The term of the lease isn't materially longer than 12 months. (Mine actually is >12 mo, but not by a whole lot.) But at the end of the (say) 12 months, you sign the next lease, for another (say) 12 months, or move out. (The rent invariably goes up, at this point.)
It's at those individual lease boundaries that I (rather technically) have the opportunity to go month-to-month, if I want to be bled dry.
My note about it being a 3+ year lease is the total time we've rented, consecutively. That the lease is broken into separate segments by the contract is an implementation detail, when discussing recovering the costs of / managing the risk of short-term tenants. I'm not a short term tenant, after having been here for that long.
> a landlord refusing to allow a lease to go month-to-month is illegal.
That's news to me! I've never lived in such a place, and boy would that be nice. A cursory Google search indicates that, in my jurisdiction, "allows the landlord or tenant to end a month-to-month lease at any time, as long as they give 30 days' notice". The state I lived in previously is the same.
(This is where the nuance of "what the lease actually says" meets the "how it is implemented".) Technically, my lease becomes month-to-month at the end of its lease period. To my landlord, not signing a new lease would result in (their, legally speaking) 30 days notice to move out. (They've made this somewhat apparent to us in the past, as they tend to not send out the new terms soon enough and then get antsy when they're not signed.) They want the increased rent, and it appears they'll get it from me, or the market.
> They want the increased rent, and it appears they'll get it from me, or the market.
Is that wrong? Do you think you are entitled to live in someone else's property, at a price below what others in the market would pay, for as long as you like?
There has to be some balance here. Someone is contracting to let you live in their property. If they don't get something out of it, why should they do it? Why would anyone be a landlord? And if nobody wanted to be a landlord, wouldn't it be harder for you to find a place to live in your price range?
If nobody wanted to be a landlord, it'd be so much easier to find a place to live -- so many vacancies, so much empty space, so little occupied land...
Uh, no, there would be no options other than home ownership or homelessness (or government housing projects, which are only options in certain areas and are always pretty bad).
Rentals don't just exist without landlords to own and maintain them. No apartment buildings would get built if there weren't landlords ready to buy them from the property developers. The existing ones would be left vacant because it would be cheaper than filling them and keeping them habitable.
Every time the government makes it harder to be a landlord, they also make it harder to be a renter. Even well-intentioned programs like rent control always end up impacting the majority of renters negatively.
If you are a renter, the best thing you can do for yourself is to advocate for more housing and more landlords to rent it from. It's supply and demand.
> there would be no options other than home ownership or homelessness
There are also extended-stay hotels. But other than that, is near-universal home ownership such a bad thing? What's the big difference between paying a mortgage and paying rent? Rent already pays for mortgage, repairs, and maintenance anyway. All that's left is closing costs when you move.
How can someone on minimum wage own a home? Even if home values dropped by 90% nationwide, there would still be people who can’t afford to buy one. What are they supposed to do, live in tents? Come on, be serious.
Roommates? Co-ownership? A higher minimum wage? Permitting smaller houses?
Keep in mind the median housing unit price today skews higher because things like studios and SROs never go up for sale. SROs are effectively illegal to build in many cities today.
Yes it probably varies by location. And if housing supply were more plentiful then landlords could compete on more flexible lease terms as well as actual monthly rent. When housing is scarce they can demand whatever price and terms they want.
When I've lived in areas where housing was not scarce, it was reasonably easy to find apartments that would do month-to-month leases right from the start.
They're not super common, but they are out there. I'm in Seattle and my first lease here was 13 months and second was 14 months. When we were first looking, we probably found 3 out of the 15 places we looked at that were offering up to 15 months. I've actually got friends in this building (https://www.thenoloseattle.com/) on a two year lease and there are plenty of 18 month leases still available on their website right now.
In Seattle there are many places that will do leases longer than 12 months e.g. my current lease is 36 months. It may not be the default but if you ask they are often amenable.
I'm not sure where you live, but in a lot of places, a landlord refusing to allow a lease to go month-to-month is illegal.