I've got a minor in economics, but I'm also not a rabid capitalist, so I do give lots of thought on both sides of any economic argument.
Unless it's public housing (which for the record I do support, though I think that in practice it should be at the margins in most jurisdictions), landlords shouldn't be part of the social safety net (unless they have some extra tax advantage in exchange - fun fact is that as much as hospitals whine about the costs of having to treat everybody in the ER regardless of ability to pay, they actually have a very generous tax benefit for it). Having temporary unemployment/hardship vouchers up to some max is one thing, but if you can't pay after a certain amount of time you shouldn't be in private housing. Maybe 60 days is too soon, but in many jurisdictions it can be far, far longer. I am not at all opposed to a due process in withholding rent if the landlord side of the contract is not being upheld, my example was for "I can't or won't pay for some non-housing reasons".
I pretty much agree with everything you said about rent controls, which is why I said "mixed feelings". California, arguably the greatest state in the union, is ungovernable due to the fact that the government literally can't govern when it comes to taxation (and even mandated spending). If there is a healthy market where supply and demand can be balanced, there should be no need for it.
Oh, I very much am. But I'm also keenly aware of the need for strong, well-enforced regulation in order to maintain functional markets so that we continue to have a strong capitalist system. The US is sorely lacking in the "strong, well-enforced regulation" department, so...
> ...landlords shouldn't be part of the social safety net...
This is a distinction that's not at all clear.
In nearly all jurisdictions, landlords give up very many of their property rights when they rent it out for folks to live in. For example, they are expected to meet basic habitability requirements (and cannot fob responsibility for this off to their tenants), and are very often barred from wandering into their property whenever they feel like.
Some landlords out there would argue pretty strenuously that the raft of restrictions they're burdened with means that they already are part of the social safety net.
I would argue that providing rental housing to people who can't afford to buy in the area is totally being part of the social safety net.
> ...unless they have some extra tax advantage in exchange...
Man, landlords (especially ones in "hot" areas) get so many financial advantages. I'm disinterested in giving them more.
> ...if you can't pay after a certain amount of time you shouldn't be in private housing.
Perhaps this is what you meant by "vouchers", but what if if The State covers the missing part of the tenant's financial obligations to their landlord? If the tenant's fallen on hard times (but is otherwise a fine tenant), why should the landlord care where the money comes from? The problem with "Just go live in public housing" is that in so many places, public housing just doesn't exist.
I think we mostly agree, but are debating over finer details (which is fine, I do enjoy lively discussions like that).
The TL;DR is of course there are edge cases for everything. There are reasons that are perfectly "fine" for rent being late, etc. I could have had a personal emergency. My bank could have had computer problems, etc. There are also reasons it can take time for a landlord to fix something. I may as a tenant willingly prioritize cheaper rent, knowing that my plumbing issue may take longer to fix as a wait for a cheaper plumber not on call 24x7 can take longer.
There are deadbeat landlords and there are deadbeat tenants. IMHO, whatever the law dictates should make it suck to be either. If a rule needs to pick a side, it should probably tilt to the tenant as a landlord should otherwise know what they're getting into with risks, etc.
> In nearly all jurisdictions, landlords give up very many of their property rights when they rent it out for folks to live in. For example, they are expected to meet basic habitability requirements (and cannot fob responsibility for this off to their tenants), and are very often barred from wandering into their property whenever they feel like.
This is not true everywhere. In many parts of Europe, the tenant is responsible for almost everything after it exits a wall, including in cabinets, a good chunk of plumbing, utilities, and appliances (this is particularly true in Switzerland and Germany - there are many stories of perplexed foreigners moving into apartments they saw that was still being used by the previous tenants and seeing striped down kitchens, etc).
> Some landlords out there would argue pretty strenuously that the raft of restrictions they're burdened with means that they already are part of the social safety net.
This is true. Like many people, I've lived in sub-standard housing in my student days. Hilariously, I look fondly on that era of my life because I knew it was temporary and of course we prioritized alcohol, fun, etc.
There's a very real problem that if one removes "rundown" housing that it usually just removes the cheaper rung of the ladder, making it harder for poor people to live anywhere. Some jurisdictions provide specific programs (vouchers, tax advantages, etc) for providing "low-income" housing to cover this. Some, in particular "champagne socialist" groups, use it to push out undesirables.
> I would argue that providing rental housing to people who can't afford to buy in the area is totally being part of the social safety net.
Then I think landlords should totally get supports, either directly or indirectly. I just don't think a rental unit that's geared to professinals, etc should be part of that.
> Man, landlords (especially ones in "hot" areas) get so many financial advantages. I'm disinterested in giving them more.
I agree with what you're saying. Any new policies should be holistic and take full stock of what rules are already present and replace a lot of bad ones.
> Perhaps this is what you meant by "vouchers", but what if if The State covers the missing part of the tenant's financial obligations to their landlord? If the tenant's fallen on hard times (but is otherwise a fine tenant), why should the landlord care where the money comes from? The problem with "Just go live in public housing" is that in so many places, public housing just doesn't exist.
I meant vouchers or public housing as an example of a long term policy, I don't think it should be a short term solution to sudden rent issues. Taken holistically, temp housing support could happen via unemployment benefits that could take rent into consideration (I'm assuming there's also a good reason the tenant doesn't have savings or can't move in with relatives, etc). The issue is that employment insurance, housing, welfare, etc are often the responsibility of different levels of government, making holistic policies more difficult.
Unless it's public housing (which for the record I do support, though I think that in practice it should be at the margins in most jurisdictions), landlords shouldn't be part of the social safety net (unless they have some extra tax advantage in exchange - fun fact is that as much as hospitals whine about the costs of having to treat everybody in the ER regardless of ability to pay, they actually have a very generous tax benefit for it). Having temporary unemployment/hardship vouchers up to some max is one thing, but if you can't pay after a certain amount of time you shouldn't be in private housing. Maybe 60 days is too soon, but in many jurisdictions it can be far, far longer. I am not at all opposed to a due process in withholding rent if the landlord side of the contract is not being upheld, my example was for "I can't or won't pay for some non-housing reasons".
I pretty much agree with everything you said about rent controls, which is why I said "mixed feelings". California, arguably the greatest state in the union, is ungovernable due to the fact that the government literally can't govern when it comes to taxation (and even mandated spending). If there is a healthy market where supply and demand can be balanced, there should be no need for it.