Joe Biden Takes On 'Junk Fees' Where You Live, If You Live In An Apartment
Joe Biden Takes On 'Junk Fees' Where You Live, If You Live In An Apartment
Or what passes for an apartment, maybe.
The Biden administration just seems bent on complete socialist dominion over every aspect of American life, or at least making some things run more smoothly for lots of people, which is practically the same thing. Last fall, you may recall, the White House announced it would crack down on “junk fees” — those added-on costs that mean you really pay a lot more than you expected for stuff like airline tickets, concerts, and banking, among others.
In the latest installment, Team Biden recently announced it would take on junk fees involved with apartment rentals, where people looking for an apartment can spend a hell of a lot of money on mandatory fees that drive up the real cost of renting. If Woody Guthrie were alive today he’d be writing anthems about how the landlords get you coming and going with extra fees, like rental application fees that cost far more than the cost of running your credit and background checks, and that’s just the start. As David Dayen notes at The American Prospect, Once renters get into an apartment,
they face “convenience fees” for paying their rent online or by check, fees for renting month to month, fees for guests, fees for inspections and maintenance, fees for amenities like mail sorting and pest control and utilities and cable and insurance, “valet trash” fees for having someone take the trash from a renter’s front door to a nearby chute, and even “fees that are charged each January because it’s January,” as one advocate told me.
And I thought it was weird a few years ago when, for the first time in my life as a renter, I had to pay a pet application fee, submit (for a fee) paperwork proving my cat had a vet and shots, and then monthly “pet rent” above my normal rent. At least there wasn’t a January Cat Fee. I remind Thornton daily how lucky he is to be cute and loveable.
Unlike some of the earlier moves the administration has made to eliminate ridiculous banking fees, the feds don’t necessarily have the power to regulate fees in the rental market, where state regulators have more sway. Instead, the administration announced some new voluntary moves by some of the biggest national rental outfits like Zillow, Apartments.com, and AffordableHousing.com, which agreed to provide transparency into the fees on rentals they list, so that renters can know up front the full cost of renting and do better comparison shopping. It’s also hoped that if the big players list those “all in” prices, that’ll be an incentive for smaller companies to do so too. And maybe getting some of the dumber fees out in the sunshine will help drive some of them (valet trash?) out of existence as landlords seek a competitive advantage.
But actually getting rid of junk rental fees will require action by state regulators, and the White House has organized meetings of state legislators to urge them to address the problem. Already, Maine and Rhode Island have set limits on the costs of application fees so they’re no more than the actual cost of background and credit checks, and Colorado passed a law allowing renters to re-use their applications for multiple places within 30 days, without having to pay a new fee each time. Connecticut set a flat rate of no more than $50 for applications, too. But wait, there’s more!
Minnesota is also mandating all-in pricing on the first page of the lease agreement, while a similar bill has passed the California Senate. That bill in California prohibits certain fees, as does a separate bill that caps the amount renters must give in a security deposit. Connecticut’s application fee cap also bans move-in and move-out fees, as well as late fees on utility payments. Colorado’s rental application reuse law also limits fees on “third-party services.”
Why, it’s almost like these states are trying to be on the sides of renters instead of slumlords! Please cry bitter tears for the Jared Kushners of the world.
It’s a good start, and the initiative also includes a research project through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, aimed at creating national plans to bust housing junk fees.
Now, as Dayen suggests, if the administration could launch a whole-of-government effort to tackle the ongoing eviction crisis.
There’s a lot more the government could be doing; a new Legal Services Corporation report finds that the total yearly cost of providing legal counsel to every renter facing eviction would be just $4.1 billion, a rounding error that Congress should work to pick up. But any national attention on an issue so typically below the radar as tenant price-gouging is welcome.
And hey, while we’re kicking around wish lists, how about, in a possible second term where Democrats retake Congress — not to jinx it — a new climate bill that will include more apartment dwellers in decarbonization efforts, particularly in creating more EV charging options for people who aren’t homeowners with garages? And heck, a fully refundable e-bike tax credit, perhaps?
[American Prospect / White House / Image from Craigslist, via Worst Room]
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please subscribe, or if you prefer, you could make a one-time donation, even!
Would some sort of national rent control be feasible? Like, a certain % of apartments in any given town or city would be required to have rent people can actually afford?
I struggle with this type of stuff because my father-in-law is a landlord. He started investing in real estate 40 years ago. He is a retired general contractor who still does pretty much all the work himself at 70+ years old. Many of his tenants have been in place for 10+ years and he rarely raises rents, meaning that all his properties are significantly below market. But during the pandemic when eviction moratoriums went in place, some people chose to stop paying rent, some properties were destroyed to the tune of 10s of thousands of dollars, which would have been much more if he wasn't bringing them back to habitability himself, plus lost rent.
There are definitely issues with slumlords, but a lot of these policies have actually encouraged consolidation to the worst corporations, because they're so big they can absorb the costs across their massive portfolios, while the small landlords you'd actually want to own your rental have been forced to sell because they can't deal with this shit.
I also lived abroad for several years, and as a home owner now, I really miss renting in places with decent protections and not having to deal with all this shit myself. Home ownership should not be a measure of anything. It's complicated, expensive, and really limits your mobility.
So maybe let's not shit on the concept of landlords, but instead on the fact that the government has abdicated its responsibilities from regulating markets.