Letter: Opposed to Good-Cause eviction

Why should any property owner be forced to accept a tenant for life?

Leases have been used successfully for centuries between two consenting parties. Leases are by definition “a contract by which one party conveys land, property, services et cetera to another for a specified time, usually in return for a periodic payment.” At no point should a month-to-month lease or a yearly lease become a “lease for life.” After the lease expires, either party has the mutual right to continue or not continue.

If this law is passed, a lease is practically worthless, as any tenant can effectively “own” your property forever in exchange for nothing more than one month’s rent as security. Can I just tell the car leasing company after the three-year lease term is up, “I feel like continuing the car lease, as you have no good cause to take it back?” Can I tell my life insurance company that “I have chosen to continue my 20-year term life insurance policy for the rest of my life?” Can I tell the hotel where I book for one night that I have decided to stay for 50 nights or for 400 nights? Where will it end?


Landlords have to make everyday decisions for the betterment of their property, business, tenants and neighbors. The choice to renew a lease due to a problem tenant is something that property owners are entitled to. We certainly do not welcome tenant turnover, but sometimes it is a necessity for a myriad of reasons. The same entitlement goes to the tenant, as they have a choice to renew at the end of the lease or not. Taking this right away from landlords is the equivalent of telling the tenant that they must renew their lease. Landlords should be able to operate without constant government interference and mandates. This is not a safety nor a monetary issue. This is a basic right that any business or property owner is granted.

Local investment and development are needed to meet our growing local housing demand. If this is the direction residential housing laws are headed in, I’m not sure if landlords will continue to choose to invest in or develop new housing. If this bill is approved, it will be the start of an exodus of many mom-and-pop landlords and will accelerate corporate landlord ownership.

Who is looking out for the small landlord who is trying to make a living, provide decent housing, contribute more than a fair share of local taxes and provide countless jobs for the community?

Please say no to this “tenancy for life” bill. It will cause more harm than the “good cause” it is intended to provide.

Paul Knobloch
New Paltz

The views and opinions expressed in our letters section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Hudson Valley One. You can submit a letter to the editor here.

There are 2 comments

  1. Shawn Garrett

    I’m a bit late with the response. But, I believe you’re spot on with this article. No other form of business, would stand for this madness. Holding Landlords hostage currently, is a slap in the face as is.

  2. Roadshow Magic.

    I agree.

    Rental contracts must be respected, or there is simply no reason for them to exist. Once we start ignoring contract law there will be no end to the mayhem. Why bother obeying the terms of a contract when there is no specific contract period, and no enforcement of the contract permitted by the landlord?

    We need to be fair about this situation. Landlords should not be asked to bear the burden of a societal problem that should rightly be addressed by government. Most landlords are middle-class people struggling like the rest of us to get by. Force them our of the rental market with lease-for-life proposals, and you will be left with predatory corporate landlords who will jack up rents, and not hesitate to use their legal and political muscle to end any ludicrous and unfair obstructions to their business.

Post Your Thoughts