S.20.1-12: Tenant Protection Act (Statute)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Tenant Protection Act

Section 1: Definitions
i. The title of this act shall be the "Tenant Protection Act"
ii. A tenant shall be defined as an individual who has occupancy of a residential unit through a lease

Section 2: Procedure
i. A tenant who deemed that discrimination has occurred on the basis of income may file documentation to the Attorney General's office

Section 3: Protections
i. A landlord may not use price discrimination as a means of increasing property value or displacing tenants
ii. Any landlord found in violation may be subject to criminal penalties
iii. Sanctions may be appropriately set at the discretion of the Attorney General

Section 4: Authority
i. May be enforced by the Attorney General of the South against those found in violation of this act

Sponsor: Spark498

[PragmaticPopulist]

I would support the bill in its current form.

[Senator-elect Spark]

I support wholeheartedly

[PragmaticPopulist]

Do the other delegates have any comments to make on this legislation?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

the concept of this bill gave the market urbanist part of me some pause but after I researched up on what it outlaws, I have no objections.

[reagente]

Can someone clarify what exactly "price discrimination" means in this context? Are you saying it would be illegal to charge different prices for similar units?

[West_Midlander]

I think this bill is well-intentioned. After further consideration, however, I am hesitant to support this measure. If a landlord chooses to provide some relief, in the form of reduced rent (compared to other tenants), to students and/or to the elderly, for example, that act of generosity may be prevented because a property owner is unable to afford a reduction in rent which would apply evenly to all renters.

A landlord could alternatively opt for a smaller reduction across the board if it were financially possible for them. However, it very well might not be financially feasible if they have a large number of renters, especially beyond a marginal reduction. Mandating equal costs means any possible reduction for renters with a hampered ability to pay (ie. the elderly and college students) is a lot less helpful for those tenants.

Additionally, would longtime renters be unable to enjoy a reduction in rent or a maintenance of rent (or alternatively a smaller increase) while other tenants experience rent increases (especially to a larger degree)? This difference in treatment could be at the direction of the landlord and as a reward for longtime tenancy, especially for longtime payment on-time, if 'price discrimination' is left legal.

Conversely, a landlord may offer a reduced rate to new tenants but would be unable to do this if price discrimination is banned. At least that is my understanding.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I think this bill is well-intentioned. After further consideration, however, I am hesitant to support this measure. If a landlord chooses to provide some relief, in the form of reduced rent (compared to other tenants), to students and/or to the elderly, for example, that act of generosity may be prevented because a property owner is unable to afford a reduction in rent which would apply evenly to all renters.

A landlord could alternatively opt for a smaller reduction across the board if it were financially possible for them. However, it very well might not be financially feasible if they have a large number of renters, especially beyond a marginal reduction. Mandating equal costs means any possible reduction for renters with a hampered ability to pay (ie. the elderly and college students) is a lot less helpful for those tenants.

Additionally, would longtime renters be unable to enjoy a reduction in rent or a maintenance of rent (or alternatively a smaller increase) while other tenants experience rent increases (especially to a larger degree)? This difference in treatment could be at the direction of the landlord and as a reward for longtime tenancy, especially for longtime payment on-time, if 'price discrimination' is left legal.

Conversely, a landlord may offer a reduced rate to new tenants but would be unable to do this under price discrimination. At least that is my understanding.

You raise many good points and my view on this measure has been profoundly affected. I lean towards opposing it as of now, though it is with a heavy heart.

[Senator-elect Spark]

I think this bill is well-intentioned. After further consideration, however, I am hesitant to support this measure. If a landlord chooses to provide some relief, in the form of reduced rent (compared to other tenants), to students and/or to the elderly, for example, that act of generosity may be prevented because a property owner is unable to afford a reduction in rent which would apply evenly to all renters.

A landlord could alternatively opt for a smaller reduction across the board if it were financially possible for them. However, it very well might not be financially feasible if they have a large number of renters, especially beyond a marginal reduction. Mandating equal costs means any possible reduction for renters with a hampered ability to pay (ie. the elderly and college students) is a lot less helpful for those tenants.

Additionally, would longtime renters be unable to enjoy a reduction in rent or a maintenance of rent (or alternatively a smaller increase) while other tenants experience rent increases (especially to a larger degree)? This difference in treatment could be at the direction of the landlord and as a reward for longtime tenancy, especially for longtime payment on-time, if 'price discrimination' is left legal.

Conversely, a landlord may offer a reduced rate to new tenants but would be unable to do this if price discrimination is banned. At least that is my understanding.

I believe that the benefits of banning price discrimination far outweigh the above mentioned points. I define price discrimination as charging different rates for each tenant. Scenarios that should be prevented include minority groups being subject to this phenomenon through rent spikes in order to “build up” apartment complexes. Price discrimination causes many people to be displaced, often with nowhere else to live. They are forced to settle elsewhere against their will due to being unable to afford the rent. The process is unfair and should be illegal.

[reagente]

I think this bill is well-intentioned. After further consideration, however, I am hesitant to support this measure. If a landlord chooses to provide some relief, in the form of reduced rent (compared to other tenants), to students and/or to the elderly, for example, that act of generosity may be prevented because a property owner is unable to afford a reduction in rent which would apply evenly to all renters.

A landlord could alternatively opt for a smaller reduction across the board if it were financially possible for them. However, it very well might not be financially feasible if they have a large number of renters, especially beyond a marginal reduction. Mandating equal costs means any possible reduction for renters with a hampered ability to pay (ie. the elderly and college students) is a lot less helpful for those tenants.

Additionally, would longtime renters be unable to enjoy a reduction in rent or a maintenance of rent (or alternatively a smaller increase) while other tenants experience rent increases (especially to a larger degree)? This difference in treatment could be at the direction of the landlord and as a reward for longtime tenancy, especially for longtime payment on-time, if 'price discrimination' is left legal.

Conversely, a landlord may offer a reduced rate to new tenants but would be unable to do this if price discrimination is banned. At least that is my understanding.

I believe that the benefits of banning price discrimination far outweigh the above mentioned points. I define price discrimination as charging different rates for each tenant. Scenarios that should be prevented include minority groups being subject to this phenomenon through rent spikes in order to “build up” apartment complexes. Price discrimination causes many people to be displaced, often with nowhere else to live. They are forced to settle elsewhere against their will due to being unable to afford the rent. The process is unfair and should be illegal.

But not all apartment units are identical no? so how does one administer this practically? and shouldn't landlords be allowed to charge less in return for a commitment to a longer lease?

and if rent spikes are applied across the board, is that really price discrimination?

[Senator-elect Spark]

I think this bill is well-intentioned. After further consideration, however, I am hesitant to support this measure. If a landlord chooses to provide some relief, in the form of reduced rent (compared to other tenants), to students and/or to the elderly, for example, that act of generosity may be prevented because a property owner is unable to afford a reduction in rent which would apply evenly to all renters.

A landlord could alternatively opt for a smaller reduction across the board if it were financially possible for them. However, it very well might not be financially feasible if they have a large number of renters, especially beyond a marginal reduction. Mandating equal costs means any possible reduction for renters with a hampered ability to pay (ie. the elderly and college students) is a lot less helpful for those tenants.

Additionally, would longtime renters be unable to enjoy a reduction in rent or a maintenance of rent (or alternatively a smaller increase) while other tenants experience rent increases (especially to a larger degree)? This difference in treatment could be at the direction of the landlord and as a reward for longtime tenancy, especially for longtime payment on-time, if 'price discrimination' is left legal.

Conversely, a landlord may offer a reduced rate to new tenants but would be unable to do this if price discrimination is banned. At least that is my understanding.

I believe that the benefits of banning price discrimination far outweigh the above mentioned points. I define price discrimination as charging different rates for each tenant. Scenarios that should be prevented include minority groups being subject to this phenomenon through rent spikes in order to “build up” apartment complexes. Price discrimination causes many people to be displaced, often with nowhere else to live. They are forced to settle elsewhere against their will due to being unable to afford the rent. The process is unfair and should be illegal.

But not all apartment units are identical no? so how does one administer this practically? and shouldn't landlords be allowed to charge less in return for a commitment to a longer lease?

and if rent spikes are applied across the board, is that really price discrimination?

We must eliminate the potential for negative repercussions of such a policy. If your argument is to keep that flexibility for landlords to regulate, we must ensure that provisions against gentrification are incorporated.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I think this bill is well-intentioned. After further consideration, however, I am hesitant to support this measure. If a landlord chooses to provide some relief, in the form of reduced rent (compared to other tenants), to students and/or to the elderly, for example, that act of generosity may be prevented because a property owner is unable to afford a reduction in rent which would apply evenly to all renters.

A landlord could alternatively opt for a smaller reduction across the board if it were financially possible for them. However, it very well might not be financially feasible if they have a large number of renters, especially beyond a marginal reduction. Mandating equal costs means any possible reduction for renters with a hampered ability to pay (ie. the elderly and college students) is a lot less helpful for those tenants.

Additionally, would longtime renters be unable to enjoy a reduction in rent or a maintenance of rent (or alternatively a smaller increase) while other tenants experience rent increases (especially to a larger degree)? This difference in treatment could be at the direction of the landlord and as a reward for longtime tenancy, especially for longtime payment on-time, if 'price discrimination' is left legal.

Conversely, a landlord may offer a reduced rate to new tenants but would be unable to do this if price discrimination is banned. At least that is my understanding.

I believe that the benefits of banning price discrimination far outweigh the above mentioned points. I define price discrimination as charging different rates for each tenant. Scenarios that should be prevented include minority groups being subject to this phenomenon through rent spikes in order to “build up” apartment complexes. Price discrimination causes many people to be displaced, often with nowhere else to live. They are forced to settle elsewhere against their will due to being unable to afford the rent. The process is unfair and should be illegal.

But not all apartment units are identical no? so how does one administer this practically? and shouldn't landlords be allowed to charge less in return for a commitment to a longer lease?

and if rent spikes are applied across the board, is that really price discrimination?

We must eliminate the potential for negative repercussions of such a policy. If your argument is to keep that flexibility for landlords to regulate, we must ensure that provisions against gentrification are incorporated.

As someone who is supportive of gentrification being allowed to happen, I find this line of argumentation deeply troubling.

[Senator-elect Spark]

I think this bill is well-intentioned. After further consideration, however, I am hesitant to support this measure. If a landlord chooses to provide some relief, in the form of reduced rent (compared to other tenants), to students and/or to the elderly, for example, that act of generosity may be prevented because a property owner is unable to afford a reduction in rent which would apply evenly to all renters.

A landlord could alternatively opt for a smaller reduction across the board if it were financially possible for them. However, it very well might not be financially feasible if they have a large number of renters, especially beyond a marginal reduction. Mandating equal costs means any possible reduction for renters with a hampered ability to pay (ie. the elderly and college students) is a lot less helpful for those tenants.

Additionally, would longtime renters be unable to enjoy a reduction in rent or a maintenance of rent (or alternatively a smaller increase) while other tenants experience rent increases (especially to a larger degree)? This difference in treatment could be at the direction of the landlord and as a reward for longtime tenancy, especially for longtime payment on-time, if 'price discrimination' is left legal.

Conversely, a landlord may offer a reduced rate to new tenants but would be unable to do this if price discrimination is banned. At least that is my understanding.

I believe that the benefits of banning price discrimination far outweigh the above mentioned points. I define price discrimination as charging different rates for each tenant. Scenarios that should be prevented include minority groups being subject to this phenomenon through rent spikes in order to “build up” apartment complexes. Price discrimination causes many people to be displaced, often with nowhere else to live. They are forced to settle elsewhere against their will due to being unable to afford the rent. The process is unfair and should be illegal.

But not all apartment units are identical no? so how does one administer this practically? and shouldn't landlords be allowed to charge less in return for a commitment to a longer lease?

and if rent spikes are applied across the board, is that really price discrimination?

We must eliminate the potential for negative repercussions of such a policy. If your argument is to keep that flexibility for landlords to regulate, we must ensure that provisions against gentrification are incorporated.

As someone who is supportive of gentrification being allowed to happen, I find this line of argumentation deeply troubling.

I support those who are marginalized and cannot afford to move elsewhere due to rising costs of rent.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I think this bill is well-intentioned. After further consideration, however, I am hesitant to support this measure. If a landlord chooses to provide some relief, in the form of reduced rent (compared to other tenants), to students and/or to the elderly, for example, that act of generosity may be prevented because a property owner is unable to afford a reduction in rent which would apply evenly to all renters.

A landlord could alternatively opt for a smaller reduction across the board if it were financially possible for them. However, it very well might not be financially feasible if they have a large number of renters, especially beyond a marginal reduction. Mandating equal costs means any possible reduction for renters with a hampered ability to pay (ie. the elderly and college students) is a lot less helpful for those tenants.

Additionally, would longtime renters be unable to enjoy a reduction in rent or a maintenance of rent (or alternatively a smaller increase) while other tenants experience rent increases (especially to a larger degree)? This difference in treatment could be at the direction of the landlord and as a reward for longtime tenancy, especially for longtime payment on-time, if 'price discrimination' is left legal.

Conversely, a landlord may offer a reduced rate to new tenants but would be unable to do this if price discrimination is banned. At least that is my understanding.

I believe that the benefits of banning price discrimination far outweigh the above mentioned points. I define price discrimination as charging different rates for each tenant. Scenarios that should be prevented include minority groups being subject to this phenomenon through rent spikes in order to “build up” apartment complexes. Price discrimination causes many people to be displaced, often with nowhere else to live. They are forced to settle elsewhere against their will due to being unable to afford the rent. The process is unfair and should be illegal.

But not all apartment units are identical no? so how does one administer this practically? and shouldn't landlords be allowed to charge less in return for a commitment to a longer lease?

and if rent spikes are applied across the board, is that really price discrimination?

We must eliminate the potential for negative repercussions of such a policy. If your argument is to keep that flexibility for landlords to regulate, we must ensure that provisions against gentrification are incorporated.

As someone who is supportive of gentrification being allowed to happen, I find this line of argumentation deeply troubling.

I support those who are marginalized and cannot afford to move elsewhere due to rising costs of rent.

Then let us take two steps:
1. create a special state-owned corporation that is given cash to buy up land and is mandated to give the housing they build on it to those underneath the poverty line. Profits may or may not be returned back to the Southern general fund, depending on how it is set up.
2. upzone the land in the South to allow people to build higher, while taking steps to help build more rapid transit and encourage private business to get in the act as well (such as giving them the ability to collect money from shops and the like in the vicinity of stops they build).

[Senator-elect Spark]

Tenant Protection Act

Section 1: Definitions
i. The title of this act shall be the "Tenant Protection Act"
ii. A tenant shall be defined as an individual who has occupancy of a residential unit through a lease

Section 2: Procedure
i. A tenant who deemed that discrimination has occurred on the basis of race may file documentation to the Attorney General's office

Section 3: Protections
i. A landlord may not use price discrimination as a means of increasing property value or displacing tenants regardless of intent who are members of minority groups
ii. Any landlord found in violation may be subject to criminal penalties
iii. Sanctions may be appropriately set at the discretion of the Attorney General

Section 4: Authority
i. May be enforced by the Attorney General of the South against those found in violation of this act

Sponsor: Spark498

I hereby propose the following amendment to this bill. I encourage the speaker to amend the bill as he sees fit as well.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

No objection to the amendment (though I have doubts insofar as to its legality, those can be sorted out later on).

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What would an amendment designed to bring about upzoning look like?

[Senator-elect Spark]

What would an amendment designed to bring about upzoning look like?

I can support your second proposition. I suppose we can generate and consider those ideas.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I have ideas in this specific case but I'm not sure how to actually write good amendments designed to acheive them. Housing policy and urban matters in general are extremely complex, so my expertise on the matter, while counting for something definitely, isn't enough - this will need to be a collaborative effort.

[Senator-elect Spark]

I have ideas in this specific case but I'm not sure how to actually write good amendments designed to acheive them. Housing policy and urban matters in general are extremely complex, so my expertise on the matter, while counting for something definitely, isn't enough - this will need to be a collaborative effort.

I support the amendment as it stands.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The amendment is hereby adopted.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Motion for a vote.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Final vote. 48 hours.

[reagente]

Nay

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Aye