Guardian Voices: Hassle-free housing


I'm talking to the amazing organizers at Causa Justa:: Just Cause (CJJC) about their work to protect homeowners from foreclosure by the big banks, about their long history of tenants’ rights work, and what they are up to right now. Blanca Solis says they've launched a new campaign for what they're calling the “Hassle-Free Housing” ordinance. She’s a grassroots leader from CJJC, and she’s asking for our support. To protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords. To stop unfair evictions. To stop wringing our hands about gentrification and families leaving the city. She says we can do something very straightforward to keep working families in their homes.
On Tuesday July 31st, Solis will join other tenant leaders, advocates and supporters at city hall to call for an end to tenant harassment by landlords. The San Francisco Tenants Union will be there. Organizers at CJJC have learned from years of experience with Latino tenants struggling to make ends meet in the midst of this rapidly gentrifying city that “one of the quickest and cheapest ways to evict a tenant is by harassing them until the situation becomes unbearable and the tenant moves on their own. Whey they leave, the landlord has an empty unit that they can rent to new tenants at market-rate rent.”
Faced with a pattern of such blatantly unfair practices, tenant activists took the issue to the voters in 2008; when “Prop M” passed, it was an important victory for this still-majority-renter-city. But then, the landlord’s lawyers got hold of it, and sued to stop implementation.
No one seems to be denying that landlords do this, and that it’s wrong. But what can a family do to stop the harassment, hold on to their housing and get some relief? Here’s where the “Hassle-Free Housing” ordinance comes in. It builds on Prop M and addresses the landlords’ legal issue. It would “allow tenants to claim damages from their landlords for each incident of harassment in small claims court to collect statutory damages of up to $2,000 for each incident.”
Sounds good, let’s do it. City Hall - get on it.
All over San Francisco, probably every night, people are sitting around shaking their heads about how expensive the city has become. How families have been pushed and priced out. Folks shrug and say “But, what can you do?”
There is a long, proud, and painful history in San Francisco of everyday people organizing to put a stop to unfair evictions, developer-driven displacement, and the over-production of luxury housing. From the African American community’s fight to save the Fillmore from redevelopment’s “negro removal” in the 1960s, to the Filipino-led struggle to stop the eviction of elderly men at the I-Hotel in the 1970s, and to Mission activists’ campaigns to control land use during the intense gentrification of the 1990’s dot-com boom. (Just this week there’s a big celebration marking the 35th Anniversary of the I-Hotel struggle.) 
These “housing justice” fights are ultimately about who has the power to shape the future of our city and who has the power to determine who can and cannot afford to live here. That’s where we all come in – all of us who are renters whose lives will be better with a “Hassle-Free Housing” ordinance; all of us whose housing is insecure – because we fear foreclosure or are a paycheck away from homelessness. This is an issue of people power, and you can do something now – attend the press conference at 10am tomorrow on the steps of City Hall, or go to CJJC's website to sign up as a campaign supporter. Being right is good, but ultimately it’s people power that matters.
When Solis was asked why she joined the hassle-free housing campaign and why she’s coming to City Hall tomorrow, she said:
"Que los supervisores aseguren que los inquilinos estemos protegidos de los desalojos injustos por parte de los caseros y asi mismo vivamos en lugares dignos, seguros y libres de hostigamiento"
"So that the supervisors can ensure that we, tenants, are protected from illegal and unjust evictions by landlords and be able to live in homes that are dignified, safe and free of harassment"
Solis and the other incredible grassroots leaders at CJJC are full of courage and determination, and have not given up hope that there is a bright future for San Francisco. Let’s join them!


low rent tenant who makes endless demands without any corresponding ability to raise rents, nor any prospect of ever getting a better tenant, is it any wonder that landlords might sometimes express frustration and anger about that?

So let's just pass a law that doesn't even allow landlords to be angry that they have no control over their own building.

All this will do is lead to more Ellis evictions. The tenant lobby never learns. 32 years of ever more punitive LL-TT laws and yet rents are higher than ever. It's not working.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 11:23 am

The late Sue Bierman opined on this from the dais in City Hall, when one or another landlord shills talked about a "life sentence," or "endless demands," or "any prospect of ever getting a better tenant," saying:

"Well some of us DIE, you know!"

Posted by Guest on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 11:53 am


Posted by Ex-Catholic on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 1:28 pm

Another display of ignorance.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 11:32 am

As I recall, much of what she sponsored and passed got thrown out by the courts.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 12:11 pm

are older than most tenants so, for most practical cases it is a life sentence, except where Mister Ellis pays a visit.

And of course don't forget that a RC tenant can "bequeathe" their tenancy to a child or spouse as long as that other person lives there. A landlord cannot prevent another family member moving in so effectively it can be even longer than a life sentence.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 3:25 am

I don't know what you are talking about. My landlord just raised my rent 1.9%.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 2:47 pm

Just crushing, that extra $30 per month.

Posted by Troll II on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 3:10 pm

my pay diddnt go up 30 a month

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 3:58 pm

The building expenses certainly did...and more.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 4:23 pm

Right on N'Tanya fuck the Landlords. With their crazzy demands for return on their investment.
Oh wait they'll get out of the Landlord business and Ellis act the fuck out of SF, and put their money in other investments. As has been happening for over 10 years now. Its called unintended consequences where misinformed activist have caused the decline in housing; keep up the good work.

Posted by chris pratt on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 12:01 pm

gotta make a living. Might as well be this crap.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 1:24 pm

I thought this was the new SFBG businesses strategy of inviting "guest writers" with a chip on their shoulder to write doggeral like this for free.

Why pay writers and deal with pesky things like employees and labor laws and unions and benefits?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 3:26 am

How about working to help more tenants become owners? The low rate of homeownership in SF is unacceptable.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 1:39 pm

I'm pretty sure N'Tanya Lee just cut and pasted various articles about this exact same subject from the past ten years.

And every single one manages to miss the single key element in all of this: rent control and restrictive tenant's rights laws result in ** higher rents **. This isn't a conservative opinion or a greedy developers PR line, this is literally textbook material from Econ 101. It's been studied for decades now.

How many fucking times can this be ignored on here?

Paul Krugman, who is both on the left and a noble prize winner, has written about this extensively. As have countless other academics.

So lame.

Posted by Phillip on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 3:26 pm

Rent control has no direct effect on rents. The community sets the rent price, not a landlord. Whatever the highest rent someone is willing to pay is what the rent will be.

Consider two identical apartment buildings, one with no mortgage and very low property tax becuase it has been in the same family for three generations. The other building was recently purchased at 10 times the cost of the first building and it has a high mortgage payment and much higher property taxes. Guess what? The rents are the same in both buildings even though the costs of one landlord are far below the costs of the other. Why? Because the community sets the rent price, not the landlord.

Need another example? Check out rents in Marin and the peninsula (San Mateo and Santa Clara). You'll find current rents in these three counties are quite similar to San Francisco (taking into account relative amenties) even though San Francisco is the only city in the four counties with rent control. If rent control had any effect on rents we'd see a huge difference in current rent prices yet we don't because - again - the community and not the landlord determines relative rent prices.

Every few months we read the same claptrap argument that sounds so seductive - if we give landlords lower costs and fewer regulations then we'll see lower rent prices. If only. But landlords are profit maximizers and they will charge as much rent as the market will bear. With Mayor Lee (and Mayors Brown and Newsom before him) leading the charge for thousands of more jobs and only a mere trickle of new housing we can be assured that rents will continue to skyrocket until either this current technlogy bubble plays out and tens of thousands of workers leave the area, or until tens of thousands of new housing units are built.

Rent control is not a panacea for all of the economic prroblems facing the bottom 2/3 of all workers, but it keeps many tenants in the city (who would otherwise be forced out due to much higher rent prices) and it keeps tens of millions of dollars in tenants' pockets that are mostly spent in the local economy. Compare this to a situation without rent control where much higher rents would be paid to the largest landlords (REITs, family trusts, investment partnerships) that don't even live in the city. The higher rents they would receive without rent control would forever leave the city and wouldn't be recycled to local businesses.

If you want to hurt the local SF economy by all means work to eliminate rent control. After all, landlords have only seen their rent prices increase by at least 500-750% over the past 30 years while most of the rest of us have seen our standard of living decline, so of course we should want to give them more of our money. Besides, giving more money to landlords follows the most important economic principle in the US, Europe and Asia: Profits and Property are always much more important than people.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 4:31 pm

Rent control does have a detremental effect on housing in SF, to say otherwise is to deny the obvious. Look at the disproportionate number of Ellis Act evictions and as this article tries to point out tenant harassment.

Property owners are mostly small business owners who no longer want to be in the Landlord bussiness because of the egregious pro-tenant political atmosphere in SF.

You can not deny the reality of the Rental Market in SF.

Posted by chris pratt on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 6:52 pm

Why isn't there some type of Means Testing for Rent Control? The laws shouldn't enable well paid employees of Google/Apple/Twitter to hoard apartments.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 8:10 pm
Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 3:27 am

No, NYC exempts apartments renting above a certain price ($2000?) from rent control. Income has nothing to do with it, otherwise landlords would just cherry pick tenants. Rents, as has been pointed out elsewhere are determined not solely by what the landlord would charge, but by what tenants are willing to pay.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 6:21 am

250K pa.

Rents are only determined by supply and demand in a free market. RC is a distorted market. Simple example - if SF excluded rents above $2,000 then many flats would rent for $1,999. And then there would be a charge for lots of "extras".

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 7:32 am

Tax policy distorts housing markets much more than RC does.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 10:19 am

well enough for most people most of the time. RC is excessive government meddling and, as always, it just makes things worse.

As Sambo notes, a LL now has to predict which tenants will not stick around.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 10:30 am

The chart linked below (assuming the link works) shows the CA counties where 20% - 25% of ALL households are paying 50% of their entire income on housing payments. A quick count indicates almost 2/3 of all CA counties meet this dubious distinction.

Higher housing payments only benefit a few groups: landlords, who get a much larger share of a working person's income; the banks that get to sell bigger loans and earn higher fees and interest; the RE industry that gets their approx 7-10% monopoly rip-off on a higher selling price; and the government that receives more property tax on higher home values.

The on-going economic stagnation and malaise in the US, Europe, Japan and other countries is directly related to the hostile housing systems in these countries that treat tenants and homeowners as limitless profit centers for predatory landlords, banks and the government.

Until the government repeals regressive payroll and sales taxes and substitutes the revenue with a 10-30% progressive tax on gross rents and a 75% capital gain tax on all real estate sales/refinancings on any property other than a primary residence, we can expect the landlords, banks, and myriad government agencies will continue to win the economic war against lowly tenants and stretched homeowners.

The government's housing and tax policies are also helping to destroy the Main Street economy, including small businesses, that produce real goods and services and provide jobs and vitality to a local economy. When tenants and homeowners pay an ever larger portion of their income just for a stupid roof over their heads of course they have less income to spend in the local economy.

The private landlord market needs to end. Non-profits are the only alternative for those situations where people are looking for a short-term stay in a particular locale (students, visitors, explorers). An overwhelming percentage of the population consistently says they want their own home, free from a landlord's petty rules and ever-higher rent. Housing speculators and landlords should be strongly discouraged from the housing market with extremely high taxes and intrusive government oversight (monthly inspections, mandatory safety upgades, etc.)

The government currently gives multi-billion dollar subsidies to landlords and housing speculators. In this time of disasterous government debts enslaving future generations, the government shows how little they care for taxpayers when these subsidies continue without even a peep from the politicians. Until the federal, state, local, and foreign governments start caring more about the bottom 2/3 of society instead of the economic elites who own the majority of property, we can expect a continuing deterioration of the overall US and world economy.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 1:30 pm

A pretty picture to illustrate the dysfunctional CA housing system, courtesy of the arch-conservative OC Register (that has never met a proposed sprawl development or any chance to pave over open space and wildlife habitat it didn't support - "Property Uber Alles" is their motto as I recall.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 1:56 pm

to see more of them. The RE market works fin in CA. 2/3 are homeowners and, yes, housing is pricey but then nobody forces you to ive in an expensive place. Hawaii and Monaco are pricey too - problem?

If you lack the fiscal power to live here, then move somewhere more suited to your earnings power. Many of us are doing just fine here, have a nice house, and don't constantly look for someone else to blame or tax.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 9:07 pm

Landlords already cherry pick tenants.

In any case, the laws need to stop enabling apartment hoarding by those who can afford to move up the housing food chain. Implement Means Testing!

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 10:00 am

RC unit, living in abject squalor, just because it's "cheap". No ambition beyond squatting in some dump because she can be in - wow - San Francisco.

People like that add nothing to the city.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 10:13 am

Six paragraphs, not a line of substance.

Paragraph 2 is just... wow. That wasn't an example, that was a blatant display of your misunderstanding of this entire issue. You need to read up, not regurgitate your thoughts and feelings over six paragraphs.

I know we have a long, long way to go with you, but this should help as a primer.

Also, if you're going to make a statement like, "You'll find current rents in these three counties are quite similar to San Francisco (taking into account relative amenties) even though San Francisco is the only city in the four counties with rent control", try to cite that. You know, like I'm doing right here, to show that you're full of shit.

Posted by Phillip on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 8:47 pm

I can't afford to live in La Jolla, Aspen or the Upper East side of Manhattan either. Boo hoo.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 9:26 pm

Of course such clear-eyed commentary will draw criticism from those who lack the intellectual candor to understand the irrefutable nature of your statement.

Particularly amusing is the abusive comment by Phillip citing a real stinker of a dot-com era Paul Krugman column wherein he was evidently laboring under the misconception that San Francisco had vacancy rent control and that developers were worried that the 1978 law would be extended to cover buildings built subsequent to that year.

Krugman's only saving grace is blankly admitting the basis for his commentary: "not that I have any special knowledge about San Francisco's housing market -- in fact, as of yesterday morning I didn't know a thing about it. But it was immediately obvious from the story..."

Phillip's pompously, abusively and angrily delivered "citation" -- from a blog with no date or origin -- isn't germane to your point that San Francisco amenities are the chief cause of high rents, and though the SF Bay Guardian's "spam filter" keeps me from posting a URL to a *much* more worthwhile citation with regard to relative rent values between Bay Area counties, Phillip can find it by Googling ["sonoma county" "bay area" "least affordable"].

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 11:33 pm

1) SF's RC law dates from 1979, not 1978. June 1979, in fact. You're probably getting mixed up with the analagous Prop 13 which was introduced in June 1978 and provided homeowners with similar reliefs to RC if they stay in the same home long-term. Oddly the same liberals who love RC hate Prop 13. Go figure.

2) Some CA cities did have vacancy control, such as Berkeley and Santa Monica. It was probably only a matter of time before SF voted itself the same VC deal, and indeed one such atttempt did make it to the polls, but failed. However, the State nipped that monstrosity in the bud by making VC illegal State-wide in 1996. But for that, we'd surely have seen thousands more Ellis evictions by now.

3) Developers do worry about RC being extended to cover new build, and with good reason. 2-4 unit owner-occupied buildings were originally exempt from RC but later got included. It's not beyond imagination that post-79 construction might at some future point be rent-controlled. Why take that risk when you can build ten miles away with impunity?

In case you haven't noticed, very few new rental buildings are constructed that are not condo, and for exactly that reason. RC kills supply which is why rents are now far higher than they were before RC.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 3:36 am

New rental buildings are subdivided into condo at occupancy time, just in case.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 6:10 am

non-condo rental building. It would be economic suicide.

So RC kills itself by a slow death.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 7:33 am

A very, very slow death. There are 330,000 housing units in SF. 2/3 are rental. Of those 200K or so rental units, 90% of them were built prior to 1979 and are subject to rent control.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 9:33 am

through a combination of TIC's and condo's, natural turnover, owner occupancy, short-term rentals and BnB's, and so on.

And not all of them need to go away. The tipping point will be when there are enough non-RC units to change the result of elections. Once most SF'ers don't care about RC because they don't/can't benefit from it, it will just get voted out as has happened in a number of other cities.

RC was introduced in NYC as a temporary WW2 measure. It was never designed for long-term housing but only to prevent short-term gouging. Long-term, it increases rents as we have seen, because it kills supply.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 9:53 am

your own home, subject to the whim of your landlord like in medieval times.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 9:57 am

If you don't pay the cost, you're out.

But a LL is always happy to keep a tenant for life, as long as he can get a decent return. It's only the market distortion that causes LL's to use every means to get rid of a tenant.

Medieval? Give me a break.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 10:11 am

It figures that with such a lame attempt at refuting the points made earlier, you'd lead off citing a quibble about a date. Sure, I "must be confused" -- such is the vacuous rhetoric used by the petty, selfish, and snide against those who attempt to elucidate truth.

Sorry, but you did say I made "several" errors, and I don't recall stating that no California cities ever had vacancy rent control. You must have hallucinated that one. In fact, the false portrayal of SF's law as "vacancy control" is a familiar meme by those who favor the interests of rich landholders who'd much prefer if they'd be able to charge whatever the market will bear at every opportunity.*

Those landowners -- who you represent as victims -- have what is basically a license to print money and the *strengthened* rent control law which went into effect in 1980 simply limits their rapacious behavior; and the law no doubt has had a great effect in preserving San Francisco's unique character.

Your assessment in regard to what type of buildings are constructed under the law is spurious in incompetent. Even you must know that many other factors have far greater impact on such decisions by developers.

Two and four unit apartment buildings were *always* covered under the law. The change in 1994 was to remove the exemption for owner-occupied buildings.

*The mention of Prop 13 is similar in nature. By far the most salient criticism of Prop 13 is that it has been interpreted to apply to corporate real estate. Those shills for moneyed interests such as yourself *always* attempt to conflate removing that aspect from the law as being aimed at throwing grandma and grandpa out of their homes.

You are a liar and a shill.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 8:32 am

No Rent Control does not preserve San Francisco's unique character.

When a unit does become available the landlord will increase the rent to the market rate, and will try and rent it to a tenant who will not become protected any time soon. Preferably a tenant who will move out in a year or two like a PHD student or a young professional who will move up in his/her career.

So over the years as the elderly and families have moved away from SF; these tenants have been replaced by younger professionals.

I would think Rent control is one of the causes of why SF is losing its diversity.

Posted by chris pratt on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 9:21 am

1) No new rental housing is constructed except for condo's, which are mostly exempt from RC by State law. This despite the fact that RC supposedly exempts new build anyway!

2) A LL will only invest the absolute minimum in repairs and upgrades, so that "unique" and "historic" housing stock is actually deteriorating, unless of course it's owner-occupied

3) A LL will at any opportunity remove a unit from the rental market via Ellis, TIC's, condo conversion, merges, demolitions, or even just leaving it vacant.

4) There is a boom in LL's renting out units overnight, as B&B's, to visiting foreigners and academics who you know will leave, and for rentals under 30 days which aren't covered by RC

5) Because there is no new build of rentals and because LL's take out rental units at every opportunity, the amount of rental housing in SF continues to decline even as demand increases. So rent control drives up rents and encourages evictions - the very opposite of what was intended.

6) It causes LL's and TT's to be at perpetual war rather than like in other cities where landlrods treat tenants as customers to be courted and nurtured.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 9:39 am

Otherwise, landlords -- who famously will *refuse* to issue a one-year or other-term lease -- might raise the rent on the second month of a tenancy. That's just the kind of libertarian dystopia you'd like and that had been the scheme during the dot-com bs years, there would have been a wholesale flushing of the city's populace.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 3:52 pm

that flushing couldn't have carried you out through the sewer lines with it.

Posted by Troll II on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 9:06 pm

of hangers-on, misfits and hoarders. And in fact one reason this city has gotten better in the last 15 years or so has been the influx of wealthier more educated people, while the low-performers and welfare-parasites have relocated to cheaper towns.

The real problem is the smalltown nature of the Bay Area. Logically, poorer people would simply locate to Oakland or Richmond if this were any other megalopolis. But we see ourselves as 50 different towns rather than one big area, so people cling to this idea that they "have to be" in SF even though they lack the fiscal power to remain here.

Repeat after me - not everyone can afford to live in SF.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 9:39 pm

So guess how long my typical tenant stays?

More and more LL's are doing BnB or letting to foreign visitors. Who can blame them?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 9:09 pm

I said I understood why you had confused the date for RC with the date for Prop 13. Both reward those who sit tight and punish those who move around. Odd how you support one and oppose the other.

You were the one who raised vacancy control and actually that's a great example of how RC hurts tenants. It was VC that led directly to both the Costa-Hawkins Act and the Ellis Act, both of which have gutted the worst aspects of RC.

You berate the use of "meme's" and then trot out "rapacious landowners" as if the average owner of a 2-unit in SF is by any stretch wealthy.

And nobody is building new non-condo buildings for rental in SF despite the fact that RC doesn't apply. Ever wondered why that is?

I've condo-converted two rental buildings because it is the only logical option given rent control That's 6 unit's of rental housing gone forever because of RC. Way to go.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 9:25 am

Must be nice to have the means and character to be a modern day slaver. Guess that goes hand in hand with mendacity in justifying your "lamentable" position; for instance, your claim that *I* brought up vacancy control when in fact YOUR CITATION of a deeply flawed Paul Krugman column is what brought the subject up.

Likewise *YOUR* contriving to bring up Prop 13, my critique of which you either do not understand or are willfully mischaracterizing.

"And nobody is building new non-condo buildings for rental in SF despite the fact that RC doesn't apply. Ever wondered why that is?"

Haven't spent much time wondering, fucker. I've always figured it's because of the way the housing market was in the last decade with pie-in-the-sky mortgage chicanery.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 9:54 am

The reason nobody builds non-condo rentals in Sf even though RC doesn't even apply to them is that builders, developers and owners do not trust the government not to change the rules.

Far easier, less risky and more profitable to build ten miles away. So SF gets starved of new-build rentals and rents go up, up, up.

Oh, and no renter is a slave. Every one of my tenants was free to leave at any time. Indeed, I encouraged it. Ambition often comes along with mobility.

Oh, and it wasn't me who cited Krugman but it doesn't surprise me that even he doesn't believe that RC works.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 10:07 am

Have I said vacancy control works? No. Did Krugman say non-vacancy rent control doesn't work? No.

There's no argument except I'd tell him he had his head up his ass when he intimated that San Francisco had vacancy rent control.

There a few decent landlords in the world who on occasion fall victim to unscrupulous tentants -- and SLEWS AND SLEWS of self-serving, vicious, power- and money- hungry scumbags which compel society to rein in their behavior with such legislation as rent control.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 1:54 pm

good. Of course, I'll bet you don't even know any landlords except for your own anyway.

And where landlords are bad, it is because they are driven to it by laws like this. 99% of the United States doesn't not have rent control and there the landlord-tenant relationship is much better.

It is government interference, as always, that destroys relationships, encourages bad behavior on both sides, and of course drives up rents by discouraging supply.

'Twas ever so.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 10:41 pm