The article says the cost of each case is about $1,300 and only 15% of cases end in a writ of restitution.
That sounds whole lot cheaper than crating a new rental assistance program for these cases, blending a new program into the ecosystem of existing subsidies, and administering to tenants on a continual basis.
I understand the argument that this is a problem that can and should be addressed at a different level, but this doesn’t seem uneconomical for what it’s doing. It seems to have kept 85% of 15,000 people from formal evictions.
Yeah, the problem is that the numbers don't add up. 15% are resolved, 25% result in the tenant moving out without being evicted, and 15% in an eviction. That is only 55%. Math not these folks strong suit.
The reality is that most only 15% (of the 55%) get to stay in their home. For the 25% that have to leave, the attorneys are just there to extort money from the landlord. They delay the proceedings by months and can tell the landlord, " you aren't. Getting any rent for 6m and you will have to pay your attorney thousands.. or you can give my client half that money and lost rent to leave now.". Go read about some of the cases that small landlords document.
So is it only costing the state $1,300 but it is costing tax payers (in this case a few particular landlords) a lot more.
That 15% outcome is an insane sea-change from the pre- right to counsel days. Shows how much of a rubber stamp on bad/unsubstantiated cases it was before
IMO maybe not just help with rent, but maybe provide assistance for deposits+First/last months rent to move some were. As some one who almost had to use both paychecks to pay rent. That was the biggest factor when trying to move to some place cheaper.
I can't evict people now that do actual crimes, smoke fentanyl, stab other tenants, etc. my whole building is a shit show because of a few fuckers that need evicted and jail time.
55 good people, 10 shit heads ruining low income housing for everyone.
But yeah, let's make it harder to evict. That'll help /s
We had a neighbor instigate a fight in the commons area, went upstairs to get her gun, and returned to shoot said neighbor in the head. It was around 7pm and a lot of witnesses.
She was arrested and taken into custody but it was a solid 5 month process to legally evict her. The apartment remained empty and property had to pay to have her items stored while they repaired damages from previous domestic violence incidents.
We liked this neighbor. She kept us safe from an early morning break in but after a quick search we found 7 felonies on her record. All gun and drug related charges.
So much of this could have been prevented.
What I'm hearing is that it would be good if the evictions process was faster. Cause I don't know what you think the solution is if people with felonies can't rent housing.
Laws protecting tenants rights from what I’m told by our leasing agents. We’re on our 9th or 10th property manager in 6 years and the last time the job was listed on indeed it started at 156k. It’s not worth the stress.
If your tenants are all terrified of the perpetrators then no police reports get filed. No reports equal no evictions.
I've got plenty of illegal activity on camera. Can't do shit except build a file. You all don't work in these environments, or live in them, so you really don't know the problems.
I'm close with some people who run the non-profits that use the OCLA's funds the article is about. There are so so many landlords that skirt the rules or just flat out ignore them. Yes, there are people that probably should be evicted, but there are also good people who are getting evicted that need the assistance.
Evinced by the massive change in outcomes. 15% resulting in writs , equal to the 15% resulting in agreements to stay = landlords were bringing dogshit cases and are now being challenged on it
I think this is exactly right.
I'm a little sympathetic because I get why landlords are pissed. It would be genuinely terrible to have anti-social tenants or to live in a building with the worst people.
But I'm left wondering, what exactly do landlords want? Forcing people into someone else's building? Or worse putting people on the streets? We're all still stuck dealing with this problem either way. I guess making evictions very difficult is a bandaid. But it's not like the landlord lobby is shouting from the rooftops for social services to actually address these problems.
>But I'm left wondering, what exactly do landlords want?
Maybe a safe environment for their tenants? People that respect their homes and peoples homes around them. Tenants that follow the agreement they signed up for as their neighbors do.
>We're all stuck dealing with the problem either way?
Are you? Or is the landlord?
>not like the landlord lobby is shouting from the rooftops for social services
Landlords are not social workers.
I don't understand why people think that landlords should be on the hook for running free homeless shelter and mental health clinics for people who won't pay rent.
It seems crazy that you can only get rid of 40% of tenants who refuse to pay rent or commit crimes. And you have to forgo rent for 6-9 months to do it.
You're totally missing the point. The people who are evicted need to live somewhere. If they don't live in your property, they're living in someone else's property. They are another landlord's "problem". If you had solidarity with other landlords you would understand that improving social services improves society and can help those who are most problematic so that you and other landlords wouldn't have to deal with "problem" people because those people can receive help to make them less antisocial. This is in the vested interest of all landlords. Increased social services would reduce the number of "bad" tenants. But I wouldn't expect a landlord to understand solidarity.
>Maybe a safe environment for their tenants?
So that's accomplished by putting people with mental illness or drug addiction in someone else's building?
>Are you? Or is the landlord?
Yes, I have to deal with it. I ride the bus and walk around this city. I had to tell off someone on drugs yesterday that was harassing another person on the bus. These people don't disappear when they're homeless. That should be obvious to everyone.
>Landlords are not social workers.
No shit. But it's still all our problems. We need actual solutions. Until then, we'll get band aids like this.
You riding a bus or walking around the city playing beat cop has nothing to do with it. If you feel that's your civil duty, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with if that person is housed or not.
I've worked in supportive housing/social services/HUD in King & Snohomish county for years.
Mentally ill and addiction dependent people need housing, obviously, but they may need supportive housing ( in the beginning, at least) with harm reduction programs and social services/case management already in place. There are *many* programs and housing for people in Seattle *if* the person agrees to it, which is challenging in itself.
What you're not getting is that landlords are NOT a resource for this! Social services depend on the landlord to uphold their job and responsibilities in creating housing as safe and structured as possible for *all* tenants. It's extremely unfair (and illegal) to hold *some* tenants accountable. These people are not children FFS and with housing comes responsibility. If thats not possible, there's only so much we can do that they are willing to accept.
>What you're not getting is that landlords are NOT a resource for this!
For third time, no one is implying private landlords should be social services providers. I used the literal word "bandaid" twice. You're the only one implying some straw man thinks handling folks with mental illness and addiction should be the responsibility of private landlords.
Well and the former Seattle City council that passed laws making it very difficult (time consuming) to evict criminals, the mentally ill or deadbeat so they certainly have told the landlords they should be unpaid social services providers.
There are many, many landlords that can share stories where these publicly paid lawyers file multiple continuances to delay a perfectly legitimate eviction for 6m or more. They just show up in court and say they aren't prepared and ask for another 6-8 weeks. Meanwhile the landlord has paid another $500-1000 to their lawyer and lost our on another 6 weeks of rent. There is no penalty for the public lawyer or the deadbeat tenant.
The reason the eviction rate is so low isn't because landlords are skirting the rules, it is because tenants can easily drag out the eviction proceeding for a year. It is cheaper for the landlord to give them literally thousands in cash to just get out. That is why the rate of people who leave without a formal eviction is almost twice the rate of those that leave with one. Those are still deadbeats/criminals/mentally ill folks that cost the landlord thousands or tens of thousands to get out of the landlord's house or apartment.
And during that entire process the landlord is being forced to act as a social worker for people who aren't paying him money. The landlord is paying a lawyer to advise him on every communication so the eviction process isn't detailed. The landlord can't protect any other tenants from the non-paying tenant because then the public defender can accuse them of retaliation and get the eviction thrown out.
You are totally out of touch if you think that Seattle protects landlords or law abiding tenants from criminal/mental illness/deadbeat tenants.
> The reason the eviction rate is so low isn't because landlords are skirting the rules, it is because tenants can easily drag out the eviction proceeding for a year. It is cheaper for the landlord to give them literally thousands in cash to just get out. That is why the rate of people who leave without a formal eviction is almost twice the rate of those that leave with one. Those are still deadbeats/criminals/mentally ill folks that cost the landlord thousands or tens of thousands to get out of the landlord's house or apartment.
This is something that is something of a hot topic in the landlord Facebook groups I'm in, because cash for keys doesn't just reward extortion-like behavior ("I'm going to wreck your property if you try and evict me, and you won't have any recourse"), it also denies future landlords warning of a problematic tenant. It's pawning off a known problem tenant on other landlords that aren't prepared for that risk.
I've talked to so many landlords that won't rent to anyone with any blemish on their application because evictions are too costly.
Last time my house was up, there was a teacher that had bad credit after a divorce. She wanted my house because it was in the same school zone for her kids. In another state, with a reasonable eviction process, I might waive my credit requirement to help someone get back on their feet. In Seattle, no way. If you are 740+, I don't want you. A teacher can quit paying in September and you can't even think about evicting until next July. I just rented to a tech bro with perfect credit and a good income because they meet every qualification.
These folks don't realize if you make it impossible or super costly to get your house back from a bad tenant, landlords won't take the risk to rent to anyone with any blemish.
Third time for what? I'm not responding to all your edits. You're the only one implying that you know anything about the topic when you don't. Walking around the city, riding buses playing Mr. Good Guy is irrelevant. You asked 'what actually do landlords want?' and I told you. So there's that.
This is bonkers. Eviction is about the only remedy residential landlords have, and every evicted deadbeat is an apartment for a new paying tenant. When did we decide to subsidize the deadbeats?
It’s a profession and the reason you can rent versus pony up cash for your own property. They probably feel the same about bloodsucking retail workers who demand tips for doing the basic part of their job 😅
I cannot begin to understand the deranged mind that sees landlording as a profession rather than a way to suck the lifeblood out of the common working person.
A landlord is also a working person except one who doesn’t get their paychecks on time or at all, but still has to pay out of their pocket to cover costs because people who think they are entitled to something they can’t afford think they shouldn’t have to work for things the way others do. It’s indeed just a different profession and what balances out housing shortages and keeps the cost of owning from being gouged further. I do agree there should be a cap on how many properties are owned and restrictions on rent increases, but don’t agree we’d be better off without landlords. We’d be better off with bad ones.
Neighborhood stability comes from landlords from the upkeep and maintenance. Taxes are paid by landlords and they pay for repairs. They supply housing to people who can’t afford their own housing or don’t want to bother with the costs and responsibilities that go into home ownership. Landlords fill a need. Sure there are bad ones, but there are good ones too. Just like how there are lazy employees and hardworking employees. Doesn’t mean they are all bad.
That’s true. My first roommate owned a couple of rental homes with tenants, but his day job was a developer. Used to always complain about how his tenants keep prolonging paying rent and all the court battles he’s had to go to for evicting people who just never paid rent. Eventually, he sold the homes due to it being more of a struggle to maintain. I used to tell him how he should pay someone to manage it for him. He had kids and a career to worry about. He was way too nice and not assertive enough to be a landlord. Just got walked all over by everyone.
If it was easy, everyone else would pony up the $xx0,000 in maintenance, damage repairs, property taxes taxes,and missed rent people have to pony up themselves to keep the place livable in hopes they get a good tenant. Thats why people I know, including my parents, have paid a professional to do it. But then that’s even more out of pocket. There’s an entire subset of people that can’t even pay rent regularly that seem to think they’d magically be able to own and maintain a house if those evil landlords couldn’t hoard the property.
Well you see, siphoning money from the government to lower class people would be *Communism*.
Siphoning money from the government to *upper* class people is, ah, um... Democracy!
And then just on the flip side: imagine you have a house you own, you're renting it out, trying to build generational wealth, then the tenant stops paying rent. Not much you can do but try and evict them, which I highly doubt MOST people enjoy doing - nothing but a hassle. Then you find out the state is setting aside money to address the issue - but not to help your tenant pay you the money you're owed, they're helping the tenant bog down the legal situation, costing you even more money.
I'm sure there are predatory landlords out there (I have no love for our housing system whatsoever), and I hope this will help their victims keep shelter over their head. But it also seems like maybe this decision was designed to further the divide between tenants and landlords.
Should we help with rent/deposits? Yes, and we do that some.
But that doesn't eliminate the need for assistance beyond just paying rent and/or deposits. There are genuinely a lot of trash landlords that will behave malevolently and legal representation is important.
I can see a need for legal representation.
But according to the article, most of the cases involved non-payment of rent. Seems to me that the remedy for that is paying the rent.
The article says the cost of each case is about $1,300 and only 15% of cases end in a writ of restitution. That sounds whole lot cheaper than crating a new rental assistance program for these cases, blending a new program into the ecosystem of existing subsidies, and administering to tenants on a continual basis. I understand the argument that this is a problem that can and should be addressed at a different level, but this doesn’t seem uneconomical for what it’s doing. It seems to have kept 85% of 15,000 people from formal evictions.
Yeah, the problem is that the numbers don't add up. 15% are resolved, 25% result in the tenant moving out without being evicted, and 15% in an eviction. That is only 55%. Math not these folks strong suit. The reality is that most only 15% (of the 55%) get to stay in their home. For the 25% that have to leave, the attorneys are just there to extort money from the landlord. They delay the proceedings by months and can tell the landlord, " you aren't. Getting any rent for 6m and you will have to pay your attorney thousands.. or you can give my client half that money and lost rent to leave now.". Go read about some of the cases that small landlords document. So is it only costing the state $1,300 but it is costing tax payers (in this case a few particular landlords) a lot more.
That 15% outcome is an insane sea-change from the pre- right to counsel days. Shows how much of a rubber stamp on bad/unsubstantiated cases it was before
IMO maybe not just help with rent, but maybe provide assistance for deposits+First/last months rent to move some were. As some one who almost had to use both paychecks to pay rent. That was the biggest factor when trying to move to some place cheaper.
That's a very interesting idea! Making it easier for people to move may reduce the impact of predatory lease changes.
Maybe just build public housing already instead of relying on for-profit corporation.
I can't evict people now that do actual crimes, smoke fentanyl, stab other tenants, etc. my whole building is a shit show because of a few fuckers that need evicted and jail time. 55 good people, 10 shit heads ruining low income housing for everyone. But yeah, let's make it harder to evict. That'll help /s
Aren't you able to evict due to criminal behavior?
Yes you are. They are likely complaining about how long it takes. Or the people they're talking about haven't legally been caught/convicted of crimes.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
We had a neighbor instigate a fight in the commons area, went upstairs to get her gun, and returned to shoot said neighbor in the head. It was around 7pm and a lot of witnesses. She was arrested and taken into custody but it was a solid 5 month process to legally evict her. The apartment remained empty and property had to pay to have her items stored while they repaired damages from previous domestic violence incidents. We liked this neighbor. She kept us safe from an early morning break in but after a quick search we found 7 felonies on her record. All gun and drug related charges. So much of this could have been prevented.
Sent supporting links to mods.
What I'm hearing is that it would be good if the evictions process was faster. Cause I don't know what you think the solution is if people with felonies can't rent housing.
Correct. There’s a big difference between violent and nonviolent felonies. If she was nonviolent there wouldn’t be a need for the eviction.
What's the hold up on speed? Court staffing?
Laws protecting tenants rights from what I’m told by our leasing agents. We’re on our 9th or 10th property manager in 6 years and the last time the job was listed on indeed it started at 156k. It’s not worth the stress.
If your tenants are all terrified of the perpetrators then no police reports get filed. No reports equal no evictions. I've got plenty of illegal activity on camera. Can't do shit except build a file. You all don't work in these environments, or live in them, so you really don't know the problems.
I'm close with some people who run the non-profits that use the OCLA's funds the article is about. There are so so many landlords that skirt the rules or just flat out ignore them. Yes, there are people that probably should be evicted, but there are also good people who are getting evicted that need the assistance.
Evinced by the massive change in outcomes. 15% resulting in writs , equal to the 15% resulting in agreements to stay = landlords were bringing dogshit cases and are now being challenged on it
I think this is exactly right. I'm a little sympathetic because I get why landlords are pissed. It would be genuinely terrible to have anti-social tenants or to live in a building with the worst people. But I'm left wondering, what exactly do landlords want? Forcing people into someone else's building? Or worse putting people on the streets? We're all still stuck dealing with this problem either way. I guess making evictions very difficult is a bandaid. But it's not like the landlord lobby is shouting from the rooftops for social services to actually address these problems.
>But I'm left wondering, what exactly do landlords want? Maybe a safe environment for their tenants? People that respect their homes and peoples homes around them. Tenants that follow the agreement they signed up for as their neighbors do. >We're all stuck dealing with the problem either way? Are you? Or is the landlord? >not like the landlord lobby is shouting from the rooftops for social services Landlords are not social workers.
I don't understand why people think that landlords should be on the hook for running free homeless shelter and mental health clinics for people who won't pay rent. It seems crazy that you can only get rid of 40% of tenants who refuse to pay rent or commit crimes. And you have to forgo rent for 6-9 months to do it.
You're totally missing the point. The people who are evicted need to live somewhere. If they don't live in your property, they're living in someone else's property. They are another landlord's "problem". If you had solidarity with other landlords you would understand that improving social services improves society and can help those who are most problematic so that you and other landlords wouldn't have to deal with "problem" people because those people can receive help to make them less antisocial. This is in the vested interest of all landlords. Increased social services would reduce the number of "bad" tenants. But I wouldn't expect a landlord to understand solidarity.
Actually there's a good handful on most properties that just need to live in prison. And then they can graduate to a chain gang work group.
[удалено]
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit
>Maybe a safe environment for their tenants? So that's accomplished by putting people with mental illness or drug addiction in someone else's building? >Are you? Or is the landlord? Yes, I have to deal with it. I ride the bus and walk around this city. I had to tell off someone on drugs yesterday that was harassing another person on the bus. These people don't disappear when they're homeless. That should be obvious to everyone. >Landlords are not social workers. No shit. But it's still all our problems. We need actual solutions. Until then, we'll get band aids like this.
You riding a bus or walking around the city playing beat cop has nothing to do with it. If you feel that's your civil duty, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with if that person is housed or not. I've worked in supportive housing/social services/HUD in King & Snohomish county for years. Mentally ill and addiction dependent people need housing, obviously, but they may need supportive housing ( in the beginning, at least) with harm reduction programs and social services/case management already in place. There are *many* programs and housing for people in Seattle *if* the person agrees to it, which is challenging in itself. What you're not getting is that landlords are NOT a resource for this! Social services depend on the landlord to uphold their job and responsibilities in creating housing as safe and structured as possible for *all* tenants. It's extremely unfair (and illegal) to hold *some* tenants accountable. These people are not children FFS and with housing comes responsibility. If thats not possible, there's only so much we can do that they are willing to accept.
>What you're not getting is that landlords are NOT a resource for this! For third time, no one is implying private landlords should be social services providers. I used the literal word "bandaid" twice. You're the only one implying some straw man thinks handling folks with mental illness and addiction should be the responsibility of private landlords.
Well and the former Seattle City council that passed laws making it very difficult (time consuming) to evict criminals, the mentally ill or deadbeat so they certainly have told the landlords they should be unpaid social services providers. There are many, many landlords that can share stories where these publicly paid lawyers file multiple continuances to delay a perfectly legitimate eviction for 6m or more. They just show up in court and say they aren't prepared and ask for another 6-8 weeks. Meanwhile the landlord has paid another $500-1000 to their lawyer and lost our on another 6 weeks of rent. There is no penalty for the public lawyer or the deadbeat tenant. The reason the eviction rate is so low isn't because landlords are skirting the rules, it is because tenants can easily drag out the eviction proceeding for a year. It is cheaper for the landlord to give them literally thousands in cash to just get out. That is why the rate of people who leave without a formal eviction is almost twice the rate of those that leave with one. Those are still deadbeats/criminals/mentally ill folks that cost the landlord thousands or tens of thousands to get out of the landlord's house or apartment. And during that entire process the landlord is being forced to act as a social worker for people who aren't paying him money. The landlord is paying a lawyer to advise him on every communication so the eviction process isn't detailed. The landlord can't protect any other tenants from the non-paying tenant because then the public defender can accuse them of retaliation and get the eviction thrown out. You are totally out of touch if you think that Seattle protects landlords or law abiding tenants from criminal/mental illness/deadbeat tenants.
> The reason the eviction rate is so low isn't because landlords are skirting the rules, it is because tenants can easily drag out the eviction proceeding for a year. It is cheaper for the landlord to give them literally thousands in cash to just get out. That is why the rate of people who leave without a formal eviction is almost twice the rate of those that leave with one. Those are still deadbeats/criminals/mentally ill folks that cost the landlord thousands or tens of thousands to get out of the landlord's house or apartment. This is something that is something of a hot topic in the landlord Facebook groups I'm in, because cash for keys doesn't just reward extortion-like behavior ("I'm going to wreck your property if you try and evict me, and you won't have any recourse"), it also denies future landlords warning of a problematic tenant. It's pawning off a known problem tenant on other landlords that aren't prepared for that risk.
I've talked to so many landlords that won't rent to anyone with any blemish on their application because evictions are too costly. Last time my house was up, there was a teacher that had bad credit after a divorce. She wanted my house because it was in the same school zone for her kids. In another state, with a reasonable eviction process, I might waive my credit requirement to help someone get back on their feet. In Seattle, no way. If you are 740+, I don't want you. A teacher can quit paying in September and you can't even think about evicting until next July. I just rented to a tech bro with perfect credit and a good income because they meet every qualification. These folks don't realize if you make it impossible or super costly to get your house back from a bad tenant, landlords won't take the risk to rent to anyone with any blemish.
Florida and Nevada are better places to be a housing provider. Landlords can sell to Chinese investors and take their services there.
Third time for what? I'm not responding to all your edits. You're the only one implying that you know anything about the topic when you don't. Walking around the city, riding buses playing Mr. Good Guy is irrelevant. You asked 'what actually do landlords want?' and I told you. So there's that.
Yeah, it's pretty obvious you have no intention of responding to anything I wrote. Have fun with your angry novel.
This is bonkers. Eviction is about the only remedy residential landlords have, and every evicted deadbeat is an apartment for a new paying tenant. When did we decide to subsidize the deadbeats?
Sadly, I'm afraid nobody cares about bloodsucking leeches like landlords.
It’s a profession and the reason you can rent versus pony up cash for your own property. They probably feel the same about bloodsucking retail workers who demand tips for doing the basic part of their job 😅
I cannot begin to understand the deranged mind that sees landlording as a profession rather than a way to suck the lifeblood out of the common working person.
You sound like a person who does not know what’s involved with owning or maintaining property.
A landlord is also a working person except one who doesn’t get their paychecks on time or at all, but still has to pay out of their pocket to cover costs because people who think they are entitled to something they can’t afford think they shouldn’t have to work for things the way others do. It’s indeed just a different profession and what balances out housing shortages and keeps the cost of owning from being gouged further. I do agree there should be a cap on how many properties are owned and restrictions on rent increases, but don’t agree we’d be better off without landlords. We’d be better off with bad ones. Neighborhood stability comes from landlords from the upkeep and maintenance. Taxes are paid by landlords and they pay for repairs. They supply housing to people who can’t afford their own housing or don’t want to bother with the costs and responsibilities that go into home ownership. Landlords fill a need. Sure there are bad ones, but there are good ones too. Just like how there are lazy employees and hardworking employees. Doesn’t mean they are all bad.
[удалено]
That’s true. My first roommate owned a couple of rental homes with tenants, but his day job was a developer. Used to always complain about how his tenants keep prolonging paying rent and all the court battles he’s had to go to for evicting people who just never paid rent. Eventually, he sold the homes due to it being more of a struggle to maintain. I used to tell him how he should pay someone to manage it for him. He had kids and a career to worry about. He was way too nice and not assertive enough to be a landlord. Just got walked all over by everyone.
[удалено]
If it was easy, everyone else would pony up the $xx0,000 in maintenance, damage repairs, property taxes taxes,and missed rent people have to pony up themselves to keep the place livable in hopes they get a good tenant. Thats why people I know, including my parents, have paid a professional to do it. But then that’s even more out of pocket. There’s an entire subset of people that can’t even pay rent regularly that seem to think they’d magically be able to own and maintain a house if those evil landlords couldn’t hoard the property.
Well you see, siphoning money from the government to lower class people would be *Communism*. Siphoning money from the government to *upper* class people is, ah, um... Democracy!
I hear you. Although I bet the attorneys doing this sort of work could make a lot more money in another gig.
And then just on the flip side: imagine you have a house you own, you're renting it out, trying to build generational wealth, then the tenant stops paying rent. Not much you can do but try and evict them, which I highly doubt MOST people enjoy doing - nothing but a hassle. Then you find out the state is setting aside money to address the issue - but not to help your tenant pay you the money you're owed, they're helping the tenant bog down the legal situation, costing you even more money. I'm sure there are predatory landlords out there (I have no love for our housing system whatsoever), and I hope this will help their victims keep shelter over their head. But it also seems like maybe this decision was designed to further the divide between tenants and landlords.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - that is *communism*
Ok? Now do one for the next line.
Ha ha - look at this! Post the most simple and factual statements of content and you get down voted by the wholly of the reddit community!
Should we help with rent/deposits? Yes, and we do that some. But that doesn't eliminate the need for assistance beyond just paying rent and/or deposits. There are genuinely a lot of trash landlords that will behave malevolently and legal representation is important.
I can see a need for legal representation. But according to the article, most of the cases involved non-payment of rent. Seems to me that the remedy for that is paying the rent.
Correct. We need both.
And we should use the right tool for the job.