BRATTLEBORO — The premise of Brandie Starr's piece is that landlords don't have the best interests of their community if they don't support a proposal to limit up-front rental costs.
I disagree with that premise.
My husband and I are landlords of a three-unit building in town and have been renting it for more than 30 years. We currently charge first and last month's rent, and security deposit. For folks who struggle with the up-front deposit, we have offered a payment plan to cover the last month's rent. To date, this has not been an issue.
We feel that the collection of first and last month's rent plus the security deposit works to the benefit of both landlord and tenant. We work hard to keep our units in great shape and to address problems promptly as they arise during someone's tenancy, and we feel that we should be compensated as well as protected appropriately from unforeseen events or occurrences regarding tenants.
Likewise, when tenants leave, they have already paid the last month's rent up front, and we return their security deposit in a timely manner as appropriate so that they can move on to their next tenancy.
* * *
Our economy is based on a free market. Businesses can determine what is a fair-market value for the things that they sell. Owning rental property is a business and as such, landlords can charge what they feel is fair. If a potential renter feels the price is too high for a given apartment, they will look elsewhere.
Does the Selectboard or any other elected body have the right to determine what landlords charge?
If so, does this mean that the Selectboard can decide what other businesses in town can charge for their products? Should the Selectboard or any other elected body determine what Sam's can charge for a pair of shoes, or what The Works can charge for a sandwich, or what Hannaford can charge for ground beef, all in the name of income inequality? Everyone needs food and clothing as well as housing.
Many state and federal dollars (including landlords' tax dollars) go to the Windham & Windsor Housing Trust and other organizations to fund low-income housing, of which there appears to be more and more each year. The average landlord sees none of this money in their investments. Yet they have costs to bear to fix and maintain their buildings.
My husband and I own an old (more than 100 years old) building that we have spent an outrageous amount of money on in the past two years in maintenance and repairs. We believe our building is an asset to the town's housing stock and feel it should be maintained in a manner that allows it to remain a handsome structure as well as comfortable and attractive housing for its tenants.
We were not afforded any financial assistance for our efforts, yet we are now being told that we shouldn't charge what we feel are upfront costs and protections.
We don't know any landlords in this town who live in the land of the super rich. They are, for the most part, citizens who live and work here and who care about their property or properties.
They should be compensated for them and protected from adverse situations involving unscrupulous tenants or from legitimate situations involving their tenants that could not be foreseen.
* * *
People also talk about preserving Vermont's downtowns. This is a particularly difficult time for shopkeepers in our downtown, due to the economic fallout from the pandemic.
I would think the Selectboard would be particularly interested in preserving and maintaining a vibrant and profitable downtown. I would think they would want to have a diverse population, including tenants who are able to patronize the downtown restaurants, shops, stores, art museums, etc.
I would think they would want to attract new people to town who are going to work, pay taxes, and spend money here - people who are willing to spend money on quality housing while at the same time, offering assistance to those who need it.
This should not mean that landlords are penalized for their often considerable financial and other efforts to provide housing for folks of all walks of life.
In this culture of divisiveness, it is unfortunate that landlords and tenants need to be on opposing sides. Each group is dependent on the other, and we should be working on measures to protect and enhance the welfare of both groups.
It also seems inappropriate that a Selectboard member should publicly take such a partisan position. I assumed Selectboard members would be impartial, would listen to all sides, and would work with the other members to reach a fair decision.