[optimusclimb]

> The building was purchased, "refurbished" and the rent was reset to a very high number.

And if someone was willing to pay that number, then that's what the place was worth.

[heyoni]

Yea but moving as an individual is stressful and 10x moreso for families. We’re trying to keep people off the streets and from having to make bad decisions without hurting the landlords ability to capitalize on their investment. This is a compromise.

[mratzloff]

Not to mention a sudden, unexpected expense in a situation where renters are on a tight budget and likely don't have much or any savings.

[mcv]

True, but if someone is already using it, it's shitty to increase the price that much. It makes it a bait-and-switch: offer for a reasonable price first, and once the family is all settled, jump a massive price increase on them. That's absolutely something that needs to be banned by law.

[eru]

It's bad behaviour all right, but that doesn't automatically mean a law is the best fix.

Tenants could ask for contract terms that forbid such raises.

Or, if landlords are not forthcoming, they could take out insurance.

And yes, such insurance would need to have its terms written carefully. And it probably doesn't exist as a product at the moment. But eg sponsoring the development of such insurance would be an easier to justify action by the government than a law. Also less likely to backfire.

In any case, the underlying problem is lots of pent up demand for building, and permits only being given out in a trickle. If there was more building, landlords couldn't pull those tricks, at least not profitably.

[anthony_doan]

That doesn't help the housing issues... which is the whole point of this article and the comment your replied to.

While what you're saying isn't false it's not going to solve anything. Unless you don't think there is a housing issue.