Wrong on ‘renter’s choice’

Re: Predatory tactics against tenants disguised as ‘renter’s choice’ | Editorial

I strongly disagree with the editorial board on “renter’s choice.”

Until a few months ago, I owned 10 rentals that catered to the working class. We were fortunate to have little turnover but when we did, inevitably a major hurdle for new tenants was coming up with first and last months’ rent and security. Your example of $25 a month, in lieu of, say, $1,000 up front can mean the difference between living in a home or a car.

Too good to be true, you say. Isn’t that unfortunate: a program that helps solve a big problem at relatively low cost. Tenants aren’t forced to do this. It’s an option, and it’s not like landlords are going to make out here. This is a pass-through fee paid to a company that has to come up with security if tenants do not pay or damage property (security deposits also cover tenants vacating without paying rent).

Sen. Gary Farmer’s suggestion is stupid. If tenants’ payments are capped at one month’s rent, what incentive does any company have for taking on all that risk? We have a serious affordable housing shortage and this seems like a good way to help. Do you have a better solution?

Thomas Bolf, Plantation