The tone of "Speaks VOLUMES" doesn't help the discussion.
Not all people and and places are equal: It's not a universal truth that someone given 30 days notice will find themselves unhoused and in a dangerous situation. Often it is just a sense.
And even where it is true: What then? If landlords are made the social safety-net of last resort, the 'guaranteed fallback', for people who are unable to secure housing then why should anyone be a landlord? It won't be easier to secure housing for people if the conditions are made too unattractive.
Some landlords stink, some tenants stink, sometimes the situation stinks without anyone being at fault. Policy ought to try to do the most good for the most people, but part of that is recognizing that an inability to evict people who don't pay (or worse) can mean that even more go unhoused when people choose to not rent out.
Given the situation that there is no safety net, and knowing that, why would you choose a relationship that is likely to position your financial interests against the physical safety and wellbeing of someone else, even a whole family?
I wouldn't choose it and I don't have respect or sympathy for people who do.
Not all people and and places are equal: It's not a universal truth that someone given 30 days notice will find themselves unhoused and in a dangerous situation. Often it is just a sense.
And even where it is true: What then? If landlords are made the social safety-net of last resort, the 'guaranteed fallback', for people who are unable to secure housing then why should anyone be a landlord? It won't be easier to secure housing for people if the conditions are made too unattractive.
Some landlords stink, some tenants stink, sometimes the situation stinks without anyone being at fault. Policy ought to try to do the most good for the most people, but part of that is recognizing that an inability to evict people who don't pay (or worse) can mean that even more go unhoused when people choose to not rent out.