Comment Detail

Comment

The new rallying cry of “Housing is a Right “is a highly weighted emotional phrase. Certain concepts are considered rights, such as the right to one’s choice of religion, the right of free speech, the right to vote in the United States, the right of free (as in unfettered) travel.

Housing is a need. The three needs for living are food, clothing, shelter. They are crucial to our well-being. As a society, Americans should have concern for those who are no able to attain these needs with their own efforts.

However, the reason housing is not a “right” is that it is a commodity. One must own or pay for it, just as one does not automatically own the food that comes out of the earth. For example, there is no such thing as Food Rights. Grocers are not hounded to reduce their prices or give free food (equivalent to eviction moratoria). Doctors, hospitals, pharmacists are not forced to provide free medical care.

The commodity of rental housing is a consumable product. It consists of a tangible and an intangible. The courts have confused the two.

The consumable product is a space, offered for a period of time. Once that time is lapsed, the product is consumed. It can never be regained. That is why eviction bans are a taking, a confiscation of a product. And that is why speedy eviction is necessary. The product called housing is the asset of the owner, not of the renter, and the owner is owed a fair return.

The push for housing as a right really means LETTING PEOPLE LIVE IN RENTAL HOUSING FREE OR AT COSTS LOWER THAN THE RENT RATES SET BY THE MARKET. A more realistic and definitive goal is ACCESSIBILITY TO AFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LOW-INCOME GROUPS.

As with other needs such as food and medical care, the public coffers are used to furnish them to needy people. Subsidies are already accepted as the norm for providing those needs and should be extended to housing. It is done so in other countries and should be expanded in the United States. Requalification should occur frequently, as people improve their finances.

Parsing The Word “Rights”, As in Tenants’ Rights
The concept of Tenant’s Rights assumes that tenants have been systemically abused. To the. contrary, Housing Providers have worked for decades to protect the rental environment by providing safe, pleasant living conditions. Today’s prevailing Lessor/Lessee relationship is more of a partnership than an adversarial or abusive situation.

The strongest tenant protections are provided by the Housing Providers. Through careful screening of applicants, Housing Providers ensure that their residents are not harmed or disturbed by disruptive or criminal residents. Housing Providers must have the ability to remove harmful, violent, or disruptive residents, so as to maintain an orderly, pleasant environment for the renters. Renters have come to expect a pleasant, safe living environment.

Writ large, this protection expands from one apartment house to a block, to a neighborhood, and to a city. Lawlessness prevails when criminals live among decent people, destroying their safety and quality of life. The Housing Provider protects the neighborhood, even before the Police.

After the ability to screen applications to filter out problem tenants, Housing Providers need the ability to remove tenants who are committing crimes on the property or otherwise destroying their renting neighbors’ “quiet enjoyment of their apartments”. Yet, this ability is being eroded mistakenly by those legislators who do not understand how it protects the decent, responsible renters.

Tenants in California lost the protection of “at will” evictions. “At will” eviction law protected the innocent tenant who was damaged by an offending tenant, in that the innocent tenant can maintain his anonymity during the process of removing the offending tenant. Legislators and activists incorrectly defined “at will” eviction to mean the Housing Provider was capriciously evicting tenants.

The now banned (in California) “At will” eviction allowed an eviction to go forward without entering into the argument about why. The Housing Provider issues warnings, verbal and in writing, as good business practice. The offending tenant knows why he is being asked to leave. The “at will” eviction also benefits the offending tenant in that he receives advance notice of 30 to 60 days and can plan his departure. Housing Providers can afford to be even more flexible, which they often are, so as not to inflame the situation any further.

The virtuous-sounding term “Just Cause Eviction” assumes that Housing Providers evict capriciously, “Without Cause”. It implies that Housing Providers do not have a proper cause to evict, only because they do not have to state it in the eviction lawsuit. Housing Providers want occupancy. They do not remove tenants on a whim. They have a definite business reason to evict: to protect the other residents, or to regain possession from a non-paying tenant.

Further, using “Just Cause” evictions endangers the innocent tenant who has been harmed. The process exposes the innocent tenants, the managers, and the property to retaliation from the offending tenant because it requires confrontation. Better to use the more tactful “at will” termination, which comes with the ability to give long move-out notice time, and other flexibilities to calm the situation.

“Tenant Protection” is protection against eviction. It equates eviction with “Tenant Abuse”. “Tenant Protection” allows non-paying tenants to delay and avoid paying rent. It gives them free rental living while responsible renters pay. In that sense it abuses the responsible renter. It teaches renters how to remain in a property rent free for months. It teaches them how to increase the Housing Provider’s legal expenses, so that evictions become prohibitive. It becomes a confiscation, a taking of the Housing Provider’s only product, the renting of a space for a period of time.

Also, by thwarting the eviction process, “Tenant Protection” absolves tenants from responsibility for their anti-social behavior on the property, thereby abandoning and “abusing” the responsible, law-abiding tenants.

“Tenant Protection” laws reduce safety in apartment communities. Safety is a public issue, and our governments appropriately consider safety a right. Safety is addressed through the FDA, inspection of restaurants, hospital safety, building codes, driving regulations and the like. The habitability laws address safety in rental housing. However, safety of persons and property is not provided under “Tenant Protection” laws.

Housing Providers are not government paid dispensers of a public commodity. They are business people who own commercial products. They are not abusers. They compete to make their apartments attractive and pristine. They strive for prompt repair service and congenial management. They protect their residents from living next to disruptive or dangerous people.

Micromanaging the Rental Housing Industry by the Government hampers our ability to provide housing effectively. Most of the laws the eager legislators introduce are in this category.

The definition of Tenants’ Rights should be restated:

A Tenant is entitled to a safe environment. Safety includes habitability: functioning plumbing and electricity, sealed windows and doors, no roof, or other leaks. Safety also includes living with trustworthy neighbors. Housing providers need the ability to exclude harmful persons from renting their units.

A Tenant in need of rental assistance in a high-priced market needs government subsidies to supplant his housing budget. THIS IS A TENANT RIGHT TO FIGHT FOR!!!

July 12, 2023