Hey, there! Log in / Register
Large landlords, tenant advocates might be able to reach compromise on tenant-protection law
By adamg on Mon, 03/14/2016 - 6:46pm
But at a City Council hearing today, a leader of a small-landlord group vowed war against a proposed "just cause eviction" law that would require landlords to notify tenants why they're being evicted - and to file copies with the city.
Proponents of the measure, who including City Life/La Vida Urbana and Greater Boston Legal Services, say the measure would help protect tenants from large-scale "cleanouts" by out-of-town investors looking to cash in on Boston's development boom, who they say take advantage of the fact that many tenants don't know their rights, including court hearings on any proposed evictions.
"Every day that goes by, we see more people coming into our organization," City Life Executive Director Lisa Owens Pinto said. "They're scared and they didn't know what to do."
Sheila Dillon, head of the city's Department of Neighborhood Development, took no position on the proposals, which she hadn't seen, but said her office is dealing with growing numbers of tenants who get 14-day or 30-day eviction notices and think they have to pack up and leave immediately, when, in fact, they have the right to a hearing in Housing Court that could keep them in their homes far longer. By July 1, she said, the city's new Office of Housing Stability should be fully operational to help tenants with legal issues.
At the hearing, large landlords at first painted an apocalyptic future for Boston should the measure pass as proposed - with both notification and a requirement for mediation for large rent increases.
Sarah Matthewson, vice president at AvalonBay, which has a number of buildings in the Boston area, said armed drug dealers and prostitutes would use the law to fight eviction and that no sane developer would think of investing in the sort of affordable housing Boston needs.
Gilbert Winn, who specializes in affordable-housing development in Boston, didn't mention explosives-hoarding drug dealers, but said the costs of the measure would make development so expensive in Boston that the only companies that could afford to build and maintain buildings in Boston would be the very large out-of-town companies the measure was meant to protect tenants against.
But then backers of the just-cause measure said they would drop the rent-increase mediation requirement.
On hearing that, Winn said that the proposal now sounded more like an attempt to educate tenants on their legal rights, and that that is something he could get behind. City Council President Michelle Wu jumped in to call for further discussions on a measure both sides could live with.
But Skip Schloming, executive director of the Small Property Owners Association, and his wife Lenore, the group's president, said screw that, because no matter how it's painted, the measure is just an attempt to bring back rent control. Requiring landlords to notify both tenants and the city of reasons for eviction, including rent increases, would give tenant activitsts a way to stir up trouble, in the form of rent strikes and other measures that would either force small landlords to hemorrhage money or just give up and only increase rents at "very modest" rates. And once that happens, you can kiss small rental units in Boston good-bye, Lenore Schloming said.
Skip Schloming said the city could solve its affordable-housing crisis by letting homeowners build apartments in "attics, basements and backyards," which he said they could rent out at affordable rates because their costs would be lower - since they already have all the utilities hooked up.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
What if the tenant is
What if the tenant is undocumented? Obvious signs of undocumented tenants is when they have towels used as curtains for their windows.
I can count many homes in East Boston, homeowners even hide and house the undocumented in their-illegal basements,
Students are undocumented?
Students are undocumented? Live and learn.
Students face the same abuse
Students face the same abuse and discrimination as illegal aliens in housing. Landlords know they can get away with unsafe conditions, code violations, illegal attic or basement units, nonexistent maintenance, illegal fees/withholding of deposits, and so on because that class of tenant is highly unlikely to seek assistance from the authorities. Furthermore that city actively encourages discrimination against students which only adds to exploitation by slumlords.
So if a student has been
So if a student has been living at an apartment on Marlborough street for 2 years and all of a sudden owner of building sells the property and decides to kick the student out, this law will protect the tenant even though the owner of building decides to call up his or her Attorneys because the Marlborough street building owner has deep pockets and can fight to have the student evicted. Does this apply in exclusive areas of Boston like the back bay.
the good thing
is that they have the right to safe housing just like anyone else and are able to organize around affordable and fairly priced housing as well.
and precisely undocumented residents need more education on tenant rights. too many shady slumlords take advantage of them. the notion that being undocumented means you have no recourse before the law on housing and labor rights is pervasive, unfortunately.
as for the towels, i mean that's kind of a weird assumption to make.. sometimes they're cheaper, you know? no matter who you are. I've used sheets on many occasions. so please, what can you say about my immigration status?
Sheets...
Years ago I had a tenant that taped sheets to the actual window frames with UPS quality packing tape.
Goodbye paint.
A thing I haven't seen touched upon here is the solution to a bad tenant bleeding you dry by not paying rent and using every trick in the book to drag out the eviction process for a year. The current law says a judge 'may' order rent escrow by the tenant. If that one word was 'shall' instead of 'may', that would put a stop to a lot of the nastier shenanigans that a 'professional' bad tenant can pull.
That way, an honest tenant will still be paying rent, but to an escrow account that can be distributed when the dust settles and a crook will have no incentive to pull the kind of tricks that can bleed a small landlord dry.
Nice housing
Is a privilege, not a right. True, no one deserves to die in the streets, which is why we have homeless shelters (and until more recently plenty of public housing in cheaper parts of large cities, where it was cheap enough to build to actually meet the demand) but no one deserves a Ritz penthouse either. For better or for worse you get what you pay for, and what you pay is dictated by supply and demand. Those who don't like the idea are more than welcome to book a one-way flight to North Korea.
I like your strawman
Does he have a name?
I didn't say "nice housing is a right." I said safe housing is.
But you seem to think that poor people have two options: live in a homeless shelter (which is like saying emergency rooms are viable primary health care centers), or if they don't like it, go to North Korea forever.
Capitalism, friends. It works!
or other people have figured
or other people have figured
or other people have figured out that towels happen to function effectively as curtains when they've got much better things to spend their money on
Towels? Really??
You must be a troll because that is such a asinine thing to say.
Aside from the hilariously
Aside from the hilariously preposterous claim that use of towels for curtains signifies anything, whether a tenant is documented or not is totally irrelevant to the issue. Landlords are not required to ask if a renter is documented. I'm not even certain they have the ability to legally check documentation of people who apply in the same way employers do. And wait, what else now, illegal basements !? Of homeowners ? Hiding undocumented people in the basements of the homes they OWN ? Yeah.
Socialize Property Already
Skip Schloming sounds like he would get along swimmingly with Anna Belokurova.
Wonder what Schloming's
Wonder what Schloming's properties look like--anyone know? wasn't on assessing website.
As a small landlord (owner-occupied 4 famlly) I am in favor of this. There are bad actors on both sides, but landlords hold more power believe it or not. Was reminded of this when a friend suddenly moved to Weymouth--was harassed by landlord of the apt she has lived in for many years.
Skippy
Was one of the people who got rent control abolished in the city.
Sigh
Please don't turn Boston into San Francisco. Cities that short circuit market economics end up with bimodal rent distributions. When you constrict supply, prices in the unregulated economy rise. This is disastrous for all but the very rich and a small number of the very poor who have been lucky enough to land subsidized housing.
If we want to get serious about housing, there are plenty of affordable options:
My understanding is that this
My understanding is that this just cause eviction ordinance is less stringent than the one in San Francisco. It seems to me that having "landlords...notify both tenants and the city of reasons for eviction" isn't constricting supply; just fair. While not a cure-all (we definitely need to get serious about housing) it seems to me a step in the right direction.
Enlighten us
Please tell us about another rapidly growing city that is building to meet demand and that has not resulted in a bimodal rent distribution. Where is that city that has followed the strategies of all these free marketeers and has actually met demand by building straight up and maximizing every square inch so that everyone has housing they can afford? I would like to see one of these miracle places where the market has solved all housing problems.
(If I had to guess, any city that releases the Kraken of free-market builders probably does not believe in investing in public transit, so I'm assuming there may be a traffic issue in this mythical land.)
Chicago?
Charlotte? Raleigh?
maybe...
For Charlotte (298 sq mi) and Raleigh (144 sq mi), I'm not sure there's much of a comparison with Boston (49 sq mi) as the size of the areas are so different. Chicago, likewise is much larger - 234 sq mi - but has got so many damn people that its population density is comparable to Boston. I don't know much about Chicago's housing policies, so maybe they have some lessons to learn there. Can anyone else speak to that?
Chicago housing prices
Their salaries are comparable to Boston, yet you can get a one bedroom in their Trump Tower for around half mil - any other questions?
Sideways As Well As Upwards Sprawl
And in Chicago, that is not a bad thing. It leads to allowing one to find "luxury" tower units just outside the Loop [downtown proper] for under $200,000.
Straw man
I didn't say that it's a magic cure all; if you're looking for one you'll go through life disappointed. My point is that many policies the purport to help the poor often times help a limited number of people to the detriment of others. There are economically coherent things we can do to make our cities better for more people.
For example, if we had regional rather than local quotas for affordable housing, we could build more units in lower cost areas. Do you want one affordable unit in a Financial District high rise or five in Medford? There's a 10+ year wait for Section 8 housing in Boston. Great if you can get a voucher, but you're screwed otherwise.
pardon my chaff
I agree with your point. The problem you're pointing out is a tough one to solve. And yet we keep trying to solve it with some sort of market measures even though we know how the rules of the market will play out on this -- stick the poor people into undesirable locales until such time as the desirable areas fill up and then they become desirable because they're nearby and cheap - push out the poor, spiff up , sell and repeat. If we continue to look for solutions within a system that does not allow it we'll never solve the problem.
It's sad that saying this in this country is like admitting you're a pedophile, but for the good of the environment and society it makes sense to think about taking housing out of the commodities market. >gasp< If you consider housing to be a human right (which some people do not, I understand) then leaving the provision of housing to the rules of the market is just never going to work. I don't think totally state-controlled housing is an option and would rather stay where we're at than have that, but we need to start considering measures that don't rely on the source of the problem to find the solution. And it can't just change over night. There needs to be some sort of planned out transition to not screw over people and provoke reactionaries, but we got currently is going to convert Boston n'hoods into the bland malls that people are escaping by moving here in the first place. (And in "Dawn of the Dead" fashion (the original movie, not the remake) the malls will become refuges for the people driven out of the formerly decaying urban cores.)
Well
If you're poor and you don't like the fact that you keep getting pushed further and further from where you'd like to live, what should you do? What should the government do?
If you're poor and you like it clap your hands
Just because you can, in theory, get less poor does not mean you can, in reality, get less poor. You have two options that would solve the problem, without [very] heavy handed government: Subsidize Wages or Subsidize Housing. Better still is to have a heavy handed government that fixes wage inequality by fiat, and property costs as well. Fascism is only bad when the fascists are conservative.
If every single person in
If every single person in Boston were suddenly paid a living wage and the city enacted a law fixing all rents at $2/square foot we would STILL have a huge housing shortage. Our problem isn't the limitations of market economics, it's our unending desire to have short buildings ("but the shadows!"), with huge yards ("you're building a canyon!"), and infinite parking ("we have a parking crisis!").
Budget problems
The thing is that a lot of the city's ongoing budgetary issues aren't going away so more real estate taxes are the only realistic way forward. If we're going to pay for our obligations to teachers, cops, firemen, etc... we need more and more money. We can't raise the tax rate so converting an Eastie triple decker from one tenement into three condos each worth $400000 is the best option.
Best meaning easiest and more politically viable. I'm putting aside the issue of what is 'right' or who has the 'right' to stay in a neighborhood, just looking at the economic forces at work. As mentioned upthread regional affordable housing would be a great step for the region but will never fly due to the power and influence of the rich towns around the city. Thanks for your homeless though Brookline!
Thanks
Thank you for your willingness to have a substantive discussion on the issue. Most of the time these just turn into shouting matches.
It isn't inconsistent to believe that shelter is a right, while at the same time believing that people don't have a right to some particular piece of property. The very rich tend to end up in the best housing and from there on down people occupy property of diminishing quality. When you remove a unit from the market, someone gets knocked off the end. So, what's fair and what should we do about it? Property isn't quite like oil where the price is set by the last unit to clear the market, but a lot of it follows vacancy rates.
Most of the calls I see for justice in housing focus on big-A Affordable housing, rather than housing affordability. I believe this situation is particularly unjust for people who are poor, but not lucky enough to land Affordable housing. Why should we have more sympathy for the person who is getting forced out of the city at $9 an hour than the person who's getting forced out at $20? It's a lousy situation for the both of them and I think we only make matters worse through market manipulation.
In my estimation, the best solution is to grow the pie. To expand on my first comment, here's one suggestion: There's a limit to tolerable commutes. Personal cars snarl the roads, increase commute times and reduce the supply of desirable housing. To provide some concrete numbers, at peak commute times it takes the #1 bus 40 minutes to do a run. Without traffic, that same run takes about half the time. Bus lanes on arterial roads could significantly increase the market.
I don't expect things to change for the better. Still, I hope we can continue to have an honest discussion about our priorities as a society and how we can actually bring about beneficial change rather than fiddling with optics.
I own, manage, and live in, a
I own, manage, and live in, a triple-decker in East Boston that's been in my family for 85 years.
Every other week, over the past year, I've received a letter or call asking me if I'm interested in selling my house for cash. And none of these cards or calls have been from local realtors. Today's shell-company agent/LLC tells me they "represent a LARGE network of qualified, cash buyers who are waiting for their chance to enter the East Boston market."
Those "cash buyers" are the investors, many from outside the US, who are flooding East Boston, gobbling up properties, and evicting people left, right, and center.
I know it's legal and I know it's supply and demand in action.
It's also decimating many families in this neighborhood, working families who for years have paid their rent in full and on time, families who are necessary for a cohesive and thriving social and economic urban structure.
But this kind of investor doesn't give a rat's ass about the quality of life of the people in this city. They care about top dollar and that third vacation home.
Good for the supporters of this just cause eviction ordinance. I would've supported it with the mediation requirement. But for Skip Schloming and his SPOA to continue to oppose it, and advocate that these "cash buyers" can keep to the shadows while they extract every dollar they can from our neighbors, is pure intransigence.
SPOA is
all about the freedom to profit, at the expense of neighborhood stability.
Very cute
It's always nice to inherit a triple-decker, but how would you feel if you paid a cool three quarter mil for it and some schmuck suddenly told you that you can't raise the rent by more than a few dollars per year regardless of what the broader market looks like, and you can only evict your problem tenants after a year-long court battle where the deck is definitely not stacked in your favor? I bet those tears would dry up pretty quickly, wouldn't they?
dude, you SHOULDN'T be
dude, you SHOULDN'T be allowed to raise the rent on an apartment by $300 or more per year
if that was your business model when you bought the property I hope you fail miserably so the property ownership can revert to other more responsible members of our community
jeesh
I can raise the rent in my
I can raise the rent in my apartments as the market dictates. I don't need you, the city or some tenant advocacy group telling me otherwise. Just like everything else, let the market dictate the cost of a product.
jeesh
Why SHOULDN'T I be able to charge what I want for someone to live in MY property?
Jeesh
Perhaps you might want to stop spending all your money on those made-on-100-year-old-looms-straight-from-japan skinny jeans, special edition chucks, mustache wax and assata taught me hoodies, that way you might be able to pay the rent those evil landlords are charging now that daddy has finally cut you off 15 years after you graduated with that early 18th century Zimbabwean art history degree. Oh, and getting a real job instead of harassing random people while wearing a funny-colored vest might be helpful as well.
Actually...I bought the house
Actually...I bought the house for a bit over $450k from an extended family member. A year-long court battle would suck. So far, thankfully, we've only had one tenant incident where police were involved (it was a room-mate situation that got resolved). We keep the rent affordable and I think that helps retain good tenants- one's been here 12 years and the other floor's folks about 6. And I'm not interested in raising the rent just because the broader market can bear it. I'd rather live in a house, and a neighborhood, where I know and get along with my neighbors.
That's being a fair landlord.
That's being a fair landlord. The state or country should reduce those kinds of investments, other countries do that.
And that's your choice
What if the city/state then told you that you must raise your rent 3% a year and after 3 years, you must evict your current tenant and allow someone else the opportunity to live in your property? Your choice as a landlord was for stability over maximizing profit. Others may try and maximize profit and have constant turnover, and they have to deal with the issues that come with that choice.
Except that I suspect this is
Except that I suspect this is why the large companies are for the revised proposal, and the small-timers are still against it... Making it more difficult for small-time owners to handle their own property makes them easy prey for the large companies and foreign investors, which have legal teams to take care of these things quietly and don't have to fuss themselves with the increasingly complicated and time-consuming aspects of property management.
Driving small-scale owners out of the market is a big win for the behemoths. Meantime I still can't get a straight answer about how I can move back into my own home if I choose to rent it out during a temporary stay outside the city (thus designating me an absentee landlord, subject to all the same restrictions as >5-unit corporate landlords). I'd be better off selling, right? And conveniently, I have a stack of those same letters to refer to...
Watch those offer letters pour in even faster after this thing passes.
Putting limits on ownership
Putting limits on ownership from that kind if investor would help with some of this.
FPEB is right, it's the
FPEB is right, it's the Boston Globe, it's Boston Magazine it's the local online Real Estate blogs an so on and so on that fuel the fire saying that Easties the next this, Easties the next that hurry up and buy property before prices go up, so you know what happens next, you have millionaires from Brookline that have rental properties all over Boston they come here to Eastie they go to these foreclosed auctions at the time when the market was slow , and they became the winning bidders ,they pull up in their $100k 7 series BMW and now they thought they can rent them out to students, little does anyone know they have the for rent signs up on the window, a few months go by, luckily they get tenants Spanish speaking hardworking law abiding tenants , all of a sudden market becomes strong a year or two later tenant is still there and next thing you know homeowner places house on market for quardruple the price, forcing the tenant out onto the street. This is why you have protesting going on in Eastie about rent control, living in Eastie all my life, I have never received a single letter from a Real Estate agent up until a few years ago, letters have been coming in by the dozens Cash buyers the LLCs , most of the return addresses are from Affluent towns like Brookline, Newton, Watertown they can't fool me!!! Even my Spanish neighbors receive these types of letters, they too can't believe these money hungry scavengers!!
Why now? How come these
Why now? How come these people from Brookline, Newton Watertown Natick didn't buy houses in East Boston 35 years ago when 3 family houses were selling for $60k , was it because East Boston was a low standard quality neighborhood back then. Why invest in Eastie now,?? Lol
FPEB Response
Hi FPEB,
What I find to be the biggest issue with this just cause eviction proposal is that if you take the time to read the actual proposal, what they are meaning to do is essentially create lifetime leases where they give only a few exceptions for when a lease does not have to be renewed being for non payment of rent or repeated reckless behavior concerning the property after giving a warning to the tenant.
You may disagree but I see a lease as a binding contractual agreement for the period defined within the lease. Prevalent are leases that exist either on a month to month basis or for a year. I completely agree that these leases should be honored for the time period that both parties agreed on. However, I do not agree that a landlord should be forced to renew a lease at the end of the date that was initially mutually agreed on by signing into a lease agreement.
What this just cause would do would essentially get rid of lease end dates as an owner would not be able to choose not to renew a tenant once the year is up. Why should an owner be bound by a contractual agreement where only the tenant has the real choice in when to end this agreement by moving out?
The whole idea of just cause eviction is not meant to require a landlord give a reason to end the lease before the lease is over, as in what I would consider a true need for eviction, but rather this is an attempt to disallow an owner to choose not to renew but instead hold the tenant responsible to vacate the building on the date that was put forward in the lease agreement.
A lease should only extend if both the owner and tenant mutually choose to do so.
There should never be an assumption or requirement that a lease be extended indefinitely for huge swaths of people simply because the government, that holds no ownership in a property so long as the property taxes are paid on time, would like to try to maintain affordable housing on the backs of landlords that face constant increases in taxes, flood insurance depending on where you live in East Boston and other parts of the city, labor charges that are skyrocketing with the average plumber being near $80 if not to $100 per hour.
since you read it
...can you please state where in the proposed ordinance/legislation whatever it is at this point where it says or implicates that contract law no longer exists in MA?
Where does it say that it wants to require "that a lease be extended indefinitely for huge swaths of people"?
If the original draft of this thing was in effect (and it has now been watered down) what would happen is that you as the landlord would go before your tenants and say "your lease is up and I want you out." You can then cross your arms and shake your head to their complaints. The process continues on as it already does by law (which in some cases can drag on for a long time and be a real pain in the ass for the landlord AND not an enjoyable experience for the tenant as well), and there you go.
Just Cause Eviction doesn't affect your existing ability to raise the rent by whatever you want. It doesn't affect your existing ability to not renew a lease and push tenants out. And hell, if you don't own more than ten units (I think that's the number - units not properties) and live outside of Boston, then it doesn't even pertain to you AT ALL. Nothing changes.
How this all gets inflated into the Red Scare of 2016 is just laughable. Many people advocating for JCE would love to see rent control come back but I don't think you could find two of them to rub together who realistically believe that this will EVER happen. In the land of scary monsters and straight-up lies presented as facts at City Council hearings, no one truly believes that things like rational thought carries the day. Just the discussion of disseminating information about peoples' rights to people was enough to get one of those landlords (an immigrant no less) to flip out. (Don't tell them about their rights!!!) The whole situation is just ridiculous. Owning property is a right. Operating a business (which is what being a landlord is) is a regulated endeavor. And JCE doesn't actually change anything with these regulations outside of making a landlord (of a certain size of operations) tell the tenants to their faces that s/he is throwing them out or not renewing their leases or jacking their rents by whatever amount s/he feels like. If people can't deal with that they probably shouldn't be landlords.
John. <link to proposed legislation as of september.
This includes the mediation board that has been taken out but as far as I know the rest would stand.
Please read the proposal. This is not meant to just give notice to city to reach out to renters. Activists try to make the discussion around the idea of evictions when the reality is that if you are in a year long lease you are bound by it just as if you are in middle of agreed upon 30 day term.
Tenants should consider this lease to be the end date. They should plan to move the last day of lease unless an agreement is reached.
What this just cause is really meant is as needing a reason not to extend a lease not cut a lease short which is never what activists or owners are discussing. The law already bounds an owner to agreed on contractual lease so why should this even be a discussion unless the acitivists were trying to change this.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/291576795/Boston-Just-Cause-Ordinance-Draft-Se...
Josh. I read it again.
I just read through it again and no where does it change any of the existing procedures in terms of housing court and throwing people out because the lease is up and you want them out. Please cite where in there you see language that impinges on your rights as a property owner or violates the holy sanctity of contract law, may peace and glory be upon it.
[clarification: the copy you cited states that it doesn't apply to Boston residents who own 4 or less units - assuming they're living in one of them. I've heard higher numbers recently, so I'll have to find out if they've upped that number in an effort to make this more palatable.]
And given that they've dumped the mediation process, the whole thing amounts to nothing more than a wimpy effort at notification of intent to evict and/or notification of end of lease contract with no intent to renew. This thing has fewer teeth than Brooksby Village during a fixodent shortage. The best thing to happen to large corporate real estate investment interests and absentee landlords are the hysterical headless chicken SPOA people spewing blood all over the Council chambers and screaming about the end of days. Their grasp of facts is non-existent, their use of fear-mongering reprehensible and their appeal to the poor put-upon small businessman is made to order.
None of this will apply to the majority of these folks. The people to which it will apply are sitting there quietly smiling. They don't even have to pay these people to do the work for them. Good deal for them.
The more obvious solution
would be requiring landlords to cite the law on their eviction notice.
EVICTION NOTICE (blahblahblah) Under (law cited) you are entitled to (short description of legal process and rights) For more information, contact (Office with contact information.)
Minor change in procedure, different result.
Sorry kids
You rent is going up by $500 next year - gotta price in all that potential foot-dragging and court drama bullshit this will bring. Don't like it? Out you go as soon as your lease is up! But just so you know, everyone and their grandma will do the same, so you might as well just sign here and cough up that extra six grand. And by all means, advocate for more bullshit pro-deadbeat laws so I can jack your rent another $500 the year after.
humorous testimony
Watched about an hour and a half of the proceedings on-line -- treats a plenty! I have to admit I did feel for some of the small landlords. They seemed very beleaguered and scared. There are many very decent renters out there and there are some scumbags -- same with landlords. So no reason to go off hating on small landlords, but some of them really were amusing to hear.
Like the woman who admirably immigrated to this country, worked hard bought a property and was renting it out when she got into mortgage problems and renter issues. Thank god she was able to learn about how the system works and get things straightened out. So the last thing she wants to do is to let anyone she is evicting know about how the system works and how they can get things straightened out.... Oh my stars and garters! Start telling people about their rights and the next thing you know...they start acting like they have them! Rights are just for land owners! Hence GENTRIfication. >clutches pearls<
Rights
Problem is, tenants have way more rights than landlords in MA - not being able to evict a deadbeat tenant for a year while spending money in court fees and not getting any rent income can drive many small-time landlords into foreclosure. I don't think she meant she doesn't want the tenants to know their right, period, she didn't want some pony-tailed Cambridge bleeding heart teaching a bunch of deadbeats the most efficient ways to game the system.
Again
Just Cause Eviction doesn't apply to small landlords. Too bad that lady has a problem with pony-tails. If you don't like people painting all landlords as heartless Henry Potters with poor fashion sense and a stench of mothballs then don't paint all renters as deadbeats gaming a system. Many of the small landlords have horror stories of bad tenants and I believe them having witnessed them myself. Many tenants can tell stories of horrid landlords. It's a tie.
The repeated "common wisdom" is that renters have far more protections than landlords, which I'd like to see some empirical data on that. Sometimes we give more protections to people who are less able to defend themselves, but that's a wasted argument on people who are already convinced. So I'll just use the line that we use for the poors who are getting priced out of the n'hood: No one guaranteed you a business operation in the city of Boston. If you can't afford to manage properties in Boston move to Brockton.
just cause
http://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wbur.org%2F2016%2F03%2F1...
Please read this and please realize this discussion is not at all about ending agreed upon tenancies early as that is not happening. Rather owners are opting to not renew leases.
Vida urbana and other groups really believe that a tenant should have a right to remain in their apartment past their lease term and that is not the case.
A landlord should not have to go to housing court.because a tenant refuses to vacate at the end of their lease agreement.
EXACTLY.
EXACTLY.
What happens if you as a tenant signs a lease for 9/1 and the previous tenant refuses to move even though their lease is up?! I've had this happen and it is a disaster.
14 day and 30 day
Sheila Dillon says "growing numbers of tenants who get 14-day or 30-day eviction notices and think they have to pack up and leave immediately, when, in fact, they have the right to a hearing in Housing Court"
Well, if understanding is a problem than simply require a new form explaining in plain language what the issue is. 14-day notices are already pretty clear. You didn't pay the rent and have 10 days to pay it or 14 days to move, else the landlord will bring you to court to evict you. A 30 day notice is required to evict for other reasons. So in this day an age, even though I think they are clear enough there's surely room for more clarity.
For tenants where there's truly a no-fault eviction such as wanting to evict for condo conversion there's already a 6 month wait time. Sometimes rent increases are used for evicting a problem tenant but who hasn't committed and egregious offenses. Neighbors and other tenants sometimes complain about a problem tenant but never would come to court to testify out of fear.
Want more affordable housing? Relax the zoning laws in outlying neighborhoods to allow more basement/attic apartments. They rent for less than others. The city did this after WWII and created thousands of units then. The South End, Back Bay, Beacon Hill all have them. The increased density actually makes the city more dynamic, not less.
The real problem is that the city has approved the building of mega projects in the inner core and more and more in Southie. The rents in the core (South End, Back Bay,) are so high that buying a three decker for 800K in Dorchester seems like a "cheap" alternative. The city benefits from the tax dollars from the mega-projects, how about turning them into more $$ for helping those who need it.
"outlying n'hoods"
The other issue a bit more unique to Boston is that "outlying n'hoods" are other municipalities -- as opposed to a NYC, Chicago, L.A., Houston etc. where the extent of the city limits (and the city's jurisdiction in terms of planning) extends quite a ways. Boston is land poor and the kingdoms that surround it will not bow down to any other regional planning entity or the State.
So that leaves the poor cities without the wherewithal to take in the "internally displaced persons" in locales like Brockton, Lawrence, Lynn, Holyoke, etc. These people may still have to come back to Boston for their jobs wiping the asses of the upper classes, but unfortunately the transit system just doesn't cut it for many of these folks. It's a good deal for Mahhty though...cut down on the problem children in the schools by exporting them to Lynn and increase your tax base at the same time! If only we could get rid of those big blocks of poor warehouses in primo locations....I mean they are Choice Neighborhoods, let me tell you...
"attics, basements and backyards"
What is he talking about? Aren't those spaces prevented by fire codes from being apartments? Wasn't there a whole Globe Spotlight story about landlords renting these illegal spaces to students, who are then killed or seriously injured in fires?
You've made some good points, aldos!
The fact that basements, cellars, etc., were allowed to be converted into apartments, or bedrooms, etc., are not only illegal, but they presented real fire/death traps, because there were no second egresses in or near them. That's what resulted in all those deaths and serious injuries as a result of the fires.
I doubt this
I highly doubt this would be allowed to even be permitted. Building codes exist for a reason. There will be a second means of egress. You might not be able to access it when stuff is piled in the way, however (like in my back stair).
In fact - with new construction of triple deckers and maybe even be in renovations or conversions: sprinklers are being installed. And that is not cheap ($$,$$$), especially when the line to the building has to be dug and installed - you usually can't pull off of the domestic line where it comes in the basement unless allowed by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (plumbing inspector or fire dept). And they will want to see a flow test from the nearest hydrant ($$$), which you will already have done so the sprinkler company can design the layout and size everything properly.
So I'm going to go with not illegal - unless built illegally (sans permit and all that goes with it + code).
Well, there should've been second egresses near attic/cellar
Well, there should've been some sort of second egress(es) near the cellar/attic bedrooms, and the fact that the landlord(s) of such unsafe places didn't bother to create second egresses for such apartments was/is the whole big problem.
Terminology
My response was based upon your comment that they were 'allowed to be built'. I'm saying they wouldn't have been allowed by the Authorities having Jurisdiction to be built that way.
What you're now changing your tune to is that they were built illegally. Which is vastly different from being allowed to be built. If that is what you meant, I do agree with you.
Splitting hairs
They were allowed to be built illegally by a failure of enforcement of the law.
I suspect
You don't know how building inspectors work. Or in your belief - how they don't work.
They Try Their Best But Don't Have The Tools Or Manpower
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/04/overcrowded-off-campus-hous...
^This
This and it can be quite easy to bring contractors into your building without anyone from the outside knowing they're there. All interior construction et voila! Insta basement or attic apartment.
The inspectors will come if someone calls them. If not (or maybe if so), Hey! I'm just doing some interior renovation! Depends upon the Inspector's BS detector.
But Skip Schloming, executive
SPOA has always been a militant, anti-everything organization. Look at some of their emails blasts and newsletters. It's like the red scare.
Seems like another stab at small time landlords
Mr. Schloming predicts what has been happening for several years. At a city sponsored seminar for small time landlords that I attended a few years ago - where only one landlord showed up - I was told by the person giving the presentation that landlords of just one or a few properties are becoming less and less. The advantages for tenants - including bad tenants - make it too tough a business. Especially for a landlord who wants to maintain their property. Having been in the landlord seat I understand the challenge.
As for tenants not realizing how much law is on their side it is the responsibility of anyone renting to learn what their rights are. Landlord - tenant law is not some secretive document stashed in a subterranean cave. The information is easily found; so a tenant who claims to not know what laws already exist to protect them is pleading for a right to not be responsible for protecting themselves.
As for a law requiring a landlord to report the reason for eviction and requires mediation prior to eviction? If this was applied only to large corporate, shell company and/or absentee landlords owning a large number of units then perhaps this might be helpful to tenants without causing unnecessary burden on landlords owning just a few units. But for landlords owning one or just a few units this gives more ammunition to the bad tenants who intend to milk the rental system for all it's worth. Providing a means for disruptive and destructive tenants to plead innocent victim while they are causing their neighbors to suffer their bad behavior helps none while causing harm for others. Good tenants and good landlords deserve protection - especially local landlords who are committed to maintaining both property and neighborhood for the long haul. At this point law seems to be against these landlords and to continue to develop into a set of laws that discourage local landlords from owning a small number of properties.
Or is that the overriding goal of both Commonwealth and city philosophy toward rentals: slowly eliminate small time landlords so that only large, anonymous corporate landlords remain?
er.....
You just accurately portrayed what the JCE proposal under consideration actually does. It doesn't change a thing if you live in the city and own fewer than 10 (? not sure of the number) units. So you own three triple deckers in Dorchester? Absolutely nothing changes for you.
Incorrect
The most recent proposal only exempts "owner occupied" buildings up to 5 units.
So this legislation would affect people who own 3 families but don't live in them. It would even affect condo owners or single family owners who move out and elect to rent their property rather than sell it.
Their "exemption" for small landlords applies to a vary narrow slice of property owners, namely owner occupants of small buildings.. A large majority of landlords in this city are non-owner occupants. Just because they don't live in the building doesn't automatically make them large corporate landlords.
Arrr
But it does make them non-owner occupants, scourge of the ISD.
thanks
I put a correction further up-stream, but yes you're right. The last version that Josh posted mentioned four units or less with one being owner-occupied. So you could own and live in a house and also own a triple decker that you rent out and not have this apply to you by that definition. I've heard other numbers of units bandied about recently, so I'll have to find out if they changed that factoid along with dumping the mediation part. But you don't have to be owner-occupied, you just have to live in Boston.
I wouldn't call the number of landlords who own four or less units a very narrow slice, since that's most of the ones that I know of. That would include a number of developer/contractor/flipper types who go through properties like toilet paper, but never own more than one or two at a time. But presumably Skip would have those numbers.