A Bill of Wrongs: Right to Counsel
Atlanta has joined a growing list of cities and states considering a “Tenant’s Bill of Rights.” Contrary to the claims of the proponents of such laws the proposed law is more accurately a bill of wrongs.
The councilman who introduced the bill said, “We all know that Georgia is a property owner’s safe place, but it’s the perfect time to [make a change].” In other words, he believes that it is time to make Georgia unsafe for property owners. And that is precisely what his proposed law would do.
Among the provisions in Atlanta’s bill of wrongs are:
- A right to counsel in eviction hearings
- Rent “stabilization,” also known as rent control
- Protection from discrimination based on previous evictions (a form of “ban the box”)
All of these are frequently cited as “tenant’s rights” by housing advocates across the nation.
Housing advocates frequently claim that landlords have an attorney present for eviction hearings 90 percent of the time, while tenants have legal representation only 10 percent of the time. Despite the frequency of this claim, I have yet to see a single shred of evidence to support it. But it has been repeated so many times that many people believe it to be true. My own personal experience belies this claim.
I have been to eviction court a dozen times. Each time, there have been more than two dozen other eviction hearings on the docket. Of the three hundred plus cases I have been exposed to, landlords had an attorney a grand total of four times, or less than 2 percent of the time. However, if tenants receive free legal counsel, landlords will have little choice but to hire an attorney. This will ultimately be factored into the rents charged. The alleged right to counsel will ultimately drive up the cost of housing.
Housing advocates complain that the rent is “too damn high,” and they then proceed to advocate policies that add to the cost of producing and providing rental housing. But that doesn’t concern those advocates, because they see an immediate benefit and they are unconcerned with the long-term consequences of their policies.
Virtually all of the laws and regulations that control and restrict housing producers are myopic. The supporters of such laws point to the people who will benefit from the law. These are the immediate and short-term beneficiaries. What they don’t point to, and can’t, are the countless people who will harmed in the long-term.