This actually connects with some other thinking I've been doing since I last moved. There is an obvious approach to solving a whole host of problems, which as far as I know has never been done: licensing landlords.
The whole point of requiring licensure of certain economic activity is to make more vulnerable to state oversight and control practitioners who by the nature of their profession have way too much power in relation to their customers.
If landlords had to be licensed to rent residential units, then if they violated regulations, it would no longer be landlord versus singular tenant, or even be landlord vs a whole bunch of tenants in a class action civil suit: it because landlord vs the state, and if they lose, they don't only owe remedy to the tenants they harmed, they lose the right to rent to any other tenants.
Wouldn't it be neat if a landlord who is a slumlord in one end of town had a complaint substantiated against his license, then couldn't correct rents on his luxury tower too until he regains his license?
Historically, I think the point of requiring licensure of a particular profession has usually been to allow that profession to limit entry to its ranks, keeping up prices and allegedly quality. Medieval craft guilds formed spontaneously, and then sought out government sponsorship and enforcement, not the other way around. If landlord licensure followed the same pattern, it would serve to raise rents rather than keep them down. Although as you suggest it would probably also discourage the nastiest slumlord tactics.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
This actually connects with some other thinking I've been doing since I last moved. There is an obvious approach to solving a whole host of problems, which as far as I know has never been done: licensing landlords.
The whole point of requiring licensure of certain economic activity is to make more vulnerable to state oversight and control practitioners who by the nature of their profession have way too much power in relation to their customers.
If landlords had to be licensed to rent residential units, then if they violated regulations, it would no longer be landlord versus singular tenant, or even be landlord vs a whole bunch of tenants in a class action civil suit: it because landlord vs the state, and if they lose, they don't only owe remedy to the tenants they harmed, they lose the right to rent to any other tenants.
Wouldn't it be neat if a landlord who is a slumlord in one end of town had a complaint substantiated against his license, then couldn't correct rents on his luxury tower too until he regains his license?
no subject