As much as no-reason evictions are bullshit, don’t let them convince you that any reason is a good one. Even the landlord wanting to move in should not be reason enough. These are people’s homes already.
Even the landlord wanting to move in should not be reason enough
I’m going to be honest, I don’t agree. I think our laws currently go far, far too far in favour of landlords, but this is one place I would draw the line.
The idea that “end of a fixed-term lease” is currently a valid reason is fucking gross, and basically acts as a loophole around every other protection we could possibly put in place. End of a fixed-term lease is “no grounds”, as far as I’m concerned. But if they own a property and want to move in, assuming it’s done with sufficient notice (including not being before the end of any existing fixed-term lease, as well as a certain number of months in advance), they should be allowed.
For example, what if they used to own two places, decided it was more work than they cared for, and are going to sell the one they currently live in. As a renter’s rights advocate, that’s a scenario I have often said is what should happen, rather than them putting up the price of rent constantly or failing to continue to maintain the rental property. Maybe they’re downsizing and decide they’d rather move in to the one that currently is rented out. I think they should be allowed to do that. Or alternatively, what if they live here and own property, then decide to move overseas for work for a period of 5 years. For that duration, they want to rent out their property. It’s not long enough that selling makes sense, but it’s far too long to leave vacant entirely (or it should be too long to leave vacant, under good housing laws). The last thing we want is to encourage a position where that person is going to leave their house empty for 5 years, reducing the effective supply of housing.
It’s absolutely critical that people not be allowed to exploit this. If moving back in, there needs to be a minimum amount of time before they can rent it out again (I’d start the conversation at 24 months), and “changing their mind” is absolutely inexcusable. But if they genuinely do want to move back in, let them.
Thanks for the considered reply. I think we can agree that it’s a difficult balance between the incompatible interests of two parties who both want to live in one place. Maybe my take is too extreme, I’ve just seen enough of disadvantaged people getting the short end of the stick.
In Aussie society, we tend to treat housing like other property, where the owner has ultimate control albeit bound by a contract and (IMO weak) renter protections. My view is housing is in a fundamental way a class of its own and should lean towards the resident who has the real interest in it rather than the owner who has a financial interest. That’s not to say the owner should be at the mercy of a bad tenant who is damaging the property or anything–the rules around upkeep and maintenance are not too bad. But around decisions of who gets to live there, the bias should be towards the person who has made it their home. If the owner wants to live somewhere else, then they can find somewhere else that’s available. They would even get the benefit of the timing being on their own terms, unlike an evictee. I’m sure there would be social and economic impacts from that.
Anyway, I want to take a minute to praise the landlords that provide longer than required notice and any other assistance to the tenants they evict. Landlords aren’t all bad, it’s just a system that needs change.
In terms of our overall philosophy, I think we are in agreement. Housing should be a right all people have, and that should include security that you aren’t going to be forced to move willy-nilly. It should not be a right to make a profit by owning property.
I actually think they’re are vanishingly few reasons I would accept for someone being forced out of the home you’re living in. Being in breach but causing serious damage is one. The owner wanting to move in or an immediate family member move in is another. The home being in need of serious renovations is a third. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a fourth. But I do think that being allowed to live in it yourself is one pretty basic accommodation that should be made for the owners of housing.
Which section of society needs more help, renters or investors? Let’s say you pay off your rental property and it now costs you $100 per week. Let me guess, for some reason you can’t lower the rent.
It shouldn’t be up to one person to support another.
We all pay taxes the government should provide.
You treay land lords like investors but you’re lumping everyone in the same basket.
Have you thought about those who moved from their house because of work so they rent the house and rent where they went?
To answer your second question, no you wouldn’t lower it, the value is still the value. You want to live in that $500 a week house so you still pay that.
the value is still the value. You want to live in that $500 a week house
That doesn’t make any sense. 5 hours ago you were saying the rent had to reflect the cost of repaying borrowing on the asset.
That cost is dependent on equity and mortgage rate.
But now you’re suddenly saying living in the house is inherently “worth” a sum of money that isn’t tied to borrowing costs at all. Seems arbitrary.
In reality, rentals cost what the market will bear, in some markets that’s well below the cost of a new mortgage so those investors have to top up for a few years. In other markets it’s not.
No im replying to old mate saying that now there’s nothing owed so it should go down.
Im saying the house is worth what the house is worth, mortgage rates go up rentals go up, mortgage rates go down the buy in cost goes downso rentals go down.
But sure pick the definition of value to argue on the internet.
The value is what its worth like i said. Misconstrue me however you want. No one will pay more then what its worth regardless
As much as no-reason evictions are bullshit, don’t let them convince you that any reason is a good one. Even the landlord wanting to move in should not be reason enough. These are people’s homes already.
I’m going to be honest, I don’t agree. I think our laws currently go far, far too far in favour of landlords, but this is one place I would draw the line.
The idea that “end of a fixed-term lease” is currently a valid reason is fucking gross, and basically acts as a loophole around every other protection we could possibly put in place. End of a fixed-term lease is “no grounds”, as far as I’m concerned. But if they own a property and want to move in, assuming it’s done with sufficient notice (including not being before the end of any existing fixed-term lease, as well as a certain number of months in advance), they should be allowed.
For example, what if they used to own two places, decided it was more work than they cared for, and are going to sell the one they currently live in. As a renter’s rights advocate, that’s a scenario I have often said is what should happen, rather than them putting up the price of rent constantly or failing to continue to maintain the rental property. Maybe they’re downsizing and decide they’d rather move in to the one that currently is rented out. I think they should be allowed to do that. Or alternatively, what if they live here and own property, then decide to move overseas for work for a period of 5 years. For that duration, they want to rent out their property. It’s not long enough that selling makes sense, but it’s far too long to leave vacant entirely (or it should be too long to leave vacant, under good housing laws). The last thing we want is to encourage a position where that person is going to leave their house empty for 5 years, reducing the effective supply of housing.
It’s absolutely critical that people not be allowed to exploit this. If moving back in, there needs to be a minimum amount of time before they can rent it out again (I’d start the conversation at 24 months), and “changing their mind” is absolutely inexcusable. But if they genuinely do want to move back in, let them.
Thanks for the considered reply. I think we can agree that it’s a difficult balance between the incompatible interests of two parties who both want to live in one place. Maybe my take is too extreme, I’ve just seen enough of disadvantaged people getting the short end of the stick.
In Aussie society, we tend to treat housing like other property, where the owner has ultimate control albeit bound by a contract and (IMO weak) renter protections. My view is housing is in a fundamental way a class of its own and should lean towards the resident who has the real interest in it rather than the owner who has a financial interest. That’s not to say the owner should be at the mercy of a bad tenant who is damaging the property or anything–the rules around upkeep and maintenance are not too bad. But around decisions of who gets to live there, the bias should be towards the person who has made it their home. If the owner wants to live somewhere else, then they can find somewhere else that’s available. They would even get the benefit of the timing being on their own terms, unlike an evictee. I’m sure there would be social and economic impacts from that.
Anyway, I want to take a minute to praise the landlords that provide longer than required notice and any other assistance to the tenants they evict. Landlords aren’t all bad, it’s just a system that needs change.
In terms of our overall philosophy, I think we are in agreement. Housing should be a right all people have, and that should include security that you aren’t going to be forced to move willy-nilly. It should not be a right to make a profit by owning property.
I actually think they’re are vanishingly few reasons I would accept for someone being forced out of the home you’re living in. Being in breach but causing serious damage is one. The owner wanting to move in or an immediate family member move in is another. The home being in need of serious renovations is a third. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a fourth. But I do think that being allowed to live in it yourself is one pretty basic accommodation that should be made for the owners of housing.
i read in canada the new owner has to honor your lease
A lease is a lease and when its upnits up to the owner not the renter.
Sure it sucks but thats the way it is.
Think of it the other way. You own the house and mortgage is 400 a week.
You rent it for 400 and pay nothing extra beyond repairs etc.
Then mortgage goes up 100 dollars a week because locked in rates change.
Why shouldn’t you pass on the cost? The renter now lives in a house that costs 500 a week to live in, so they should pay the cost.
Which section of society needs more help, renters or investors? Let’s say you pay off your rental property and it now costs you $100 per week. Let me guess, for some reason you can’t lower the rent.
It shouldn’t be up to one person to support another.
We all pay taxes the government should provide.
You treay land lords like investors but you’re lumping everyone in the same basket.
Have you thought about those who moved from their house because of work so they rent the house and rent where they went?
To answer your second question, no you wouldn’t lower it, the value is still the value. You want to live in that $500 a week house so you still pay that.
Thats simple economics.
That doesn’t make any sense. 5 hours ago you were saying the rent had to reflect the cost of repaying borrowing on the asset.
That cost is dependent on equity and mortgage rate.
But now you’re suddenly saying living in the house is inherently “worth” a sum of money that isn’t tied to borrowing costs at all. Seems arbitrary.
In reality, rentals cost what the market will bear, in some markets that’s well below the cost of a new mortgage so those investors have to top up for a few years. In other markets it’s not.
No im replying to old mate saying that now there’s nothing owed so it should go down.
Im saying the house is worth what the house is worth, mortgage rates go up rentals go up, mortgage rates go down the buy in cost goes downso rentals go down.
But sure pick the definition of value to argue on the internet.
The value is what its worth like i said. Misconstrue me however you want. No one will pay more then what its worth regardless
I’m not trying to misconstrue you, I was just pointing out that you seemed to be arguing two opposite points of view. This is the crux of it:
@DarkDarkHouse was pointing out that in practice doesn’t really ever happen, and I would agree with them.
Because you, as a business owner, took that risk. Mortgage could have gone down too. It’s not the renter’s problem nor fault.
Still the market, business owners pass costs on all the time.
Thats a poor argument.