombing, I know of no way to destroy a city that was more effective than rent control,” and he certainly had Stockholm in mind.

        Note that there are those that criticize Freakonomics for being pop economics. I encourage you to find whatever sources that are not Freakonomics if you do not trust them.

        A private landlord is renting out a 400 units at a profit, and the housing authority without a profit incentive is charging taxpayers?

        So it's not that the housing authority is intentionally charging taxpayers, but that it eventually gets there through perverse incentives. Imagine that the tenants only want to pay $1k/unit/month. But the cost of everything (property taxes, maintenance, etc) actually costs the city $1.1k/unit/month. The housing authority could either say "tough luck, it's $1.1k and that's fair" and the tenants protest and start withholding rent. Or some smart politician might think "wow, if I just add some grant money to the housing authority to cover the $100/unit/month difference, that's more votes for me in the election". And thus, the perverse incentive exists and nothing counters that.

        It may very well be that initially the lack of profits makes running housing cheaper under the housing authority. But over time it becomes so politically impossible to change that inefficiencies become tolerated and paid for by the government because who wants to be the politician that says your rent is going up? Certainly one would have to be very principled or very stupid to vote for their own rent to increase.

        17 votes
        1. ogre
          Link Parent
          Thanks for taking the time to explain. I listened to the freakonomics episode in full; I’m still no expert but I’ve learned enough to understand rent control isn’t as black and white as I believed.

          Thanks for taking the time to explain. I listened to the freakonomics episode in full; I’m still no expert but I’ve learned enough to understand rent control isn’t as black and white as I believed.

          3 votes
    3. [6]
      sparksbet
      Link Parent
      The things you discuss here are extremely different from how tenants' unions work in practice (I live in Germany, a country that has them). They're completely independent from rent control, for...

      The things you discuss here are extremely different from how tenants' unions work in practice (I live in Germany, a country that has them). They're completely independent from rent control, for instance, and they principally exist as a way for tenants to protect themselves from landlords violating their existing legal rights and obligations (since many/most renters lack the expertise to know when their landlord is violating the law or the spare cash to pay for legal action). I find it very unlikely that tenants' unions in the US are going to be so much stronger that they're remotely comparable to police unions in terms of their power.

      Also, taxpayers subsidizing rent is a good thing if it means more people can live in affordable housing. Housing is a human right and shouldn't bankrupt people. But our differing opinions on that are tangential at best to the question of tenants' unions.

      21 votes
      1. [5]
        gary
        Link Parent
        That's fair, and tenants unions are rare here so I need to watch how they develop, but this one brought up rent control which is the reason I bring it up. And since Sweden's went the route of...

        That's fair, and tenants unions are rare here so I need to watch how they develop, but this one brought up rent control which is the reason I bring it up. And since Sweden's went the route of tying themselves intimately with rent control (to disastrous effects?), it's not improbable that the two concepts will become tied together in the States as well.

        Also, taxpayers subsidizing rent is a good thing if it means more people can live in affordable housing

        I would be okay with this if it were wealth redistribution from the wealthy since we can't seem to get it in more direct ways. I'm only concerned that if rent control (not necessarily the union) ends up "taxing" the lower and middle classes via decreased mobility and loss of economic opportunities. Those are costs that are harder to identify but are symptoms of rent control in the past.

        7 votes
        1. [4]
          sparksbet
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          I definitely think that rent control policies need to be well thought-out to not have negative side effects. I think the specifics matter enough that it's hard to make sweeping statements on it...

          I definitely think that rent control policies need to be well thought-out to not have negative side effects. I think the specifics matter enough that it's hard to make sweeping statements on it without the specific details of both the policy itself and the context in which they're implemented.

          There is some rent control established in law here in Germany (involving something called an "index rent" based on other rents in your area), and tenants' unions are a really important measure to prevent landlords from taking advantage of tenants by blatantly violating these laws and gaming the system. The ability to get legal assistance at a tenants' union without the high costs of hiring a private attorney is really important. And when legislation does have problems, the tenants' unions can often help give advice on that front as well -- here in Berlin we had a rent freeze that was later overruled by the courts, and tenants were forced to pay back the difference for the time the law had been in effect. The local tenants' unions were advising tenants to set aside the extra money until the court decision to avoid being caught unawares by the legal decision.

          My last landlord in the US tried to withhold my security deposit, and if my dad weren't a lawyer me and my old roommates would've had to just swallow that loss. I signed an NDA as part of settling that lawsuit, but I can tell you about another case that was public record by the time I was a tenant. They'd been sued by another former tenant over illegally withholding a security deposit and the case went to higher state court -- and when they lost, they had to pay a five-figure sum due to being responsible for attorney's fees. The only reason they likely got sued in the first place is because the plaintiff worked at a law firm. Landlords stepping on tenants' legal rights is incredibly common, especially among the poorest and otherwise most at-risk tenants, because landlords know their tenants can rarely afford to hire an attorney. Tenants' unions are really the only feasible way to give everyone the equivalent of a benevolent lawyer relative who helps sort things out without requiring high fees up front.

          9 votes
          1. [3]
            DefinitelyNotAFae
            Link Parent
            That whole NDA thing is a whole other issue. Mine wasn't a lawsuit but a FHA complaint. (Maybe we're just from alternate timelines. I'm your changeling? There's got to be some explanation for this. )

            That whole NDA thing is a whole other issue. Mine wasn't a lawsuit but a FHA complaint.

            (Maybe we're just from alternate timelines. I'm your changeling? There's got to be some explanation for this. )

            2 votes
            1. [2]
              sparksbet
              Link Parent
              NDAs are common enough in a settlement for a lawsuit, and since you typically get something in return for it I'm not bothered by it in that context. Other types of legal complaints coming with...

              NDAs are common enough in a settlement for a lawsuit, and since you typically get something in return for it I'm not bothered by it in that context. Other types of legal complaints coming with NDAs is fucked up tho.

              I did have a childhood obsession with faeries that the changeling theory would explain...

              2 votes
              1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                Link Parent
                Hypothetically one might settle one's Fair Housing Act complaint with one with compensation as part of it. I still think that is ultimately an unjust outcome to limit speech, even if agreed to....

                Hypothetically one might settle one's Fair Housing Act complaint with one with compensation as part of it. I still think that is ultimately an unjust outcome to limit speech, even if agreed to.

                Hm. Ever walked into a ring of mushrooms? Asked a goblin king to take your sibling?

                2 votes
    4. [29]
      dangeresque
      Link Parent
      Huh? How is that any different from landlords and tenants? Cite sources and studies, please.

      If the union at Big Company pushes for unrealistic demands, Big Company fails and the union loses overall. So both sides are incentivized to come to a sustainable, and fair, equilibrium.

      Huh? How is that any different from landlords and tenants?

      Cite sources and studies, please.

      12 votes
      1. [12]
        unkz
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        The difference is explained immediately following the quoted part. If you disagree, then please elaborate, but don’t act like they didn’t just spell out their argument. There’s a misaligned...

        The difference is explained immediately following the quoted part. If you disagree, then please elaborate, but don’t act like they didn’t just spell out their argument.

        If tenants unionize and withhold rent, the landlord goes bankrupt but the tenants continue living there because the state is not heartless enough to evict them. This article gives an example, sort of:

        We had a two and a half year campaign now where we actually organized the site, 400 units. Got the private landlord to pull out. The Housing Authority took over full ownership of the site

        There’s a misaligned incentive here. Tenants are motivated to push to the point where the landlord fails, and if the landlord fails they still win.

        14 votes
        1. [4]
          williams_482
          Link Parent
          Seems like the landlord has one way out: accept low margins, and be good enough at running an apartment complex that people don't feel the need to put the screws to them. This also puts a...

          Seems like the landlord has one way out: accept low margins, and be good enough at running an apartment complex that people don't feel the need to put the screws to them.

          This also puts a counterbalance to one of the problematic incentives from rent control: landlords who decide that because they can only charge X, the way to maximize the margins is to do as little as possible to maintain the units.

          17 votes
          1. [2]
            papasquat
            Link Parent
            Yeah, but what's to stop renters from just continually rent striking? When you work at a job, you're selling your labor for money. When you strike, you stop doing labor, and you stop receiving...

            Yeah, but what's to stop renters from just continually rent striking?

            When you work at a job, you're selling your labor for money. When you strike, you stop doing labor, and you stop receiving money, so there's an incentive on both sides to stop the strike. The employer wants their labor back, and the employee wants their money back. That brings both parties to the bargaining table, because they have a common ultimate goal, they just have opposing motivations with how to get there.

            If you're rent striking, you're just not paying rent. It's not like you're moving out. The landlord obviously has an incentive to stop the strike, but what's the renters incentive? For all the renter cares, the landlord can go bust. It's not like their apartment would suddenly vanish if that happened.

            The fact that there's no reason for a renter to ever pay if they know they're not going to be evicted means that theres no rational reason to ever not strike, which effectively means that you'll only ever lose money by getting into real estate as a landlord, so new housing never gets built.

            13 votes
            1. AugustusFerdinand
              Link Parent
              There's a lot of comments here that seem to assume evictions have stopped entirely. The renters' incentive is to remain where they are instead of moving, possibly to a place without a tenant's...

              If you're rent striking, you're just not paying rent. It's not like you're moving out. The landlord obviously has an incentive to stop the strike, but what's the renters incentive?

              There's a lot of comments here that seem to assume evictions have stopped entirely. The renters' incentive is to remain where they are instead of moving, possibly to a place without a tenant's union, and all of the costs associated with it plus the black mark of an eviction on their record which greatly limits where they can live next.

              8 votes
          2. Minori
            Link Parent
            And that's the problem. There's no such thing as good enough. They'll always ask for more and create an environment where there's no funding to cover essential fees. If you don't believe me, see...

            good enough

            And that's the problem. There's no such thing as good enough. They'll always ask for more and create an environment where there's no funding to cover essential fees. If you don't believe me, see how often condo and co-op buildings skimp on essential maintenance and end up destroying their building over time.

            11 votes
        2. [7]
          dangeresque
          Link Parent
          No it's not "explained". They made a baseless assertion and I asked that they cite sources and studies. There's one example of a housing authority taking ownership of a site where the landlord...

          The difference is explained immediately following the quoted part.

          No it's not "explained". They made a baseless assertion and I asked that they cite sources and studies. There's one example of a housing authority taking ownership of a site where the landlord pulled out of the investment. If there were many examples of landlords being driven to bankruptcy and having their properties taken over by housing authorities due to bad faith tenant unions, housing authorities would run out of their limited resources pretty quickly.

          Tenants are motivated to push to the point where the landlord fails, and if the landlord fails they still win.

          Again, cite sources. I accept that may be the case for single-family properties, but I think it's also safe to assume those properties are the least likely to have tenant unions. A large property with communal space and shared infrastructure would dilapidate very quickly if there was suddenly no property management to maintain it or even keep environmental controls running.

          It might not happen as instantly as an employer closing up shop and your paycheck suddenly not arriving anymore, but the effects of bankrupt landlords would still have a negative impact on residents' quality of life within a few months. And if a landlord going bankrupt would not actually have a tangible impact to the quality of a property.... well....... maybe that's part of the problem that's driving tenants to unionize in the first place? And in that case, I can't say I'm moved by the argument against tenant unions.

          14 votes
          1. [4]
            unkz
            Link Parent
            I think it's clear from the article that tenant unions are a very new idea, so we haven't seen much of what they are going to do. See the literal title of the article: However, the article itself...

            If there were many examples of landlords being driven to bankruptcy and having their properties taken over by housing authorities due to bad faith tenant unions, housing authorities would run out of their limited resources pretty quickly.

            I think it's clear from the article that tenant unions are a very new idea, so we haven't seen much of what they are going to do. See the literal title of the article:

            Tenant Unions Are Coming. Landlords Aren't Ready.

            However, the article itself is trumpeting the destroying of a landlord as a huge victory, so I think we have a sense of where it's going.

            The SEIU was ecstatic about that, our tenants were ecstatic about that.

            Really, I think your demands are a bit unreasonable. We're talking about a concept that has barely begun and you're requiring studies and citations?

            9 votes
            1. rosco
              Link Parent
              I think they are pointing out that OP didn't cite any sources and made some pretty sweeping claims about how tenant unions would affect housing. If they can have such entrenched belief about what...

              I think they are pointing out that OP didn't cite any sources and made some pretty sweeping claims about how tenant unions would affect housing. If they can have such entrenched belief about what a debacle this would be, I think it's fair to ask what sources lead you to believe it.

              To your own point, right now we're all arguing on anecdotal feels and proxy examples like rent control. And we're all largely doing on what I assume are along rentee vs owners/land lord lines. So rather than warming up those finger for a good, stern waggle, maybe we can accept we don't know what the outcome would be.

              20 votes
            2. [2]
              dangeresque
              Link Parent
              And parent was talking about the subject as though they know exactly what tenant unions are going to do, and claiming that it's a much different situation from labor unions. I'm not claiming to...

              I think it's clear from the article that tenant unions are a very new idea, so we haven't seen much of what they are going to do.

              And parent was talking about the subject as though they know exactly what tenant unions are going to do, and claiming that it's a much different situation from labor unions. I'm not claiming to know how things will shake out with tenant unions, but the current situation with real estate in the US is ludicrous and it's time that something changes.

              14 votes
              1. gary
                Link Parent
                Hi, it's me. "Labor unions" is too broad of a category. I'm pro-private labor unions. I'm anti-public labor unions. The public unions have no balancing factor (see Chicago Teachers Union). Private...

                Hi, it's me. "Labor unions" is too broad of a category. I'm pro-private labor unions. I'm anti-public labor unions. The public unions have no balancing factor (see Chicago Teachers Union). Private ones do. Tenants unions are closer to public labor unions because I believe the government will step in and prevent entire buildings from being evicted if tenants unions push too far.

                All above is my opinion, not fact.

                6 votes
          2. [2]
            papasquat
            Link Parent
            Upkeep of a property in most cases is far cheaper than the capital investment of the property, which is the whole reason why rents don't just cover the cost of upkeep. What would you rather pay...

            A large property with communal space and shared infrastructure would dilapidate very quickly if there was suddenly no property management to maintain it or even keep environmental controls running.

            Upkeep of a property in most cases is far cheaper than the capital investment of the property, which is the whole reason why rents don't just cover the cost of upkeep.

            What would you rather pay for, the cost to cover the investment on a multimllion dollar property plus some extra for profit, plus the cost of upkeep, or just the cost of upkeep?

            Rent isn't just covering upkeep costs, if it were, they'd be condominium fees (which are far, far lower), not rent.

            What incentive would there ever be to keep a landlord solvent rather than just force them to go bust and form a coop to share the upkeep costs of a property you now defacto own?

            8 votes
            1. dangeresque
              Link Parent
              That's an excellent question, and something that landlords really ought to start considering when they decide whether to keep screwing their tenants over petty bullshit.

              What incentive would there ever be to keep a landlord solvent rather than just force them to go bust and form a coop to share the upkeep costs of a property you now defacto own?

              That's an excellent question, and something that landlords really ought to start considering when they decide whether to keep screwing their tenants over petty bullshit.

              15 votes
      2. [16]
        gary
        Link Parent
        No. I don't like your tone here; you do not get to tell me to cite sources or link studies. Your later reply elsewhere confirms that you are not interested in having a discussion but rather you...

        No. I don't like your tone here; you do not get to tell me to cite sources or link studies. Your later reply elsewhere confirms that you are not interested in having a discussion but rather you just think I'm wrong. Since you believe I'm wrong, you can feel free to post your sources. Internet discussions suck if you ask for a source upon reading anything you disagree with. I posted my logic. You can post yours if you wish.

        From your later text:

        If there were many examples of landlords being driven to bankruptcy and having their properties taken over by housing authorities due to bad faith tenant unions, housing authorities would run out of their limited resources pretty quickly.

        We don't see that because tenants unions are so rare.

        10 votes
        1. [15]
          dangeresque
          Link Parent
          You made assertions as though they are fact. You did not present them as opinion, so yes, I requested sources. You also talked about a landlord going bankrupt but then presented an example of...

          You made assertions as though they are fact. You did not present them as opinion, so yes, I requested sources. You also talked about a landlord going bankrupt but then presented an example of where a landlord "pulled out". That's quite different from going bankrupt, right?

          Your later reply elsewhere confirms that you are not interested in having a discussion but rather you just think I'm wrong.

          I do think you're wrong, but I don't see how that precludes me from being interested in having a discussion.

          14 votes
          1. [14]
            gary
            Link Parent
            If it helps you, then imagine I wrote "my opinion is:" before my post. If you had asked nicely, I would have replied nicely. I also don't get the fixation on "bankrupt" versus "pulled out". If I...

            If it helps you, then imagine I wrote "my opinion is:" before my post. If you had asked nicely, I would have replied nicely.

            I also don't get the fixation on "bankrupt" versus "pulled out". If I had written "the landlord decides that the revenue is not worth the costs, so stops operating their property" instead, would that meaningfully change my point? My point being that a tenants union adds external costs that end up being shouldered by others elsewhere.

            I suppose if you think I'm wrong, how do you think a tenants union would play out with landlords and the overall costs to the system as a whole?

            9 votes
            1. [12]
              dangeresque
              Link Parent
              It's the narrative difference between the poor sad landlord who really tried to work something out with their tenants but wound up going belly up because of the tenants' unreasonable demands...

              I also don't get the fixation on "bankrupt" versus "pulled out". If I had written "the landlord decides that the revenue is not worth the costs, so stops operating their property" instead, would that meaningfully change my point?

              It's the narrative difference between the poor sad landlord who really tried to work something out with their tenants but wound up going belly up because of the tenants' unreasonable demands versus the landlord who didn't want to deal with taking slightly lower profits or slightly slower returns on their investments and instead abandoned the property and shoved the problem off onto the taxpayers.

              how do you think a tenants union would play out with landlords and the overall costs to the system as a whole?

              The same as a labor union. Employers really need labor and employees really need a paycheck. Each employee really needs a paycheck a lot more than how much an employer really needs each employee. Thus, an individual employment contract weighs the advantage heavily in the employer's favor. When employees bargain collectively, they are able to balance the power by the threat of withholding all labor if the employer refuses to cooperate.

              Landlords really need rent and renters really need a roof over their head. Each renter really needs a roof over their head a lot more than how much any landlord really needs the rent from any one renter. By bargaining collectively, renters could theoretically balance the power by the threat of withholding rent payments if the landlord refuses to cooperate.

              The United States has a legal framework (for now) by which labor unions are formed and can negotiate, including governing the use of strikes and the requirement that both parties negotiate in good faith or be subject to the federal government stepping in. I don't see why a similar framework could not be established for tenant unions as well.

              As well, there will certainly be "costs to the system" in the establishment of tenant unions. That's... Kind of the point. Landlords have gotten too big for their proverbial britches. Private equity owns huge swaths of real estate nationwide. For a time, they absolutely threw money at every property that came onto the market, inflating prices beyond that which normal people can afford. They intentionally reduce the supply of housing by overpricing units and colluding with one another to maximize profit across their entire portfolios rather than maximizing occupancy rates as was once the norm.

              My partner used to live in one unit of a quadruplex in Utah with included laundry facilities shared among the four units. There were two washers and two dryers, all at least fifteen years old. The washers were on their last legs, one was completely broken for some time, and one of the tenants ran a thrifting operation and used the laundry room quite heavily. One time my partner put a maintenance request in for a broken washing machine. Then a couple months after she renewed her lease, the washers had both broken again and she put another maintenance request in... The property manager said that they can't fix the washer because her lease said that she was responsible for maintenance of the washer and dryer. In the laundry room that was shared with three other tenants. Which they had slipped into the lease at renewal because she had previously requested they fix their broken washers. They eventually finally bought one new washer when one of the tenants moved out and they realized they weren't going to be able to rent it out with included washer/dryer if the washers were completely broken.

              I don't think there's a whole lot of risk of all landlords going bankrupt because they're required to maintain the facilities that they say are included in your rent.

              15 votes
              1. [11]
                Minori
                Link Parent
                This just isn't true. Private equity and other corporations own 0.5% of single-family houses in the US. It makes me doubt your entire argument when you get basic facts wrong. It feels like you're...

                Private equity owns huge swaths of real estate nationwide.

                This just isn't true. Private equity and other corporations own 0.5% of single-family houses in the US. It makes me doubt your entire argument when you get basic facts wrong.

                It feels like you're starting with a narrative of "landlords bad and renters good" and working backwards to find alternative facts to support your opinion.

                11 votes
                1. [4]
                  boxer_dogs_dance
                  Link Parent
                  What are the numbers for apartments owned by private equity, or where would I find those numbers? 0.5 percent of homes nationwide is still a massive share for the small numbers of private equity...

                  What are the numbers for apartments owned by private equity, or where would I find those numbers?

                  0.5 percent of homes nationwide is still a massive share for the small numbers of private equity firms to own, and the investments are not evenly divided between cities.

                  14 votes
                  1. [3]
                    Minori
                    Link Parent
                    Difficult to find the specific numbers for private equity firms, and I don't want to dig through their business reports to do the math. Here are numbers from a congressional summary: This doesn't...

                    What are the numbers for apartments owned by private equity, or where would I find those numbers?

                    Difficult to find the specific numbers for private equity firms, and I don't want to dig through their business reports to do the math. Here are numbers from a congressional summary:

                    • Limited liability partnerships (LLPs), limited partnerships (LPs), and limited liability corporations (LLCs) owned 15.4% of rental properties.
                    • LLPs, LPs, and LLCs owned 40.4% of rental units, but owned 67.8% of units located in properties with 100 or more units.

                    This doesn't tell us how many are owned by huge landlords which own a very large number of properties however. Plenty of smart landlords set up an LLC of some sort or work with one for renting property.

                    6 votes
                    1. unkz
                      Link Parent
                      I think you’d almost have to be insane to rent out a property without setting up a corporation. The liability is incredible. I looked at the table you got that number from and it’s sort of...

                      I think you’d almost have to be insane to rent out a property without setting up a corporation. The liability is incredible.

                      I looked at the table you got that number from and it’s sort of misinterpreted. The bulk of the remaining ownership of large scale housing units is also just other forms of corporate ownership — REITs, partnerships, real estate corporations (slightly different than an LLC), trustees, etc. Actual individual investor ownership is about 6%. I’m actually surprised that it is that high. I was expecting to find it to be actually zero.

                      5 votes
                    2. DefinitelyNotAFae
                      Link Parent
                      My mom actually set up an LLC to buy a house with her partner after my dad's death, basically a way to hide their names from small town assholes who thought she started seeing him too soon. Plus...

                      My mom actually set up an LLC to buy a house with her partner after my dad's death, basically a way to hide their names from small town assholes who thought she started seeing him too soon. Plus they're not getting married so it made sense in some other ways. Probably less common than the other reasons to use one but I thought it was worth mentioning

                      4 votes
                2. [6]
                  dangeresque
                  Link Parent
                  You posted a link to housingwire.com which is disputing this "striking claim" which was somehow "widely circulated" by some noname Medium blog with 779 followers and opens with, essentially,...

                  You posted a link to housingwire.com which is disputing this "striking claim" which was somehow "widely circulated" by some noname Medium blog with 779 followers and opens with, essentially, "Blackstone and Blackrock are two different massive companies you dumdums lol".

                  Here's a report from the GAO saying that as of 2022, institutional investors (defined as entities who own more than 1000 single-family homes) collectively owned 3% of single-family homes and the largest 5 investors alone owned nearly 2%. They compare that to 2011 where there was no entity which met that definition of institutional investor.

                  So I didn't state any hard facts, and yet you claimed I'm getting "basic facts wrong" by posting a link to an entity tied to the housing investment industry which appears to themselves be misrepresenting facts in service to an agenda.

                  And this isn't even a discussion about single-family homes and real estate investors. It's a discussion about landlords and tenant unions. What you posted has nothing to do with tenant unions, so I'm not even sure what your point is.

                  12 votes
                  1. [5]
                    Minori
                    Link Parent
                    And the whole reason they're buying up single-family homes is because of a supply shortage and NIMBYs making it impossible to build. Private equity didn't create the conditions to profiteer off...

                    And the whole reason they're buying up single-family homes is because of a supply shortage and NIMBYs making it impossible to build. Private equity didn't create the conditions to profiteer off single family homes and renters; they're taking advantage of pre-existing conditions: https://www.vox.com/22524829/wall-street-housing-market-blackrock-bubble

                    The connection is that landlord power can be curbed in more than one way. While this post argues a tenant union could help, there's also an argument that landlord power could be effectively curbed through increased competition. Landlords would be much more accommodating if they had to compete for tenants.

                    5 votes
                    1. [4]
                      dangeresque
                      Link Parent
                      You write as if those are mutually exclusive. You're still not making a coherent argument against tenant unions.

                      While this post argues a tenant union could help, there's also an argument that landlord power could be effectively curbed through increased competition.

                      You write as if those are mutually exclusive. You're still not making a coherent argument against tenant unions.

                      1 vote
                      1. [3]
                        Minori
                        Link Parent
                        u/gary has made plenty of cogent arguments. I agree that it's hard to have a discussion when it feels like you're not arguing in good faith. I'm legitimately open-minded to anything that improves...

                        u/gary has made plenty of cogent arguments. I agree that it's hard to have a discussion when it feels like you're not arguing in good faith.

                        I'm legitimately open-minded to anything that improves housing and living standards for most people. I care about systematic long-term solutions. I didn't start learning with any driving ideology or narrative. The way you're going about this doesn't help me believe any of your arguments.

                        3 votes
                        1. [2]
                          dangeresque
                          Link Parent
                          Then why are you resistant to the idea of tenants unions?

                          I'm legitimately open-minded to anything that improves housing and living standards for most people.

                          Then why are you resistant to the idea of tenants unions?

                          1. Minori
                            Link Parent
                            Because they give one building's tenants outsize leverage while making housing worse at a systematic level. They're not an effective method to make housing more equitable for everyone. As proposed...

                            Because they give one building's tenants outsize leverage while making housing worse at a systematic level. They're not an effective method to make housing more equitable for everyone. As proposed in this article, they're another shortsighted solution that empowers those that already have housing to say "fuck you, I've got mine" to everyone else.

                            1 vote
                            1. Removed by admin: 2 comments by 2 users
                              Link Parent
            2. GenuinelyCrooked
              Link Parent
              I think so, yes? Let me know if there's If there's a flaw in my logic here. If a landlord goes bankrupt, it means it's impossible to maintain a property like that on rents that low. (Assuming...

              If I had written "the landlord decides that the revenue is not worth the costs, so stops operating their property" instead, would that meaningfully change my point?

              I think so, yes? Let me know if there's If there's a flaw in my logic here. If a landlord goes bankrupt, it means it's impossible to maintain a property like that on rents that low. (Assuming there's no incompetence or anything.) If they pull out due to low revenues, that could simply mean there was more revenue to be made elsewhere. If avoiding the latter situation is our goal, that means we have to allow landlording to be maximally profitable at all time, which is the current situation and frankly that situation sucks and isn't causing the surge of new affordable housing to be built that it's implied we'd lose out on if landlords were all going bankrupt.

              3 votes
    5. [17]
      rosco
      Link Parent
      What is the current equalizing or balancing factor for tenants?

      What is the current equalizing or balancing factor for tenants?

      9 votes
      1. [16]
        gary
        Link Parent
        Depends on the country/state/city, but the strongest is probably the ability to squat without being evicted for months or years. Basically the threat of lost revenue to landlords that have fixed...

        Depends on the country/state/city, but the strongest is probably the ability to squat without being evicted for months or years. Basically the threat of lost revenue to landlords that have fixed costs or opportunity costs. In the aggregate, being a landlord is not supremely lucrative.

        If we're talking specifically about rent increases and displacement as a result, then there's not much of anything around this. I don't see that as a bad thing. Reducing displacement via force ends up helping those already in place at the cost of those that would like to move in. I live in a hyper segregated city and have a distaste for any notion of "I got mine".

        4 votes
        1. [6]
          rosco
          Link Parent
          Take all of this with a grain of salt, lots of opinion based on anecdotal experience as a renter and my time as a planning commissioner. It seems to me, based on what I have experienced and you're...

          Take all of this with a grain of salt, lots of opinion based on anecdotal experience as a renter and my time as a planning commissioner.

          It seems to me, based on what I have experienced and you're saying, that we already have a system that doesn't have an equalizing or balancing factor. I think we're in a housing/renting crisis because of it. The polarized discussion we're having feels like a nice illustration of why we're here: folks who own or are land lords are largely oblivious to the turbulence and difficulty of renting - soaring rents, poor legal enforcement, and little new construction due to NIMBYism. But when folks don't experience it, and it becomes speculative, then there will be a lean towards protecting assets and wealth. Our government prioritizes the same thing.

          I live in a hyper segregated city and have a distaste for any notion of "I got mine".

          While there are some renters who are sitting on rent controlled apartments/houses and spouting the "I've got mine" ideologies, I think that is much more of an edge case than the norm. Many of us have seen rents increase 10, 20, or even 50% and have been radicalized because of it. Our last increase took us from $2,650 to $3,550. Legal protections are hard to get enforcement on, and when the rental pool is small there aren't many alternatives.

          So while I understand to many this feels like an extreme overstep, I think we're at a point where renters are feeling squeezed. Renters are finding limited support from state initiatives and little sympathy from land lords.

          I don't think this would be a silver bullet, or potentially even work, but I do think it's time for collective action on the part of renters. They've been left out of the discussion for too long and are working against a system designed and controlled by owners/landlords.

          16 votes
          1. [5]
            Minori
            Link Parent
            I would agree. Though this is in part cause they vote at far lower rates than homeowners which drives me nuts. I understand they're often less invested in a region, but it's very frustrating that...

            They've been left out of the discussion for too long

            I would agree. Though this is in part cause they vote at far lower rates than homeowners which drives me nuts. I understand they're often less invested in a region, but it's very frustrating that they don't show up and vote for pro-housing candidates in primaries etc.

            2 votes
            1. [4]
              rosco
              Link Parent
              I think it's more visible on a local level. If you rent you're more likely to have less flexibility at work and less financial buffer to take time off and participate. Compound that with retirees...

              I think it's more visible on a local level. If you rent you're more likely to have less flexibility at work and less financial buffer to take time off and participate. Compound that with retirees who come in a squawk at any new proposed municipal development and make up the vast majority of committees, commissions, and councils across the country. It's frustrating to be the fish swimming upstream and most of us don't realize how much of our day to day life is decided by folks going into the slowest years of their cognitive processing.

              And all of this is because if you don't have time - due to work - or other obligations - taking care of kids or parents or school. Most folks simply can't be present for municipal politics. Not everyone who works can cut out of work at 2:30pm twice a month to sit and listen to pensioners yell at you for 3-6 hours. The same can be said for state level ballots measures. When you feel like the rules of the game are fixed and organizations have spent as much time and money possible to obscure the actual intent of a ballot measure or bill, it's no wonder people don't vote. I sit down with 3-5 friends every year and we collectively try to figure out the intent for each ballot, who put them together, and what the likely outcome will actually be. That's a lot to ask your average joe, particularly if they are underwater with bills.

              7 votes
              1. [3]
                Minori
                Link Parent
                I get that voting takes an evening. Still there are states in the US where a full ballot and voter guide shows up in your mailbox with a fully paid return envelope, yet the percentage of...

                I get that voting takes an evening. Still there are states in the US where a full ballot and voter guide shows up in your mailbox with a fully paid return envelope, yet the percentage of registered voters that return their ballot is shockingly low. I'd rather have mandatory voting like Australia and Brazil so democracy works better (though we're off topic at this point).

                3 votes
                1. [2]
                  rosco
                  Link Parent
                  Totally agree, and also appreciate it does seem like a light lift. I think for a lot of folks, they just don't believe that their vote will make a difference and that their representatives don't...

                  Totally agree, and also appreciate it does seem like a light lift. I think for a lot of folks, they just don't believe that their vote will make a difference and that their representatives don't represent them. I think in the US we get a lot of that narrative, purposefully, and we end up where we are. Combine that with voting practices in many places that are intended to add friction and people just fall off. Kind of like how car seats are a deterrent for having kids (awesome episode by the way!).

                  Anecdotally, I got into a little bit of a political tiff with a few friends I've had since we were in diapers - the kind of friends that while we're incredibly tight, I would never be friends with if we hadn't grown up together. While two of us argued about whether Elon and his "efficiency" will be a good thing for our government, our other friend - eventually tired of the political debate - piped in "It's all bullshit, I don't even vote!" Which was very surprising. He is well educated, went to Berkeley, and has plenty of time on his hands and resources to spend the time to vote. He just doesn't think it makes any difference.

                  I like the idea of mandatory voting though, I hadn't heard about that! Are there any negatives that come from that system? That, plus ranked choice could be a very cool system.

                  4 votes
                  1. Minori
                    Link Parent
                    If you're an extremist that benefits from only having super engaged extremist voters, you hate mandatory voting because it usually leads to politicians with broad appeal being elected (similar to...

                    Are there any negatives that come from that system?

                    If you're an extremist that benefits from only having super engaged extremist voters, you hate mandatory voting because it usually leads to politicians with broad appeal being elected (similar to ranked choice or approval voting).

                    It's sometimes controversial because people hate the idea of being forced to theoretically vote for 100% or 99% Hitler, but spoiling your ballot is always an option. You're only required to submit a ballot or pay a small fine; the ballot could be blank and that's totally fine.

                    As someone that likes democracy and strongly believes that everyone participating leads to the most stable systems, I really like it. I'm not just in favour because I think it'll benefit parties I like. I think there's good evidence it leads to better outcomes that are more representative of the will of the people.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

                    3 votes
        2. [9]
          GenuinelyCrooked
          Link Parent
          What about when instead of "I got mine" it's "I was born here and grew up here and can't really afford to move but now I can't afford to stay here either"? "Displacement" sounds like a sanitized...

          What about when instead of "I got mine" it's "I was born here and grew up here and can't really afford to move but now I can't afford to stay here either"? "Displacement" sounds like a sanitized way of saying "putting people at risk of homelessness".

          12 votes
          1. [8]
            Minori
            Link Parent
            But why should people that grew up in a city have any greater claim to it than any other citizen? I understand the electoral reason, but that seems to support the point that rent control is...

            But why should people that grew up in a city have any greater claim to it than any other citizen? I understand the electoral reason, but that seems to support the point that rent control is another wealth transfer from young to old.

            6 votes
            1. [7]
              GenuinelyCrooked
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              Because where else are they going to go? Do you think the elderly are the only people who get priced out of their apartments? I frequently had to move during my twenties because I couldn't afford...

              Because where else are they going to go? Do you think the elderly are the only people who get priced out of their apartments? I frequently had to move during my twenties because I couldn't afford to stay where I was, and the cost of moving was a huge and destructive blow. All my friends my age had the same experience. Why should I be insecure in my housing and unable to stay near my support network and my job so that someone else can move into my apartment and make my landlord richer?

              Landlords who, if they aren't corporate, are typically old enough to have bought real estate when the prices where much lower, having my young person "wealth" transferred to them every month.

              5 votes
              1. [6]
                Minori
                Link Parent
                Any other city. It's difficult, but we have to look at this on a big-picture systematic level. Preexisting renters that can't support the current market price are generating less tax revenue for...

                Because where else are they going to go?

                Any other city. It's difficult, but we have to look at this on a big-picture systematic level. Preexisting renters that can't support the current market price are generating less tax revenue for the city than newer, almost-certainly-younger residents.

                To be clear, I want to minimize displacement too. A good way to do that is buy-out older buildings and guarantee tenants a spot in the newer, higher-capacity building. I don't think rent control nor tenant unions are good systematic, long-term solutions.

                4 votes
                1. [2]
                  nukeman
                  Link Parent
                  While I’m not a fan of rent control and sympathetic to supply-side progressivism arguments, this answer will get you eviscerated on the public stage. Not only does it intuitively feel “wrong” to...

                  Any other city

                  While I’m not a fan of rent control and sympathetic to supply-side progressivism arguments, this answer will get you eviscerated on the public stage. Not only does it intuitively feel “wrong” to make someone leave a city they’ve lived in for decades, from a public policy perspective, it’s a bad idea to force someone away from their support network that allows them to age in place.

                  12 votes
                  1. Minori
                    Link Parent
                    I agree and I'm aware of this. Though Americans already move way more than average, and I'd argue that politicians are tacitly forcing people to move out due to short-sighted policies that fail to...

                    I agree and I'm aware of this. Though Americans already move way more than average, and I'd argue that politicians are tacitly forcing people to move out due to short-sighted policies that fail to support an increasing population. Restrictive zoning actually increases gentrification after all.

                    I understand the appeal of rent control as it's marketed, keeping people in the homes they're currently attached to, but we have to be clear-eyed about the systematic implications of any policy. Our children need more than good intentions; they need good homes too.

                    2 votes
                2. [3]
                  GenuinelyCrooked
                  Link Parent
                  Another city where they don't have a support network or a job, while they're already financially worn thin? You don't see how that's a recipe for homelessness? How does that help if the rents...

                  Another city where they don't have a support network or a job, while they're already financially worn thin? You don't see how that's a recipe for homelessness?

                  A good way to do that is buy-out older buildings and guarantee tenants a spot in the newer, higher-capacity building.

                  How does that help if the rents there aren't kept low?

                  5 votes
                  1. [2]
                    Minori
                    Link Parent
                    Building enough housing supply keeps rents affordable. There is lots and lots of evidence for this. I'm only talking about how to increase supply while preventing any displacement.

                    How does that help if the rents there aren't kept low?

                    Building enough housing supply keeps rents affordable. There is lots and lots of evidence for this. I'm only talking about how to increase supply while preventing any displacement.

                    1 vote
    6. [7]
      mordae
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      I think the situation you describe would cause value of housing as investment to plummet. Which is a good thing. I want zero private landlords in the economy and I would very much prefer my taxes...

      I think the situation you describe would cause value of housing as investment to plummet. Which is a good thing. I want zero private landlords in the economy and I would very much prefer my taxes to buy me more suddenly cheap public housing.

      The side effect from this whole class of people with passive income is monumental waste in terms of luxuries as well as whole sectors specializing in catering to their needs as opposed to general availability of services for everyone. Like with healthcare and college education. Or lack of quality public transportation because landlords prefer cars.

      Ideally most housing would be cooperatives so you can actually force your neighbors democratically not to act like total assholes. And your maintenance company would be unionised or cooperative as well. Eventually state would order every large house to have a fund for eventual reconstruction / perpetual maintenance to make sure nobody runs the building to the ground.

      7 votes
      1. [4]
        Minori
        Link Parent
        Home owners associations exist, and they're frequently nightmares in the US: https://youtu.be/qrizmAo17Os

        Ideally most housing would be cooperatives so you can actually force your neighbors democratically not to act like total assholes

        Home owners associations exist, and they're frequently nightmares in the US: https://youtu.be/qrizmAo17Os

        2 votes
        1. [3]
          mordae
          Link Parent
          I have seen the Last Week Tonight episode. Those are corporations, but not cooperatives following Rochdale Principles as thoroughly described by John.

          I have seen the Last Week Tonight episode.

          Those are corporations, but not cooperatives following Rochdale Principles as thoroughly described by John.

          5 votes
          1. [2]
            Minori
            Link Parent
            Pardon my ignorance, how could a housing cooperative be both opt-in and coercive where assholes are concerned? Wouldn't someone just opt-out of membership to avoid any punishments?

            Pardon my ignorance, how could a housing cooperative be both opt-in and coercive where assholes are concerned? Wouldn't someone just opt-out of membership to avoid any punishments?

            2 votes
            1. mordae
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              Housing cooperatives normally own the building. You do not own the unit. You own a share which entitles you to unit use as per bylaws. There could be binding bylaws that regulate e.g. noise,...

              Housing cooperatives normally own the building. You do not own the unit. You own a share which entitles you to unit use as per bylaws. There could be binding bylaws that regulate e.g. noise, maintenance and other relevant aspects of sharing a building.

              Many condominiums here in Czechia have an equivalent to HOAs, but those are generally toothless and only do the absolute minimum to order garbage disposal, divide up heating and water costs, save up for major reconstructions and contract somebody to clean up the common areas and maybe repaint once in a while.

              Those are complete shitshows because unit owner rights are legislated to have precedence. Their meetings are oftentimes below quorum and unable to pass any resolution, meaning I've seen the committee to almost beg owners to come so that they can at least have a budget for the next year.

              6 votes
      2. [2]
        gowestyoungman
        Link Parent
        In theory, that sounds good. Practically speaking, its private landlords who do a much better job of running rentals than the gov ever has. Why? Because we care about our investment. I care if my...

        I want zero private landlords in the economy and I would very much prefer my taxes to buy me more suddenly cheap public housing.

        In theory, that sounds good. Practically speaking, its private landlords who do a much better job of running rentals than the gov ever has. Why? Because we care about our investment. I care if my house is getting run down. I care if its maintained because at some point I hope to sell it and in the mean time I want it to be nice enough to keep attracting decent tenants.
        And I know my tenants personally. When they have an issue they're dealing directly with me. I know their situations enough to know when to give them a break or when to lay down the rules, especially when it affects other tenants.
        But when the gov takes over housing they hire a corporation to take care of applications and vetting, and then another corporation to do maintenance. Those people will NEVER care about the property like a private landlord will.
        The end result, as it has happened in Canada over the years, is that the properties slowly degrade, become less desirable, then start attracting lower quality of tenants, and eventually, the buildings get sold off to private companies - so that everyone could be kicked out, renovated and the buildings were desirable again.
        Housing coops can work, but gov owned public housing, not so much.

        1 vote
        1. cfabbro
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          You may be a good landlord that cares about your property and tenants, but I think it's a mistake to assume every landlord is like you, and come to government policy conclusions based on that....

          You may be a good landlord that cares about your property and tenants, but I think it's a mistake to assume every landlord is like you, and come to government policy conclusions based on that. There are plenty of slumlords out there (See: Donald Trump), and also long-term government housing projects that haven't suffered from the same fate that you present as inevitable (See: Public housing in Singapore).

          E.g. My own former neighbor was bit of a slumlord too. The furnace in their rental property beside us broke in the middle of winter a few years ago, and they refused to have it fixed, telling the tenants to just use the fireplace in the downstairs living room, which was not nearly enough to heat the house. They were relying entirely on the ignorance of the newly immigrated tenants to get out of having to pay extra for fixing it promptly, which they were obligated to do under the law. Luckily we had become friendly with the family, and found out about it a few days after it happened though. So we informed them that what the landlord was doing was illegal under the Residential Tenancies Act, and helped them file a complaint with the Landlord & Tenant Board. It was only once the L&T Board rep contacted the landlord that they finally had the furnace replaced. And that wasn't the only unethical, underhanded BS they tried to pull over the years we lived next to them either.

          So IMO it's not nearly as black and white as you paint it.

          9 votes
  2. [6]
    agentsquirrel
    (edited )
    Link
    I don't see how tenant unions can work. Let's say every single resident in a property joins a tenant union. At some point a tenant's lease comes up for renewal, at which the landlord increases the...

    I don't see how tenant unions can work. Let's say every single resident in a property joins a tenant union. At some point a tenant's lease comes up for renewal, at which the landlord increases the rent to some unreasonable and unaffordable cost. The tenant leaves. The next tenant that comes in to replace them has a lease agreement that prohibits them joining a tenant union. Lather, rinse, repeat. This isn't like a workplace that becomes a union shop and everyone coming in has to join the union in order to work. The fact that there are individual legal agreements with tenants makes tenant unions untenable. Am I missing something? You'd have to have a very significant majority of renters in a market as members of a tenant union in order for this to gain a foothold. That's a tall order.

    2 votes
    1. dangeresque
      Link Parent
      That's exactly how employment works, too, though. I'm not following why so many people are so adamant that tenant unions are a vastly different situation than labor unions. The union places a...

      The fact that there are individual legal agreements with tenants makes tenant unions untenable.

      That's exactly how employment works, too, though. I'm not following why so many people are so adamant that tenant unions are a vastly different situation than labor unions.

      The next tenant that comes in to replace them has a lease agreement that prohibits them joining a tenant union.

      The union places a provision in the contract prohibiting the landlord from including such a prohibition in their lease agreements. If the landlord refuses, the union strikes, the same as any labor dispute.

      18 votes
    2. sparksbet
      Link Parent
      Tenant unions flourish in other countries, so they're obviously perfectly doable. The ones here in Germany tend to operate on a city-by-city level, so you don't have to switch if you move within...

      Tenant unions flourish in other countries, so they're obviously perfectly doable. The ones here in Germany tend to operate on a city-by-city level, so you don't have to switch if you move within the same city, and if you move to another city they often have affiliations with each other that allow you to switch to a new tenants' union relatively easily.

      10 votes
    3. [3]
      OBLIVIATER
      Link Parent
      Are anti-union contracts for tenants even enforceable? I thought it was really difficult to actually keep people from unionizing if they really wanted to. That's why companies like Amazon are so...

      Are anti-union contracts for tenants even enforceable? I thought it was really difficult to actually keep people from unionizing if they really wanted to. That's why companies like Amazon are so scared of it.

      6 votes
      1. [2]
        unkz
        Link Parent
        Labour unions have specific legal protections. Tenant unions have no similar legislation protecting them.

        Labour unions have specific legal protections. Tenant unions have no similar legislation protecting them.

        2 votes
        1. mordae
          Link Parent
          Those laws are there because without them people would eventually burn the factories down. It's a good compromise for capitalists to force the employers into dialogue early enough so that this...

          Those laws are there because without them people would eventually burn the factories down. It's a good compromise for capitalists to force the employers into dialogue early enough so that this doesn't happen.

          4 votes
  3. [2]
    BeanBurrito
    Link
    Sounds like a good thing, and long overdue.

    Sounds like a good thing, and long overdue.

    40 votes
    1. l_one
      Link Parent
      The common citizen of this country has experienced nothing but take take take for far too long. I agree, this and other efforts of a similar vein are overdue.

      The common citizen of this country has experienced nothing but take take take for far too long. I agree, this and other efforts of a similar vein are overdue.

      12 votes
  4. [22]
    BeanBurrito
    Link
    A while back I started a thread (now locked) about a pattern I noticed in tildes of people ( not all ) here frequently defending the status quo or simply being contrarians. This thread is a good...

    A while back I started a thread (now locked) about a pattern I noticed in tildes of people ( not all ) here frequently defending the status quo or simply being contrarians. This thread is a good example.

    10 votes
    1. gary
      Link Parent
      @BeanBurrito would you find it more interesting if I just commented my general support? How boring that would be. I write what I write because my views are shaped by very similar policies and...

      @BeanBurrito would you find it more interesting if I just commented my general support? How boring that would be. I write what I write because my views are shaped by very similar policies and debates where I live that end up hurting the lower and middle classes that they purportedly help. I am not as eloquent as many of the regulars here, but I don't write to simply be a contrarian.

      11 votes
    2. cdb
      Link Parent
      When it comes to threads like this, usually most of the discussion comes down to, "is this a good idea or not?" I think it's pretty natural to try to fit a new idea into our current knowledge of...

      When it comes to threads like this, usually most of the discussion comes down to, "is this a good idea or not?" I think it's pretty natural to try to fit a new idea into our current knowledge of how these systems work, the economics of the situation, and how that fits into our morals. If this isn't the type of discussion you'd like to see, what would you like to see instead?

      Say I propose that we build space stations to house the top 1% of people, then just kill everyone else off because we'll have used up all our planetary resources on the endeavor anyway. It's pretty easy to say that this would be technologically impractical, the costs don't work out, and nearly everyone would find it immoral. It's a silly example, but it's not like we just dismiss the idea by saying "everyone can see that this is a bad idea"; we can point to specific reasons that make this idea good or bad. If we can discuss a terrible idea in this way, we also should be able to point out what sounds good or bad about any other idea. If the arguments are starting to make the new idea look bad, maybe the arguers are poorly informed, not enough data has been collected, or it's just not a better idea than existing ones. Those are all things that might be fun to discuss, though.

      Maybe it's just the field I work in (pharmaceutical research), but whenever I present any data I need to be able to explain the basic underlying science behind any technique that I use, what conclusions we can draw from the data, how I investigated any anomalies, what they might mean, etc. If I don't, then I might be asked to go back and collect more data, or if it's really bad I might get a bit of a lecture on not doing my due diligence. People don't do this to be jerks, it's just that you need good justifications for advancing a new drug. We want to point out all the problems we can from the outset so we can deal with them or at least evaluate the risk. If we can't deal with those problems then maybe it's not a drug we can advance. So for me a new idea is like a new drug, and I want to see critique on any idea and justification on why it's better than what we have now.

      Regarding "status quo" in general, I think many people might associate support of current systems (emphasis on current, not past) to be some form of conservatism, but I think it should also not be forgotten that they also represent whatever progress has been made over time as well. Of course we can imagine a better system in almost every case. However, in a practical sense it's hard to make things better, and we should be careful not to take for granted the systems that have caused the gains we've made. I don't think it's contrarian to point out what ideas we think have worked over time, what ideas we think are hanging around but aren't beneficial, and how new ideas might help or hurt the current situation.

      10 votes
    3. [3]
      Minori
      Link Parent
      If the average age on Tildes is higher than other social media, it'd make sense more people defend the status quo. Though I'm personally more frustrated by contrarians that care more for argument...

      If the average age on Tildes is higher than other social media, it'd make sense more people defend the status quo. Though I'm personally more frustrated by contrarians that care more for argument than actually reaching any shared conclusions.

      8 votes
      1. [2]
        pesus
        Link Parent
        Agreed. I enjoy a nice debate/discussion myself, but it feels like there's been a bit of an increase in people arguing and nitpicking for the sake of it - I don't know how else to describe it, but...

        Though I'm personally more frustrated by contrarians that care more for argument than actually reaching any shared conclusions.

        Agreed. I enjoy a nice debate/discussion myself, but it feels like there's been a bit of an increase in people arguing and nitpicking for the sake of it - I don't know how else to describe it, but it unfortunately feels very redditesque.

        4 votes
        1. Weldawadyathink
          Link Parent
          I realize that my entire comment is going to come across as nitpicky and “redditesque”, but I’ll go for it anyway. I agree that nitpickiness is pretty high here on tildes, but I think there is a...

          I realize that my entire comment is going to come across as nitpicky and “redditesque”, but I’ll go for it anyway.

          I agree that nitpickiness is pretty high here on tildes, but I think there is a huge difference between nitpicking here and on Reddit. Here, it is usually stated as “here are the reasons your argument doesn’t work, or isn’t as compelling as you think”. On Reddit, it is usually stated as “here is why your argument is bad, you are bad, and everything about this is bad”. In short, I think we here on tildes keep it much more focused on the argument and less on ad homenium attacks.

          12 votes
    4. [5]
      rosco
      Link Parent
      Seconded. For the folks frustrated by this comment, consider that arguing in favor of the status quo is arguing a position that by and large everyone knows and has heard regurgitated at them ad...

      Seconded.

      For the folks frustrated by this comment, consider that arguing in favor of the status quo is arguing a position that by and large everyone knows and has heard regurgitated at them ad hominem. If you have a nuanced perspective - awesome. Do you have expertise in the field? Fire away! Are you just parroting the standard talking points we've all heard for decades? Maybe give this thread a skip. The same can be said for contrarians. If it's a well trodden path, maybe leave it be.

      7 votes
      1. [4]
        gary
        Link Parent
        Would you classify mine as some of the responses that would have been better left unsaid? Also, "status quo" is confusing here since the status quo is rent control in parts of the US and other...

        Would you classify mine as some of the responses that would have been better left unsaid?

        Also, "status quo" is confusing here since the status quo is rent control in parts of the US and other countries. Arguing against rent control is not arguing for or against the status quo since it depends on where you are. Now if you meant tenants unions, then sure, but my own response mostly targeted the union through their support of rent control. I have no problem with unions existing to enforce rights.

        5 votes
        1. [2]
          rosco
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          I think your top level was a nice addition to the conversation and I appreciated you answering when I asked about balancing for renters. That was a new concept I hadn't heard before and it spurred...

          I think your top level was a nice addition to the conversation and I appreciated you answering when I asked about balancing for renters. That was a new concept I hadn't heard before and it spurred plenty of conversation. I think further down the thread it turned into a little bit of a dog pile and felt condescending.

          4 votes
          1. gary
            Link Parent
            Thanks. I could have not set the tone with such a strongly charged comment and I'll try to keep that in mind in the future.

            Thanks. I could have not set the tone with such a strongly charged comment and I'll try to keep that in mind in the future.

        2. dangeresque
          Link Parent
          In my mind, an ideal tenant union agreement would include some form of rent control negotiated between the union and landlord, thus government-mandated rent control would not be necessary. Are you...

          my own response mostly targeted the union through their support of rent control

          In my mind, an ideal tenant union agreement would include some form of rent control negotiated between the union and landlord, thus government-mandated rent control would not be necessary. Are you against government-mandated rent control, or are you against any form of restriction of a landlord's ability to raise rental prices?

          3 votes
    5. [11]
      unkz
      Link Parent
      I feel like there is a fairly large contingent on tildes that is so frustrated by the status quo that they will easily accept any action that might change the status quo. Arguments along the lines...

      I feel like there is a fairly large contingent on tildes that is so frustrated by the status quo that they will easily accept any action that might change the status quo. Arguments along the lines of "anything is better than what we have now". That's the sense that I'm getting from this thread, but I don't think I necessarily agree. It seems to me that unions have a number of problems, and that more appropriate and better understood interventions in the form of market forces would be better applied here, with less chance of unintended consequences.

      7 votes
      1. [10]
        dangeresque
        Link Parent
        My frustration is that those more appropriate and better understood interventions have either not been happening or have not been working. There's a reason why tenant unions are starting to become...

        It seems to me that unions have a number of problems, and that more appropriate and better understood interventions in the form of market forces would be better applied here, with less chance of unintended consequences.

        My frustration is that those more appropriate and better understood interventions have either not been happening or have not been working. There's a reason why tenant unions are starting to become a bigger topic, and that's because tenants have been feeling the need to unionize and are starting to realize that such a thing is possible.

        Several people in this thread are talking about the potential (because we don't really know) downsides of tenant unions, but aren't really proposing much in the way of alternatives. Nor have I read anybody go so far as to suggest that tenant unions should be barred legislatively. So this thread just feels so frustratingly navel gazey. Okay okay, you think tenant unions will bring forth an apocalypse, but what are you proposing to actually stop that from happening? If a group of renters feel that it's time to bargain with their landlord collectively, then clearly other solutions aren't working for them, and who the hell are we to say that they shouldn't even try it?

        I'm a homeowner, personally. I don't own any investment properties, and I don't rent. I suppose landlords going bankrupt would cause a decline in property values and would hurt me, but I'm more interested in a healthy economic situation overall than I am worried about protecting my personal finances. My last apartment happened to be in a lovely property owned and operated by an actually solid investment and management company who was rather great to work with. Most management companies, whether owner/operators or contractors, are not that. I can absolutely understand why many tenants would want to unionize, and I'm very interested in seeing how such arrangements play out over a few years.

        Because we simply don't fucking know.

        12 votes
        1. [9]
          Minori
          Link Parent
          Build enough housing and landlords will compete for tenants which should preempt the need for tenant unions. This is a better systematic solution for all the reasons outlined elsewhere in the...

          Build enough housing and landlords will compete for tenants which should preempt the need for tenant unions. This is a better systematic solution for all the reasons outlined elsewhere in the comments.

          New construction being restricted by NIMBYs is a whole other conversation which usually happens in ~society.

          1 vote
          1. Akir
            Link Parent
            I highly disagree with the dogma that we just need more housing and that will fix everything. We probably do need more housing in some specific places but more housing is not a panacea to the...

            I highly disagree with the dogma that we just need more housing and that will fix everything. We probably do need more housing in some specific places but more housing is not a panacea to the multitudes of housing problems out there. Housing scarcity is an economic problem that is multivariate and trying to collapse everything to one dimension means there are a hundred other ones you're not seeing.

            4 votes
          2. [2]
            dangeresque
            Link Parent
            NIMBYs are a huge problem, yes. It's also the case that there's but a tiny sliver of overlap in renters and who we would describe as a NIMBY. NIMBYs tend to be property owners. So you've proposed...

            NIMBYs are a huge problem, yes. It's also the case that there's but a tiny sliver of overlap in renters and who we would describe as a NIMBY. NIMBYs tend to be property owners. So you've proposed a boogeyman, but you haven't proposed how renters are supposed to slay that boogeyman. Renters have to do whatever they have the power to do, and there's very little they can do to stop nimbyism. In many cases, nimbies see renters, especially those of low income and status, as the enemy. Renters also are generally working class and don't have the free time to attend city council meetings and other fora which tend to be flooded by the nimby population.

            Maybe the fear of tenant unions will finally push the wealthy investor class to use their outsized wealth and influence to push back against NIMBY ideology. Maybe the fear of tenant unions will finally drive landlords to work together with their tenants to drive the social change needed to make life better for both parties.

            Or maybe it's too fucking late and landlords, and especially national private equity firms, have burned that bridge and there's no way that tenants will trust them to be in favor of anything that helps them. I know I'm sure leery of the idea.

            2 votes
            1. Minori
              Link Parent
              ...they can vote pro-growth candidates into power, but they largely don't because they don't participate in democracy enough. Renters vote at far lower rates than home owners. There are ways to...

              Renters have to do whatever they have the power to do, and there's very little they can do to stop nimbyism.

              ...they can vote pro-growth candidates into power, but they largely don't because they don't participate in democracy enough. Renters vote at far lower rates than home owners. There are ways to change processes to require less community engagement to weaken busybody NIMBYs with too much time on their hands.

              Or maybe it's too fucking late and landlords, and especially national private equity firms, have burned that bridge and there's no way that tenants will trust them to be in favor of anything that helps them. I know I'm sure leery of the idea.

              Yeah. We won't see eye to eye on this because you're coming at it from a narrative while I'm trying to evaluate the systems and trends to find actionable solutions. Private equity didn't create the conditions for landlord profiteering. Home owners voting NIMBYs into power did.

              1 vote
          3. [5]
            TheMediumJon
            Link Parent
            Or given the current state they will continue colluding as some of them already are doing This is the standard supply side response which as usual ignores the actual inherent profit motive and...

            Build enough housing and landlords will compete for tenants

            Or given the current state they will continue colluding as some of them already are doing

            This is the standard supply side response which as usual ignores the actual inherent profit motive and power imbalance.

            1 vote
            1. [4]
              Minori
              Link Parent
              Some landlords colluding is further reason why developers should be empowered to build more housing. Landlords and developers are different groups with competing incentives. If developers could...

              Some landlords colluding is further reason why developers should be empowered to build more housing. Landlords and developers are different groups with competing incentives.

              If developers could cheaply build flats and condos which were cheaper than the landlords' price-fixed apartments, they'd happily build housing for people. If a new landlord could easily build a new building and make more money by undercutting the cartel, they would.

              1 vote
              1. [3]
                TheMediumJon
                Link Parent
                Except why undercut the cartel? Housing isn't a mass-produced good as such where you can genuinely leverage economies of scale and by underbidding everyone else pull in more customers. With the...

                If a new landlord could easily build a new building and make more money by undercutting the cartel, they would.

                Except why undercut the cartel?
                Housing isn't a mass-produced good as such where you can genuinely leverage economies of scale and by underbidding everyone else pull in more customers.

                With the current demand situation there's fairly little incentive for any landlord or even developer to demand lower prices rather than join the cartel.

                1 vote
                1. [2]
                  Minori
                  Link Parent
                  Every landlord isn't in the RealPage cartel, so that's clearly not true. Cartels are an issue that should be prosecuted, but they're not an argument against increasing housing supply. Again,...

                  Every landlord isn't in the RealPage cartel, so that's clearly not true. Cartels are an issue that should be prosecuted, but they're not an argument against increasing housing supply.

                  Again, landlords and developers are not the same group. They have competing incentives.

                  2 votes
                  1. TheMediumJon
                    Link Parent
                    Just because not every single landlord hasn't actively joined the cartel doesn't mean that it is largely where their incentives lead to. And yes, developers and landlords obviously are distinct...

                    Just because not every single landlord hasn't actively joined the cartel doesn't mean that it is largely where their incentives lead to.

                    And yes, developers and landlords obviously are distinct entities but neither of them largely benefits form purposefully undercutting such a cartel in the way that the producer of clothes or seller of groceries might.