Posted by MikeW on March 27, 2000 at 17:10:22:
In Reply to: Why aren't landlords required to bonded & licensed? posted by Just Asking on March 26, 2000 at 04:21:12:
Outside of NYC, and a few other urban areas around the country. Homeowners have most of the political clout. Most of these small time landlords are basically homeowers who carved out an apartment in there house. It is them, not the renters who get most of the voters', and therefore politicians' sympathy. Only where you have a large concentration of renters (NYC, LA, and Boston come to mind) do renters have much clout, as witnessed by the rent regulations (current and past) in these cities.
: I'm sure this topic has been broached a million times. But I do not understand why the business of renting out apartments does not require licensing, bonding, insuring, required certification classes teaching about landlord laws & responsibilies (especially for private home renters), and strict enforcement of any violations. Like a point system similar to the DMV. I lived on Staten Island for awhile when I was younger & lived in private homes and apartment buildings. Most landlords do not offer security deposits back. Most of their superintendents and landlords freely entered apartments, many of them stole personal property from their tenants. My last look for an apartment just made me hit a brick wall & want to vomit. I had had it with landlords offering me "what horrible tenants" there last tenants were. This particular one (in NJ) explained to me how her tenants had ruined her tiny little house in back, that they had not "mowed the lawn as required in the lease" (it literally consisted of a stone
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup